RE: How can you guys stand PBEM?

RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (Full Version)

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

Message

kaleun -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/1/2005 11:00:06 PM)
Somehow it seems to me that even its harshest critics love this game, otherwise they would have dumped it already. Yes the initial price tag is somewhat steep but, if it wasn't that the game delivers, they wouldn't be playing after, what has it been 4 months? I have several games in my hard drive that are just taking up space, and that I play, perhaps three or four times a year. WITP with all of its annoyances, I play daily, as much as I can, and as fast I can get the turns from my PBEM opponents in (currently 3) I don't have anymore PBEM games running because I still have 2 Bombing the Reich PBEM games going, and I do want to finish those. Could the AI be better, well, perhaps, but short of using a Cray I don't think you could design a computer AI smart enough to handle a game of this depth and complexity. Improvements to this game are probably only going to be incremental, think pushing one base, not homeruns. I for one am happy with what I got, and ecstatic to see that fixes and improvements continue to be made. Thanks to Matrix and all the testers/developers. Can you guys do Silent Service next?

Strv103C -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/1/2005 11:09:29 PM)
(In reply to Kid who was asking about a savegame file to prove that the AI is making mistakes) I'm playing the 42A scenarion vs the AI. The AI continue to send its nates and sallys etc on pointless suicide missions to Imphal and Port Moresby. But it did reacted well to my invasions on Guadalcanal and Timor. Generally the AI isn't bad but do yoy really need a savegame file to see that the AI makes stupid thing once in a while.

adsoul -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/1/2005 11:20:12 PM)
I see your points. Basically, there's alot of things in WitP that I would change. Because they're broken? Nah, because I'm a specific type of player and I'd like a game perfectly modelled on my style of gaming. In short, this means that almost every player should have to project, design and program his own game. On the other hand, I think this is a game... yes, the biggest game I've ever seen, but only a game. He can sim the real war, nothing more and nothing lesser, so we cannot pretend that it's like the real life. I remember a post where somebody pointed out (correctly IMHO) that it's impossible to recreate the same feeling that Yamamoto, Nimitz and the others experienced, just because we have aloto of knowledge of facts, weapon, doctrine, knowledge that our real counterparts just did not have. So, I will keep to play, enjoy and getting excited with my PBEM (yep, after having experienced PBEM I cannot go back to AI) and sometimes I will complain about leaders (not the bug, but their use), this is part of my excitment. At last, I have payed 69.99$ for it and I've been playing every day since July, it's 1$ a day right now and it's going down [:D] Last point: I'm not (and I'll never be) a General or an Admiral. I'm just a player and I think that a really good player (that I'm not) is good also because he can fit in with game rules. So I think that best WitP players are those who can get into mechanics and find out tactics and strategies who work in this environment. OK, just my cent, hoping I haven't offended anybody.

kaleun -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/1/2005 11:27:45 PM)
In fact Adso, I believe that to be a real good player, and to enjoy the game, you really have to get (figuratively) into Nimitz's shoes, or Yamamoto's kimono. In my two allied games, I know the PI, Malaya and DEI are going to get creamed, Iknow it from history, however, I try to defend them, until it is becoming obvious that they cannot be defended. Now this will happen first in the Philipinnes, so I start withdrawing things from the Philipinnes to the DEI. Yes the DEI will eventually fall, but Nimitz did not know that, so I play to try to preserve the ABDA command. I might not reinforce Malaya, but then again, there was not much to reinforce it with. Playing "in the commander's shoes" the game becomes even more absorbing. Actually too absorbing. [8\|]How can I defend Wake? (Warspite game in the AAR). Can I get reinforments in? Can I evacuate those guys? Think, I must think![sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]

