+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 50 1 2 3 11 26 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 990

Thread: Influence Wars - Japan 1936 HPP Interactive AAR - COMMENT THREAD

  1. #1
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,231

    Influence Wars - Japan 1936 HPP Interactive AAR - COMMENT THREAD

    *AAR approved by loki100*
    *This is a comment thread. Anyone may post here. The AAR content can be shown here: Gameplay Thread*



    General idea

    Have you ever wanted to play a game which represented domestic relations between the army/navy/airforce properly? I know that I have, that's for sure. We have all read about conflicts between Donitz and Goering, von Rundsted and Rommel etc., but few games seem to tackle the subjects.

    I intend to bring the idea to life by creating an interactive AAR with a specific set of rules. And which country can be a better choice in terms of internal conflicts than the Empire of Japan?


    - there are 2 factions - the Imperial Japanese Army and the Imperial Japanese Navy.

    - the goal of the IJN faction is to dominate the Pacific Ocean, i.e. conquer all Pacific islands, including Australia and New Zealand

    - the goal of the IJA faction is to dominate the Asian mainland, i.e. conquer China, India and Siberia

    - there are two minor factions within the IJN, each controlled by one or more players:

    a) the 1st faction is composed of old guards who favour heavy capital ships like BBs and BCs
    b) the 2nd factions is composed of proponents of the carrier-based navy

    - there are two minor factions within the IJA, each controlled by one or more players:

    a) the 1st faction is composed of the officers who favour the attack on the USSR and Mongolia
    b) the 2nd faction is composed of the officers who favour the attack on the Southeast Asia





    Player requirements

    - at least 4 players - 2 for IJA and 2 for IJN; more can be invited if the players want to

    - the players cannot be noobs; you don't need to be an expert, but you must need to know how the game works ("What is IC?") and it's best if you have some experience with HPP (Historical Plausibility Mod)

    - the players must be active; I reserve myself the right to replace an inactive player with a new one. Note that my approach to this is reasonable, i.e. I have no problems with periodical inactivity due to exams, Christmas time etc. Preferably, you should notify other players when you enter such period. I will notify the players about my periods of inactivity, too.

    - both the players and the commenters must express civilised behaviour; comments, suggestions, hints and ideas are fine, insults and spam are not

    Victory conditions

    - no Japanese core territory, Manchuria or Korea can be controlled by the enemy

    - the game ends in Jan 1946 unless Japan is defeated earlier

    - both the IJA and the IJN can "win" by gaining points for achieving their VCs:

    *territory controlled by puppets (but not by allies) counts, too

    a) Universal points (all factions gain them):

    - each Chinese VP - 1 pt
    - each Indochinese VP - 1 pt
    - each Siamese and Malayan VP - 1 pt

    Generally, taking those VPs is in the common interest of both factions.

    b) IJA points

    - each Russian/Mongolian/Tannu Tuvan VP - 1 pt
    - each Burman VP - 2 pts
    - each Indian VP - 1 pt
    - additionally, the given minor faction can win IF its main faction won and it gained more points than the other minor faction:

    I. Strike North Faction - 2 pts per each Russian/Mongolian/Tannu Tuvan VP, additional 6 pts if the USSR was attacked before the Southeast Asia (skirmishes don't count, unless they escalated into a bigger conflict)
    II. Strike South Faction - 1 pt per each Indian VP, 1 pt per each Burman VP, 0,5 pt per each Siamese and Malayan VP, 2/3 pt per each Dutch VP, additional 4 pts if the Southeast Asia was attacked first

    c) IJN points

    - each PHI VP - 1 pt
    - each Dutch VP - 2/3 pt
    - each Australian VP - 0,5 pt
    - each New Zealand VP - 0,75 pt
    - other Pacific VPs - 1 pt per each
    - additionally, the given minor faction can win IF its main faction won and it gained more points than the other minor faction:

    I. Old Guards - 1.5 pt for each BB built and not destroyed and 1 pt for each BC built and not destroyed
    II. Carrier Proponents - 1.5 pt for each CV built and not destroyed and 0.5 pt for each CVL built and not destroyed

    d) Special points

    - a very compelling argument during the planning phase - X pt(s) [can be influenced by the community, but will be awarded by myself; this is to encourage posting of detailed posts instead of bland ones; I will be conservative about it, though]

    Any non-Chinese enemy VP will count towards our victory only partially if it has been taken during the last 6 months of gameplay (July-December 1945). The closer the date is to the end date, the lower the value, e.g. when 3 months to the end date remains, the VP's value will be divided by half. If we lose the VP and recapture it later, only the date of the recapture will count.

