Scramble taranto?
L21 #2 ArtofWar1947 (AX+12) vs. Trulpen (AL) PTV
-
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/35323/ww2-path-to-victory-rules-discussion/190?page=8
-
Carrier scrambles are now limited to a maximum of three planes from each sea zone adjoining the battle (player enforced);
-
Convoy blockade zones have been added to sea zones 43 and 38; and
-
Sea zone 46 (by Dutch New Guinea) has been redrawn to further differentiate the reach of the Malayan naval base from sea zone 38. The redrawn sea zone is shown below.
Strangely enough I did get convoyed from z38, which implies that the later map is in effect. Weird.
-
-
Thanks for a list of the changes; this is helpful.
I do not understand the last comment. Were you conveyed from z38 in another PTV game with the previous map? For UK-3 in our game the only land areas adjacent to SZ 38 are Malaya and Sumatra, which are under Japanese control.
-
The new rules (limiting CV scrambles, convoy blockage, and easier access to the Celebes) seem to disadvantage the Axis in the Pacific more than the Allies. If our present game was the first of set or we had used the new map/rules for our first game, I’d agree to the new rules and map and revise the Japanese buys and NCM.
As this is a rematch of a set, it seems only fair that the conditions (i.e., the bid and rules) be keep the same as our first game.
-
I will look into it, but I think the game started with 5.1, but then in round 2 or 3 we changed it. Could be another game though.
I agree that premises should be the same between the two games. Can you please post a screenshot of the area so that I can see what you see? Then I can adjust properly.
-
The change in rules/map must be another game. There was no discussion with me about such changes. For example, I was unaware to the end that Celebes were easily accessible by the Allies or that CV scrambles were limited to 3 per SZ.
I’ll try to figure out how to post a screen shot of the area.
-
There’s usually some kind of Prt Scr-button on the keyboard. It works to just paste it in here with ctrl+v.
-
-
@artofwar1947 said in L21 #2 ArtofWar1947 (AX+12) vs. Trulpen (AL) PTV:
The change in rules/map must be another game. There was no discussion with me about such changes. For example, I was unaware to the end that Celebes were easily accessible by the Allies or that CV scrambles were limited to 3 per SZ.
Actually, it was in our game.
Check out page 2 and 3.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36630/l21-1-trulpen-x-12-vs-artofwar1947-a-p2v/26?page=2
Admittedly, you did not take part in the discussion, but I was under the impression that the 6.0-rules was in effect. If I remember correctly it was implemented in atleast one instance when J took back Java.
Unfortunately the game-file seems to be corrupt due to something with UK, so I can’t check it in the client’s history.
We seem to have a discrepancy at hand.
-
After our Game #1 had started (after your G-3 turn), you adopted PTV Version 6 with a revised map and rules without my informed consent. On p. 2 of the posts of our previous game, you did ask if you should update to Version 6 or if it was too late.
https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36630/l21-1-trulpen-x-12-vs-artofwar1947-a-p2v/59?page=2
I notice the download of the map wasn’t succesful. I have it at v 5.1, while the latest seems to be 6.0. Should I try and update it, or is it too late?
Checking with the designers as well, @regularkid & @Adam514.By the time I viewed the post to our Game #1, there was a long, long string of posts regarding the adoption of PTV Version 6 and the difficulties you were experiencing trying to do so. Admittedly, I did not have the time or interest to carefully read any of these posts (including your initial post discussed previously). My sense was that adopting PTV Version 6 was not worth the trouble. This conclusion seemed to be confirmed by your last two post on page 3 of our Game #1 record. Specifically, I read “Good I can skip it” as “Good, I do not have to adopt PTV Version 6.” The question regarding rule changes with 6.0 was not answered, and this further confirmed for me that there was no need to read through all the posts regarding an upgrade to PTV Version 6.
[https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36630/l21-1-trulpen-x-12-vs-artofwar1947-a-p2v/59?page=3
I think we can perhaps play it continuously with some extra edits. Wasn’t aware that the scramble-rule was player-enforced.
Have been working on the map, but it will take many hours. Good I can skip it. Thanks!]
