RE: Is resizing a gamey?

RE: Is resizing a gamey? (Full Version)

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

Message

John 3rd -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/4/2018 10:25:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Right about that Yaab. I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby! In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue. So you find it necessary to dial back the counterbalancing mechanism on the Allies side to more accurately reflect historic limitations, but on the flip side you also find it necessary to defend the outrageously overbalancing Japanese ability to out build the Allies in air frames. Why is it only the Allies who should be hamstrung by historically accurate limitations. I can't help but point to the inherent hypocrisy John. Even if the bolded part were true (a claim I find dubious), 500 mosquitoes instead of 300 mosquitoes are still just mosquitoes. It can be done, but at great cost. What is the Allied front line fighter production rate in 1944? In 1945? Something like 400, 500 per month - correct? Expanding Japanese production to those levels while maintaining pilot training to support that level of air operations, while maintaining production of strike aircraft, while maintaining the supplies at bases necessary to fly the planes, etc. - it adds up. Just ask MM about his supply situation and how many planes he burned through. If you want an example of the Japanese "outrageously overbalancing" (whatever overbalancing means; I think you mean overmatching), it would be his production. It was simply a challenge to solve with the Allied OOB - just another strategy to counter, probably done at the expense of a different strategy (say, a defense in more depth instead of in front line strength). Also, as it pertains to John's mods, he is quite clear that his Japan-strengthening mods are precisely that and are in no way any kind of reflection of history. They are fantasy what-if scenarios. You don't have to play them. The discussion in this thread should really be about stock scenarios only, or scenarios closed based on stock like DBB, where the same general calculus applies across them all. This general calculus does not apply to John's mods, and I think he would be the very first person to say so. Damned strait! Well said and totally correct in all regards. You saved me from breaching decorum rules...thanks.

John 3rd -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/4/2018 10:36:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Right about that Yaab. I wish the game would truly reflect the supply/fuel/transportation issues that the Allies had thru 1942. Remember Fletcher complaining about being hamstrung with having to wait/rely on just one AO during Guadalcanal? It take the Allies about 1-2 months to re-position their shipping then the spigot is ON baby! In my set of Mods, Michael and I have 'damaged' American industry by over 50% to better reflect the spin-up on production, supply, fuel, and oil. It takes until February 1942 to have nearly everything 'repaired' so the max is occurring. It isn't perfect but it does address the issue. So you find it necessary to dial back the counterbalancing mechanism on the Allies side to more accurately reflect historic limitations, but on the flip side you also find it necessary to defend the outrageously overbalancing Japanese ability to out build the Allies in air frames. Why is it only the Allies who should be hamstrung by historically accurate limitations. I can't help but point to the inherent hypocrisy John. Even if the bolded part were true (a claim I find dubious), 500 mosquitoes instead of 300 mosquitoes are still just mosquitoes. It can be done, but at great cost. What is the Allied front line fighter production rate in 1944? In 1945? Something like 400, 500 per month - correct? Expanding Japanese production to those levels while maintaining pilot training to support that level of air operations, while maintaining production of strike aircraft, while maintaining the supplies at bases necessary to fly the planes, etc. - it adds up. Just ask MM about his supply situation and how many planes he burned through. If you want an example of the Japanese "outrageously overbalancing" (whatever overbalancing means; I think you mean overmatching), it would be his production. It was simply a challenge to solve with the Allied OOB - just another strategy to counter, probably done at the expense of a different strategy (say, a defense in more depth instead of in front line strength). Also, as it pertains to John's mods, he is quite clear that his Japan-strengthening mods are precisely that and are in no way any kind of reflection of history. They are fantasy what-if scenarios. You don't have to play them. The discussion in this thread should really be about stock scenarios only, or scenarios closed based on stock like DBB, where the same general calculus applies across them all. This general calculus does not apply to John's mods, and I think he would be the very first person to say so. You have great technical insight Loka, but often miss the forest for the trees. The general point I endeavor, apparently poorly, to make is that one side is given an ability to do way, way better than historical (even in stock where it is common for Japan to conquer all of China, or 3/4 of India or 3/4 of Australia) while the other side is consistently limited, both by game engine AND player induced mods and house rules to no better than a historical performance. If it is fair for japan to have a chance to knock the Allies out by the end of '43, shouldn't it be just as fair for the other side to do the same? The constant litany of rationalization from JFBs is that the Allies are destined to win no matter what so they shouldn't get any opportunity to do better than historical. The Allies are hard pressed to achieve the autovictory by the historical date, let alone achieving it a year early. Why is it only one side gets to improve on history? Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944. The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth. The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education. Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it. We're now on the 5th page of Re-Sizing. My thoughts are that it is an OK practice if one does not abuse it (super-sized air groups) but can support it with airframes and pilots. Do it. It is a GAME and have fun. Just try to be understanding of abusing the system AND offending your opponent. If you are not sure as to yes or no then ask your opponent for their opinion.