    This is to discourage gamey late-game invasions etc.






    Total points and victory scale

    <50 Defeat

    49<66 Minor Victory

    65<81 Major Victory

    >80 Ultimate Victory

    Even if one faction has more points than the other one, its victory will always be minor/major/whatever if the total number of points is lesser than the number specified above and it cannot win if there are less than 50 points total. This is to ensure that some cooperation will be present no matter what. The whole point of the AAR is to represent the political and military constrains caused by internal rivalry in a better way, not to cause ruin to the other faction.





    Gameplay

    The Basics

    - we will play with the HPP mod, 2.04 SF version

    - each nation Japan is at war with gets bonuses to IC/MP/officer recruitment/unit buildtime/supply throughput; this is for challenge

    - trade is automated, although it will be possible to cancel trade agreements during war (mostly in order to save convoy transports)

    - game is divided into sessions, i.e. AAR's chapters, of varying length (typically longer during peacetime and shorter during wartime)

    - the armies fighting on the Asian mainland and the Pacific islands will be AI-controlled (I will make sure that the AI doesn't make anything totally idiotic; the point of this rule is to make the AAR progress at a quicker pace and to add to the challenge; the AI is simply not good enough to defeat three players assisted by common forummites)

    - the navy and the airforce will be manually controlled; amphibious invasions will be done manually, but after the beachhead is established, they will be turned over to the AI; paratroopers are manually controlled, too, but in order to represent them more realistically, there is a maximum limit of paratrooper brigades determined by base IC divided by 10 and rounded up, e.g. 100 base IC / 10 = max 10 brigades allowed; they cannot be dropped on the enemy's capital (it has too dramatic effects and the AI cannot handle that); they can, however, be used to close encirclements, establish beachheads, support attacks etc.
    - no additional information besides the pieces contained in my posts will be given, i.e. I will not answer questions like "How does the situation in Burma looks like?". I will try my best to include all relevant information in my posts. Their structure will be organised in a clear fashion for the sake of functionality.





    The Influence System

    - both factions fight for influence (IC/MP/LP/leaders) between the sessions and decide how to distribute their resources by creating plans, i.e. desired OOBs, division composition, research goals, proposed offensive and defensive operations, occupation policies etc., while I will try my best to execute them. You can change your plans as many times as you wish until you see the post saying "Plan approved". I will notify you in advance when this is about to happen.

    - if sth concerns both factions, e.g. IC construction or change of laws, then they must both agree to a given plan; if they cannot, then I will decide the course of action

    - both factions can request air support from each other; saying no just for the sake of saying no will not be permitted - you must make a sensible argument if you refuse to lend air assets to the other faction

    - both factions must approve intelligence "budget"

    - the IJA cannot build ships

    - the IJN is tasked with transporting troops overseas, including the IJA's ones

    - the IJA is tasked with conducting major offensives, including the ones planned by the IJN. However, the IJN must rely mostly on its own forces for defence, unless battles with major enemy forces are involved

    - each faction can place its own needs over the needs of the other faction as long as it provides a solid explanation; if it doesn't, then their orders will be overruled by the Emperor, i.e. me

    - both factions are responsible for the defence of Japanese home islands; in the matters concerning them, the factions have to come to an agreement before the plan can be approved

    - infrastructure, naval bases, AAs etc. are part of the IJN's or IJA's budget, depending on the place they are built in; both factions must agree to construct those improvements on Japanese home islands

    - both mini-factions in a given faction must come to an agreement in regard to build orders etc. before the plan can be approved

    - SAGs will be controlled by the old guards, while CTFs will be controlled by the carrier-proponents

    - players can create their own internal structure and give control over certain assets to specified players, but it doesn't change the voting rules

    - if there is more than 1 player in a faction or a mini-faction, then they must agree on a common plan before it can be approved

    - I decide how much influence each faction gets based on the quality of the arguments of the faction members and their in-game successes during each session; my impartiality is guaranteed by the fact that I "win" ONLY if VCs of BOTH factions are achieved

    - the minimum influence of each faction is 25% (this is the average of MP/IC/etc. influence - it doesn't mean that the faction always have to gain control over 25% of MP or 25% of IC; it's possible to have control over 40% of IC and 10% of MP, for example), which is good both for fun and realism purposes

