Question for Rules Chairman (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

TF 38 -> Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 5:59:25 AM)

Does the landing depicted in the image below invoke rule 8.3.2?

TF 38

[image]local://upfiles/13055/Rp422714215.jpg[/image]



rogueusmc -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 6:08:41 AM)

lol...like a sub full of troops is gonna do anything to the old US of A...[:D]



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 6:11:34 AM)

If that was Canada in 2004 that platoon and their AT gun would be marching on Ottawa right now...



carnifex -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 6:48:41 AM)

you think those 5 support guys are manning that AT gun or are they cooks?

or both?

just wonderin...



TF 38 -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 6:58:16 AM)

quote:

you think those 5 support guys are manning that AT gun or are they cooks?

or both?

just wonderin...


It's a film crew for the documentary. [;)]



Drongo -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 7:03:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TF 38

Does the landing depicted in the image below invoke rule 8.3.2?

TF 38


Is this a trick question???

On the turn following this landing, San Fran will be overflowing with troops, etc.

Are you asking this because what was specified in the manual didn't happen?



TF 38 -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 7:11:59 AM)

No,

I was just wondering if what could otherwise be construed as an undermanned commando raid could cause the U.S. and Canada to divert their focus from a "Europe First" strategy to one focusing on Japan.

TF 38



TheHellPatrol -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 7:14:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drongo

quote:

ORIGINAL: TF 38

Does the landing depicted in the image below invoke rule 8.3.2?

TF 38


Is this a trick question???

On the turn following this landing, San Fran will be overflowing with troops, etc.

Are you asking this because what was specified in the manual didn't happen?
Correction...two turns. One turn would be spent doubled over laughing..."Ha Ha Ha , we surrender[&o], Ha Ha Ha[:D][;)].



Drongo -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 7:19:16 AM)

Ah, so it wasn't a trick question but a loaded one. [:)]



Captain Ed -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 7:20:44 AM)

Hey that is Canada and they have obviously just invaded Estevan Point off Sooke where I live The Japs did shell the lighthouse there during WW2 they won`t be there for long though as we have some raggedy ass loggers there who would make short work of them
as an aside a lot of that area has been bought by japanese interests in recent years so you see they got it anyway[:D][:D]



TF 38 -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 7:24:03 AM)

Jeez,

Can you imagine how much trouble the raid C.O. would be in when the brass figured how badly he'd pissed off the Canucks? [X(]



carnifex -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:02:27 AM)

quote:

I was just wondering if what could otherwise be construed as an undermanned commando raid could cause the U.S. and Canada to divert their focus from a "Europe First" strategy to one focusing on Japan.


no of course not

but for game purposes it makes no difference

in the game the japanese would never send a commando raid because it would have no effect - not even a minimal one

so there doesn't need to be a mechanism for a proportional response on the part of the allies since any landing can be assumed to be massive



PeckingFury -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:06:11 AM)

Go ahead and laugh, those civilians sun bathing on the beach there wont think its funny when the dreaded Japanese wakeboard kamikazes land in force [X(]



von Murrin -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:09:06 AM)

LOL[:D]

I think this would trigger the 8.3.2. However, I really can't come up with a better definition of "boxing" the system either.[:'(]



Xargun -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:31:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TF 38

Does the landing depicted in the image below invoke rule 8.3.2?

TF 38



According to the manual your landing at hex 133,28 will NOT trigger the allied speedup... BUT, if you move 1 hex east it will.. Hex 132 (inclusive) and east triggers the allied affect. Anything west of 132 is fair game... - pretty much all alaska..

Xargun



Drongo -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:36:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun
According to the manual your landing at hex 133,28 will NOT trigger the allied speedup... BUT, if you move 1 hex east it will.. Hex 132 (inclusive) and east triggers the allied affect. Anything west of 132 is fair game... - pretty much all alaska..

Xargun


Xargun,

Is your monitor upside down? Hex row 133 is EAST of hex row 132.



Arnir -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:36:31 AM)

Interesting. I would figure that Ottawa at least would freak if the Japanese landed on Vancouver Island.

Even if a small raid landed on the West Coast, I would imagine that public opinion would demand a shift towards safeguarding the coast. A small raid is often a precursor to a big raid, at least in the eyes of the public. The public may or may not be assuaged by the small force size. They might just state (read: yell and scream) that they managed to get to the West Coast once, they may do it again.



Xargun -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:43:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drongo

Xargun,

Is your monitor upside down? Hex row 133 is EAST of hex row 132.


Hmmm... I don't think it is.... BUt maybe my whole apartment is... But alas you are correct... I'm just tired and staring at the monitor waiting for my next PBEM turn [:D]

Xargun



Drongo -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:44:38 AM)

For a minute there I thought it was because I live in Australia.



Xargun -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:45:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Drongo

For a minute there I thought it was because I live in Australia.


Well there is that too

Xargun



TF 38 -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 8:59:48 AM)

The prima facia argument seems kind of absurd...

But, please take into account the extent to which the Doolittle raid freaked out the Japanese.

LOL, a commando raid could have changed the entire course of the war in Europe, had America and Canada switched their focus to the Pacific.

The subject is even more pertinent, IMO, given the games "political" element.

TF 38



FirstPappy -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 2:25:32 PM)

Now if that were Los Angeles instead of Seattle I might expect John Belushi to fly his P40 out to meet that sub. Maybe there should also be a ground unit stationed in LA as well, consisting of one tank with Dan Aykroyd in command.



52nd Lowland -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 2:37:32 PM)

You forgot a detachment of ferris wheels to guard the coast[:D]



barbarrossa -> RE: Question for Rules Chairman (8/3/2004 3:21:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TF 38

quote:

you think those 5 support guys are manning that AT gun or are they cooks?

or both?

just wonderin...


It's a film crew for the documentary. [;)]


I didn't think John Kerry's swiftboat was modeled in the game![:D]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125