Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> After Action Reports



Message

fcharton -> Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/25/2015 2:19:01 PM)

I did not want this to happen. I am an evil emperor at heart, complete with dark costume, ceremonial sword, an equal interest for pressing wild flowers and dismembering political rivals, the kind of person who wakes up at night, sweating and quaking, because he dreamt his son turned Luke Skywalker. A JFB, as we are called on this forum.

Unfortunately, tyranny is a lot of work. And after two and a half years, my game against Spence stopped, for lack of time, in June 1943, as the Allies were held in check on the Indian border and in the DEI, but were advancing fast in New Guinea and towards Ambon. For more than a year I did not have enough time to partake in ruling Asia, chronicling my life as a tyrant, and ranting about how unfair this game is to us sons of the chrysanthemum (or whatever we are called by western authors when they wax poetic).

And then SqzMyLemon was looking for an opponent, and I had always wanted to play him (I learnt my ways as an evil emperor in his first AAR, against Smeulders), and whereas I had no time for another imperial venture, he was ready to play Japan, and so we got talking, and in the end, I volunteered to play the Allies, and be good, for a change. Apostasy, by any other name, would sound just as foul, but I try so see this as a learning experience, an evil emperor’s internship in heaven, that will allow me to learn the tricks of the nice trade, and be back, someday, running a better Japan.


Anyway, we will be playing DaBigBabes scenario B, with extended map, stacking limits, gnarly Asian roads, but regular cargo capacities. The game will be PDU on, one day turn, with no 4E bombers below 10 000 ft, PP for borders, and a couple of fairly standard home rules under discussion right now. As this means some adjustment and thinking on both sides, the war will probably begin in a couple of weeks. I will try to use this time to catch up, and any suggestions about what to read as an Allied primer (for a moderately experienced player of this game) are welcome.

As usual, I will try to keep a record of my life in the forces of good, together with some comments on the game, and a lot of unrelated subjects. I hope you will enjoy it.



BBfanboy -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/25/2015 6:49:48 PM)

quote:

fcharton: us sons of the chrysanthemum (or whatever we are called by western authors when they wax poetic).


Well they call JFBs "sons of (something)"![:D]

There is a post in the War Room area by Kull with a set-up spreadsheet that could save you a lot of time, although I don't think it is specific to DBB(B).

See http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2306421



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/25/2015 10:57:35 PM)

I'm in late March 1942 in my first DBB game as Allies. From your initial post it seems you have not played the Allies at all or much, so the differences might not matter to you. But there are a few areas you should look at now.

1. The Aussie OOB is significantly different than stock. No divisions. Atomized units. A lot of the early light units withdraw in spring 1942. Oz is just very different. OTOH, a few US Army units blink into the game already in Oz.

2. The base force system is wholly different than stock. Many different kinds of engineers now. Some have av support, some don't. Some build infrastructure, some don't. Some help in combat, some don't.

3. I have not put the air OOBs side by side, but I feel very fighter-less. Much more so than stock. OTOH, you get Symon's air data changes, which tone down some stock workhorses like the Oscar, while making some formerly dog-models like the P-38 and P-39 semi-decent. A lot of max altitudes also pulled down.



JocMeister -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/26/2015 4:29:00 AM)

I´ll follow this. [:)]



PaxMondo -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/26/2015 1:16:51 PM)

Francois,

WELCOME BACK!!!

Great to see you have returned. Good Luck!



Rio Bravo -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/26/2015 5:10:36 PM)

Francois-

Nail that Evil Empire!

*chuckling*

I will be following your AAR.

Best Regards,

-Terry



FeurerKrieg -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 3:41:14 AM)

Good luck! I probably won't be commenting much since I'm reading both, but rest assured I'll be lurking about. [8D]



HansBolter -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 11:02:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


3. I have not put the air OOBs side by side, but I feel very fighter-less. Much more so than stock. OTOH, you get Symon's air data changes, which tone down some stock workhorses like the Oscar, while making some formerly dog-models like the P-38 and P-39 semi-decent. A lot of max altitudes also pulled down.



I have found this to be the opposite case in Babes. IN Babes you get a slew of P40s arriving directly in Oz, albeit with 35 experience pilots, that don't appear in stock.

Against the AI I typically pull the air out of the PI and send it to OZ.

In Babes games I get a double bonus, the air from the PI AND the extra P40 reinforcement squadrons.

Babes also has a slew of small patrol craft that can serve as escorts at start. This is a huge improvement over stock. You'll find a bunch of them scattered around Alaska.

In both stock and babes the Americans have a about 20 xAKs scattered around various ports that can convert to AKEs and AEs and many more that can convert to AGs than you'll ever need. Comb through ships in port at start and get these conversions going before committing those ships to cargo missions.
There are also a handful that can convert to AKVs.

You'll get about 20 more capable of converting to AKEs as reinforcements over the next three months so check each new arrival before committing it to a cargo mission.

Also, the vast majority of allied shipping is located at destinations rather than sources. Comb through every port and get those xAKs and xAPs headed back to the central supply and troop hubs.

Combing through all ports to find conversions and get everything else headed where it needs to be is a major task I perform every game on December 8th.




Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 11:46:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


3. I have not put the air OOBs side by side, but I feel very fighter-less. Much more so than stock. OTOH, you get Symon's air data changes, which tone down some stock workhorses like the Oscar, while making some formerly dog-models like the P-38 and P-39 semi-decent. A lot of max altitudes also pulled down.



I have found this to be the opposite case in Babes. IN Babes you get a slew of P40s arriving directly in Oz, albeit with 35 experience pilots, that don't appear in stock.



It's pre-dawn and so I may not be awake, but I thought most of the P-40s in Oz very early are only there for about a month. Regardless, he's come with the MKB and crack Zero pilots, so the P-40s in Oz are on the ground and not wreckage.

My comment on fighter-less stems from a perception--as I said I didn't bump OOBs--that CONUS has fewer, especially P-39s.



HansBolter -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 12:13:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


3. I have not put the air OOBs side by side, but I feel very fighter-less. Much more so than stock. OTOH, you get Symon's air data changes, which tone down some stock workhorses like the Oscar, while making some formerly dog-models like the P-38 and P-39 semi-decent. A lot of max altitudes also pulled down.



I have found this to be the opposite case in Babes. IN Babes you get a slew of P40s arriving directly in Oz, albeit with 35 experience pilots, that don't appear in stock.



It's pre-dawn and so I may not be awake, but I thought most of the P-40s in Oz very early are only there for about a month. Regardless, he's come with the MKB and crack Zero pilots, so the P-40s in Oz are on the ground and not wreckage.

My comment on fighter-less stems from a perception--as I said I didn't bump OOBs--that CONUS has fewer, especially P-39s.


A bit foggy here as well as the last two games I have played have been BTS and Focus pacific which are based on Banes but have decidedly non-stock OOBs.

I seem to recall that the PI aircraft still withdraw in June in Babes, but I thought the P40s allocated to OZ stuck around longer.

In either case, as you stated, they still aren't enough to mount a credible defense.



fcharton -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 12:18:25 PM)

Thanks a lot for the replies and encouragement. I had seen and downloaded Kull’s spreadsheets. I want something like that to be able to track units. One thing I noticed when playing Japan was that whereas a few units, squadrons, ships and bases got all the attention, a lot of small tasks easily got overlooked, and keeping notes about all of them was difficult (and I am not getting any younger, and memory is the next thing to go, I am told…) Right now, I am thinking of using the “notes” fields in Tracker, but maybe a Kull-like spreadsheet, fed from daily Tracker exports, and that can be filtered so that you do not need to go through all the thousands of lines every day, is the way to go.

As for DBB and the OOB, I had read the explanation about engineers, and a small look at the setup hints that there are lots of new small units to study and put to use. But this is a second phase thing for me. My problem right now is to get some understanding of the strategic situation and my options for the early game.

I have about three weeks before the game begins, and want to use most of this time reading AAR and trying to devise some plan. So far, I have been reading Nemo’s AAR against 1EyedJack, and am planning to read jrcar’s Allied AAR. Nemo is obviously on the very aggressive side, and jrcar gives a good idea of what a fighting defense can be. I want to read AAR featuring “lighter” strategies, from light resistance to full retreat. The idea is spend a week or two understanding my options, and then, only, trying to define a strategy for the early game (aka the humiliating part). Which would you recommend as good inspiration for a green AFB?




Yaab -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 1:08:33 PM)

Here is an OSS report I got my hands on. It involves early withdrawals of several air groups and possible relocation of the 41st Infantry Division to PTO. I quote:

" The Allied HQ plans the following:

Withdrawal of following air units for additional PPs (political points):

19/32 BG (B-17) in San Francisco – 26 points
7/22 BG (B-17) in San Francisco - 68 points
Hudson Det in Rabaul - 24 points
Empire boats in Port Moresby - 42 points
Hudson detachment in Sydney - 23 points
Beaufort recon in Kuantan - 12 points
Walrus (7 planes) in HK (move to Kweilin, China; withdraw there) – 22 points
Vildebeest , HK(move to Clark Field; withdraw there)- 17 points
(The small Walrus Det stays in Hong Kong to recon Canton)

We should have now 385 political points.
We can change 41st US Division to ComFleet Air West HQ for 304 points (we will have 80 points left) on December 8, 1941"

End quote.





HansBolter -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 2:40:06 PM)

It takes 1800+ PPs to buy out a US division.

Please, please, please don't buy them out for 300 by moving them to an Air HQ.

I'll lose all respect for you as a player and stop reading your AAR.

I pay full price for them even against the AI.

I would never pay less than full price for them against a breathing opponent.

Simply not fair play.



ny59giants -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 4:18:24 PM)

Once I get my tower back from computer repairs (Windows stopped working this weekend), I'll exchange email addresses with you and send lots of good documents on both sides. You will need a basic understanding of Babes engineers and how to potentially use the various classes of Allied xAKs and the two classes that convert to xAPs with 28 days of pierside. A nice document of the "free" Japanese division you need to keep track of. Many others for a very, very low price. [;)]

P-40s - You will get five partially filled up air groups (25 planes max) in mid-January to mid-March in southern Australia. When they withdraw, BOTH pilots and planes go to your pools which helps.

AVG - good idea to upgrade them to P-39s or P-40s and use the H81s to upgrade your Chinese airgroups.

American CVs - Survivability!! I always place an 18 plane Marine fighter group on each (except Wasp) to bring totals to 45 fighters. You will love having those big decks vs the smaller Japanese ones. [:D]



GetAssista -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 5:58:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Please, please, please don't buy them out for 300 by moving them to an Air HQ.
I'll lose all respect for you as a player and stop reading your AAR.
...<snip>
Simply not fair play.

It's for a house rule discussion between the opponents, no? A necessary discussion as it changes the pace of the game considerably, but their own business. Both sides can benefit from Air-HQ-buying, Japan has China and Home Defence IDs up for grabs.



fcharton -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 7:22:51 PM)

Home rules are still being discussed, but we will have a PP for border rule. To me, this precludes any PP discount scheme. You can't decide Kwantung tanks need to be bought before they are used in China, and allow yourself to get another marine division on the cheap. I might change a few base HQ, and resize a few squadrons, but I don't want to push this too far: the small game advantages are not worth antagonizing one's opponent.

We have already discussed our position on "history" (ie how historical we want the game to be). I think we both agree that we don't want to reenact, or try to simulate political aspects which are not in the game (interservice rivalries, national objectives of the different allies, etc). In other words, we wouldn't go for turn 1 Mersing or that kind of thing, but have nothing against IJN/IJA coordination, or the Brits helping the Dutch at the expense of their empire.

One quick question about the PP for border rule. So far, we agreed that it would apply to everyone, except Thai units that could move into Burma (I don't really care), and the Russian border, which can be crossed once the war is on (it would be ridiculous to prevent Kwantung army to try to move across the border once the war is on), but I was wondering about US troops and Alaska. Do you think a provision must be made to allow restricted US troops to move North into Canada? I'm pretty sure Joseph would agree, but I don't want to ask for something that is not needed, or exagerated.







BBfanboy -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/27/2015 9:03:21 PM)

US Troops DID come into Canada to build the Alaska Highway, and I'm sure after it was built some US troops used it to get between the lower 48 and Alaska.



PaxMondo -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 2:03:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

Thanks a lot for the replies and encouragement. I had seen and downloaded Kull’s spreadsheets. I want something like that to be able to track units. One thing I noticed when playing Japan was that whereas a few units, squadrons, ships and bases got all the attention, a lot of small tasks easily got overlooked, and keeping notes about all of them was difficult (and I am not getting any younger, and memory is the next thing to go, I am told…) Right now, I am thinking of using the “notes” fields in Tracker, but maybe a Kull-like spreadsheet, fed from daily Tracker exports, and that can be filtered so that you do not need to go through all the thousands of lines every day, is the way to go.

Well, the good news is that since the allies are on the defensive to start and don’t have a tight timetable, compared to the IJ, you can really relax. The micro-management necessary for the IJ simply isn’t needed on the allied side. So “kick back” and enjoy!



quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton
As for DBB and the OOB, I had read the explanation about engineers, and a small look at the setup hints that there are lots of new small units to study and put to use. But this is a second phase thing for me. My problem right now is to get some understanding of the strategic situation and my options for the early game.

Well, you know exactly what the IJ can do. You know what you really cannot accept, what you don’t like, and what you don’t care about. Pretty easy. Get the first one under ironclad defense, then move to the second. Allies just have to be methodical to win. You know that. The game is yours to lose, you have to react before you are ready for the IJ to have chance. Simple: don’t give that chance. Look at what Mr. Kane has done in his allied AAR’s. Brilliant.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton
I have about three weeks before the game begins, and want to use most of this time reading AAR and trying to devise some plan. So far, I have been reading Nemo’s AAR against 1EyedJack, and am planning to read jrcar’s Allied AAR. Nemo is obviously on the very aggressive side, and jrcar gives a good idea of what a fighting defense can be. I want to read AAR featuring “lighter” strategies, from light resistance to full retreat. The idea is spend a week or two understanding my options, and then, only, trying to define a strategy for the early game (aka the humiliating part). Which would you recommend as good inspiration for a green AFB?

Nemo has several AAR’s. Lotta good strategy, but tough to execute. He was relentless. What I like best was that he used ALL of his units. He didn’t keep the Wiraways in the background … no no no. He used them at the front along with everything else. He forced the IJ player to commit Nate’s and Claude’s. Excellent tactics and strategy. Kept the IJ off balance so no chance for him to create a 2nd tier assault, but never exposed units that he couldn’t afford to lose until he was ready. QBall, witpqs, and others have fine allied AAR’s.



PaxMondo -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 2:07:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

It takes 1800+ PPs to buy out a US division.

Please, please, please don't buy them out for 300 by moving them to an Air HQ.


Depends upon the house rules ... Hans doesn't like it, but you are playing Joseph, not Hans. If Joseph and you agree, then that is what you do. Its a game and rule, has nothing to do with respect or anything else. All it does is put more units into play sooner for both sides. Doesn't favor either side, so it is just what you agree to. Simple.



PaxMondo -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 2:15:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton


One quick question about the PP for border rule. So far, we agreed that it would apply to everyone, except Thai units that could move into Burma (I don't really care), and the Russian border, which can be crossed once the war is on (it would be ridiculous to prevent Kwantung army to try to move across the border once the war is on), but I was wondering about US troops and Alaska. Do you think a provision must be made to allow restricted US troops to move North into Canada? I'm pretty sure Joseph would agree, but I don't want to ask for something that is not needed, or exagerated.



I think this is so minor, I would ask Joseph and be surprised if he didn't concede that one. You need units in Alaska early and the only ones that can get there are unrestricted that can go on ships. By the time restricted units can move to Alaska, it is 1943 and they no longer matter than much. [;)]



BBfanboy -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 2:36:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton


One quick question about the PP for border rule. So far, we agreed that it would apply to everyone, except Thai units that could move into Burma (I don't really care), and the Russian border, which can be crossed once the war is on (it would be ridiculous to prevent Kwantung army to try to move across the border once the war is on), but I was wondering about US troops and Alaska. Do you think a provision must be made to allow restricted US troops to move North into Canada? I'm pretty sure Joseph would agree, but I don't want to ask for something that is not needed, or exagerated.



I think this is so minor, I would ask Joseph and be surprised if he didn't concede that one. You need units in Alaska early and the only ones that can get there are unrestricted that can go on ships. By the time restricted units can move to Alaska, it is 1943 and they no longer matter than much. [;)]

I think some restricted units can be airlifted to Alaska by PBY, no? They would not have much equipment of course, but some Air BFs don't have any.



PaxMondo -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 3:54:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton


One quick question about the PP for border rule. So far, we agreed that it would apply to everyone, except Thai units that could move into Burma (I don't really care), and the Russian border, which can be crossed once the war is on (it would be ridiculous to prevent Kwantung army to try to move across the border once the war is on), but I was wondering about US troops and Alaska. Do you think a provision must be made to allow restricted US troops to move North into Canada? I'm pretty sure Joseph would agree, but I don't want to ask for something that is not needed, or exagerated.



I think this is so minor, I would ask Joseph and be surprised if he didn't concede that one. You need units in Alaska early and the only ones that can get there are unrestricted that can go on ships. By the time restricted units can move to Alaska, it is 1943 and they no longer matter than much. [;)]

I think some restricted units can be airlifted to Alaska by PBY, no? They would not have much equipment of course, but some Air BFs don't have any.


There is a recent tactic to take Alaska and bomb Canada. To thwart that, you need some ID's in place not base forces.



kaleun -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 5:31:24 AM)

ID?



Yaab -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 5:55:16 AM)

Infantry Division.

41st ID reporting for duty! We have priority for airlift to Alaska since our HQ is an air HQ!



HansBolter -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 11:17:57 AM)

Its wonderful people to be trashed by the community for attempting to set a moral compass.

You can posture all you want that because both sides can get away with an exploitation it is acceptable to do it.

Frankly I'm very grateful my parents spent my childhood lecturing me that two wrongs don't make a right.

While I won't dispute that how the game is played is between the players I will also point out that it isn't being played in a vacuum.

The game is being presented for public consumption and therefore one can presume that peer pressure is a valid option.

That makes my cry for fair play just as acceptable as all of your ganging up on me to shout me down.

Enjoy your game however you choose to structure it.



PaxMondo -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 12:50:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kaleun

ID?

Infantry Division. Sorry.



PaxMondo -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 1:08:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Its wonderful people to be trashed by the community for attempting to set a moral compass.

You can posture all you want that because both sides can get away with an exploitation it is acceptable to do it.

Frankly I'm very grateful my parents spent my childhood lecturing me that two wrongs don't make a right.

While I won't dispute that how the game is played is between the players I will also point out that it isn't being played in a vacuum.

The game is being presented for public consumption and therefore one can presume that peer pressure is a valid option.

That makes my cry for fair play just as acceptable as all of your ganging up on me to shout me down.

Enjoy your game however you choose to structure it.

Hans,

Sorry if you took my response as a personal attack on your ethics. It wasn't intended that way.

It was intended to point out that your definitions of "fair play" and exploitation in this instance are far from universally accepted. I, for one, disagree, and presented my rationale.

If your beliefs are so dogmatic that you cannot participate in that discussion, oh well.

As a strictly personal note: I play games both ways. I set the rule up front and then follow it.
And since you note you play AI (as do I), then you should also be aware that your opponent is completely without ethics: he can move any unit, regardless of HQ, anywhere without paying a single PP.




Mike McCreery -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 3:13:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Its wonderful people to be trashed by the community for attempting to set a moral compass.

You can posture all you want that because both sides can get away with an exploitation it is acceptable to do it.

Frankly I'm very grateful my parents spent my childhood lecturing me that two wrongs don't make a right.

While I won't dispute that how the game is played is between the players I will also point out that it isn't being played in a vacuum.

The game is being presented for public consumption and therefore one can presume that peer pressure is a valid option.

That makes my cry for fair play just as acceptable as all of your ganging up on me to shout me down.

Enjoy your game however you choose to structure it.


I dont see people trashing anyone, just voicing their opinions as you have.

The ganging up you seem to feel is that more people have an opposing viewpoint than you do.

Is that somehow unfair?




fcharton -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 3:41:02 PM)

@Hans: judging from what I have read on the forum, I think a majority of players actually agree with you, and either choose not to use PP discounts, or rule them out through a home rule. Things get a bit iffy, though, when you make it sound like a moral imperative. I think you'll find very few game communities where opponents respect and trust each other enough to post detailed AAR (for the enjoyment of peanut gallery regulars like us). I think this says something about their moral standards, much more than the fact that they might do something which seems gamey to you, or me.

Francois



Mike McCreery -> RE: Being good, for a change – SqzMyLemon (J) vs fcharton (A) (10/28/2015 7:04:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcharton

@Hans: judging from what I have read on the forum, I think a majority of players actually agree with you, and either choose not to use PP discounts, or rule them out through a home rule. Things get a bit iffy, though, when you make it sound like a moral imperative. I think you'll find very few game communities where opponents respect and trust each other enough to post detailed AAR (for the enjoyment of peanut gallery regulars like us). I think this says something about their moral standards, much more than the fact that they might do something which seems gamey to you, or me.

Francois



For the record I believe that I am under this rule in my game. I dont have a problem with the rule itself, just that it has to be implemented without question. It seems that most of the restricted units and partially restricted units are more of a political consideration than a strictly military one.

If the designers thought it was a huge game imbalance they have had plenty of time to fix it.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625