Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The Do-Over

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The Do-Over Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The Do-Over - 10/13/2010 11:32:22 PM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline 		The do-over. It's really what our whole hobby is based on. What would have happened if Japan had known Midway was a trap....

But in a normal PBEM there are no do overs. If you sail your carriers into a trap you are just as doomed as the real IJN.



What would change if we did agree on allowing a few do overs? If after a terrible fleet battle you could say to your opponent "You know what, after this I think we can all see what is going to happen. I want a do over!"



My hope is that this would lead to more carrier clashes. When a tactical defeat doesn't have to mean strategic catastrophe I think people would be more willing to try risky endeavours. And I love risky endeavours! I love when I pull them off, and I love when my opponent bamboozles me with them. But in WITP you can condemn yourself to the long road to defeat very early if you take risks.



I 'd like to try two house rules to encourage carrier battles and interesting operations:

1) That each player may request one do over during each phase of the game (Japanese expansion, Japanese entrenchment, and Allied Advance)

2) That if a carrier is supported by more than 2 others, you must provide 'sigint' to your opponent about the location of this massive task force. (A CVL could count for 2/3 a fleet carrier, and a CVE for 1/3)

But before I embark on a game with those rules, I'd like to hear what people think the result would be. Would it really make for a more 'exciting' game, like I dream of? Or would it just let us take impossible risks and get impossible results thereby?


Post #: 1
RE: The Do-Over - 10/13/2010 11:39:30 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		I suggested this a few months ago and people didn't seem too keen on it. I think it's a good idea (but maybe a bit too far with the sigint part). But as long as both sides agree, anything is fine.

Andrew

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 2
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 12:20:20 AM   
topeverest


Posts: 3376
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline 		Amoral,

There are no redos in my little world war.  We stand by our victories, our defeats, and our debacles.  Understand if you want to, but I wont be signing up for that.


_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 3
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 12:52:59 AM   
DeriKuk


Posts: 359
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline 		The mulligan takes the excitement and tension out of the game. It makes for cheap banality.

Feh!

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 4
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 1:30:21 AM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

The mulligan takes the excitement and tension out of the game. It makes for cheap banality.

Feh!


Finger wagging? Over how I choose to play with a toy? Sir, I take offense!

(No, not really)

(in reply to DeriKuk)
Post #: 5
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 1:34:56 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline 		It totally negates the all effort put by the winning side.


_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 6
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 1:38:09 AM   
Torplexed


Posts: 305
Joined: 3/21/2002
From: The Pacific
Status: offline 		I fear the do-over mentality would begin to creep into a player's planning mentality. "Yeah...this operation is a bit risky, but if succeeds beyond all expectations I will happily reap the rewards. If it fails I pull the do-over."

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 7
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 1:46:05 AM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline 		But... I mean.. you realize there -is- no effort put forth by the winning side? The little bits and bytes that make up your army don't take a morale hit if you roll back the clock.

And if you mean your own effort in coming up with a strategy, then take pleasure in knowing you outwitted your opponent and forced him to use his do-over. And then take pleasure again in the knowledge that the game will still be fun for both players. There's nothing wrong with fighting a losing battle, but a forgone conclusion in 1942 seems no fun. And I think that's why so few AARs have any carrier battles until '44.

(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 8
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 1:51:10 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

And if you mean your own effort in coming up with a strategy, then take pleasure in knowing you outwitted your opponent and forced him to use his do-over. And then take pleasure again in the knowledge that the game will still be fun for both players. There's nothing wrong with fighting a losing battle, but a forgone conclusion in 1942 seems no fun. And I think that's why so few AARs have any carrier battles until '44.


If I were the winner, I won't take pleasure if the opponent ask's for a do-over.

In the loser's perspective...
I believe one can still bounce back after a terrible loss at sea. Not really win the game but still make it really painful for the winner. I know because this happens most of the time in my Guadalcanal PBEM and I still continue the game and harrass the enemy. I take pride that eventhough I'm losing, my oppent sees and respects my fighting spirit. It's fun to be the underdog and not quit.

Finally it makes a long game even longer to finish.

Some technical issues on your proposal.
1) Game phase: how do you determine this? By time? But the game phase is different from history depending on the Japanese player's style and progress. It can be tricky if the players delcare the phase. This means they are not allowed to implement operations that are not appropriate for the phase.
2) How far back do you wind the clock? This matters a lot or do you revert to the start of a particular "phase". If you just want a re-run of the turn without changing orders then the random seed will make sure that you lose again.


< Message edited by jomni -- 10/14/2010 2:07:56 AM >

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 9
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 2:02:19 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		Amoral,

No do-overs. Full stop. Improvise, adapt and overcome.

