So what is the best setting for a fair PBEM game??? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

iceboy -> So what is the best setting for a fair PBEM game??? (3/17/2003 4:29:09 AM)

Some people have told me that the japs can never win in PBEM even with all the advantages set. And others want everything to be even as far as ship commitment, etc... So what is really fair? I love playing as the Japs but am just starting PBEM and am very confused on these issues. I have no problem against the AI when things are even but is it almost impossible to win as Japs against a decent human player? Is it necessary that the Japs get some advantages for a fair game? Any experienced PBEMers have opinions on this???

(Specifically regarding scens 17 and 19)



Yamamoto -> (3/17/2003 4:43:21 AM)

Scenario 17 is fair if the Japanese player knows what he's doing. If not, scen 19 gives some extra stuff.

Yamamoto



Spooky -> (3/17/2003 4:45:27 AM)

Not an easy question ;)

I would say that the scenario 19 is quite balanced (unlike the sc 17) and so a good choice for a PBEM game. Some players are suggesting a 120% commitment rate for the IJN in order the Japanese player in 1943 (when his available commitment points are very low)

PS : Idiotboy, if you want to start a sc 19 instead of a sc17, it is okay for me :)



iceboy -> (3/17/2003 4:57:50 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]Not an easy question ;)

I would say that the scenario 19 is quite balanced (unlike the sc 17) and so a good choice for a PBEM game. Some players are suggesting a 120% commitment rate for the IJN in order the Japanese player in 1943 (when his available commitment points are very low)

PS : Idiotboy, if you want to start a sc 19 instead of a sc17, it is okay for me :) [/B][/QUOTE]


umm....idiotboy???

err anyway...why is scen 19 unbalanced? and who is it more advantageous for japs or allies?

120% comm for japs in order that what?

what is the difference in %100 commitment vs 200%? do you get more ships up front or at the end or more ships altogether? do you get ships that normally wouldnt be in the game?



Spooky -> (3/17/2003 5:08:19 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by iceboy
[B]umm....idiotboy???

err anyway...why is scen 19 unbalanced? and who is it more advantageous for japs or allies?

120% comm for japs in order that what?

what is the difference in %100 commitment vs 200%? do you get more ships up front or at the end or more ships altogether? do you get ships that normally wouldnt be in the game? [/B][/QUOTE]

Ooops - sorry :(

Idiotboy was the name of a forum poster in the Europa Universalis forum :o

The difference in commitment level will increase or decrease the number of ships (computed with their victory points) you can have at a given time on the theater.

If you are under that number then some ships in Japan are going to be dispatched to Truk.

What is interesting is that the IJN commitment level decreases a lot in january 43. It often means for the IJN player that all his ships still in Japan (ie : damaged ships back from Japanese shipyards) after january 43 will never be sent to Truk.



iceboy -> (3/17/2003 5:12:31 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Spooky
[B]Not an easy question ;)

I would say that the scenario 19 is quite balanced (unlike the sc 17) and so a good choice for a PBEM game. Some players are suggesting a 120% commitment rate for the IJN in order the Japanese player in 1943 (when his available commitment points are very low)

PS : Idiotboy, if you want to start a sc 19 instead of a sc17, it is okay for me :) [/B][/QUOTE]


hmmm...how about we stay with scen 17 but i get 200% commitment and you get 100% all options on but with jap sub doctrine off. im about to start a game with oleg with those options and that sounds good to me. he says japs will always lose anyway so will that work?



Deban -> (3/17/2003 9:40:23 AM)

Hey Iceboy,
For our game ill play either sen 17 or 19..
And you can give the japs 20% more ship comit than the US.
I hope Yamamoto taught me well :)



Luskan -> (3/17/2003 3:46:26 PM)

17 if the IJN is good. scn 19 if the IJN is bad.
Scn 15 if the IJN is inexperienced.



iceboy -> (3/18/2003 4:43:48 AM)

also...from experienced pbemers what is most fun to play with fixed, variable, or very variable reinforcements and which is most used as far as fairness and fun?



Yamamoto -> (3/18/2003 4:57:20 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Luskan
[B]17 if the IJN is good. scn 19 if the IJN is bad.
Scn 15 if the IJN is inexperienced. [/B][/QUOTE]

If you assume that the Japanese can always take Port Moresby and Lunga in the first 15 days of scenario 17 then I’d say scenario 15 is actually better for the allies than scenario 17. Scenario 15, for those who are not familiar with it, takes place shortly after the fall of Port Moresby and Lunga and both sides have many more of their ships available at the start of the scenario. Since Japan usually gets more ships and gets them sooner in 1942 in scenario 17, this increased early commitment is an advantage to the allied player. Also, I think scenarion 15 assumes no ships were lost defending Port Moresby. Usually the allies will lose a lot of ships if trying to defend Port Moresby early in May.

I haven’t played scenario 15 PBEM yet, but I’m about to. It will be interesting to see what new tactics I will have to learn. My usual strategy of forcing CV battles every time the allies look to get more than 2 CVs won’t work because they START with moer than two. I’m expecting this scenario to be a full length version of the “Four Weeks of Hell” scenario, which I love.

Yamamoto



iceboy -> (3/21/2003 3:17:57 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by iceboy
[B]also...from experienced pbemers what is most fun to play with fixed, variable, or very variable reinforcements and which is most used as far as fairness and fun? [/B][/QUOTE]


...bump...



Mr.Frag -> (3/21/2003 5:23:31 AM)

Due to the possibility of a bad die roll in Variable & Very Variable, You could very well be stuck with a game that can not even be played. The concept of mixing things up is ok, but the implementation is seriously flawed. This kind of thing might make more or even less sense in WitP.

Just what kind of game would you have if the Allies get their CV's 60 days sooner and Japan gets them 60 days late? I think the Allied player would be parked at Truck, killing ships as they arrive in the port with a long string of tankers stretching back to Noumea keeping them fueled and flying.

I can see the rule on the Allied side (high command does not view Japan as a real threat, and messes with your ships, delaying arrivals), but Japan on the other hand was committed to this from day one. Delays on it's side cannot be explained away quite so simply. (Sorry, we need the CV's to bomb San Francisco so you can't have them yet??? just doesn't make sense to me).

You almost need a third party to look at both sides with turn 1 to conclude whether the campaign is even worth playing with that rule on.

Couple it with the fact that it only applies to ship commitment and you start to wonder about the logic. High command saw fit to send 4 divisions into the theater but decided you don't need any transport ships ? Just doesn't make sense...

17 is nicely balanced for good players, 19 is nicely balanced for new folks against old folks. Variable throws balance out the window and makes it a craps shoot.



Luskan -> (3/21/2003 8:22:49 AM)

I always play all my games at the highest level of variability and reinforcement, simply because I don't like having a player know that he will get X many reinforcements at turn 42 (I read somewhere - maybe even this post??), or don't like knowing that my opponent will be launching an offensive because his CVs have just arrived etc.

Keeps it fairer to be variable.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.140625