adsoul -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/1/2005 11:35:14 PM)
I see your points, but Nimitz, for one, was not the only one "thinking". As you know, there was U.S. planners that thought PI indefendible, others (like McArthur and others) planned to hold Philiphhines until the US Fleet could have reach them. I mean, there are many ways to put himself in shoes of Nimitz. I have a PBEM where I'm trying to defend bases like Rangoon and Timor, altough I know it's an almost helpless effort. But I want to explore this path anyway. What I mean is that I'm doing that "inside" the rules, not complaining about this or that wrong or missing rule or feature. And, anyway, I just cannot forget that CV Japanese pilots are better than mine or Zeroes are far better than P-40... that Nimitz just could not know at the beginning

mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 12:12:31 AM)
Hi, I think there is a correct way to play. The game does not require us to play correctly. I think it is very probable that if the Allied player just sent a lot of transports full of troops to PH and then loaded then and the herd at PH and then sailed for Tokyo, I think there is a good chance he might actually take the place. The game allows this. The AI will likely allow this. In PBEM as Japan I wish my opponents would try it. I'm using the wrong term or phrasing it in correctly when I say "The Correct" way. I force myself to establish air control over an area before I enter it. I force myself to provide defense to areas I know the enemy will not be coming (but in PBEM they might) I abhorr losing material. AP AK submarine or Nate I hate it. I take measures to prevent it. I take measures to reduce it. I rarely will risk a 200 point ship or a 40 point ship just to blow up a few aircraft. If I bombard an enemy base it is only when the operation requires it. I would never think "It is ok, it will be replaced" I can just imagine telling a crew "I'm going to send you PT's in against an enemy surface force containing BB and CA because if you score just one hit it is worth losing all of you, you will be replaced" Instead early in war I withdraw my PT boats and try to set up where they will encounter enemy transports or lightly defended TF. I even fly CAP over them while they move if I am able and I move fighters so I can do it. I do risk ships and their crews. I consider some of the land units cut off. I never abandon a unit. My subs from PI are not out hunting Japanese because they are moving a few supply to feed cut off units. They are transporting a few men at a time to safety. But my airgroups don't leave the SRA. The Japanese must drive me out. I consider the first 18 months of the game the most fun....when I am the Allied player. It is not fun to be Japan for me ever. (I have fun playing the game but being Japan wears me out) I cinsider it my duty to met my objectives. My objective as Japan is to secure the material my economy requires and then defend it to the bitter end. My objective as Allied player is to fight. Not to run away. The troops in the SRA fight to win, they fight to survive. I bend every effort to getting them to defeat the Japanese. The Japanese are defeated by the degree I prevent or delay them meeting their objectives. But I don't throw them away. If players had to submit to electric shocks when they lost material (the voltage depending on the loss) They would play more "correctly" I don't want the game to define correctness. I want my opponents to decide that. However if you begin by trying to take of your units and meet your objectives you'll find the game works pretty well. Forget what the game will allow you to do. There are manythings allowed that should still not be done. And if you go ahead and do them please don't use that as an example of the games weakness. There should be a little counter that represents the player. It should always have to go to the place where he has exposed one of his units to the most danger. The player should have to share in it's fate. And if lost the game ends. Not because his side has lost but because now his side is under the command of a new leader. It's not realistic but faced with this prospect the player would take better care and be forced into better planning prior to exposing a unit to danger. Edit I typed PI at start but I meant PH (Pearl Harbor) There are several Div there at start)

adsoul -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 12:31:10 AM)
OK, so you're telling you're giving some rules to yourself... and this is exactly what I do.... except that my rules are different than yours. Just like you, I hate losing stuffs, but (IMHO) there are situations where it's meaning to do. For example, in order to buy some time to defend an all-important base I'll send CAs and BBs to face overwhelming aircraft power. But only if I think that it could have happened in RL... and sometimes happened. Think at the Battle of Bismarck Sea or (altough different) Admiral Scott and Callaghan's choice to fight a superior enemy force to prevent them to bombard Henderson Field. This is the stronger point of this game, IMHO. You can try different things and you can choose to limit choiches... but you're not forced to play the real war as they did... that it would be boring and not something that I'd call a game!