_____________________________


(in reply to jomni)
Post #: 10
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 2:05:35 AM   
YankeeAirRat


Posts: 633
Joined: 6/22/2005
Status: offline 		A good poker player need to know when to hold them and when to fold them. Taking a risk in any game is part of the joy of gaming. Whether you think that a bunch of bicycle troops can push through to capture a city, or that an amphibious landing at a harbor that is on paper looks like a disaster beach. The one factor that you miss is taking your mulligan is the "luck factor". Just cause you launch a massive strike from your six carriers and achieve total coordination, only to find out that only one of your TB squadrons was able to find the target in the weather. Meanwhile your opponents strike package was able to launch from his two carriers and they find your carriers. In turn at the end of the turn; two of your carriers are limping home at less then 5 knots, the rest of them have suffered system damage that they aren't able to recover your aircraft and continue to conduct your operation. Due to supply issues you can't rebuild your air wings for a couple of months. You do your mulligan and this time you don't achieve any coordination, your air wings get massacred and though they sink both carriers you again don't any aircraft to continue to your operation, and as you withdraw one of your carriers takes a pair of torpedoes from a submarine.

Luck still has a way of biting your rear end. I am against doing the mulligan thing. That is unless you create a new save and game from that point. However, that gets really confusing after a while especially when your running two or three PBEM's with a number of different folks.

_____________________________

Take my word for it. You never want to be involved in an “International Incident”.

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 11
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 3:26:04 AM   
ADB123

 

Posts: 1559
Joined: 8/18/2009
Status: offline 		I allowed my Allied pbem opponent a do-over when it was obvious that he totally misunderstood the re-arming rules for his bombardment TFs. Essentially, he was bombarding with ships that had no ammo, so his bombardment ships got plastered by my shore guns, and then his invasion TF got wiped out by my shore guns. I had only realized myself the requirements for heavy shell re-arming a short while before, so I could well see why he was making that mistake.

Essentially, I saw no reason to demand an advantage when my opponent made a mistake out of ignorance of the details of the Game. I've certainly had a HUGE learning curve coming to AE from WitP, and there are an awful lot of things to unlearn as well as to learn in AE. So I offered a re-do to my opponent and he accepted it.

So eventually my opponent came back, did things the right way, and captured the base. I was able to test out my theories of how things work against a correctly done invasion, so it benefited me too. And in the end a very enjoyable game against a good opponent continued, and to me that is worth much more than what were in my opinion, some falsely gained victories.

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 12
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 3:30:52 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

I allowed my Allied pbem opponent a do-over when it was obvious that he totally misunderstood the re-arming rules for his bombardment TFs. Essentially, he was bombarding with ships that had no ammo, so his bombardment ships got plastered by my shore guns, and then his invasion TF got wiped out by my shore guns. I had only realized myself the requirements for heavy shell re-arming a short while before, so I could well see why he was making that mistake.

Essentially, I saw no reason to demand an advantage when my opponent made a mistake out of ignorance of the details of the Game. I've certainly had a HUGE learning curve coming to AE from WitP, and there are an awful lot of things to unlearn as well as to learn in AE. So I offered a re-do to my opponent and he accepted it.

So eventually my opponent came back, did things the right way, and captured the base. I was able to test out my theories of how things work against a correctly done invasion, so it benefited me too. And in the end a very enjoyable game against a good opponent continued, and to me that is worth much more than what were in my opinion, some falsely gained victories.


Makes sense.


_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to ADB123)
Post #: 13
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 5:47:56 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Amoral--WHERE did you get that last piece of artwork with the Shokaku-Class CV? It is marvelous...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 14
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 6:44:17 AM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline 		The Shokaku in 1944, as depicted by Takeshi Yuki, "Color Paintings of Japanese Warships"

I found it on this site:

http://www.combinedfleet.com/shoksink.htm

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 15
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 9:46:46 AM   
AbeSimpson


Posts: 151
Joined: 6/23/2008
Status: offline 		Once I´ve played a pbem match (UV) and the game ctd very often. So I had to do my turns over and over again. One day I forgot to move my carrier fleet because I did the turn the third time and thougt I had already ordered the cvtf to move back home. When I got the turn back my cvtf was wiped out. I told my opponent what had happend and asked for a do-over. He declined and I lost the game... A few day later my HD crashed and it was clear that UV crashed so often becaus my HD was defect... He still refused a do-over. I never played with him again....

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 16
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 10:39:45 AM   
terje439


Posts: 6813
Joined: 3/28/2004
Status: offline 		In one of my pbem games as the Allies I am in secere pain having lost all USN CVs as well as having a mere Brit CV+CVL remaining (Some guy who signed the papers with a WSC only demanded the rest back in Europe), it is now late Nov -42 and whenever I try to take an island that pesty KB (which MIGHT have lost one single CV) shows up and twarts my plans.

But a do-over? Never crossed my mind, I admired the way my opponent baited me with a CVL to draw my US CVs out in the open where the KB had a blast. It will only make the game even more challenging for me, and I am learning something by it every turn!

Terje

_____________________________

"Hun skal torpederes!" - Birger Eriksen

("She is to be torpedoed!")

(in reply to AbeSimpson)
Post #: 17
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 11:55:45 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline 		The only do over I'd agree to is something known bug related. 

We live and die by the sword of our own making.  I've lost the KB in 1942 and fought on until late 1944 when my opponent declared that it was pointless to continue, short of invading Japan as I was helpless.


