RE: The THREAD!!!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: The THREAD!!!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1175 1176 [1177] 1178 1179 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:19:07 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong

Just noticed that subchasers version of AB map is V. 4.....not V 6.2.....would that cause a problem?

i have no earthly idea... maybe we should start another thread on the main forum and hope Andrew Brown can answer some of these questions???...

(in reply to fabertong)

Post #: 35281

LOG! - 1/19/2007 6:19:52 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

BREAKING NEWS:

BLACK HOLE FORMS IN FLEATTLE!!! Local Resident "Vanishes" After Punting Cat - "He just turned into a black sphere!!" Terrified Witnesses Claim
Scientists Baffled!

I'm not baffled. Obviously Terminus recently decided to sit down, then got up for some more bon bon's.

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35282

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:20:54 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

We need votes:

Do you want Russian Fleet on map before Aug 1945 or not (scen 157 vs. 158)
Do you want to use extended map?
We have assigned you NZ Command - is that OK?
i have volunteered to take Russia - is that OK?

EDIT: Oh, yeah: Good morning to you as well!!

Russian Fleet = yes...I know nothing about it...it would be fun to see...I assume there historically was one (if not I change my vote)....ultimately it doesn't really matter to me.

extended map = yes, why not...I have never played it, it would be fun....ultimately it doesn't matter.

NZ = yes, I think this should be part of OZ Com...BTW the Kiwis have sworn to be in Tokyo by 44

Russian = yes, it makes sense.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35283

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:23:27 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Remember me to one who lives there...

Is T in the shower?

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 35284

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:23:38 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

OK - we have faber, ng, spdy, and me voting for extended map - so i think that is a majority...

We have niceguy and me voting for Russian fleet - any other votes for or against???

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35285

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:25:06 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Remember me to one who lives there...

Is T in the shower?

i think he is going to fly out to Fleattle to enter American Idle with Nik...

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35286

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:27:31 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong
Judging by the house rules being put forward ...this will not be a Lunacy game........Mike's top two house rules see to that.......

As for PDUs.....I do take Robert's point that if we are playing CHS .......it seems a bit of a contridiction to have them.....(sniff sniff....weep weep)........

As for timescale......we should aim for Early Feb.......but for us Jap players.......doing turn 1 ....using CHS...which none of us have used before........we could go badly wrong.......so I need a little research time.......

Bruce/Mike....what thoughts on command............Burma......rather than being lumped together with China.......fits more naturally with the Malaya Command....two wings of a shared offensive..........China stands alone......I suspect even more with CHS.............also if you lump it with China....some poor bugger gets stuck with just a land war in Asia........and we all know that is wrong........we should discuss the actual breakdown of command in private.........as to spread as much confusion among the allies as possible.....

I agree with Faber, I could use a little time to digest CHS...at least a week

As to Mike's #1 house rule, I saw this more as a guideline than house rule. To me a house rule is something that a player agrees to do 100% of the time. A guideline would be more of a code of honor sort of thing. Let me give an example: Japan has just taken Dutch Harbor and Anchorage is threatened. I would have no problem sending the 1st USMC Div there to reinforce defences without paying any political point cost. The allies may pay the political points, should pay the political points if they have them, but don't have to. On the other hand if the Allies wanted to conduct offensive missions in the Aelutians, before the could use the 1st USMC to do so, they must first pay to transfer it to North Pac.

So maybe the rule is you have to pay to move LCU and air units to a new area for the purposes of offensive actions, but not for defence, at least not an emergency defensive action...thoughts?

i am with you... by limiting people on the defense from such transfers, i think it might SPEED UP the game by hampering defrensive movements (as you have pointed out).

it could also get tricky (and silly) in some cases: I.e. - you want to put some Aussie troops into DEI or PI to help defend - you would have to first convert them a non-linited HQ (say SWPAC) and then land them, and convert them to ABDA or USAAFE, and then if you needed to evac them, reverse the process, using 4X the number of PPs that you'd otherwise need...

Yes, I know that this would work well from an Allied perspective. I haven't played Japan enough to know if it would unfairly hamstring them.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35287

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:30:39 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: fabertong
Judging by the house rules being put forward ...this will not be a Lunacy game........Mike's top two house rules see to that.......

As for PDUs.....I do take Robert's point that if we are playing CHS .......it seems a bit of a contridiction to have them.....(sniff sniff....weep weep)........

As for timescale......we should aim for Early Feb.......but for us Jap players.......doing turn 1 ....using CHS...which none of us have used before........we could go badly wrong.......so I need a little research time.......