    - the non-faction commenters are free to give suggestions at any time; they cannot, however, directly influence the plans

    Amphibious invasion rules

    1) Hawaiian Islands cannot be invaded unless the Midway Island and Johnston Atoll are controlled by Japan.
    2) The West Coast, Panama etc. cannot be invaded until all other American possessions in the Pacific are controlled by Japan (this includes only provinces with ports)
    3) Eastern Australian provinces cannot be invaded unless New Guinea and all south Pacific islands up to New Caledonia are controlled by Japan.
    4) Southern Australian provinces cannot be invaded unless New Guinea, all south Pacific islands up to New Caledonia and New Zealand are controlled by Japan.
    5) Northern and western Australian provinces cannot be invaded until Java is controlled by Japan.
    6) Areas west of Malaya cannot be invaded until Singapore is controlled by Japan.
    7) Siberian non-port provinces cannot be invaded.
    8) Land units cannot be evacuated unless there is a friendly port nearby.

    These rules are meant to represent various logistical difficulties (and deal with AI shortcomings) connected with amphibious warfare that are not represented in HOI3 and they should make the game a bit more challenging, too.

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Table of contents

    1. The Introduction

    Chapter One

    1a. Base influence levels

    2. Chapter One, Part One: Uncertain Beginnings Jan-Apr 1936

    2a. Influence levels

    3. Chapter One, Part Two: Uncertain Beginnings Apr-Dec 1936

    3a. Influence levels

    Chapter Two

    4. Chapter Two, Part One: Gearing Up! Dec 1936 - Jul 1937

    4a. Influence levels

    5. Chapter Two, Part Two: Gearing Up! Jul 1937 - May 1938

    5a. Influence levels

    6. Chapter Two, Part Three: Gearing Up! May 1938 - Apr 1939

    Chapter Three

    6a. Influence levels

    7. Chapter Three, Part One: Sino-Japanese War Apr 1939 - Aug 1939

    7.a Influence levels

    8. Chapter Three, Part Two: Sino-Japanese War Aug 1939 - Sep 1939

    8a. Influence levels

    9. Chapter Three, Part Three: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-Soviet Border War Sep 1939 - Dec 1939

    9a. Influence levels

    10. Chapter Three, Part Four: Sino-Japanese War Dec 1939 - Feb 1940

    10a. Influence Levels

    11. Chapter Three, Part Five: Sino-Japanese War Mar 1940 - Jun 1940

    11a. Influence levels

    12. Chapter Three, Part Six: Sino-Japanese War Jul 1940 - Dec 1940

    Chapter Four

    12a. Influence levels

    13. Chapter Four, Part One: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-American War Dec 1940 - May 1941

    13a. Influence levels

    14. Chapter Four, Part Two: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-American War Jun 1940 - Aug 1941

    14a. Emergency Report - Battle of Saipan

    14b. Influence levels

    15. Chapter Four, Part Three: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-American War Aug 1941 - Sep 1941

    15a. Influence levels

    16. Chapter Four, Part Four: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-American War Sep 1941 - Nov 1941

    16a. Influence levels

    17. Chapter Four, Part Five: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-American War Nov 1941 - Jan 1942

    17a. Influence levels

    18. Chapter Four, Part Six: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-American War Jan 1942 - Apr 1942

    18a. Influence levels

    19. Chapter Four, Part Seven: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-American War Apr 1942 - Jun 1942

    19a. Influence levels

    20. Chapter Four, Part Eight: Sino-Japanese War / Japanese-American War Jun 1942 - Aug 1942

    Chapter Five

    20a. Influence levels

    21. Chapter Five, Part One: Sino-Japanese War / War with the Allies Aug 1942 - Oct 1942

    21a. Influence levels

    22. Chapter Five, Part Two: Sino-Japanese War / War with the Allies Oct 1942 - Jan 1943

    22a. Influence levels

    23. Chapter Five, Part Three: Sino-Japanese War / War with the Allies Jan 1943 - Mar 1943

    23a. Emergency Report - American Attack on Hawaii

    23b. Influence levels

    24. Chapter Five, Part Four: Sino-Japanese War / War with the Allies Mar 1943 - Jun 1943

    24a. Influence levels

    25. Chapter Five, Part Five: Sino-Japanese War / War with the Allies Jun 1943 - Oct 1943

    25a. Influence levels

    26. Chapter Five, Part Six: Sino-Japanese War / War with the Allies Oct 1943 - Jan 1944
    Last edited by Cybvep; 30-07-2012 at 00:53.