[https://www.axisandallies.org/forums/topic/36630/l21-1-trulpen-x-12-vs-artofwar1947-a-p2v/59?page=3Or are there any crucial rule-changes with 6.0?*]I played the rest of our Game #1 and the first three rounds of Game 2 with the assumption we were both using PTV Version 5. That is, I assumed the map and rules had not changed. In Game #1, I did not take advantage of the new map/rules. Specifically, I did realize the Allies had easy access to the Celebes (i.e., SZ 45 was only 2, not 3 spaces from SZ 55), that scrambles from CVs were limited to 3 per unit, or that SZ 38 and 43 could be blockaded. Did you not think it curious, for example, that I did not attack blocking Japanese DDs or attack Japanese-held islands more often when the U.S. had many more planes than the 3 defending fighters the Japanese could send to defend?
I am of the opinion that you should not have updated your game version after our Game #1 had been started with PTV Version 5. This certainly should not have been before I explicitly agreed to the change. In seeking a change in the game version, you should have clearly informed me what the implications would be (i.e., explicitly detailed what map and rule changes were involved). As it is, you made a unilateral decision that was not respectful or sporting (i.e., disadvantaged me in our Game #1 and left me underprepared in Game #2).
Given our match and rematch should be done under identical conditions (i.e., the same bid and map/rules) and your insistence that we use the PTV 6 map/rules in our Game #2, I propose the following remedy: (a) As you proposed, we adopt the PTV 6 map/rules in our Game #2 and the Japanese are allowed to adjust the J-2 and J-3 buys and the J-3 NCM. (b) As we assumed different maps/rules for our Game #1, we should replay Game #1 using PTV 6 map/rules. -
I agree. I’m fine with either a) or b). Perhaps the latter is to be prefered? Or maybe a compromise? I’m ok with using the old borders by DNG, but the max 3 air-scramble from fleet is one of the main reasons I took up P2V again.
It was my intention to start our #1 game with 6.0, but the update of the map didn’t work. When I realized, I was looking for a way to fix it. I’m sorry I didn’t make a stronger effort to make sure you were included in the process. Came to be an unintended glitch there.
I didn’t notice any awkward situations, but there may have very well been several when looking with closer scrutiny.
-
Anyway, the most important thing is that we find common ground from which we may continue. I’m confident we’ll be able to do so.
-
If you agree to both (a) AND (b), then we have a way out of this confusing mess.
I apologize for my contribution to the mess. I wish I had the time and energy to read every post carefully and thoughtfully and follow-up if there is any question. For example, I missed the Japanese blockade damage in SZ 43 in Game #1, because I was not looking for it.
-
Would it be ok to continue this #2 game with the 5.1 rules regarding borders, but the 6.0 rules regarding carrier-scramble? Think that’s the simplest solution.
I have to say I’m very opposed to keeping the previous scramble-rule, i e unrestricted carrier-scramble. I remember it was very sick having 15-20 figs to scramble in support of a measly blocker.
The 6.0-rule says max 3 air from a single sz.
I think this rule-change is equally good for J and US, but mainly improves quality of play.
-
If we did (a) AND (b), then the conditions would be equal for both games.
If we do not redo Game 1, and we adopt the restricted CV scramble rule for Game 2, then the conditions would be tipped in your favor. There were numerous times in Game #1 were I did not invade an island or take our a blocking DD because the Japanese had so many CVs. As the US was always playing catch up in the number of CVs, the rule adversely affected the Allies more in Game #1.
As we viewed the map/rule differently in Game #1, this game should be redone.
-
Funny how we played our first game with different rule-sets in mind without really noticing.
I hate the old scramble-rules, but replaying #1 won’t do. We’ll just have to continue this game with 5.1-rules then. Also regarding scrambles.
-
In that case your position is as you intended. I’d like to check quickly if I want to do something different with US.
Have to know how the sz’s look in reality then before I can make any decisions.
-
It was easy not to notice. We were looking at different maps, and the rules enforced were from version 5 for both of us. As nearly as I can tell, there was only a single instance where the results were suspicious (the Japanese blockade of Java), and I was not looking for it.
I’d prefer to redo Game #1 and adopt the version 6 rules for Game #2.
However, keeping Game #1 and continuing to play Game #2 with version 5 rules is fine with me. As I do not need to amend the Japanese purchases and NCM, the UK-3 map you posted should be up to date, with the exception that there should be a transport in SZ 45 (and southern boundary of SZ 46 connects to the eastern boundary of SZ 43 (instead of SZ 45 as you see it). -
Yes, lets continue as is with 5.1. Think it’s the easiest and most straight-forward. Then US had the option to maybe do something with 2 figs and perhaps 1 sub, which I’d like to look at.
-
Sure.
-
So what does the map look like? :)
Suggested Topics