Bruce/Mike....what thoughts on command............Burma......rather than being lumped together with China.......fits more naturally with the Malaya Command....two wings of a shared offensive..........China stands alone......I suspect even more with CHS.............also if you lump it with China....some poor bugger gets stuck with just a land war in Asia........and we all know that is wrong........we should discuss the actual breakdown of command in private.........as to spread as much confusion among the allies as possible.....

I agree with Faber, I could use a little time to digest CHS...at least a week

As to Mike's #1 house rule, I saw this more as a guideline than house rule. To me a house rule is something that a player agrees to do 100% of the time. A guideline would be more of a code of honor sort of thing. Let me give an example: Japan has just taken Dutch Harbor and Anchorage is threatened. I would have no problem sending the 1st USMC Div there to reinforce defences without paying any political point cost. The allies may pay the political points, should pay the political points if they have them, but don't have to. On the other hand if the Allies wanted to conduct offensive missions in the Aelutians, before the could use the 1st USMC to do so, they must first pay to transfer it to North Pac.

So maybe the rule is you have to pay to move LCU and air units to a new area for the purposes of offensive actions, but not for defence, at least not an emergency defensive action...thoughts?

i am with you... by limiting people on the defense from such transfers, i think it might SPEED UP the game by hampering defrensive movements (as you have pointed out).

it could also get tricky (and silly) in some cases: I.e. - you want to put some Aussie troops into DEI or PI to help defend - you would have to first convert them a non-linited HQ (say SWPAC) and then land them, and convert them to ABDA or USAAFE, and then if you needed to evac them, reverse the process, using 4X the number of PPs that you'd otherwise need...

Yes, I know that this would work well from an Allied perspective. I haven't played Japan enough to know if it would unfairly hamstring them.

Well, i would think during the retreat phase, similar problems would arise for the IJA/IJN... you want to defend the Home Islands, but you have no political points... could end things abrubtly...

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35288

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:31:12 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

Family 3x3ers. PDUs is something I'm having a hard time with. It has been so long since I have played with them off that I don't recall how it works. So let me start by asking, if PDUs are off is it true that you will have only one upgrade option for any given unit?

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35289

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:36:06 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Family 3x3ers. PDUs is something I'm having a hard time with. It has been so long since I have played with them off that I don't recall how it works. So let me start by asking, if PDUs are off is it true that you will have only one upgrade option for any given unit?

that's the way i recall it...

However, if people really WANT to play with PDUs, we should vote on it... i *think* faber changed his vote (to no PDUs), but i don't remember if anyone else has really expressed an opinion...

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35290

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:39:00 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

She once was a true love of mine...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35291

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:40:15 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

IN a phased redeployment scenario where clearly Japan is losing the war such a rule wouldn't apply.

The point to such a rule (or guideline really), at least in my mind, is to keep players, both Allied and Japan from globbing all their forces into a mega death star of destruction and using over abundant resources to send them far quicker than was realistic to steam role the enemy. In reality we all know that there were garrisons to be maintained and special equipment and training that was required for redeployment. This slows Japan's advance in the beginning of the war and also keeps the flavor for the allies. An allied example was Mac's tendancy to horde resources and not share with Halsey.

The problem I see with this sort of rule is if one side or the other wants to try some radical strategy like Japan sees victory as the invasion of Alaska and Canada, or they want to invade and Conquer Oz.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35292

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:41:07 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Remember me to one who lives there...

Is T in the shower?

i think he is going to fly out to Fleattle to enter American Idle with Nik...

Was that an intentional spelling error?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35293

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:41:58 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Remember me to one who lives there...

Is T in the shower?

i think he is going to fly out to Fleattle to enter American Idle with Nik...

Was that an intentional spelling error?

actually, it was...

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 35294

RE: LOG! - 1/19/2007 6:42:34 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm not baffled.

No, you're enfeebled...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 35295

RE: LOG! - 1/19/2007 6:44:46 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Hey look! terminus managed to crawl out of the hole he made in the ground!

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 35296

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:45:59 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
I *think* faber changed his vote (to no PDUs), but i don't remember if anyone else has really expressed an opinion...

reluctantly as I recal.

I will go along with the will of the group, but I would like to point out that I don't think PDUs being off goes along well the idea of having to spend political points to move units to a new command. It is almost two restrictive. The allies could find themselves in the situation of having no 4Es in southeast asia, and needing them, while Southwest Pac is flush with them, but doesn't need them.

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35297

RE: The Glorious Thread! - 1/19/2007 6:46:22 PM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

OK then - Scott says we ONLY need to download ONE map... so the question becomes: WHICH map...

i vote with fabertong for the extended map...

I can go with that.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35298

RE: LOG! - 1/19/2007 6:46:55 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Greetings, schismatics and thread brothers.......you too Nik....

I would recommend the extended map with CHS. I also would recommend the same version of the extended map, or you might get the stuck ships problem scott mentioned. That may mean you have to forego using subchaser's map, faber, but he would be the only one with the authority to answer that definitively.

PDUs off means you have an upgrade path for each plane. You only get one choice per step on the path.

Dang it....now that tune is in my head.

Time to flush it out.

Weeeee haaaave the haaaaardest decks of aaaany oooother Ceeeeeee Veeeee......

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 35299

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:47:37 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
I *think* faber changed his vote (to no PDUs), but i don't remember if anyone else has really expressed an opinion...

reluctantly as I recal.

I will go along with the will of the group, but I would like to point out that I don't think PDUs being off goes along well the idea of having to spend political points to move units to a new command. It is almost two restrictive. The allies could find themselves in the situation of having no 4Es in southeast asia, and needing them, while Southwest Pac is flush with them, but doesn't need them.

we need more votes on this:
i take it you vote YES to PDUs.

so we have : RT - no
faber - no (reluctantly)
Niceguy - yes

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35300

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:47:37 PM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
I *think* faber changed his vote (to no PDUs), but i don't remember if anyone else has really expressed an opinion...

reluctantly as I recal.

I will go along with the will of the group, but I would like to point out that I don't think PDUs being off goes along well the idea of having to spend political points to move units to a new command. It is almost two restrictive. The allies could find themselves in the situation of having no 4Es in southeast asia, and needing them, while Southwest Pac is flush with them, but doesn't need them.

I think maybe PDUs should be on, but I am not hard over on this.

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35301

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:48:37 PM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso
I *think* faber changed his vote (to no PDUs), but i don't remember if anyone else has really expressed an opinion...

reluctantly as I recal.

I will go along with the will of the group, but I would like to point out that I don't think PDUs being off goes along well the idea of having to spend political points to move units to a new command. It is almost two restrictive. The allies could find themselves in the situation of having no 4Es in southeast asia, and needing them, while Southwest Pac is flush with them, but doesn't need them.

we need more votes on this:
i take it you vote YES to PDUs.

so we have : RT - no
faber - no (reluctantly)
Niceguy - yes

I will go with Niceguy - Yes

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35302

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:48:44 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

PDU VOTE!!
So now we have:

so we have : RT - no
faber - no (reluctantly)
Niceguy - yes
Bruce - yes

(in reply to BrucePowers)

Post #: 35303

RE: LOG! - 1/19/2007 6:48:57 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Why the extended map?

_____________________________

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 35304

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:50:28 PM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

We need votes:

Do you want Russian Fleet on map before Aug 1945 or not (scen 157 vs. 158)
Do you want to use extended map?
We have assigned you NZ Command - is that OK?
i have volunteered to take Russia - is that OK?

EDIT: Oh, yeah: Good morning to you as well!!

Russian Fleet = yes...I know nothing about it...it would be fun to see...I assume there historically was one (if not I change my vote)....ultimately it doesn't really matter to me.

extended map = yes, why not...I have never played it, it would be fun....ultimately it doesn't matter.

NZ = yes, I think this should be part of OZ Com...BTW the Kiwis have sworn to be in Tokyo by 44

Russian = yes, it makes sense.

I can go with Russian Fleet yes

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35305

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:55:32 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

I will go along with the will of the group, but I would like to point out that I don't think PDUs being off goes along well the idea of having to spend political points to move units to a new command. It is almost two restrictive. The allies could find themselves in the situation of having no 4Es in southeast asia, and needing them, while Southwest Pac is flush with them, but doesn't need them.

I've actually always just tried to eliminate Kwantung units from marching to China without spending points first, and the Allies from stripping the DEI and Philippines of 90% of the forces there to save them for later. I've never played it such that it where it applied to air units as well. That seems overly harsh, because they did move around to different bases run by different hq's without necessarily changing their own command structure. I would definitely restrict Japan from basing IJA air units at IJN bases and vice versa, but more than that....well, it should be discussed and clarified first. Japan will not be able to train air units if the full restriction suggested above is in place.

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 35306

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:56:41 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

OK - Spdy, BP, NG, me all voted FOR Russian fleet - so that is a majority, and we have majority for extended map.

So : we will apparently be playing Scenario 158, extended map. Whew!!!

Now, for those pesky house rules...

(in reply to BrucePowers)

Post #: 35307

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:59:05 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

And to think, we once didn't want to sully The Most Holy of Threads with WitP-related issues...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 35308

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 6:59:20 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I'm SO disillusioned...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 35309

RE: The THREAD!!! - 1/19/2007 7:00:32 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'm SO disillusioned...

Poor baby - are you singing the anti-war version of "Scarborough Fair"??

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 35310

Page: << < prev 1175 1176 [1177] 1178 1179 next > >>

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