RE: Concurrent installation

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Concurrent installation

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 >> RE: Concurrent installation

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 12:27:56 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM

got a question...

the new, improved, FOW rules, will the magical "all-knowing-development-reports" dissapear from the turn reports?. I mean, if I sneak a construction team to an empty dot base, and I want to develop it in secret to give my opponent a really nasty suprise (something done in the pacific quite some times during WWII, as it was done in the alleutians, or even near tarawa), in WITP I run into two problems that make the tactic impossible to pull:

1- if I land my troops in an empty enemy base, they have to conquer it. Even if the nearest enemy is 2500 miles away, and there's not a single soul in said base, the enemy WILL know you have landed there and taken the base. So, he will know you are there and probably will assume you will develop the base...no surprise factor and probably your whole plan has been compromised (if it relied in taking the enmy by surprise).

2- if I land my troops in a dot base the enemy has let unconquered, he won't know if I have landed my troops. So no problem...until you actually dare to develop the base increasing its AF or port level. Again, no matter he's 3000 miles away and has no means of knowing what was happening there, the enemy will know you are there and that you are developing the base. Gone is the effect of surprise.

Unless the problems involved in points 1 and 2 are solved, in the game you can't develop bases secretly, something that in real life happened several times. Actually in the game you know in real time the AF and port level of each base in the map, no matter you've done any kind of recon over it or not...and that could be improved, too.

I would say it would be a nice touch to let each player to know just what he can know about the base developments the enemy is doing. And would add an extra importance to regular and continous recon. And information on where the enemy is landing should be restricted...you can't know the enemy is somewhere if you don't have any means to find out he's there... is any of this included in AE?

thanks in advance for the answers :D

I would not assume that an empty base - or even a dot - is really empty. We have a lot of units in WITP and we will have a lot more in AE - but I still would not assume that an empty hex is empty. And this works the same for both sides - 2 guys and a radio are there for a dot. Maybe 10 guys and 2 radios for an empty base.

In real life there are many rear area units that will not even be represented in AE. MP units, rail units, port operations units, etc.

These things being said, FoW for bases has been increased.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 361

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 1:08:19 AM

RAM

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/1/2000
From: Bilbao,Vizcaya,Spain
Status: offline

glad to hear the FOW rules for bases are getting improved :).

About the "two guys with a radio", that can be true to some extent, but it didn't always happen that wherever a group of soldiers was disembarked, there was someone to report it. the game giving information on bases captured because of the abstraction involved within the game mechanics is ok, but getting info on certain bases being improved...well, as I mentioned before in the alleutians the US developed air fields without the japanese knowing it until they were on the receiving end of the attacks coming from those fields. In the game that would be impossible to do...just hope in AE something like this could happen without the game giving the secret away...

would make for some nice surprises for an overconfident opponent in PBEM ;)

_____________________________

RAM

"Look at me! look at me!!!

Not like that! NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 362

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 4:19:38 AM

BB57

Posts: 89
Joined: 1/20/2003
From: Beresford, SD
Status: offline

If I send O19 to Tokyo to leave a little present for the next ship that comes by and my closest unit is a couple hundred miles away when it is found. I shouldn't get any info on the combat report screen. If I get any info at all it should be on the intel screen.

To take this a step farther if I sink a ship that I don't get a report right away I should get a report on the intel screen rather than just quietly showing up on the ships sunk screen. With errors of course, I believe my namesake was reported sunk three times.

Will this be possible with AE or will we have to wait for WitPII.

Thanks you guys are doing a great job the way it sounds, keep up the good work.

(in reply to RAM)

Post #: 363

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 6:20:22 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BB57

If I send O19 to Tokyo to leave a little present for the next ship that comes by and my closest unit is a couple hundred miles away when it is found. I shouldn't get any info on the combat report screen. If I get any info at all it should be on the intel screen.

To take this a step farther if I sink a ship that I don't get a report right away I should get a report on the intel screen rather than just quietly showing up on the ships sunk screen. With errors of course, I believe my namesake was reported sunk three times.

Will this be possible with AE or will we have to wait for WitPII.

Thanks you guys are doing a great job the way it sounds, keep up the good work.