kaleun -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 1:02:56 AM)
Also to make it more realistic, I give "shore leave" to my subs. I have advanced sub bases, i.e. wake, midway, and some secret ones. There are ASs in these bases. When a sub comes back from a mission, I usually disband it to port in these advanced bases if SD 5<9. If SD >10 then it goes back to a big port (with women [;)]) for refitting and R&R. Only if SD <5 or in dire straits will the sub refuel, rearm and go back out. The game doesn't have crews mutinying but I want to have a realistic game. Even in the early phases of the war, I might have 5 or 6 subs at these advanced bases, for up to a month, repairing and refitting minor damage.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 1:21:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, I think there is a correct way to play. The game does not require us to play correctly. I think it is very probable that if the Allied player just sent a lot of transports full of troops to PH and then loaded then and the herd at PH and then sailed for Tokyo, I think there is a good chance he might actually take the place. The game allows this. The AI will likely allow this. In PBEM as Japan I wish my opponents would try it. I'm using the wrong term or phrasing it in correctly when I say "The Correct" way. I force myself to establish air control over an area before I enter it. I force myself to provide defense to areas I know the enemy will not be coming (but in PBEM they might) I abhorr losing material. AP AK submarine or Nate I hate it. I take measures to prevent it. I take measures to reduce it. I rarely will risk a 200 point ship or a 40 point ship just to blow up a few aircraft. If I bombard an enemy base it is only when the operation requires it. I would never think "It is ok, it will be replaced" I can just imagine telling a crew "I'm going to send you PT's in against an enemy surface force containing BB and CA because if you score just one hit it is worth losing all of you, you will be replaced" Instead early in war I withdraw my PT boats and try to set up where they will encounter enemy transports or lightly defended TF. I even fly CAP over them while they move if I am able and I move fighters so I can do it. I do risk ships and their crews. I consider some of the land units cut off. I never abandon a unit. My subs from PI are not out hunting Japanese because they are moving a few supply to feed cut off units. They are transporting a few men at a time to safety. But my airgroups don't leave the SRA. The Japanese must drive me out. I consider the first 18 months of the game the most fun....when I am the Allied player. It is not fun to be Japan for me ever. (I have fun playing the game but being Japan wears me out) I cinsider it my duty to met my objectives. My objective as Japan is to secure the material my economy requires and then defend it to the bitter end. My objective as Allied player is to fight. Not to run away. The troops in the SRA fight to win, they fight to survive. I bend every effort to getting them to defeat the Japanese. The Japanese are defeated by the degree I prevent or delay them meeting their objectives. But I don't throw them away. If players had to submit to electric shocks when they lost material (the voltage depending on the loss) They would play more "correctly" I don't want the game to define correctness. I want my opponents to decide that. However if you begin by trying to take of your units and meet your objectives you'll find the game works pretty well. Forget what the game will allow you to do. There are manythings allowed that should still not be done. And if you go ahead and do them please don't use that as an example of the games weakness. There should be a little counter that represents the player. It should always have to go to the place where he has exposed one of his units to the most danger. The player should have to share in it's fate. And if lost the game ends. Not because his side has lost but because now his side is under the command of a new leader. It's not realistic but faced with this prospect the player would take better care and be forced into better planning prior to exposing a unit to danger. Edit I typed PI at start but I meant PH (Pearl Harbor) There are several Div there at start) I agree with a lot of things you say, Mog. Believe me. And I play with house rules but SOME ASPECTS OF THE GAMES MECHANICS DO NOT LEND THEMSELVES TO HOUSE RULES. For example, as much a we may want to simulate operations maximums for ports, we can't...the game mechanics overide anything we try. Land combat is completely screwed and we can't really apply houserules to the inadequate supply/movement/retreat/lack of weather effects etc. I'm probably one of this games biggest fans and fanatics, but I don't coo over everything about it. If all they want are bug zappers and cheerleaders, how will design innovation or redesign come about? Criticism is a good thing when used correctly. This game has so many good points I can't begin to count, maybe I should list the pros and cons so I don't come across as a completely negative bitchmaster.