Aurorus -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/4/2018 11:43:08 PM)
To clarify, Alfred, I chose the words, "false statement" carefully, because I did not, and do not, want to imply that you are a liar. People can make false statements for a variety of reasons that do not include lying, such as a lack of information or a selective presentation of information. Judging from your long history of insightful and accurate posts, I do not think that you would attempt to mislead anyone deliberately. As to your statement that the Japanese drew down the Manchukuo garrison later in the war than most Japanese players do in the game, I agree completely. The facts and historical deployments of these units reveal this to be so. What the game provides is an opportunity for Japan to do this earlier in the war. If the draw-down of the garrison did not provoke a Soviet attack in 1944, after Kursk, when the German army had lost most of its armor and ability to counter attack, why would a reduction in the garrison in 1942 provoke a Soviet attack: before Stalingrad, before Kursk, when the Soviets were desperate for lend/lease equipment. My argument is that it was a strategic error on the part of the IJA to not draw down the garrison in 1942: an error that this game allows the Japanese player to correct. I think the PP system works well to reflect the realities of reducing this garrison. For example, as the Soviets were launching their counter-attack around Moscow and engaging in their winter offensive in 1941, it would have been perilous for Japan to reduce the garrison, because it appeared that the Germans might be driven back. By the spring of 1942, when most Japanese players begin to reduce the garrison, Germany is back on the move in Russia and again appears likely to defeat the Soviets.

Lokasenna -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 1:18:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter The general point I endeavor, apparently poorly, to make is that one side is given an ability to do way, way better than historical (even in stock where it is common for Japan to conquer all of China, or 3/4 of India or 3/4 of Australia) while the other side is consistently limited, both by game engine AND player induced mods and house rules to no better than a historical performance. If it is fair for japan to have a chance to knock the Allies out by the end of '43, shouldn't it be just as fair for the other side to do the same? The constant litany of rationalization from JFBs is that the Allies are destined to win no matter what so they shouldn't get any opportunity to do better than historical. The Allies are hard pressed to achieve the autovictory by the historical date, let alone achieving it a year early. Why is it only one side gets to improve on history? In order: The Allied player can do better than historical performance. Unfortunately, the game does not script a Midway victory into the mix for the Allied player, which had an outsize impact on what the Allies were able to do in terms of a historical timetable. Given that in most games, a Midway-type battle doesn't occur at all in 1942 and yet the Allies are able to reach a more or less historical timetable for a counteroffensive by 1944, an argument can be made that the Allies are able to advance more quickly than historical. The devs apparently thought the same, or they wouldn't have made the prep system as they did. I've seen Japan be knocked out in 1943 just as often as I've seen the Allies knocked out in 1943, which is to say - zero times, except for players resigning early. You're stuck on the "winning the war" bit, not the winning the game bit. The Japanese should have the same chance at achieving a victory in game terms as the Allies. The only way that Japan can "improve" vs. historical is the production system, which seems to be the heart of your complaint. Anything that Japan can do in operational terms to be better than historical performance, the Allies can also do. As for production, well... it's just the way the game is. There is no Allied production system, and honestly there couldn't be one to the extent that there is one for Japan, or else you'd end up with a completely Japan-first industrial policy in CONUS and nobody would play the game. Besides that, somebody (LST?) up-thread mentioned a fair number of instances where the Allies get to hang onto resources that were, in reality, sent to the ETO or Africa instead of remaining in the Pacific.

witpqs -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 1:57:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944. The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth. Except for the times they don't. Any of PzB's opponents want to speak up? [;)] The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education. Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it.