I've always just taken it to mean that I picked up the distress call, or got the info from some other source. As far as the silent sinking showing up on the sunken ships screen...yeah, in the intel reports would be a nice way. SigInt screen would probably be most appropriate place for those bits of info.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to BB57)

Post #: 364

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 7:46:03 AM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Speaking of empty bases, I wouldn't think 10 guys and 2 radios would be able to inflict 500 casualties or more on any landing force. Will AE make any changes to the amphibious landing routines for undefended bases? Landing on undefended bases seems to cause an awful lot of casualties.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 365

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 8:24:00 AM

wworld7

Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Speaking of empty bases, I wouldn't think 10 guys and 2 radios would be able to inflict 500 casualties or more on any landing force. Will AE make any changes to the amphibious landing routines for undefended bases? Landing on undefended bases seems to cause an awful lot of casualties.

The men are not killed.

They trip walking out of the landing craft and need to rest, maybe get a bowl soup and a cup of coffee. And in no time they are as good as new.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 366

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 9:11:25 AM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Whew! I was worried there for a minute.

(in reply to wworld7)

Post #: 367

RE: Political Points - 12/27/2007 2:49:14 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 368

RE: Political Points - 12/27/2007 3:02:35 PM

VSWG

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

Agreed! Alternatively, switching a unit from one unrestricted command to another could be free of any cost in PP. I hate to send units assigned to NorPac to Australia, even though this doesn't affect replacements/fighting capability at all.

_____________________________

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 369

RE: Political Points - 12/27/2007 3:30:50 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

Agreed! Alternatively, switching a unit from one unrestricted command to another could be free of any cost in PP. I hate to send units assigned to NorPac to Australia, even though this doesn't affect replacements/fighting capability at all.

What about making all commands restricted. Then make a new command called Transport Command. Political Points would be spent to change from a command to Transport Command but none would be paid to change from Transport command to any other. Then have huge penalties for trying to operate in Transport Command?

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 370

RE: Political Points - 12/27/2007 4:15:06 PM

VSWG

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

Agreed! Alternatively, switching a unit from one unrestricted command to another could be free of any cost in PP. I hate to send units assigned to NorPac to Australia, even though this doesn't affect replacements/fighting capability at all.

What about making all commands restricted. Then make a new command called Transport Command. Political Points would be spent to change from a command to Transport Command but none would be paid to change from Transport command to any other. Then have huge penalties for trying to operate in Transport Command.

Sounds like a lot of extra coding.

Also, assume you have assigned the 2nd Marines to SoPac in 1942. In 1944, you want to use the division for a CentPac invasion. With your method, I would have to spend PP to reassign the unit. IMO this reassignment should be for free.

_____________________________

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 371

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 4:36:33 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BB57

If I send O19 to Tokyo to leave a little present for the next ship that comes by and my closest unit is a couple hundred miles away when it is found. I shouldn't get any info on the combat report screen. If I get any info at all it should be on the intel screen.

To take this a step farther if I sink a ship that I don't get a report right away I should get a report on the intel screen rather than just quietly showing up on the ships sunk screen. With errors of course, I believe my namesake was reported sunk three times.

Will this be possible with AE or will we have to wait for WitPII.

Thanks you guys are doing a great job the way it sounds, keep up the good work.
�

We have made a bunch of improvements to FoW across the board, I'm sure we've missed a few and in truth ... total fog of war would probably not be indicated and would have the serious issue of relativity. In other words, exactly whose perspective are we presenting? One of the good and bad aspects of WITP is that the player has many jobs and many different levels of command, and increasing fog of war beyond a certain point would require changing the nature of who the player is and that would clearly be Out of Scope.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to BB57)

Post #: 372

RE: Political Points - 12/27/2007 6:49:56 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

Agreed! Alternatively, switching a unit from one unrestricted command to another could be free of any cost in PP. I hate to send units assigned to NorPac to Australia, even though this doesn't affect replacements/fighting capability at all.

What about making all commands restricted. Then make a new command called Transport Command. Political Points would be spent to change from a command to Transport Command but none would be paid to change from Transport command to any other. Then have huge penalties for trying to operate in Transport Command.

Sounds like a lot of extra coding.

Also, assume you have assigned the 2nd Marines to SoPac in 1942. In 1944, you want to use the division for a CentPac invasion. With your method, I would have to spend PP to reassign the unit. IMO this reassignment should be for free.