  2. #2
    Lt. General anweRU's Avatar
    Hearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonDiplomacyEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper Fi
    Victoria 2Rome: Vae Victis

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bangor, ME
    Posts
    1,385
    Cool idea. Unfortunately I don't have time to participate, but I'd like to make a couple of comments:
    - The IJA did in fact own its transports, though it needed naval transports as well occasionally. Most of the time naval involvement consisted of escort and distant cover forces, i.e. warships.
    - If the players are going to take over specific commanders, Yamamoto should probably be in the Old Guard faction. He used carrier warfare as we all know, but except for Pearl Harbor, his plans always used CVs for preliminary strikes, with the intention of destroying the USN's surface forces with his BBs in night action. Nagumo should also be an old guard, though he commanded Kido Butai at its finest, he wasn't a carrier officer, and he had a well trained and oiled machine that he was given command of at the start of the war. If they had both been true carrier proponents, they probably would have planned and conducted Midway differently.

  3. #3
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,231
    - The IJA did in fact own its transports, though it needed naval transports as well occasionally. Most of the time naval involvement consisted of escort and distant cover forces, i.e. warships.
    Unfortunately, the game would be almost unplayable for the IJA player if the IJN didn't transport his/her troops or provide naval protection. However, if IJN has other vital tasks, then it can prioritise them over transporting IJA troops and they will be temporary assigned to homeland defence. If necessary, I can change the rule and allow the IJA to build ships, but it will be waste of IC in most cases, because they will not have big enough fleets if they want to have enough troops in China/India/whatever. Remember that the troops will be AI-controlled and although I will watch over them, they won't perform as good as under manual control. The navy and the airforce, however, will not be AI-controlled, because the AI suxx at this.

    - If the players are going to take over specific commanders, Yamamoto should probably be in the Old Guard faction. He used carrier warfare as we all know, but except for Pearl Harbor, his plans always used CVs for preliminary strikes, with the intention of destroying the USN's surface forces with his BBs in night action. Nagumo should also be an old guard, though he commanded Kido Butai at its finest, he wasn't a carrier officer, and he had a well trained and oiled machine that he was given command of at the start of the war. If they had both been true carrier proponents, they probably would have planned and conducted Midway differently.
    The players will not control specific commanders - I will . However, the mini-factions will be able to compete for various leaders (same in case of IC/MP/LP - it's based on "influence") and of course, they will have to come to an agreement regarding the build orders. However, if many players sign up, then I can always change the rules and assign specific task forces to various players. It could be kind of cool, but it would require many good and active players. The rules are WIP ATM. It's not the law yet.

  4. #4
    Speaking of transports (well kinda), who will have the right to the Marines, IJA or IJN?

    Will be nice to follow this though, as always with your AAR's

  5. #5
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,231
    Quote Originally Posted by Hallongren View Post
    Speaking of transports (well kinda), who will have the right to the Marines, IJA or IJN?

    Will be nice to follow this though, as always with your AAR's
    Anyone who builds them or lends them from the other faction. Historically, the Japanese marines were part of the IJN.

    IJN can build land units, but its MP influence will be limited for obvious reasons, so they have to be conservative about it.

    Thanks for the compliment I think that the project has potential, but I won't start without players who are willing to participate!

  6. #6
    I would be very interested in such a game, and would like to state a preference for the IJA even if they don't have direct control over their assets. I would be willing to draw graphical representations of any planning as well e.g.



    However may I ask that given the nature of such a game, would it not be prudent to supply the participants with the savegame file in order that they may better review their force composition? Particularly given that you don't want to be answering loads of questions, nor posting up loads of information.


    Also might I query the level of AI control, would it be theatre, army group, or army? Otherwise assigning objectives and stances at theatre level doesn't give tactical opportunity. Whereas if it was at army or army group level there is better control. Furthermore it might be interesting to have multiple IJA participants, one for each theatre.


    Finally, could we edit the commanders to create our own avatars with a trait of our choice?

  7. #7
    I would love to be involved in this! in the IJN, where do subs fall?

  8. #8
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,231
    I would be very interested in such a game, and would like to state a preference for the IJA even if they don't have direct control over their assets. I would be willing to draw graphical representations of any planning as well e.g.
    Excellent!