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 1:47:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, I agree there were many things we missed testing and I will never try to duck that. But stop for a second and hear me out here. Players discovered a problem with bombing at 32k it was reported and fixed. Anyone that used this while playing has themselves to blame not the testers. Bugs that steal your units and leaders have to be fixed. Saying the landcombat is broke because you don't agree that a unit should pay for the hex it is actually moving through and want it to pay for the hex is is going to move into is a personal opinion and not a game flaw. The land combat system works as far as I am concerned. I like it more when I kill more of the enemy then he kills of my troops but I adjust as I need to to insure I win. Taskgroups would be nice but I use them without having something called a taskgroup. I form more then 1 TF often with multiple missions and have the group operate together. I've always done this. Understanding the aircombat routine I doubt I would want a larger number of my ships being exposed to air attack from a single strike. No Ron I am sorry, I really don't see the need for many of your requests. The only ones I agree with are to fix things that are broken And if you feel adding more feature while they do that is proof the game was not complete to start with then your........wrong? I wish I could locate all the threads where people before release begged 2by3 to release the game right that moment. Saying the landcombat is broke because you don't agree that a unit should pay for the hex it is actually moving through and want it to pay for the hex is is going to move into is a personal opinion and not a game flaw. The land combat system works as far as I am concerned. I like it more when I kill more of the enemy then he kills of my troops but I adjust as I need to to insure I win. It may "work as designed" but it sure leads to totally whacky tobaccy outcomes and situations. Hence thegeneralopinion that it is "flawed" in design and execution. Taskgroups would be nice but I use them without having something called a taskgroup. I form more then 1 TF often with multiple missions and have the group operate together. I've always done this. Understanding the aircombat routine I doubt I would want a larger number of my ships being exposed to air attack from a single strike. You have a bunch of TFs which you order to follow a single TF. That's it. This is not adequate because even no the TFs don't operate in relation to each other as a GROUP. We see it all the time! Individual CV TFs react when your intent is to operate together, as was done historically, leaving TFs separated and a friggin mess. Historically, some mutual cooperation kept this from happening. EG. KB at Midway, two CarDivs under Nagumo and Yamguchi. Historically, did Yamaguchi bolt after TF 17 with Hiryu and Soryu, ignoring the senior COs orders? NO! But this will happen in WITP all the time because we have no way yet to prevent it. Surface combat TF set to follow. What happens when it reacts? Does it return to the formation it was ordered to follow? No, it goes to it Home Port. Bombardment TFs? Same thing. Really inadequate any way one slices it. My idea for a TG is that it is basically a mobile home port and larger formation, allowing the TFs within it to return to it and maintain formation with it. CV TFs stay together. Want a Covering Force to actually be one? Set it to remain 1 hex NE of TG. That sort of thing. Don't tell me that this would not enhance the game and make it more manageable for the player. And as each TF is in a TG, this does not mean it's ONE HUGE TARGET. It is mainly a mechanism to organise and control seperate TFs assigned to it. My idea for a more manageble way of handling ships by allowing players to place them in DIVISIONS is good too. What's wrong with improvements that make the onerous task of micromanaging less of a player burden? Can't fix auto convoys? Hell, give us this as compensation so the micromangement level stays within reason. I wish I could locate all the threads where people before release begged 2by3 to release the game right that moment. This was simply fan fun. "Are we there yet" is pretty common but should not have forced the devs hands, if this is what you are implying.

mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 1:48:51 AM)
Hi, I agree with a lot of what you say Ron. But I don't see much point to people who repeat more then once that they would have done something different. I don't tell my girlfriends they would be better if they could change this or that. I don't think land combat is bad. It is bad if your stuck into tactical play. It is fine if you stay with. "It takes this many men this long and this much supply to take this objective. They will lose this much." And then if you actually make sure you don't wear the troops out and so on. It gets really screwy when you pile every single guy in your entire army into a hex the enemy player has piled every single guy in his army into. It gets really screwy when damage to your transports is not even a consideration when you are looking for a place to land troops. ("i don't care how many I lose just get me ashore"-this is a crazy attitude for an Island nation and no American General could ever return to the United States if the public found out he would accept high loss in place of planning. That is what screw up the game. Players who replace planning with brute force. If there is one thing missing it is that every base under a players control should have to have a constant garrision or it would go neutral. The size of a garrison would be decided by the amount of enemy force inside the same zone. So safer bases would require less garrison but they would still require a garrison. The idea here is simply to make this mass everything in one spot ability less manifest. But I wander again. I don't expect the game to be what it never claimed to be. And I don't demand that it change. I change to make it work. I am p[laying the game. If I was not playing the game I'd be on your side. If I had the game and could not play becausde it did not work I would be mad. But for me at least it is working. It is working in 8 PBEM games. (and more to follow) To play the game and meet my objectives against a human player trying to prevent it I have to plan. I have to accept the games system and plan. If I do it works. I don't dwell on what might have been if they made movement different . I'd have to plan using that movement but in the end units pay the same cost and take the same amount of time to move. (Units that enter a hex fast come from good terrian and move into bad so they will pay to leave. Units that enter a hex slowly come from bad terrian and move into good so they will leave faster. And I still think movement cost should be for the hex the unit is located in because that is where they are. It makes no sense to me to pay a cost for ground you do not occupy. Blah Blah. I like the game. Fix the bugs. Add what you can but I'm already happy and I will be even happier when everything works as designed.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 2:03:46 AM)
quote: But I don't see much point to people who repeat more then once that they would have done something different. This goes back to my main point from months back. Had WITP had an honest to goodness ALPHA stage, where it was playable but design could still be influenced in a significant way, we would have had a much more satisfying product. I can't count how many betas were told that new ideas could not and would not be entertained at "this stage", meaning it was too late. I wonder who, if anybody, was involved with the Alpha in WITP. Anyway. This goes nowhere. Spilt milk.

jwilkerson -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 2:18:39 AM)
I image it all comes down to money - a project has a start date and end date and something is supposed to be delivered at the end for something resembling the estimated cost. Most software projects I've been involved in would be better with more user involvment and this one would've too ... but it would have taken more time and $70 is already a high price. While I would pay more for a true multi-player capability not sure I would pay more for less bugs ... because I don't it would've made much difference. But ... given the track record with UV ... [ I was VERY unhappy with UV in patch 2.2 because we were going backwards and making things worse ] but 2.3 UV is pretty darn stable and I still like it ... sooooo ... I expect that WITP will be similarly stabilized though would expect it to take about a year. So we've still got 6 months to go. And while I will [and have] point[ed] out problems ... I also will speak in support of the effort ... given the difficulty of making something like this work ( I've been a software guy for 31 years ) ... WITP is a decent effort ... and I expect to keep playing this one for a long time ... [ and I have the leader bug and the disappearing units bug and a CTD from the "back button" in the ship availability screen ... and some other bugs ... but it doesn't keep me from playing ].

Charles2222 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 2:31:58 AM)
On the contrary, I comment on this board occasionally, but I haven't been playing it for 4 months. It's very unlikely I ever will play the game until the spawn rule is made optional and it seems to be that with that amateurish rule not being optional I just lost $80, which means my likelihood of buying another GG product is pretty close to nil as well. The only way I'll buy another will likely only be after it had been out for a few months, giving me enough time to study the board and see if it too has something as fanciful as the spawning treatment.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 2:35:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson I image it all comes down to money - a project has a start date and end date and something is supposed to be delivered at the end for something resembling the estimated cost. Most software projects I've been involved in would be better with more user involvment and this one would've too ... but it would have taken more time and $70 is already a high price. While I would pay more for a true multi-player capability not sure I would pay more for less bugs ... because I don't it would've made much difference. But ... given the track record with UV ... [ I was VERY unhappy with UV in patch 2.2 because we were going backwards and making things worse ] but 2.3 UV is pretty darn stable and I still like it ... sooooo ... I expect that WITP will be similarly stabilized though would expect it to take about a year. So we've still got 6 months to go. And while I will [and have] point[ed] out problems ... I also will speak in support of the effort ... given the difficulty of making something like this work ( I've been a software guy for 31 years ) ... WITP is a decent effort ... and I expect to keep playing this one for a long time ... [ and I have the leader bug and the disappearing units bug and a CTD from the "back button" in the ship availability screen ... and some other bugs ... but it doesn't keep me from playing ]. It's a valiant effort! No arguement. Just a shame that a game has to get to a point where it is too far designed to allow significant design alteration but has to be to allow outside playtest. Chicken and the egg. Is this how it HAS TO WORK developmentally?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 2:37:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 On the contrary, I comment on this board occasionally, but I haven't been playing it for 4 months. It's very unlikely I ever will until the spawn rule is made optional and it seems to be that with that amateurish rule not being optional I just lost $80, which means my likelihood of buying another GG product is pretty close to nil as well. The only way I'll buy another will likely only be after it had been out for a few months, giving me enough time to study the board and see if it too has something as fanciful as the spawning treatment. We have a way around the spawning rule. Works ok PBEM and will work if playing as Allied vs AI.

mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 2:41:29 AM)
Hi, Well I know you can't be worried babout a few CA. So it must be the CV and as has been beat to death already no matter how many "Spawned" CV the USN gets (and it can only get 6) In the end the USN will never have any more CV then it actually used and it might not get some it really did have. (for every CV below 6 it loses it loses a historical CV) The problem is when CV arrive. If the USN waits too long it will not be getting ships during the period it actually got ships. No replacement CV can arrive prior to the first "real" Essex but they can arrive long after the ships that have been left out to make room for spawned ships would have arrived. So it can't be because the USN gets too much. And it can't be because it will make the AI too strong so I wonder just what it is?

Charles2222 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 2:43:34 AM)
How do you solve it playing as Allied vs. JA AI?

mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 3:10:53 AM)
Hi, There is nothing to solve. I'm not worried that Japanese MSW and PC respawn. There was no way to include every one of those in the OB. As Allies I am never going to get too many ships from respawning. The Max number of CV the Allied player gets is 19. 19 is the number they actually had. (plus those that they lost) If you keep the original you will have 19. If you lose those they lost you will have 19 if you lose more then they lost you don't get any extra.

Charles2222 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 3:17:53 AM)
And.............what about those CA's and CL's of both the US and Aussies? BTW Mogami, I wouldn't be too confident that Ron's "way around it" is the same as yours, such that I would like to hear his idea.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 3:27:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 How do you solve it playing as Allied vs. JA AI? Japan's only respawned ships are MSWs, and this is no big problem. No house rule necessary to keep AI from using spawned ships. It won't work with AI as Allies because there is no way to enforce the house rule.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 3:32:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 And.............what about those CA's and CL's of both the US and Aussies? BTW Mogami, I wouldn't be too confident that Ron's "way around it" is the same as yours, such that I would like to hear his idea. All the ommitted ships (due to name duplication) will now be in the OOB, either with their original names, cancelled names and in some cases "fictitious" names. They will have an * next to their names for ease of identification. They will arrive at the historic entry dates, and any other issues like accelerated arrivals for other ships will be made historical. All you have to do as Allied player is keep respawned vessels "out of play" in San Francisco.

