形势比人强，2月26日阿奎回信鸟
* M I; R* b9 Y2 d+ {' h4 t. ^0 C6 K" U
aqui just sent you a private message at 2/25/2009 5:39:15 PM:
# c- R1 l* u- N- E/ M: T
) z% d0 v1 K6 v2 d. @/ I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
3 E9 J1 p6 W# V2 X+ I* c4 y HOUSE RULES8 U! i8 b' b$ I, _# F1 k
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~5 U/ Y( g) \. P6 s
3 v: T9 u4 U$ A1 DI have many perplexities about these house rules; in my opinion the most part of them is a useless burden and another part has the effect to choke strategical choices in the name of a assumed more historical behaviour. Luckily, as now, nobody suggested that all Jap TF compositions and obiectives are to be known by Ally because Ally decrypted jap codes. Any case, here my point of view:2 I& W7 k: I k: R; F
1) OK!9 a6 }/ w- B6 @
7) OK (but wih some perplexity)
0 Q9 J; n) T/ u( s8) "No mining for planes"... bad HR. During the war, both sides mined port with planes. I can accept this rule but disagree.; }2 V; ]9 n% R. ]* L- l, q9 d5 U
11) ok8 l# k0 [5 p$ d! {. Q: P$ B
12) ok; Y8 s W, G* Q4 E
16) if I understand correctly...it's allowed to change units attachement but not HQ attachment. Is it so?, u" p" I, S, }- x
In case I can accept it
: o8 U. n. ~+ s; z17) according to the game rules if Jap goes down 8000 garrison there is a small prob that Russian attack Jap. I prefer rather the original rule than the HR. This HR worsen the game but, any case I can accept (but disagree).; r* ~! N+ _* D# b; T5 n1 S
18) I suppose that for "occuped" you mean "fully occuped" (till the last city). This HR sound me bad. If, for example, Jap has taken all China cities except 1, he has to keep there million of men to kill last chinese soldat? But a part from this.... if for some strategical reason Jap decide to concentrate his effort in another sector giving up China, he cannot do this? There are already garrison rule in the game that force Jap to leave a lot of units if they want to control cities. This HR impoverish the game. Again... I can accept but disagree: M- N+ a6 _3 m% j$ q! D
19)20)21)22)23)24)25)26) no enthusiasm but ok to all.2 g+ L3 a% Y' s* Y8 E5 E3 q' \
28) this rule can cause problems worse than the problem it tries to solve. 1° example. In a Air combat fleet (with 3 CVs and 3 DD) 1 CV becomes damaged. To allow docking in an empty port you have to escort it with at least 4 ships. In short, you have to give up the operation. <absurd! Or, 2° example: after a port attack the same fleet as before remains with only 3 surviving ships (3CV); because it has not the legal number to sail they have to wait to be all sunk...and so on. as written this is not an acceptable rule. The 2nd part of the rule could be OK.
% ?% c' B& ]( ^2 q29) Aleutinian for example were attacked from Jap (that landed there during Midway operation). Again a rule limiting the stategic options. What the meaning?) Q( l6 g) ^. [' Z) {9 ]5 k4 Z
30)31)32)33)34)35) Ok (but....)
5 I6 G* U% O* C. H- U3 z36) to cut the retreat is one of the main task of parà troops and eventually armor pursuit (a bazooka can easily destroy the "biggest" Jap tank). I don't like this rule, also unhistorical
& s1 \2 q, D6 x3 ^7 r0 e( \37) I understand the meaning of this rule but what is "small unit"? Isn't it right (for example) that a small but competent units (like a 20 Assault infantry) can sacrifice itsself to stop the enemy?- _5 ?3 u: Z9 M
Your HR don't speak about some point like: the possibility to surround enemy force with small units like AA, ART, ecc to avoid enemy retreat..or the possibility to transfer in 1 day lot of planes by land also where there is no trail connecting the bases (or when the airbase and the planes are damaged..).8 O2 @: I# Y# u4 q8 w
cya' }& I! U: ?% q, ^
paolo
6 I8 g# a# U! e' U" Q
. D1 D! Z7 y) ?( O$ [; ?& ]* k3 e7 O5 q# \# O& K: p8 T
随后这位可爱的面条国亲善使者发现自己还忘了几句话，于是连续补了两封邮件，内容如下：
/ B0 s5 F8 n. m1 ]# \: A
8 b% A" j% _4 b& m* I7 k# P1 eaqui just sent you a private message at 2/25/2009 5:45:49 PM:
- a5 A0 H% W& e# ^- y3 x( D- ?! a$ ?; o; b" I1 U
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~& M. |: E# a M, o9 H8 I( D6 B1 M$ [/ t
WITP experienced player+ [% Q4 ^' g' N0 U8 [3 m
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ y, E0 f& \+ [% C9 ~ }; O9 k
8 B! w/ j- y9 EI forgot...* O7 {$ _+ [( j9 Q
about "Only realistic movement on day one (no PM, Pago Pago or Amboina or java landings)": are Borneo and Sumatra regarded as "realistic" obiectives?
+ c; B* H1 e3 I+ S; H! P6 y& `cya
w' w0 |. U. N3 bPaolo
) H2 m( Q \: a" w: B& R0 y) `- x, } W- _+ K& m; B+ [
----------- End of Private Message (PM) -------------9 b. \& \( a7 H( j2 V+ [) m( h
' w( Y7 Q2 m$ I
2 i1 ~8 q Q5 D: `* ?' j/ H
aqui just sent you a private message at 2/26/2009 7:05:45 AM:
) D8 H$ `& G& {# {& ?. S7 o2 {9 V8 {; O4 z
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9 j5 ]# A4 {0 \( C RE: WITP experienced player/ B- {$ t" r5 S
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~, v; t/ L1 Y a) C' W8 ^# f
+ T) A$ K t d6 L. p0 v }& Z
I sent you an e-mail that probably you didn't receive (but when we start to use normal e-mail instead of this PM system??) where I explained why I didn't like "common rules" 7, 17, 18, 19, 28, 29, 36, and 37. Specificaly House Rule 28 looks very dangerous.( G) R& L- x# A5 U3 f5 [. K6 K
did you receive that e-mail?
1 D" L- b5 q( A9 x2 Kcya& O/ ~ D I' Q0 {, Z- ~8 S( v' i6 `, P
paolo; h' s1 N$ f5 B) o2 Z; D7 @
9 d7 w6 z$ j2 u/ e, C2 ]
----------- End of Private Message (PM) -------------3 |( N) a5 c# d' u4 B" b
( w! Y; R7 P4 [' i, E: v
2 @ u, _( z# e B! a
有请鸟语达人共入翻译之 |
发表于 2009-2-22 01:26
| 
肥龙太祖殿……是我不好，没写清楚。6 {5 r0 \, L( d0 Q$ ]
6 {, @5 s$ s1 @