PaxMondo -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 3:08:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944. The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth. Except for the times they don't. Any of PzB's opponents want to speak up? [;)] The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education. Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it. +1 Sad that haven't seen him (PzB) in quite some time ...

geofflambert -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 8:23:58 AM)
Are games gamey? Just askin'

HansBolter -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 11:08:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The only way that Japan can "improve" vs. historical is the production system, which seems to be the heart of your complaint. Anything that Japan can do in operational terms to be better than historical performance, the Allies can also do. As for production, well... it's just the way the game is. There is no Allied production system, and honestly there couldn't be one to the extent that there is one for Japan, or else you'd end up with a completely Japan-first industrial policy in CONUS and nobody would play the game. Besides that, somebody (LST?) up-thread mentioned a fair number of instances where the Allies get to hang onto resources that were, in reality, sent to the ETO or Africa instead of remaining in the Pacific. So knocking China out of the war is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of India is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of Australia is NOT improving on historical performance? Invading the west coast is NOT improving on historical performance? Scratching my head trying to figure out what games you are observing.

Anomander Rake -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 11:16:06 AM)
You are very biased. I have seen: - successful Allied attacks on Burma in 1943; - successful Allied attack on DEI in 1943; - successful Allied attack on Marschalls in 1943 or even in 1942; - successful Allied attack on Kurriles and Sachalin in 1943. Oh, I even saw the reflection of Palambeng in early 1942... All this certainly happened historically.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 12:20:59 PM)
If you want to limit the players to do exactly what has been achieved in the real war, it might be better to stop playing and reading a history book or watching a documentary about the war. I think "historical performance" should be measured by the game situation in August 1945, not by what happened during the game, since the game will deviate from history from day one and the course of the war and the losses will forcibly be different from history. If those Japanese players who managed to knock out China, to conquer 3/4 of India, 3/4 of Australia or to invade the West Coast manage to keep their conquests until August 1945, then the Allied player has botched it very badly. Usually these conquests will be pretty temporary. For me, if in August 1945 the Allies have secured the "must have" bases of Iwo Jima, Okinawa and are able to sustain daylight bombing of the home islands, then both sides have performed historically. If one of the three conditions is not met, Japan has performed better. If the Allies have landed on the Home Islands by that date, they have performed better. That's how I define the victory conditions for myself, no intention to impose this a general rule. Others will trust the VP system to determine victory - legit player choices.

Anomander Rake -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 12:47:12 PM)
For real I have never seen succesfull West Coast invasion. Also, like LST writing, Japanese gains in India and OZ were usually temporary. The situation in China is the only problem but this problem is fixed in some modes. In fact, the much greater problem that is observed is the Allies' ability to quickly and continuously invades after this when they took strategic initiative. Is possible that actions weakening Japan in the first phase of the war are spoiling the game at its later stages.

HansBolter -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 1:55:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake You are very biased. Guilty as charged. Unlike so many others here at least I am honest about it. I have no desire whatsoever to make the Japanese side more viable to play in PBEM.

witpqs -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 2:50:33 PM)
I certainly want each side to be plenty viable in PBM. For the baseline - meaning historical scenarios like scen 1/2, etc. - I want "historical capabilities" and the outcome is decided by victory conditions (whether game VP or player set). That gives a baseline to work from, and the many mods do as they please whether that be extending the baseline (think Da Babes series) or 'what if' (like RA, BTS, RHS, etc) scenarios.

Lokasenna -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 4:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The only way that Japan can "improve" vs. historical is the production system, which seems to be the heart of your complaint. Anything that Japan can do in operational terms to be better than historical performance, the Allies can also do. As for production, well... it's just the way the game is. There is no Allied production system, and honestly there couldn't be one to the extent that there is one for Japan, or else you'd end up with a completely Japan-first industrial policy in CONUS and nobody would play the game. Besides that, somebody (LST?) up-thread mentioned a fair number of instances where the Allies get to hang onto resources that were, in reality, sent to the ETO or Africa instead of remaining in the Pacific. So knocking China out of the war is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of India is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of Australia is NOT improving on historical performance? Invading the west coast is NOT improving on historical performance? Scratching my head trying to figure out what games you are observing. It sounds to me like you wish to play a simulation. The whole reason this game exists is as a "what if", within historical parameters as best as they could be modeled by the game engine. There are lots of abstractions made, such as how much 1 point of supply is and what it can do for you. What if Japan had pursued a real offensive in China sooner? What if Japan had invaded 3/4 of India (at the expense of their forces elsewhere)? What if Japan had invaded 3/4 of Australia (at the expense of their forces elsewhere)?

HansBolter -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 4:54:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The only way that Japan can "improve" vs. historical is the production system, which seems to be the heart of your complaint. Anything that Japan can do in operational terms to be better than historical performance, the Allies can also do. As for production, well... it's just the way the game is. There is no Allied production system, and honestly there couldn't be one to the extent that there is one for Japan, or else you'd end up with a completely Japan-first industrial policy in CONUS and nobody would play the game. Besides that, somebody (LST?) up-thread mentioned a fair number of instances where the Allies get to hang onto resources that were, in reality, sent to the ETO or Africa instead of remaining in the Pacific. So knocking China out of the war is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of India is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of Australia is NOT improving on historical performance? Invading the west coast is NOT improving on historical performance? Scratching my head trying to figure out what games you are observing. It sounds to me like you wish to play a simulation. The whole reason this game exists is as a "what if", within historical parameters as best as they could be modeled by the game engine. There are lots of abstractions made, such as how much 1 point of supply is and what it can do for you. What if Japan had pursued a real offensive in China sooner? What if Japan had invaded 3/4 of India (at the expense of their forces elsewhere)? What if Japan had invaded 3/4 of Australia (at the expense of their forces elsewhere)? What if Japan never had the logistical resources to do any of these things? Yes, I want to simulate the reality of the war, while not simulating the outcome of every battle.

HansBolter -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 4:56:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I certainly want each side to be plenty viable in PBM. For the baseline - meaning historical scenarios like scen 1/2, etc. - I want "historical capabilities" and the outcome is decided by victory conditions (whether game VP or player set). That gives a baseline to work from, and the many mods do as they please whether that be extending the baseline (think Da Babes series) or 'what if' (like RA, BTS, RHS, etc) scenarios. And I can appreciate and respect that position. I would simply like to get the same respect in return for my desires. From other here, not you, as you are one the most respectful and diplomatic here toward the viewpoints and desires of the few solitaire players who post here.

Zecke -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 5:52:49 PM)
Of course Hans NOT solo; put the finger on the neck; respect its what i have learn on Life; never seen mistakes on Matrix-forums about respect; and hope continues; an iron cross first class is an iron cross�

Lokasenna -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 6:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The only way that Japan can "improve" vs. historical is the production system, which seems to be the heart of your complaint. Anything that Japan can do in operational terms to be better than historical performance, the Allies can also do. As for production, well... it's just the way the game is. There is no Allied production system, and honestly there couldn't be one to the extent that there is one for Japan, or else you'd end up with a completely Japan-first industrial policy in CONUS and nobody would play the game. Besides that, somebody (LST?) up-thread mentioned a fair number of instances where the Allies get to hang onto resources that were, in reality, sent to the ETO or Africa instead of remaining in the Pacific. So knocking China out of the war is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of India is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of Australia is NOT improving on historical performance? Invading the west coast is NOT improving on historical performance? Scratching my head trying to figure out what games you are observing. It sounds to me like you wish to play a simulation. The whole reason this game exists is as a "what if", within historical parameters as best as they could be modeled by the game engine. There are lots of abstractions made, such as how much 1 point of supply is and what it can do for you. What if Japan had pursued a real offensive in China sooner? What if Japan had invaded 3/4 of India (at the expense of their forces elsewhere)? What if Japan had invaded 3/4 of Australia (at the expense of their forces elsewhere)? What if Japan never had the logistical resources to do any of these things? Yes, I want to simulate the reality of the war, while not simulating the outcome of every battle. Alright, assuming logistical realities should be closely hewn to and not what the game allows you to do with its abstracted logistics, then no Allied fuel shipping until late in 1942 (have you read up on the fuel shortages the South Pacific command suffered while trying to start Operation Watchtower?), for example - historically, the logistics just weren't there to support a robust Allied offensive. Just one counter-example.

