Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Seeking allied opponent for GC#2

 
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 >> Opponents Wanted >> Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/21/2011 10:19:08 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		EDIT: Updated HRs (2012/01/07) (This is the Greyjoy game, I'm using this thread to track HRs)
*2 day turns*
-Non-historical turn but Japanese cannot invade deep in allied territory 1st turn (e.g., no Mersing Gambit)
-Allies may not form new TF on 1st turn (may move the already formed TFs).
-Max one port attack turn 1
-Reliable torps off, allied damage control on
-Fighters can be set up to an altitude where they get their second best manuever rating
-Para units must be whole before paradroppping (no dropping fragments)
-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria -> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia). You can retreat/reform a line across a friendly border to fight the same enemy (e.g., Japanese units in China can retreat into Indochina as long as they continue to fight Chinese, or Burma units can retreat into India as long as they continue to fight Japanese on the Burma border).
-If activating Russia, Japan must give Russia 1 week to redeploy units.
-Russian and other allied units cannot be co-located or occupy each other's bases.
-Thai units can move into the Burma panhandle and Indochina (but not beyond).
-No city bombing under 20,000 ft. Other than this, all city bombing (China, DEI is fine).
-Night bombing: you can fly bombers up to 50% of moonlight (e.g., 60% mooonlight = 30 bombers). Min altitude = 10K ft at night. EXCEPTION: You can fly unlimited numbers of bombers at night at 15K ft+ to attack manpower in city bombing.
-4Es on naval attack restricted to 15k and only one group per base
-Landing or paradropping on non base/dot hex is forbidden
-No gamey use of many single ships to confuse naval combat routines (but picket ships are fine).
-Naval CAP trap ("bait&CAP") outside your own base must use as bait a TF composed at least CV/CVL/CVEs with 180 a/c
-Normal withdrawls ("on")
-PDU on

**Please be cautious - don't lose your carriers early and then quit**

< Message edited by rader -- 1/30/2012 10:21:47 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/21/2011 11:27:00 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline 		I was looking for a jap opponent....I do not know scenario 2 that well...which are the differences between 1 and 2?


(in reply to rader)
Post #: 2
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/21/2011 11:31:03 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		It is listed somewhere, I can't remember where. I think basically Japan gets a few more divisions throughout 1942 and the Shinano as a Taiho CV.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 3
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/21/2011 11:46:22 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline 		Ok, fine for me.
However if it's ok for you i'd discuss some of your HRs....

- Non-historical turn but Japanese cannot invade deep in allied territory 1st turn (e.g., no Mersing Gambit)
Yes, fine. Common sense should be enough here...

-Port attack on both Manila and Pearl is fine (this is negotiable)
Isn't this causing some serious umbalance in the first year of war? i see the entire US pac fleet out of order, as long as the best subs in the PI...i'd say one port attack should be enough on turn 1... what do you think?

-Reliable torps off, allied damage control on
Yes, fair

- No sweep/CAP above 20,000 ft (no stratosweeps)
Agree. it's also unrealistic to fly above 7k feet...normally fighters engaged below that alt

-Para units must be whole before paradroppping (not fragments all over)
Agree. right and fair

-Must pay PPs to cross borders that start *friendly* (e.g., Manchuria -> China, or India -> Burma). Note that you can cross borders that start out enemy (e.g., Kwangtung units can move into Russia).
Agree, but for russia i'd say that, at least, if Jap decides to invade Russia, it must activate it at least 2 weeks before crossing the border...at the moment Russia is undefendable (no a/c replacements till 45 and Japan can easily trap everything around Vladivostok just crossing the border...)

-Thai units can move into the Burma panhandle and Indochina.
Ok

-No 4Es on naval attack
even above 10,000 feet? 15k could be fine? This engine, as far as i can read in the forum, should handle this pretty realisticly... what d'u think?
Anyway...i'm not thinking of mass 4E bombers on naval attack to counter the KB...probably just one group per base and above 10 or 15k feet...

-No city *or night* bombing under 20,000 ft (it's too powerful). Other than this, all city bombing (China, DEI is fine).
Ok, don't know if it's too powerful...trusting your wise judgment

-Landing in non-base hexes is ok, but no using fragment invasions to cut retreat paths (this is negotiable).
mmm....i'd say, to avoid any possibile problem, to restrict the landings at dot-base hexes...same for paradrops.

What about withdrawals?

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 4
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/22/2011 12:40:14 AM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		(PM sent)

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 5
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/22/2011 12:44:50 AM   
sdhundt

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 9/6/2002
From: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Status: offline 		That's SO, SO, SO frustrating to set up a game and play the first few turns (which are the hardest and longest to get going) and then to have an opponent quit because he is an idiot and loses his carriers. We should start some sort of rating system for pbem players so you can tell ahead of time who is a loyal player. I WILL play a NEW player but if he quits on me he would get a bad rating from me so then other players know to be cautious. Just an idea, it has been kicked around by other veteran players as well. Maybe I'll put it together myself.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 6
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/22/2011 12:50:50 AM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline 		PM recieved and sent back.

Yes sdhundt, but somebody should give to the newcomers a chance of becoming veteran and reliable

(in reply to sdhundt)
Post #: 7
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/22/2011 12:52:14 AM   
sdhundt

 

Posts: 300
Joined: 9/6/2002
From: Milwaukee, WI, USA
Status: offline 		I'm ALL FOR newcomers playing. We need new players but not ones who quit. Hell I'll play ANY new player once.

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 8
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/26/2011 6:43:25 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		I am green as grass, but when I get another three months against the AI I hope to play as a competent, if not able Allied opponent. Beware the raw recruit training in the wings.

(in reply to sdhundt)
Post #: 9
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/27/2011 1:29:04 AM   
fodder


Posts: 2160
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Daytona Beach
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

Beware the raw recruit training in the wings.


x2

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 10
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 3/27/2011 2:40:12 PM   
mudshark

 

Posts: 10
Joined: 9/4/2010
Status: offline 		I am in my first game as Allies and I lost 2 carriers in Jan 42, being stupid (man Nells can do a job on carriers)I continue to play its not like Allies don't get more than enough carriers to recover. Turn 113 now and learning a ton from getting my butt kicked! lol

(in reply to fodder)
Post #: 11
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 1/7/2012 5:18:17 PM   
rader


Posts: 1238
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline 		bump with updated HRs...

(in reply to mudshark)
Post #: 12
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 1/7/2012 6:12:50 PM   
GreyJoy


Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline 		Funny the read it back after 10months....think i've been a reliable allied opponent:-)

(in reply to rader)
Post #: 13
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 1/7/2012 10:13:35 PM   
zuluhour


Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline 		+1

(in reply to GreyJoy)
Post #: 14
RE: Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 - 1/8/2012 3:31:01 PM   
Rapunzel


Posts: 141
Joined: 4/20/2005
From: Germany
Status: offline 		First it looked like you seek a new opponent ... .

I was quite tempted

(in reply to zuluhour)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Opponents Wanted >> Seeking allied opponent for GC#2 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

4.340