_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to terje439)
Post #: 18
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 12:09:31 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Torplexed

I fear the do-over mentality would begin to creep into a player's planning mentality. "Yeah...this operation is a bit risky, but if succeeds beyond all expectations I will happily reap the rewards. If it fails I pull the do-over."


What would prevent your opponent from asking for a "do over" in your above scenario if you were successful, though? It goes both ways; if you made a mistake you get a do-over, but the same could be said for your opponent if you're too successful as well.

Even against the AI I don't use a "do over". I've had invasion TF's ravaged because I forgot to send heavy escorts with them, and there've been several times I invaded with too few men and lost the entire unit to a heavily defended garrison. In my war those poor soldiers don't get resurrected; they paid the ultimate price for my errors.

(in reply to Torplexed)
Post #: 19
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 2:52:17 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1160
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		House rules between two players allows just about anything that is mutually agreeable.

However, a do-over would not be something I would agree to.

My digital soldiers & sailors would have no respect for me! :-)

Regards,
Feltan

_____________________________


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 20
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 3:09:28 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		Anything you agree to with your opponent is fine. I can see where two beginning players would want to do this. After all, the important thing for them is to learn.

That said, the fewer house rules you and your opponent use the better. House rules are easily misunderstood and can lead to arguments and lost friendships. Use them sparingly.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 21
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 7:23:02 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Anything you agree to with your opponent is fine. I can see where two beginning players would want to do this. After all, the important thing for them is to learn.

That said, the fewer house rules you and your opponent use the better. House rules are easily misunderstood and can lead to arguments and lost friendships. Use them sparingly.


Agree. If you find an opponent who wants to play that type of game, then all the power to you, not sure why you're getting howls of outcry. Just know it will play out a lot different than a no-safety-net pbem game.


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 22
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 9:23:42 PM   
Cap Mandrake


Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Asking for a "Do-Over" with a wife or girlfiend or mistress....that's fine...as long as you don't beg.

A Do-over in a PBEM game....not so much.

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 23
RE: The Do-Over - 10/14/2010 10:24:30 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		I'm a player that is willing to allow a 'Do Over' (in fact in my still running Vanilla PBEM we did sort of a 'Do Over' due to problems with LCU movement in China).

Basically, if it was just my own stupidity, I won't ask for one.

However, if it is a bug, game engine error, or something weird happening (like my entire Shanghai Garrison moving from there to Hankow in 1 turn...it happened to me...) then those are definately grounds for a do-over.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)
Post #: 24
RE: The Do-Over - 10/15/2010 8:48:13 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		In several years of PBEM I have once asked for a "do-over". It was in a CHS PBEM where one of my invasion TFs had dropped off 2/3s of the invasion troops in the rendevous hex. I didn't notice it until the next turn when they showed up empty at the target (the rendezvous hex had a tiny portion of coastline I hadn't noticed). Chez was quite gracious in allowing us to back up a couple of day so that I could prevent that foul up.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 25
RE: The Do-Over - 10/15/2010 11:10:28 PM   
TommyG


Posts: 273
Joined: 9/25/2004
From: Irvine Ca
Status: offline 		I have asked for and received several do overs for misuderstandings of game mechanics or for doing things that were just plain stupid. I have also given many do overs especially for the early loss of KB elements. Most are related to CV encounters. I treat them as a surrender and a new game, without the bother of replaying the previous months with the same opponent. In one WitP game the final score was 3-2, ending with a marginal allied vitory in 1946. The do over allowed the tension to continue along with the banter that accompanies a good game with a good opponent.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 26
RE: The Do-Over - 10/15/2010 11:25:52 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

However, if it is a bug, game engine error, or something weird happening (like my entire Shanghai Garrison moving from there to Hankow in 1 turn...it happened to me...) then those are definately grounds for a do-over.


+1

Other than that, do-overs are amoral.

_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 27
RE: The Do-Over - 10/16/2010 12:18:49 AM   
RUDOLF


Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline 		We stand by our victories, our defeats, and our debacles! Definitely no Do-overs.



Divide et impera,
Until Valhall we fight !!


< Message edited by RUDOLF -- 10/16/2010 12:22:46 AM >

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 28
RE: The Do-Over - 10/16/2010 4:09:17 AM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 378
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

We stand by our victories, our defeats, and our debacles! Definitely no Do-overs.



Divide et impera,
Until Valhall we fight !!



Is that always true though? It's easy enough to stand by your victories. But don't pbem games often end with a thrown in towel?

(in reply to RUDOLF)
Post #: 29
RE: The Do-Over - 10/16/2010 12:31:13 PM   
RUDOLF


Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral


quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

We stand by our victories, our defeats, and our debacles! Definitely no Do-overs.



Divide et impera,
Until Valhall we fight !!



Is that always true though? It's easy enough to stand by your victories. But don't pbem games often end with a thrown in towel?





NO !!!

I have picked my opponents carefully, and so far only 2 games of 11 in total has ended prior to mid 1945 !!
Counting now both WITP and AE.






_____________________________

http://wikileaks.org/

(in reply to Amoral)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The Do-Over Page: [1]
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

0.953