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent. Let's try and solve the problem and eliminate the need for houserules. Ask yourself this question, that same 2nd Marine Division has just landed on Tarawa. How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation? That is the PP cost. It is great to have flexible control of your forces but to much control and you end up with island hoping at an island a week. Which was not sustainable at anytime during the war. There may be another way around this. If you have thought of it please enlighten me, I am only looking for solutions.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 373

RE: Political Points - 12/27/2007 6:58:08 PM

VSWG

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent.

Kwangtung and China Command (both sides) would be restricted commands.

quote:

How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation? That is the PP cost.

IMO this is simulated by preparation points.

_____________________________

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 374

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/27/2007 8:30:42 PM

CaptDave

Posts: 659
Joined: 6/21/2002
From: Federal Way, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

Don't recall seeing this one, yet. Will installation of AE be such that it's reasonably simple to switch back and forth between AE and the original WitP, at least no worse than the batch files that exist now for the variants? If I'm playing PBEM with someone who can't afford to upgrade his computer (WitP was a gift from me in the first place), I don't want to be limited to the original myself!

This isn't really a big problem. Just make a "copy" of your original WITP, drop all the saves, change the name to WITP-AE, and install AE on this copy. Then you have two completely seperate "games", and no need to worry about the limitations of anyone you want to play against...

That's what I would have guessed, but I work for a software developer and know things don't always turn out as normal people would expect them to! For instance, while I used to maintain the install script for the product I work on, now it's handled by our home office, using a different install tool which is not friendly toward multiple installations. Thanks for your reply!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 375

RE: Political Points - 12/27/2007 10:20:42 PM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent.

Kwangtung and China Command (both sides) would be restricted commands.

Currently Kwangtung and China are restricted commands for the Japanese and still a player can without spending any PP move units from these two commands anywhere they have a land connection too. Only aircraft is truly restricted by restricted commands unless you are on an island.

quote:

How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation? That is the PP cost.

IMO this is simulated by preparation points.

I have played many allied players who do not wait for or need their preparation points. This is not restrictive enough and it effects both side.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 376

RE: Concurrent installation - 12/28/2007 12:43:43 AM

VSWG

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

Don't recall seeing this one, yet. Will installation of AE be such that it's reasonably simple to switch back and forth between AE and the original WitP, at least no worse than the batch files that exist now for the variants? If I'm playing PBEM with someone who can't afford to upgrade his computer (WitP was a gift from me in the first place), I don't want to be limited to the original myself!

This isn't really a big problem. Just make a "copy" of your original WITP, drop all the saves, change the name to WITP-AE, and install AE on this copy. Then you have two completely seperate "games", and no need to worry about the limitations of anyone you want to play against...

That's what I would have guessed, but I work for a software developer and know things don't always turn out as normal people would expect them to! For instance, while I used to maintain the install script for the product I work on, now it's handled by our home office, using a different install tool which is not friendly toward multiple installations. Thanks for your reply!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just FYI, AE will not overwrite your WITP installation. Once you have AE, you will be able to play original WITP as well as AE - they are installed in separate folders.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1640058

_____________________________

(in reply to CaptDave)

Post #: 377

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 12:47:55 AM

VSWG

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Currently Kwangtung and China are restricted commands for the Japanese and still a player can without spending any PP move units from these two commands anywhere they have a land connection too. Only aircraft is truly restricted by restricted commands unless you are on an island.

My suggestion doesn't change this fact, true, but neither does yours (Transport Command). So I guess you're asking for restrictions regarding ground movement for units attached to restricted commands - and you have my full support!

quote:

I have played many allied players who do not wait for or need their preparation points. This is not restrictive enough and it effects both side.

Someone has already mentioned that preparation points will become a lot more important in AE!

< Message edited by VSWG -- 12/28/2007 12:51:38 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 378

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 1:53:38 AM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

Currently Kwangtung and China are restricted commands for the Japanese and still a player can without spending any PP move units from these two commands anywhere they have a land connection too. Only aircraft is truly restricted by restricted commands unless you are on an island.