    However may I ask that given the nature of such a game, would it not be prudent to supply the participants with the savegame file in order that they may better review their force composition? Particularly given that you don't want to be answering loads of questions, nor posting up loads of information.
    I've considered it. The problem is that the players would be able to test their strategies beforehand, check the enemy's force composition, disperse the FOW etc.

    Don't worry, I will give you loads of information. I can also make clarifications about the information provided. The only thing I won't do is to answer specific questions. The info I provide will be your "intelligence" of sort

    Also might I query the level of AI control, would it be theatre, army group, or army? Otherwise assigning objectives and stances at theatre level doesn't give tactical opportunity. Whereas if it was at army or army group level there is better control. Furthermore it might be interesting to have multiple IJA participants, one for each theatre.
    You can use the level you want except the corps one, because it misses the point. However, keep in mind that the AI works best if it can coordinate its actions. Personally, I think that it will be best to use Theatres in order to assign Area of Operations for your below-Theatre HQs but detach them from the Theatre, as they tend to stick to the Theatre's AO but are not restricted by Theatre's "logic". The AI also tends to focus more on its objectives if you use the Axis of Advance. A secondary purpose for this AAR is to test the AI in various conditions. Generally, I won't allow it to do nonsensical things, i.e. SR-ing to the other part of the planet.

    Oh, and garrisons don't have to be AI-controlled. However, the AI tends to use them in ports, VP and IC provinces, so it's not that bad.

    The most important decisions will be made at the strategic level, i.e. build orders, division composition, research queue, logistics, plans for future operations etc. I think that there will be so much to do that you won't be bored

    In regard to many-players-per-faction - it will be great as long as there are enough reliable players.

    Finally, could we edit the commanders to create our own avatars with a trait of our choice?
    Nah, I will think that we should stick to historical leaders.

    I would love to be involved in this! in the IJN, where do subs fall?
    Good!

    The IJN builds them and gives orders to them. If there are many players in the IJN, then obviously, you can distribute them among yourselves as you see fit. If necessary, I can create some additional rules for mini-factions, although it will mostly depend on the number of players.
    Last edited by Cybvep; 21-09-2011 at 16:09.

  9. #9
    I see you point on the savegame file. Still I suppose I could keep track of the situation manually...


    I was thinking that if I was in control of army assets I should like to have army group control levels for 1-2 (or later on 3) commands. Thus allowing you to hold 'multiple fronts' without the AI doing silly things. As well as easing out deployments

    In general this is the level of AI I normally use, unless doing a 'grand plan' type mission, but since this isn't that type of game that's a non issue.


    You know it its historical leaders then, perhaps I've stated a preference for the wrong force .

  10. #10
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,231
    I was thinking that if I was in control of army assets I should like to have army group control levels for 1-2 (or later on 3) commands. Thus allowing you to hold 'multiple fronts' without the AI doing silly things. As well as easing out deployments
    No problem. You can have e.g. 1 AG for northern China, 1 AG for Manchuria, 1 Army invading southern China, 1 army defending Philippines, 1 army fighting in the Malaya and a marine corps which will be attached to the Army/AG HQs after initial landings. You can have 10 Theatres designating AOs if you want. The point is that AI control should be used.

    You know it its historical leaders then, perhaps I've stated a preference for the wrong force .
    The Emperor has only the good of Japan in his heart

  11. #11
    Field Marshal misterbean's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IIDarkest HourEuropa Universalis: Chronicles
    For the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourIron CrossMarch of the Eagles
    Semper FiVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness500k club

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    belgium
    Posts
    4,474
    subscribed (as reader/commentator, not as player)
    HPP LibrAARian. PM me about any change in the status of your HPP AARs. http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...-Update-Thread
    Germany Tutorial, Take Two: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...2#post13243122 or find it in the Major Threads sticky.
    Tutorial AAR in pdf form available on Gamefront, courtesy of Davy: http://www.gamefront.com/files/22231...ged+colors.rar
    Honoured by USKnight for the above tutorial here: http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/...1#post14404907
    AARlander reporter

  12. #12
    Field Marshal Baltasar's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourEU3 CompleteFor the MotherlandHearts of Iron III
    Heir to the ThroneKing Arthur IIMagickaMarch of the EaglesSemper Fi
    SengokuSword of the StarsSword of the Stars IIStarvoidMount & Blade: Warband
    Mount & Blade: With Fire and Sword

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,574
    Blog Entries
    1
    Been a while since I played HPP and I don't have the time do get back to it soon... Would still like to apply as IJA commander. Slan, I know you're reading this... and you know I'll bugger you with questions

  13. #13
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,231
    subscribed (as reader/commentator, not as player)
    Good to have you here

    Been a while since I played HPP and I don't have the time do get back to it soon... Would still like to apply as IJA commander. Slan, I know you're reading this... and you know I'll bugger you with questions
    Great!

