Looking for a state side opponent (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Opponents Wanted



Message

rroberson -> Looking for a state side opponent (10/3/2015 7:05:51 PM)

So I have a couple good games going and they are moving along at a great rate. The problem is they are both on the other side of the pond so we get max turns out before noon, bu then they have to to bed (something about needing sleep :P). So most of my evenings are wide open with me wishing I could lose my carriers to someone.

So I am looking for something a bit more local. I live in Arizona and am good for multiple turns a day. I can play either side though lately I have been on an allied bender and have been enjoying them. I am a simulation player. I enjoy a good game, but do want it to be based somewhat in realism. The standard house rules are fine and I am happy to negotiate for rules prior to the start of the game. I do prefer two day turns as the game moves quicker but understand I am with a bunch of micro managers :P so 1 day turns are fine. At any rate toss me a PM and we can move from there. Remember my motto...I lose more carriers in the first 3 months then most people do the whole game. And I don't believe in the brave sir robin strategy. [:D]



AW1Steve -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/11/2015 5:53:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

So I have a couple good games going and they are moving along at a great rate. The problem is they are both on the other side of the pond so we get max turns out before noon, bu then they have to to bed (something about needing sleep :P). So most of my evenings are wide open with me wishing I could lose my carriers to someone.

So I am looking for something a bit more local. I live in Arizona and am good for multiple turns a day. I can play either side though lately I have been on an allied bender and have been enjoying them. I am a simulation player. I enjoy a good game, but do want it to be based somewhat in realism. The standard house rules are fine and I am happy to negotiate for rules prior to the start of the game. I do prefer two day turns as the game moves quicker but understand I am with a bunch of micro managers :P so 1 day turns are fine. At any rate toss me a PM and we can move from there. Remember my motto...I lose more carriers in the first 3 months then most people do the whole game. And I don't believe in the brave sir robin strategy. [:D]



Don't forget , "Sir Robin" was invented as a title by JFB's to be derogatory. They preferred you to practice the tactic commonly known as "stand and die". A lot of frequent allied players adopted the Sir Robin mantra more to annoy the JFB's then anything else. Kinda of like the US Army mantra of "embrace the suck". Those of us who use Sir Robin really would call it , "Withdrawing to a defendable position". JFB's HATE it when we do that! [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif]



witpaemail -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/11/2015 8:49:58 PM)

Frankly its the only allied strategy that is sound given the game system. Anything with under 50 experience is near worthless in combat, so the smart move is to drop back with as much as you can until your army (and pilots) have enough experience to fight back.

Its like allied players that throw their carriers into the fray right off the bat and wonder why they get their lunch money taken from them...



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/11/2015 9:30:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve
"Withdrawing to a defendable position".


All of the VP types except dirt are permanent. Why wouldn't you give up dirt to keep the rest whole?



kaleun -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/12/2015 10:27:25 PM)

Matter of style really. Also how much of the retrospectoscope you want to use.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/12/2015 11:04:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Matter of style really. Also how much of the retrospectoscope you want to use.



You can call it style, but in the early game the Allies just can't stand up to Japanese hardware. You can throw away thousands of permanent VPs for absolutely no gain. Or you can take the hardware away and let him have dirt he has to hold and supply and that you can take back later. This isn't RL; this is a game. If you lose the hardware AND the dirt you get an auto-victory loss.



Chickenboy -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/14/2015 4:02:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson
And I don't believe in the brave sir robin strategy. [:D]


Good on you, mate!

While there are those that emphasize the wisdom of universal Allied retreat for gameplay purposes, I would emphasize the downside of that approach.

If the Allied player elected to back away from everything to a defensible rim on the outer reaches of the map, they may avoid the auto-victory, but lose the battle in other ways. I wouldn't blame a Japanese player a bit for dropping a game that saw an Allied player curl up in a fetal ball until 1944 "when they had more kit to work with". If an Allied player can't give a reasonable fight for the first year and a half of the war, they're not trying hard enough. Allied players that do this risk losing their partners.

The balance is in fighting "just enough", but neither too much or too little. If you do fight forward as the Allies, against a very aggressive and determined opponent, rroberson, you risk auto-victory. If you lose your carriers in the first 3-6 months of the war, I'd say the odds of you getting auto-vicced increase dramatically.

Good luck on your match! I'd take you on, but can hardly keep up my one PBEM...[8D]



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/14/2015 5:37:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson
And I don't believe in the brave sir robin strategy. [:D]


Good on you, mate!

While there are those that emphasize the wisdom of universal Allied retreat for gameplay purposes, I would emphasize the downside of that approach.

If the Allied player elected to back away from everything to a defensible rim on the outer reaches of the map, they may avoid the auto-victory, but lose the battle in other ways. I wouldn't blame a Japanese player a bit for dropping a game that saw an Allied player curl up in a fetal ball until 1944 "when they had more kit to work with". If an Allied player can't give a reasonable fight for the first year and a half of the war, they're not trying hard enough. Allied players that do this risk losing their partners.

The balance is in fighting "just enough", but neither too much or too little. If you do fight forward as the Allies, against a very aggressive and determined opponent, rroberson, you risk auto-victory. If you lose your carriers in the first 3-6 months of the war, I'd say the odds of you getting auto-vicced increase dramatically.

Good luck on your match! I'd take you on, but can hardly keep up my one PBEM...[8D]


You're the only one here who brought up 1944.



HansBolter -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/14/2015 6:34:49 PM)

Couldn't agree more with the moose here.