HansBolter -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/5/2018 7:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna The only way that Japan can "improve" vs. historical is the production system, which seems to be the heart of your complaint. Anything that Japan can do in operational terms to be better than historical performance, the Allies can also do. As for production, well... it's just the way the game is. There is no Allied production system, and honestly there couldn't be one to the extent that there is one for Japan, or else you'd end up with a completely Japan-first industrial policy in CONUS and nobody would play the game. Besides that, somebody (LST?) up-thread mentioned a fair number of instances where the Allies get to hang onto resources that were, in reality, sent to the ETO or Africa instead of remaining in the Pacific. So knocking China out of the war is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of India is NOT improving on historical performance? So conquering 3/4 of Australia is NOT improving on historical performance? Invading the west coast is NOT improving on historical performance? Scratching my head trying to figure out what games you are observing. It sounds to me like you wish to play a simulation. The whole reason this game exists is as a "what if", within historical parameters as best as they could be modeled by the game engine. There are lots of abstractions made, such as how much 1 point of supply is and what it can do for you. What if Japan had pursued a real offensive in China sooner? What if Japan had invaded 3/4 of India (at the expense of their forces elsewhere)? What if Japan had invaded 3/4 of Australia (at the expense of their forces elsewhere)? What if Japan never had the logistical resources to do any of these things? Yes, I want to simulate the reality of the war, while not simulating the outcome of every battle. Alright, assuming logistical realities should be closely hewn to and not what the game allows you to do with its abstracted logistics, then no Allied fuel shipping until late in 1942 (have you read up on the fuel shortages the South Pacific command suffered while trying to start Operation Watchtower?), for example - historically, the logistics just weren't there to support a robust Allied offensive. Just one counter-example. And I'm absolutely fine with that. I'm fine with anything that makes for a more realistic simulation within the framework of a game. I believe it is the lack of realistic logistical constraints that allows the Japanese to run wild conquering most of the know world by mid '43. It probably also contributes to the Allies ability to gear up a steamroller counter offensive in '43 instead of having to wait till '44. More realistic logistical constraints would go a long way toward slowing the pace for both expansion and contraction.

mind_messing -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/6/2018 2:49:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944. The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth. Except for the times they don't. Any of PzB's opponents want to speak up? [;)] The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education. Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it. I really wish people would take PzB's games with the boulder of salt that they deserve. He jacked his Japanese Empire up very heavily and played a very slick operational game. The real telling thing is this: how many of his games ended with him bemoaning the inability for the Japanese Empire to support his massive fleet and air movements?

rustysi -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/6/2018 5:58:00 PM)
quote: How about JFBs who exercise self-restraint and don't do everything the game engine allows. Case in point is the magic highway which is claimed as being the goal of all JFBs, Don't use it, but saw how it could start (unintentionally) in one of mt AI games. As for me, when I get to PBEM, any HR that I propose would be in effect whether I'm playing Japan or the Allies, as I intend to play both. So there's no way I'm trying to 'stack the deck'.

JohnDillworth -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/6/2018 8:15:52 PM)
The Japanese get a fun year, the Allies get a fun year, what happens in the middle 18 months is the real game.

witpqs -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/6/2018 9:36:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944. The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth. Except for the times they don't. Any of PzB's opponents want to speak up? [;)] The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education. Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it. I really wish people would take PzB's games with the boulder of salt that they deserve. He jacked his Japanese Empire up very heavily and played a very slick operational game. The real telling thing is this: how many of his games ended with him bemoaning the inability for the Japanese Empire to support his massive fleet and air movements? And yet he won a lot, yes?