My suggestion doesn't change this fact, true, but neither does yours (Transport Command). So I guess you're asking for restrictions regarding ground movement for units attached to restricted commands - and you have my full support!

quote:

I have played many allied players who do not wait for or need their preparation points. This is not restrictive enough and it effects both side.

Someone has already mentioned that preparation points will become a lot more important in AE!

Hopefully we are not the only ones who feel this way. I want the best solution whatever that is.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 379

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 2:01:41 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I agree in principle, but I think the solution you propose will not help because it will create other problems. Already the restricted commands suffer from an artificial limitation that they cannot move by ship within their own (legitimate) command area. That is ridiculous. Personally I would rather do away with restricted commands and rely on the honor system - make the HR up front and both stick to it. If a real program restriction could be made to work I would support it, but so far all make more problems that they are worth, including the current system.

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 380

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 2:33:15 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree in principle, but I think the solution you propose will not help because it will create other problems. Already the restricted commands suffer from an artificial limitation that they cannot move by ship within their own (legitimate) command area. That is ridiculous. Personally I would rather do away with restricted commands and rely on the honor system - make the HR up front and both stick to it. If a real program restriction could be made to work I would support it, but so far all make more problems that they are worth, including the current system.

Big Time Agreement here. The "dumbness" for the Dutch having to pay "PP's" to move a Dutch unit from Dutch Java to Dutch Sumatra has always made me suspect that the guys at 2by3 were periodically smoking some "funny cigarettes".

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 381

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 3:20:07 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Big Time Agreement here. The "dumbness" for the Dutch having to pay "PP's" to move a Dutch unit from Dutch Java to Dutch Sumatra has always made me suspect that the guys at 2by3 were periodically smoking some "funny cigarettes".

Having played Pacific War for years, I can understand (sort of) why it was done. In the older game, I would always evacuate the troops from Malay, Singapore and the DEI and use them to counter-attack early. Very gamey no doubt.

On the other hand, I should be able to evacuate Dutch troops from Celebes to Java if I want to try to defend the main island. They are in the same command, it should be a simple matter of moving them.

So I agree with you, but I see why it was done as it was.

On another subject. Couldn't a higher up command order a unit to temporarily attatch itself to another command for an operation? For example a China Command unit moving into Burma for an operation. I'm just wondering if it is wise to restrict land movement of restricted commands completely. I could see a Chinese division moving into Burma to help defend the Burma road under its parent HQ for example.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 382

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 3:26:07 AM

okami

Posts: 404
Joined: 5/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree in principle, but I think the solution you propose will not help because it will create other problems. Already the restricted commands suffer from an artificial limitation that they cannot move by ship within their own (legitimate) command area. That is ridiculous. Personally I would rather do away with restricted commands and rely on the honor system - make the HR up front and both stick to it. If a real program restriction could be made to work I would support it, but so far all make more problems that they are worth, including the current system.

Big Time Agreement here. The "dumbness" for the Dutch having to pay "PP's" to move a Dutch unit from Dutch Java to Dutch Sumatra has always made me suspect that the guys at 2by3 were periodically smoking some "funny cigarettes".

The rule is a good one, it's application maybe flawed. I was not including the ships as AE is. I to think this is in away in error. At the beginning of the war ships will not be able to escape the Japanese will be like shooting fish in a barrel. I beleive this is a zoning issue. If the Dutch are restricted to the DEI then they should be able to load and unload at any DEI base but no other. If the code can be change to this way of deal with restricted zones then no units anywhere will have the advantage of free land movement and still the Dutch will have the flexibility of defending where you want them to.

_____________________________

"Square peg, round hole? No problem. Malet please.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 383

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/28/2007 7:14:14 AM

bstarr

Posts: 881
Joined: 8/1/2004
From: Texas, by God!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Well I wanted to post the roles and responsibilities for the project so the forum will have visibility to who has been doing what. People have been arriving and departing off the project for well over a year now so a list like this is only a snap shot - and it is certain to change again before we are through, but here it is as it is now. Of course some folks do many things and I'm not going to make this a 50 page document, but these are the primary roles these people have at this time.