  14. #14
    Better than Royalty (ABB) DoomBunny's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDarkest Hour
    East India Company CollectionEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor The GloryFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneLead and GoldThe Kings CrusadeMajesty 2
    Penumbra - Black PlagueVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSword of the Stars
    Sword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler 2020 GoldVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae Victis
    Mount & Blade: WarbandPride of NationsRise of PrussiaCK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Off Portsmouth
    Posts
    1,927
    I might be interested. How fast a schedule are you expecting to play at?
    "Tiger powder-induced eastern shenanigans" - Finnish Lord

    "I have hot cousins" - Shynka

    "Petrarch was right" - Petrarch

    "I really enjoyed the Gulag" - Blade!

    "So sexy" - Franconian on violent insanity

    "The soft-pr0n ... I like it for the atmosphere it creates and the sheer spectacle of the thing" - Tufto

    <Doom> Sent Shynka some pics of my ass.
    <mathrim-afk> Looks great

  15. #15
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,231
    It depends on the players' preference and the time available. Once per week would be great, I think.

    In regard to the IJA, I think that we should stick with one faction, but with internal hierarchy, which I will allow you to create at will, i.e. you can take command of individual armies or army groups, while the one who will be highest in command will make requests and create plans on behalf of the whole IJA. That way, those who are lower in hierarchy will be able to request troops from the HQ and create their own plans, which the HQ will have to approve, but the HQ will be able to refuse at will. If one of the low-ranked players achieve spectacular successes, I will consider promoting him/her, so we will have internal rivalry among the IJA itself. Choose between effectiveness and your own power level!

  16. #16
    People's Commissar of the Navy Demi Moderator Avindian's Avatar
    Crusader Kings IIDarkest HourDeus VultEU3 CompleteDivine Wind
    For the MotherlandHearts of Iron IIIHOI3: Their Finest HourHeir to the ThroneLeviathan: Warships
    March of the EaglesVictoria: RevolutionsRome GoldSemper FiSengoku
    Sword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler: Cold WarVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedVictoria II: Heart of Darkness
    V2 BetaCK2: Holy Knight500k clubEuropa Universalis IV: Pre-order

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Leningrad
    Posts
    9,486
    This a really interesting idea for an AAR; for now I'll be passive, since I know next to nothing about HPP, but I will watch with great interest.
    AARland Awards TsAAR -- 1st quarter ACAs for 2014 underway!

    Japan or Bust (probably bust) An Uesugi CoP AAR -- Brand new!
    Sonderweg oder Anderweg? -- Part 3 of the Hohenzollerns Megacampaign -- Interactive and looking for players
    Tukhachevsky's Army and the Politburo -- an Interactive Soviet TFH AAR -- Updates|Administration -- In progress
    Like what you see? Check out my Inkwell for awards and completed AARs!

    If I use this color, I am speaking as a Demi-Mod. If you have any questions, please PM me directly. Forum Rules|Interactive AARs|AARland Rules #1|AARland Rules #2|EvW Missile Silo - check before posting!

  17. #17
    Better than Royalty (ABB) DoomBunny's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDarkest Hour
    East India Company CollectionEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor The GloryFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneLead and GoldThe Kings CrusadeMajesty 2
    Penumbra - Black PlagueVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSword of the Stars
    Sword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler 2020 GoldVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae Victis
    Mount & Blade: WarbandPride of NationsRise of PrussiaCK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Off Portsmouth
    Posts
    1,927
    Once a week is good for me, as I might not be active much (Turns out A Level Mechanics is mind warpingly crazy).

    Can I be part of the IJN Carrier faction?
    "Tiger powder-induced eastern shenanigans" - Finnish Lord

    "I have hot cousins" - Shynka

    "Petrarch was right" - Petrarch

    "I really enjoyed the Gulag" - Blade!