Knowing the real estate will fall keeping the army in place to fall with it borders on the criminal.

How is an allied sir robin strategy any different form an expand until I can't expand anymore and then when the folly of my overexpansion comes to light I just quit and deny my opponent a chance at a comeback?

As long as Japanese players go to an extreme it should be just as acceptable for Allied players to go to an opposite extreme.

Why do so many Japanese players expect the Allied player to sit still and simply take it on the chin?



Encircled -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/14/2015 9:12:59 PM)

I'm one of his opponents on the right side of the pond and he's sound.

Teaching me that I might be a bit too aggressive is no bad thing!



AW1Steve -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/14/2015 9:48:53 PM)

I'd love to take you on. But I'm still waiting to see if our 1x2 partner is still around. Currently he went sinker with out a current datum. We are still trying "lost contact procedures". I'll let you know. [:D]



SuluSea -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/16/2015 4:15:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

Matter of style really. Also how much of the retrospectoscope you want to use.



You can call it style, but in the early game the Allies just can't stand up to Japanese hardware. You can throw away thousands of permanent VPs for absolutely no gain.
Or you can take the hardware away and let him have dirt he has to hold and supply and that you
can take back later. This isn't RL; this is a game. If you lose the hardware AND the dirt you get an auto-victory loss.


True it is just a game and many ways to play it but the Allied player has enough tools to bleed the Japanese player if assets are used wisely and set in good defensive areas..
The Allied player can't start his offensive too early but a straight up sir robin is boorish behavior IMO.





HansBolter -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/16/2015 6:19:28 PM)

And choosing the overpowered side at start so you can run rampant and then quit when the tables turn on you isn't boorish behavior.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/16/2015 6:45:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

And choosing the overpowered side at start so you can run rampant and then quit when the tables turn on you isn't boorish behavior.


I thought "boorish behavior" was one of the funnier things I've read here in a while.



SuluSea -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/16/2015 10:44:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

And choosing the overpowered side at start so you can run rampant and then quit when the tables turn on you isn't boorish behavior.


I'd say it fits the term. [:)]



zuluhour -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/17/2015 2:36:15 PM)

I'm going to use boorish in a sentence at work and see how many blank stares I get. I bet there will be some serious
IPAD tapping. [:D]



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/17/2015 4:04:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

I'm going to use boorish in a sentence at work and see how many blank stares I get. I bet there will be some serious
IPAD tapping. [:D]


I thought El Cid killed all the Boors . . . [:'(]



rroberson -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/17/2015 10:00:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpaemail

Frankly its the only allied strategy that is sound given the game system. Anything with under 50 experience is near worthless in combat, so the smart move is to drop back with as much as you can until your army (and pilots) have enough experience to fight back.

Its like allied players that throw their carriers into the fray right off the bat and wonder why they get their lunch money taken from them...



you know, I had not remember that...IM getting old :P.

I try to hold the ground here and there...but I have favorite spots to slow em down.



Chickenboy -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/20/2015 2:49:01 PM)

rroberson,

To follow that same logic, a full-throated Allied Sir Robin should be countered by a full scale Japanese retreat in the event that the Japanese don't get their auto-victory.

Wouldn't that make a lot of Allied McClellan types break out in hives? Don't drop the game, just don't offer any resistance whatsoever until the Allies are banging on the home islands. Then graciously accede to the Allied might and end the game sometime in late 1944 anyways.

The Allied player would go into conniptions, I wager. Hey, the Japanese player didn't drop the game, but he sucked the marrow right out of it, didn't he? After all, it's expected that the opponent produce some sort of realistic resistance, isn't it?



Rio Bravo -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/22/2015 1:06:41 AM)

A Japanese player complaining about an Allied player choosing Sir Robin is like a man with a gun complaining about a man with a knife choosing to back away to fight another day.

Nothing wrong with using a little common sense.

Best Regards,

-Terry



Chickenboy -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (10/22/2015 2:12:56 AM)

Nothing wrong with using a little common sense and reasoned approach, agreed. Note my "full-throated" descriptor above simply does not include modest tactical retreats like you describe.

It does describe a massive global drive to head to the hills and map periphery that would never have been attempted in real life. Just to avoid "giving" the Japanese game VPs.

So my argument is with those that justify extreme gamey retreats while building their arsenals for 18 months of game time. Those Allied players that do so deserve what they get in the game and they should not be surprised when they get it.



rroberson -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (1/3/2016 2:59:02 AM)

Bumping this again...as one of my opps appears to have vanished. Fire me a PM or send me a response.



Encircled -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (1/5/2016 5:26:59 PM)

You've probably worn him out!

You have a turn btw![;)]



rroberson -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (1/5/2016 11:50:44 PM)

Not any more slacker :P



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (1/7/2016 6:18:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Bumping this again...as one of my opps appears to have vanished. Fire me a PM or send me a response.

Would it be possible for someone like michaelm to recover the password of an opponent who vanishes so that someone else may take over?



Alfred -> RE: Looking for a state side opponent (1/7/2016 1:53:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard


quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Bumping this again...as one of my opps appears to have vanished. Fire me a PM or send me a response.

Would it be possible for someone like michaelm to recover the password of an opponent who vanishes so that someone else may take over?


Yes, michaelm can recover an opponent's password. But it is very much discouraged, not just because it could lead to a huge increase in his workload but much more importantly for the reasons provided in this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3195492&mpage=1&key=password�

Alfred



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.578125