BillBrown -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/6/2018 10:54:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944. The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth. Except for the times they don't. Any of PzB's opponents want to speak up? [;)] The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education. Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it. I really wish people would take PzB's games with the boulder of salt that they deserve. He jacked his Japanese Empire up very heavily and played a very slick operational game. The real telling thing is this: how many of his games ended with him bemoaning the inability for the Japanese Empire to support his massive fleet and air movements? If you consider that he only played one game that he did an AAR on and won it easily against AndyMac, I guess it was once. Even though he did find it hard to support his troops, he won the game.

witpqs -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/7/2018 2:54:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BillBrown quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944. The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth. Except for the times they don't. Any of PzB's opponents want to speak up? [;)] The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education. Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it. I really wish people would take PzB's games with the boulder of salt that they deserve. He jacked his Japanese Empire up very heavily and played a very slick operational game. The real telling thing is this: how many of his games ended with him bemoaning the inability for the Japanese Empire to support his massive fleet and air movements? If you consider that he only played one game that he did an AAR on and won it easily against AndyMac, I guess it was once. Even though he did find it hard to support his troops, he won the game. I know of at least another where he stomped the Allies flat (but no AAR). If I understand right I believe there were others.

Aurorus -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/7/2018 3:09:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BillBrown quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Dan will reach autovictory in our horrifically imbalanced Mod PRIOR to real life. This is being done DESPITE the changes in the complete outrageousness of RA 5.0 (about 20 Mod iterations ago and way too far favoring the Japanese) AND my complete defeat of two Allied Field Armies in 1943/1944. The Allies ARE destined to win no matter what. To deny this is idiotic. It is simple truth. Except for the times they don't. Any of PzB's opponents want to speak up? [;)] The question for JFB is how well can one do compared to Real Life. That's it. Did you follow the Code of Bushido? If so, you fought the good fight and, hopefully, have learned more to take into your next match. I know I have. Dan and others have taught great lessons over the last five years of life. CHEERS to all of them for the lessons, insight, and education. Writing AARs exposes the authors to good and bad experiences. In many ways they become a labor of love for the writers and readers. Great commendations go to anyone willing to risk themselves in choosing this path. Wish that more would chose to do it. I really wish people would take PzB's games with the boulder of salt that they deserve. He jacked his Japanese Empire up very heavily and played a very slick operational game. The real telling thing is this: how many of his games ended with him bemoaning the inability for the Japanese Empire to support his massive fleet and air movements? If you consider that he only played one game that he did an AAR on and won it easily against AndyMac, I guess it was once. Even though he did find it hard to support his troops, he won the game. Well.. I have looked at that AAR. I appreciate greatly what Andymac has done with his AI scenario mods, but his play, by his own admission, was not so good. To give a few example. He flew almost no CAP over Pearl after 7 Dec. and lost 7 BBs there in the first 3 days of the war for a cost of a few B5N2s. He also sailed PoW and Repulse into the Netties from Saigon on Dec. 7th and lost both of those BBs. I also think that Andy Mac was using the auto-convoy system. There were individual tankers sailing around for months unescorted and being sunk daily by Japanese submarines. Later in the war, he sent in massive amphibious groups with very little air-cover. Several commenters on the AAR even noted that Andy Mac seemed to be playing like the AI. At the end, PzB actually did not win. He declared victory, stated that he was out of supplies, implied that his lack of supply was a design flaw in the game, and then quit. This was a scenario 2 game. I cannot imagine what he would think of Japan's supply situation in a scenario 1 game.

Korvar -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/7/2018 3:27:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus Several commenters on the AAR even noted that Andy Mac seemed to be playing like the AI. A side effect of staring into the abyss too long. Nietzsche warned us against such things.

Aurorus -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/7/2018 3:41:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Korvar quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus Several commenters on the AAR even noted that Andy Mac seemed to be playing like the AI. A side effect of staring into the abyss too long. Nietzsche warned us against such things. I actually think that Andy Mac was using an AI script as his guide in that game in order to modify it. I think that is why he may also have been using the auto-convoy system: to playtest it and see what assets it required for his AI scripts and his later mods.

Zorch -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/7/2018 9:31:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Korvar quote: ORIGINAL: Aurorus Several commenters on the AAR even noted that Andy Mac seemed to be playing like the AI. A side effect of staring into the abyss too long. Nietzsche warned us against such things. Perhaps that's why Nietzsche went mad. [;)]

rustysi -> RE: Is resizing a gamey? (1/7/2018 5:58:09 PM)
quote: I cannot imagine what he would think of Japan's supply situation in a scenario 1 game. I can tell you what I think of it, but not here.[:-][:D]

Page: << < prev 2 3 4 [5] 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875