Charles2222 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 3:43:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Charles_22 And.............what about those CA's and CL's of both the US and Aussies? BTW Mogami, I wouldn't be too confident that Ron's "way around it" is the same as yours, such that I would like to hear his idea. All the ommitted ships (due to name duplication) will now be in the OOB, either with their original names, cancelled names and in some cases "fictitious" names. They will have an * next to their names for ease of identification. They will arrive at the historic entry dates, and any other issues like accelerated arrivals for other ships will be made historical. All you have to do as Allied player is keep respawned vessels "out of play" in San Francisco. Well it's too bad that the JA player can't have some way of locking those ships at a base too (the Allied ships). Maybe that would be an easy optional spawning workaround, whereas when the option is clicked on, the respawned ships are forced to stay in dock irrespective of which side the AI takes.

mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 3:46:56 AM)
Hi, Japan is not going to lose the war because of 6 CV and 6 CA (If the game totally removed respawned ships but added the missing ones the USN is larger then by using spawned ships)

Ron Saueracker -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 3:55:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, Japan is not going to lose the war because of 6 CV and 6 CA (If the game totally removed respawned ships but added the missing ones the USN is larger then by using spawned ships) This is the point. The Allies were getting screwed again with it, especially conservative and rational players, but were also able to increase their cruiser force beyond their manufacturing capability when the Allied player plays like a fool.

Charles2222 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 4:01:50 AM)
6 CV and 6 CA???? How many US and Aussie CA's are there? If more than 6 then it is that amount if all are sunk. How many US and Aussie CL's (I notice no accounting for them)? And though the manual doesn't state it, I'm not convinced the CLAA's aren't included too.

2ndACR -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 4:05:09 AM)
Charles_22, Do not worry too much about the re-spawn rule. Alot of people hate it, but I do not worry about it and I play as the Japanese. As long as I can outnumber the Americans in CV's at any one battle, I have a chance to beat him. Even when I am outnumbered I can still hurt him for a small price early war. Huh, Panzer? Baby KB is a bugger.

Charles2222 -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 4:20:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Charles_22, Do not worry too much about the re-spawn rule. Alot of people hate it, but I do not worry about it and I play as the Japanese. As long as I can outnumber the Americans in CV's at any one battle, I have a chance to beat him. Even when I am outnumbered I can still hurt him for a small price early war. Huh, Panzer? Baby KB is a bugger. The side I'm playing doesn't matter. I'm trying to play it militarily, so the points mean nothing to me. I don't like it being too easy by having things pop right back up (Allies), or it being too difficult to outnumber, or even draw even for that matter(Japanese), later in the war because the blasted early sinkings keep coming back.

mogami -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 4:23:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Mogami Hi, Japan is not going to lose the war because of 6 CV and 6 CA (If the game totally removed respawned ships but added the missing ones the USN is larger then by using spawned ships) This is the point. The Allies were getting screwed again with it, especially conservative and rational players, but were also able to increase their cruiser force beyond their manufacturing capability when the Allied player plays like a fool. Hi, Well conservative rational players don't need help but fools do. If you sink the fisrt batch as Japan and there is no respawn rule you don't get the VP for sinking the second batch of respawned ships. But I think there is a limit to how many they get. For CV it is either 4 or 6 and for CA it is not unlimited but I don't know the number. I don't worry about this rule as Allied or as Japan. Among the very first posts about UV/WITP project we were told 2by3 was doing the game because they wanted to play it. We got to play it as well by making it possible for them to do the project in the first place.

2ndACR -> RE: How can you guys stand PBEM? (1/2/2005 4:28:31 AM)
I am just saying it is not worth quiting the game over. You can try and work out a rule with your opponent if PBEM and do not have to really worry too much against the AI either way. I would even allow my opponent to use the "banked CV's" if I was beating his butt badly everytime he put to sea with CV's. As long as I have as many CV's active as the allied player or more, then I do not worry too much. If I lose my starting CV's as Japan, then I worry.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375