    "So sexy" - Franconian on violent insanity

    "The soft-pr0n ... I like it for the atmosphere it creates and the sheer spectacle of the thing" - Tufto

    <Doom> Sent Shynka some pics of my ass.
    <mathrim-afk> Looks great

  18. #18
    Field Marshal Cybvep's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    8,231
    This a really interesting idea for an AAR; for now I'll be passive, since I know next to nothing about HPP, but I will watch with great interest.
    Welcome aboard!

    BTW you should try the mod. You won't be able to get back to Vanilla anymore

    Can I be part of the IJN Carrier faction?
    Of course!

  19. #19
    When you say 'once a week' is that say;

    1st (RL) week = Jan 1936 --> Dec 1936,
    2nd week = Jan 1937 --> July 1937
    ...

    ...and from there, take things as it goes per operation? Because obviously different participants will have different time-scales, an army commander might have several divisions built in a year, compared to a navy commander. Then when it comes to operations, taking Guam might be a 5 day battle, but then that participant might miss out on an opportunity to invade the Philippines because the 'chapter' ends with the fall of Burma 4 months later.

    Would it not be prudent in some ways to settle on some time-scale that goes 1 week = 2/4/6 months of war or so, unless a major event jumps in, forcing a reaction?



    I'm not sure how successful vertical hierarchy will be unless we get a lot of participants. Furthermore how would theatre commands work then? Would the 'Pacific Theater HQ' participant be subordinate to 'West Asia Theater HQ'? Given the former, by rights, would then be responsible for homeland defence that would be contra to both players being responsible for Honshu as well.

    Mind you handing out army group commands might be a good way to split forces, but then allocating divisions/air force assets might become difficult, unless you act as overall arbitrator autocrat Cybvep. It also might leave some free floating assets such as garrisons which are not normally included into the general command structure, which could be difficult to remember who is in command of what.

    Or you have two 'Commanders-in-Chief' deciding on how to set the sliders*, and what to produce for their respective theatre, as well as who gets what divisions.

    Then you have a number of 'So Gun' commanders who actually decide on their battle plans, and how they want to conduct the offensive with what they have.



    It all depends on how many 'commanders' you would wish to participate.



    With that latter layout, you might need at least 7 participants;
    2 Theatre Commanders,
    1 IJN naval commander,
    1 IJA Pacific Gun,
    3 IJA Manchukuo, Kwantung and Southern Expeditionary Gun

    However this could be cut and rearranged as needs see fit.


    It would also be in some ways historically accurate with 'warlord generals'.


    * And tech/esp/pol/dip etc.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    Side note:
    DoomBunny it's not, as an Astrophysics major I can tell you there are far worse things. Might I suggest the Physics Forums for if you ever need help with that subject. The A level people might think its a maths module, but it's really physics.
    Last edited by Gensui Yamamoto; 21-09-2011 at 20:10.

  20. #20
    Better than Royalty (ABB) DoomBunny's Avatar
    Arsenal of DemocracyHearts of Iron 2: ArmageddonCrusader Kings IICommander: Conquest of the AmericasDarkest Hour
    East India Company CollectionEU3 CompleteDivine WindFor The GloryFor the Motherland
    Hearts of Iron IIIHeir to the ThroneLead and GoldThe Kings CrusadeMajesty 2
    Penumbra - Black PlagueVictoria: RevolutionsEuropa Universalis: RomeSemper FiSword of the Stars
    Sword of the Stars IISupreme Ruler 2020 GoldVictoria 2Victoria II: A House DividedRome: Vae Victis
    Mount & Blade: WarbandPride of NationsRise of PrussiaCK2: Holy Knight500k club

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Off Portsmouth
    Posts
    1,927
    1 Week for a month during wartime would be good, as it gives us a chance to react quickly to certain situations. During peace however, or low conflict wars, Id go with 1 week = 6 months/year.

    Oh and thanks for the advice.
    "Tiger powder-induced eastern shenanigans" - Finnish Lord

    "I have hot cousins" - Shynka

    "Petrarch was right" - Petrarch

    "I really enjoyed the Gulag" - Blade!

    "So sexy" - Franconian on violent insanity

    "The soft-pr0n ... I like it for the atmosphere it creates and the sheer spectacle of the thing" - Tufto

    <Doom> Sent Shynka some pics of my ass.
    <mathrim-afk> Looks great

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 50 1 2 3 11 26 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts