Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Jacks

 
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 >> After Action Reports >> Jacks Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Jacks - 6/4/2008 5:15:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Hey Guys.

I have been mentioning the Jacks over and over in my posts ever since I embraced Nemo's Operational Concept.  I TOO considered it gamey but no one objected so I reconsidered it and did it.  If my initial feelings are correct then I will not run the turn currently sitting in my inbox and back up to reissue orders.  Needless to say it will throw things into chaos but you know how I HATE gameyness myself. 

I should have made my concerns plainer prior to last night.  Am emailing Dan right now and will hop back on in a few moments.

The Decisive Battle will have to wait a bit...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 691
RE: Jacks - 6/4/2008 5:18:16 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hey Guys.

I have been mentioning the Jacks over and over in my posts ever since I embraced Nemo's Operational Concept. I TOO considered it gamey but no one objected so I reconsidered it and did it. If my initial feelings are correct then I will not run the turn currently sitting in my inbox and back up to reissue orders. Needless to say it will throw things into chaos but you know how I HATE gameyness myself.

I should have made my concerns plainer prior to last night. Am emailing Dan right now and will hop back on in a few moments.

The Decisive Battle will have to wait a bit...



I never realised you were planning to use them on carriers, I always assumed you were using to support LBA operations.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 692
RE: Jacks - 6/4/2008 5:24:56 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		That is the right thing to do. Corsairs should be restricted, but even that is a gray area (though gamey). Jack/George is black and white: Never were CV planes, never intended to be.

_____________________________


(in reply to String)
Post #: 693
RE: Jacks - 6/4/2008 5:32:58 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I just sent this message to Dan:

Remember how your CVs didn't fly CAP for some stupid reason at the Marshalls?  Same thing here.  Those CS were set to follow the entire fleet and--instead--went off by themselves...oh, well... Dan--I need to back up a turn or two.  I haven't run your turn yet but am highly concerned that I have done something highly gamey that I did not understand until I got a big reaction within the AAR overnight.  There has been a huge discussion over how to fight the American Fleet and I've taken to an unorthodox strategy.  The strategy itself isn't gamey but I misunderstood an element of it and have decided to not do it. Put simply, I placed a reasonable number of high-performance navy Fighters onto some of my CVs that are not CV-usable.  I THOUGHT they were but I voiced the concern on the AAR and no one said anything.  Last night I published my Order of Battle and a number of good readers and contributors jumped in saying 'wait a minute that is really gamey.'  Don't think that anyone was actually fully understanding/reading what I was contemplating.  Readers think it is the equal of Americans having Corsairs on CVs prior to mid-1944.  I'll have to downgrade the planes before giving battle. You know how I hate gameyness!  I wanted you to know NOW so there is no major blow-up over this.  What do you think? If you need outside commentary, post this note onto your AAR.  I am doing so onto mine right now. A much chagrined Adm Cochran Readers:  I really thought you guys understood what i was doing prior to my publishing the Order-of-Battle.  This was simply a misunderstanding and I am sure Dan will want some feedback on his AAR.  PLEASE do not reveal anything other then what I have done... Thanks,John 

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 694
RE: Jacks - 6/4/2008 5:35:47 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		That was a very good thing to do John, I'm really happy to see you made that offer :)

I only wish I had realised what you were planning beforehand, so the whole situation wouldn't have happened. I also hope you have enough Zekes do replace those Jacks at hand.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 695
RE: Jacks - 6/4/2008 5:56:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thanks Guys.  I do not have enough airframes to re-equip them.  I am producing over 200 Jacks a month and about 150 Zekes.  Since I have had several weeks of game-time to contemplate and embrace Nemo's Strategy, I bumped the Jacks even more...

Gonna have to rethink things and see how many airframes I have of A6M3a.  Gawd--I thought you guys understood.  I didn't think it was right to put Jack's on but when no one objected and I said 'well why not!' 

To do this right we may need to shift back to the 18th or 19th.  A move back about 3 days should enable me to make the downgrades and still make the planned battle a few days later then the current turn of the 22nd.

Isn't this what AARs are all about?  You guys have been great and I so respect that it cannot be imagined.  Where else do things like this take place?!!  PLEASE jump onto Dan's AAR and comment about this to him.  He is probably pretty confused at the moment.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to String)
Post #: 696
RE: Jacks - 6/4/2008 6:05:42 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hey Guys.

I have been mentioning the Jacks over and over in my posts ever since I embraced Nemo's Operational Concept. I TOO considered it gamey but no one objected so I reconsidered it and did it. If my initial feelings are correct then I will not run the turn currently sitting in my inbox and back up to reissue orders. Needless to say it will throw things into chaos but you know how I HATE gameyness myself.

I should have made my concerns plainer prior to last night. Am emailing Dan right now and will hop back on in a few moments.

The Decisive Battle will have to wait a bit...



I never realised you were planning to use them on carriers, I always assumed you were using to support LBA operations.



must have overlooked that too, never thought you would use them on carriers, nor did I think about the possibility that they are even carrier capable in Brian´s mod as I thought he would have made all non carrier capable aircraft non carrier capable (like he has done it with the first model of the Corsair).

_____________________________


(in reply to String)
Post #: 697
RE: Jacks - 6/4/2008 6:28:58 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		While I don't see a problem with Jacks being used on CVs IF they are intentionally carrier-capable in the mod I think it useful to point out that in EA Jacks are NOT carrier-capable (for the reasons given above in terms of design ).

One thing: If you go back then I think you should add a codicil so that your opponent has to recapitulate his moves over the last couple of turns so that he can't jump down to Saipan and raid you while your CV airgroups are undergoing repair and regrouping. That's just a sensible little addition to make to prevent anyone taking advantage ( same would go for you obviously )

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 698
RE: Jacks - 6/4/2008 6:49:25 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I agree Nemo.  I am going through my email finding the turn that should place us the day before he moves NW towards Okinawa.  It'll suck having to redo this but I think that should be reasonably fair.

My thoughts are to propose a Pacific hold in the Marianas/Bonins Sector until we reach the 9/22 turn.  At that point we can do anything we want.

Haven't heard back from Dan yet.  He may have a meeting or be working on stuff.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 699
Dan's Confused - 6/4/2008 6:59:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Just heard from Dan and he doesn't understand the problem.  This is what I wrote him:

One of the first truly excellent Fighters the Japanese produced was the Jack.  It is fully able to keep up with your Hellkitties and I moved some onto my CVs.  Problem is that they were never DESIGNED to serve on a CV.  It is stupid but I am breaking the rules.  There is a real chance that they won't even fly OFF the CVs.   There has been a fast-and-furious conversation running on my AAR ever since this became known.  Thank goodness we didn't lock horns PRIOR to this discovery!  I think we need to move back a few days so I can downgrade the planes.  Am going through my notes and the AAR as to when.  My initial thoughts are to the day prior to your move towards the NW with the American CVs.  Nothing happened then and your moved back towards Okinawa after I activated my Operation. This will be a pain in the ass to do.  We'll have to do a hold in the Marianas/Bonins area during that time and then jump back into it on the gameturn of the 22nd (where we are currently). Ask about this on your AAR.  There will be a host of people who'll jump on and help clear things up.John Can some of you jump onto his AAR and help him understand?  Thanks.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 700
Restart Date - 6/4/2008 7:02:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I think that we should move back to the 18th.  This is the day before he moved out from Iwo Jima.  It would give me four days to shift fighters and be in better shape...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 6/4/2008 7:03:17 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 701
RE: Restart Date - 6/4/2008 7:28:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		This exchange just occurred between us:

I just PM'd Brian about the Mod but everyone is telling me that though the Jack and later the George are naval fighters they are NOT carrier fighters.  It isn't a big surprise but it has served to massively confuse me.  Going back one turn is OK BUT I will be highly vulnerable due to shifting six Daitai of Jacks over to something less lethal.   If we could agree on a 'hold fast' order for our Fleets for--say Sept 21 (1 turn back) to Sept 24--then that might work.  Four game turns should be enough for me to get things shifted and then we can decide who rules the Pacific in 1943.  What do you think of that? 

----- Original Message ----- From: ropersfive@aol.com To: jrc_3@msn.com Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:19 AMSubject: Re: Important Note
I'm still not sure I understand, but I'm inclined to proceed as is.

As far as I know, the only planes you can put on a CV are "carrier-capable" planes.  If your Jacks are carrier-capable, then so be it.  Let's proceed, because we had no house rule against it.

If you put non-carrier-capable planes on a CV, then yes, that's not kosher.  I don't know how you would even do that.  In that event, let's back up a single turn.

Calling things gamey or not is really difficult.  In the first place, what if you know something wasn't done, but your opponent doesn't.  Remember when you said flying LRCAP over carriers was gamey?  I had no idea.  You were basing that call on your knowlege and experience, something I didn't have.  (Later, somebody pointed out that Americans did use LRCAP over carriers, so it wasn't gamey anyhow).

Same thing about refueling at a level one port; I had no idea.

On the other hand, you stripped units from China early to see what you might do with them elsewhere.  Nothing gamey about that in my opinion; it's simply trying something different and within the rules.

I thought your bombing the Australia merchant fleet out of existence was a bit questionable.  In real life, the Aussies would have sent those ships south out of harm's way, but the map prevented me from doing that.  So you trapped them in a corner and hammered them in a way that wasn't realistic, but was forced on us by map edges.  But nothing in the rules to prevent that, so I had to take my medicine.

So, if Jacks are carrier-capable, proceed.  If they aren't, then I don't know how you even did what you did and I'd agree we need to back up one turn.

I think that if Dan and I did this things would be OK.  Move back to the previous turn and then hold 3 seems reasonable enough.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 702
RE: Restart Date - 6/4/2008 7:34:21 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		We all know that Jacks weren't carrier capable.  I'm sure they didn't have tail hooks.  I'd recommend that, regardless of whether or if you decide to go back x number of turns, I'd remove the Jacks.  Modify (delay) your plans and make things right.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 703
RE: Restart Date - 6/4/2008 8:24:27 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		This is quite a civilized war you chaps are having.

It reminds me of those two super-polite Disney chipmunks..."after you"..."no, after you"..."uh uh, after you, I insist"

Unloading the Jacks seems the best solution. The next thing you know, the Yanks will be wanting to base B-25's on the Hornet.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 704
RE: Restart Date - 6/4/2008 8:41:58 PM   
rtrapasso


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

As far as I know, the only planes you can put on a CV are "carrier-capable" planes.


i think this is the problem: you can load any (single-engine) planes you want onto a carrier - you can fly them OFF, but unless they are carrier capable, you can't land them on the carrier again

Carriers make nice aircraft transports, and were sometimes used this way in the course of real events, such as the flights of Spitfires off the Wasp(?) to Malta.

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 705
RE: Restart Date - 6/4/2008 9:11:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Dan and I got it settled.  We backed up to the 20th so orders are written for the 21st.  I just combed through my training Daitai in China and changed their AC to something else to increase my A3a pool.  Went back to Saipan and changed out all of the Jacks.

We have a 'stand fast' order in place until the 24th and then all Hell can break loose.  It IS a civilized war cap Mandrake! 

Man did we all have a miscommunication!  I wasn't aware that the planes would fly AT ALL from the decks and thought everyone understood what I was doing/planning.  I've got a headache and have wasted half the day wrestling with this.

Thanks again everyone!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 706
RE: Restart Date - 6/4/2008 9:27:27 PM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Enough with the headaches!  Let's see some turns run here! 

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 707
RE: Restart Date - 6/4/2008 9:27:48 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Good, now that this is sorted would you guys PLEASE get back to beating eachother to death  

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 708
Rolling Again! - 6/5/2008 12:30:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Just got the 21st turn done and sent.

Dan's CV headed back towards Iwo Jima, my CS TF did not get creamed, and I started exchanging Jacks for A6M3a/Zeke airframes as fast as possible.  Would like to have more Zekes so we'll see what might be possible by the time we get to the end of the 24th.

No excitment on the board.  Dan might be trying to come after Hanoi again but I am stronger there now then when he attacked before.  Things seem rather calm at the moment...




_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 709
RE: Rolling Again! - 6/5/2008 1:20:27 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Good Lord.  I should have known it wouldn't be this easy.  Dan is now peeved that he doesn't get the 2 CS and DD sunk in their suicide charge when they acted contrary to orders...

Has anyone chimed in on his AAR who understands what happened today?

Grrrr... 

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 710
RE: Rolling Again! - 6/5/2008 2:09:20 AM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Good Lord.  I should have known it wouldn't be this easy.  Dan is now peeved that he doesn't get the 2 CS and DD sunk in their suicide charge when they acted contrary to orders...

Has anyone chimed in on his AAR who understands what happened today?

Grrrr... 


Pah! I killed the Marblehead and the Stinking Boise on turn 1 prior to a restart with GoodBoyLaddie. Both of those stinking ships are still alive and kicking in our restarted game.

No complaints from meeeeee on it - but I am plotting and scheaming to get even (bwa-ha-ha-ha).

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 711
RE: Rolling Again! - 6/5/2008 2:40:28 AM   
heenanc

 

Posts: 412
Joined: 2/25/2007
Status: offline 		I'm going to give my thoughts but may regret it... I think you made a mistake in thinking these aircraft were available for carriers, Dan has agreed to turn the clock back (someone I would like to play in the future as he is a honest guy) if this was me (everyone is different) I would be willing to lose the CS + escort as a good gesture as I had been dealt (good gesture) one recently. Plus in the real time they've already been hit (maybe lost) anyway...

Just my thoughts...

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 712
RE: Rolling Again! - 6/5/2008 3:06:19 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I wrote him about an hour ago saying the exact same thing.  He wanted to still try the dead turn and I refused.  It took me FOREVER to shift the air groups over to appropriate aircraft.  Drove me nuts doing it and so I told him if he wanted me to scuttle them or sending them charging right at him I would--just no re-run of the turn that never was...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to heenanc)
Post #: 713
RE: Rolling Again! - 6/5/2008 3:07:31 AM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		I've been enjoying the dual AARs a lot.

I would think that at the very least the ships in question should be left out of the upcoming Operation.  If the CS TF soaked up some airstrikes that could have hit the KB, I'd not be happy if I was Canoerebel.

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to heenanc)
Post #: 714
RE: Rolling Again! - 6/5/2008 3:12:49 AM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		I don't see any need to sacrifice ships which hared off ( not at your command ). IF you had sent them in by your command then I think you should sacrifice them but they went off cause of a bug. I don't see why you should get punished again for that when you've gone back by several days.

I think the trade-off will be that one day when everything goes badly for him and he needs a redo you'll have to lose some minor victories in the run-up too. Over the course of the game it'll balance out.

(in reply to heenanc)
Post #: 715
RE: Rolling Again! - 6/5/2008 3:17:15 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I've offered redos periodically to Dan (like off the Marshalls when Wasp sank without ANY CAP!) but he refused.  We'll see.  Nemo I concur with your position.  I didn't send them in to be killed.  The game did that and not me...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 716
RE: Restart Date - 6/5/2008 3:51:52 AM   
Sheytan


Posts: 863
Joined: 11/28/2006
Status: offline 		id have to agree with his that you parking and trapping his ships in a map corner was major gameyness. honestly, we all look for some glimmer of fair play in the game, doing things that ARE OBIVIOUSLY wrong is gamey, you exploited the map limitations to your own advantage. If I was your opponent, id say take your chances ;} if they dont fly you die.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This exchange just occurred between us:

I just PM'd Brian about the Mod but everyone is telling me that though the Jack and later the George are naval fighters they are NOT carrier fighters.  It isn't a big surprise but it has served to massively confuse me.  Going back one turn is OK BUT I will be highly vulnerable due to shifting six Daitai of Jacks over to something less lethal.   If we could agree on a 'hold fast' order for our Fleets for--say Sept 21 (1 turn back) to Sept 24--then that might work.  Four game turns should be enough for me to get things shifted and then we can decide who rules the Pacific in 1943.  What do you think of that? 

----- Original Message ----- From: ropersfive@aol.com To: jrc_3@msn.com Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 10:19 AMSubject: Re: Important Note
I'm still not sure I understand, but I'm inclined to proceed as is.

As far as I know, the only planes you can put on a CV are "carrier-capable" planes.  If your Jacks are carrier-capable, then so be it.  Let's proceed, because we had no house rule against it.

If you put non-carrier-capable planes on a CV, then yes, that's not kosher.  I don't know how you would even do that.  In that event, let's back up a single turn.

Calling things gamey or not is really difficult.  In the first place, what if you know something wasn't done, but your opponent doesn't.  Remember when you said flying LRCAP over carriers was gamey?  I had no idea.  You were basing that call on your knowlege and experience, something I didn't have.  (Later, somebody pointed out that Americans did use LRCAP over carriers, so it wasn't gamey anyhow).

Same thing about refueling at a level one port; I had no idea.

On the other hand, you stripped units from China early to see what you might do with them elsewhere.  Nothing gamey about that in my opinion; it's simply trying something different and within the rules.

I thought your bombing the Australia merchant fleet out of existence was a bit questionable.  In real life, the Aussies would have sent those ships south out of harm's way, but the map prevented me from doing that.  So you trapped them in a corner and hammered them in a way that wasn't realistic, but was forced on us by map edges.  But nothing in the rules to prevent that, so I had to take my medicine.

So, if Jacks are carrier-capable, proceed.  If they aren't, then I don't know how you even did what you did and I'd agree we need to back up one turn.

I think that if Dan and I did this things would be OK.  Move back to the previous turn and then hold 3 seems reasonable enough.



(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 717
RE: Restart Date - 6/5/2008 4:35:09 AM   
USSAmerica


Posts: 18715
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Graham, NC, USA
Status: offline 		I am truly impartial on this issue, other than being sorry to see such a fun and interesting game hit a mechanical snag.  I mostly don't want either of you to become upset and have the game end on bad terms.

"Do overs" are always controversial in my mind.  It's always so hard to try to cover all of the what if's.  My suggestion would be to take the original turn, with any mistakes that were made, and play it out. 

This is not a criticism, so please don't take it as such, John.  From my perspective, you made a mistake when you loaded the Jacks on your carriers.  You did not realize all the implications of this (not realistic being way down on my list, if the mod were allowing it intentionally).  You were also not aware that they may not fly combat missions from the carriers.  You made the moves and then ended your turn and sent it to Dan.  I've made bonehead moves that I regretted, once I ended my turn and emailed it.  I think at that point you just have to steel yourself to accept the results, learn from the mistake, and become a better player. 

From Dan's perspective, you made a mistake, but ended the turn, so he should not have to give up the small progress he has made (eating your stray TF) so you can correct the mistake.  I know that that TF ended up on it's own due to the irrational behavior of the game, but this has happened to all of us many times without replaying the turn, and I'm sure it has happened in this game in the past.  I understand that it is a little more complicated than that, but that is how it appears to him.   It's very possible (and likely since both you and Dan are mature adults ) that you guys can reach some kind of mutually acceptable arrangement for the "do over".  In my opinion the best way to keep up the integrity of the game would be to just ride out the initial turn, with the Jacks, and then correct the situation by replacing them with Zeros afterward.  I'm sure that would not be the most satisfying solution from your side, but I think it might be the best solution to keep up the spirit of the game. 

I probably should not have even opened my mouth, and I'll go back to eating my popcorn and enjoying the show that you guys are so graciously and capably sharing with all of us.  I hope a solution that makes both of you is reached soon.  I want to see blood in the water! 



_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Sheytan)
Post #: 718
RE: Restart Date - 6/5/2008 5:40:38 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Whoever contributed to Dan's AAR thank you very much.  He now understands what happened and we are good on all accounts.  We move forward so the war can go on after hitting this snag. 

Will share more when the boys are sleeping.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to USSAmerica)
Post #: 719
RE: Restart Date - 6/5/2008 6:53:28 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		USS America:  It is always good when you emerge out from under your pile of popcorn! 

We'll get back to the action starting tomorrow.  Must provide a word of warning though.  Dan is leaving for a week's vacation on Friday night and my family and I are taking off for the weekend as well.

I plan to use the week off to do comprehensive evaluation of the campaign.  Hopefully a lot of you guys can jump in a provide some thoughts and perspective.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 720
Page:   <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> After Action Reports >> Jacks Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.672