Air Team
Ian Kibler(TheElf) - Team Lead
Thomas Eliot (TimTom) - OOB Research
Steve Sanchez(ChezDaJez) - OOB Research, Testing
Brian Wischer (BigB) - OOB Research, Testing
Mike Kraemer - Testing
Michael McFarland - Programming
Cathartes - Air Art

Naval Team
Kristian Fischer(Terminus) - Team Lead
Justin Prince(Tankerace) - OOB Research
John Eldredge(JWE) - OOB Research
Bruce Powers - Testing
Don Bowen - Programming

Ground Team
Andy McPhie - Team Lead
Kereguelen - OOB Research
Joel Szabat(Blackhorse) - OOB Research
BadNews - OOB Research
Mike Scholl - Testing
Joe Chandler(SonnyII) - Testing
James Armstrong(BigJ62) - Programming

Map Team
Andrew Brown - Team Lead, Map Development
Bob Trapasso - Testing

Ship Art
John Eldredge(JWE)
Kelly LaBelle (TOMLABEL)
Brian Wisher (BigB)

Reporting
Markus Baumeister(WOOS)

Assistance and Advice
Steve Dyer (Nikademus)
Forest Webb (TreeSpider)
Chris Richards(Drongo)

Project Management
Joe Wilkerson - Project Lead and other tasks that needed doing
Kristian Fischer - Deputy Project Lead
wdolsen - Integration Test Coordinator

Talk about a dream team. All of the people we love yet none of the people we love to hate. God bless you guys!

(sorry for commenting on a month old post. I've been away for some time now so this is news to me)

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 384

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 2:12:55 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
Big Time Agreement here. The "dumbness" for the Dutch having to pay "PP's" to move a Dutch unit from Dutch Java to Dutch Sumatra has always made me suspect that the guys at 2by3 were periodically smoking some "funny cigarettes".

The rule is a good one, it's application maybe flawed. I was not including the ships as AE is. I to think this is in away in error. At the beginning of the war ships will not be able to escape the Japanese will be like shooting fish in a barrel. I beleive this is a zoning issue. If the Dutch are restricted to the DEI then they should be able to load and unload at any DEI base but no other. If the code can be change to this way of deal with restricted zones then no units anywhere will have the advantage of free land movement and still the Dutch will have the flexibility of defending where you want them to.

I'd say more that the rule was based on a good idea..., but totally flawed in design. If "PP's" had been charged to "unload" in a different "zone", they would have had something. Then the Americans could move around within the Philippines, the Dutch within the DEI, the Australians within Australian Territories; all for no PP's. It would only cost PP's if they wanted to "unload" in some other command's zone. 2by3 got it backwards, and every attempt to deal with it since has been hamstrung by their failure.

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 385

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 5:45:42 PM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
If "PP's" had been charged to "unload" in a different "zone", they would have had something.

While this sounds good in theory, I can visualize fleets of embarked troops still aboard ship waiting at some out of the way rear area port for PP to accumulate enough for them to unload. Between the two choices, I think forcing you to pay to embark troops first actually has less inclination to be gamed.

Sucks for the early commands, but they�re doomed anyway. Better to prevent gamey tactics than to allow a few tiny land units to move to Java.

I think a better solution would be to give the tiny nations an intrinsic lift allotment. Players then could load units onto this intrinsic fleet and give units a destination. The unit would vanish from map and appear at the new base in x number of days (kind of like west coast units moving to Karachi in stock).

The weakness of this system is Japan wouldn�t be able to interdict the moves. But if we kept the available lift low (about a battalion at a time can be afloat max), it would at least give each fixed command some flexibility.

Or perhaps design some small coastal vessels that would be allowed to lift fixed command units. With tiny endurances and an inability to move when out of fuel. They would also need to be unable to refuel at sea, this way they couldn�t make a run for Australia or India with units aboard. Though this would probably be too hard to code.

Another option would to be to make all commands free commands, but then slam units at bases not attached to their parent units. Say the first turn 50% of their equipment gets disabled, and then 10% a turn until all equipment was disabled. Then start destroying equipment in 5% chunks until the unit evaporates.

I think the last option would be best, since it would force players to keep units within their parent commands and not allow exploits like sending Manchukuo units to China or Chinese units to Southeast Asia areas, etc.

Jim

_____________________________

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 386

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 6:23:30 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
If "PP's" had been charged to "unload" in a different "zone", they would have had something.

While this sounds good in theory, I can visualize fleets of embarked troops still aboard ship waiting at some out of the way rear area port for PP to accumulate enough for them to unload. Between the two choices, I think forcing you to pay to embark troops first actually has less inclination to be gamed.

So basically you are afraid some players might "cheat"? I concede the possibility, but two limiting factors should get consideration. One, the units should accumulate a lot of attrition sitting on boats for extended periods unsupplied, and two, a "house rule" against such behavior should be a lot easier than most to implement. Then if you find an opponant still doing it, you write them off as a "cheat" and don't play with them any more.

I still think it would be the easiest "fix" to implement for this annoying situation. Some "programmer type" please correct me if I'm wrong...

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 387

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 6:36:17 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

Probably about a year ago, by now, there was a significant amount of discussion on the AE Team about re-working the PP system at least as far as the LCU restrictions and effects were concerned.

I was one of the folks working on this, the details are documented on our development wiki, but briefly, the idea was that anybody could move anywhere any time, as long as they were willing to accept the consequences of their actions.

The consequences varied with time and place, but included expanding the idea of "garrisons" similar to the way they work in China, but with varying effects.

For example, in DEI, IRL, the Dutch military was actually more worried about rebellions from within, than Japanese landings from without, so we included some effects, like in Summatra, to not only encourage the Dutch player in terms of keeping troops there, but actually to encourage the Dutch player to move in additional troops, as was done in the real war.

For the Allies, in Malaya, there were negative moral effects for the troops that remained, if troops were withdrawn. I think this was also the case for the P.I.

Further, there were supply penalties and morale penalties (as well as other penalities) for being at a base assigned to a command HQ other than the command HQ to which the LCU was assigned. This encouraged the player to make the LCU and the bases have the same command HQ.

Bottom line, this system sounded "promising" but met up with the "axe" of too much work, too little resources, too little time. Basically the work on the map took precedence. But this is not to say a different system could not be done one day. But the system we were bouncing around was not trival, it was not really a band-aid, it was a different system for handling reassignment and relocation of LCU between HQs and geographical units. I wish it was in, but it isn't. So, for the most part, in this area, we will be living with the stock system.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 388

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 6:36:37 PM

msieving1

Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Also, assume you have assigned the 2nd Marines to SoPac in 1942. In 1944, you want to use the division for a CentPac invasion. With your method, I would have to spend PP to reassign the unit. IMO this reassignment should be for free.

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent. Let's try and solve the problem and eliminate the need for houserules. Ask yourself this question, that same 2nd Marine Division has just landed on Tarawa. How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation?

In most cases, the limitations should come from the availability of transport and logistics. How long a unit that's been in combat would require before being ready for another operation would depend on the level of casualties and the unit's fatigue and disruption. If these factors are not dealt with realistically, then that's where a change is needed, not some artificial limitation imposed by the HQ the unit's assigned to.

There are cases where political issues override the operational constraints. For the Japanese, any significant withdrawal from China would have been politically unacceptable, regardless of the military advantages or logistical feasibility. It would not have been politically feasible for the British to abandon Malaya, or the US to leave the Philippines, or the Dutch to run away from the East Indies. This, I think, is what the restricted commands are intended to reflect. But these cases are the exceptions.

(in reply to okami)

Post #: 389

RE: Political Points - 12/28/2007 8:19:21 PM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

Also, assume you have assigned the 2nd Marines to SoPac in 1942. In 1944, you want to use the division for a CentPac invasion. With your method, I would have to spend PP to reassign the unit. IMO this reassignment should be for free.

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent. Let's try and solve the problem and eliminate the need for houserules. Ask yourself this question, that same 2nd Marine Division has just landed on Tarawa. How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation?

In most cases, the limitations should come from the availability of transport and logistics. How long a unit that's been in combat would require before being ready for another operation would depend on the level of casualties and the unit's fatigue and disruption. If these factors are not dealt with realistically, then that's where a change is needed, not some artificial limitation imposed by the HQ the unit's assigned to.

There are cases where political issues override the operational constraints. For the Japanese, any significant withdrawal from China would have been politically unacceptable, regardless of the military advantages or logistical feasibility. It would not have been politically feasible for the British to abandon Malaya, or the US to leave the Philippines, or the Dutch to run away from the East Indies. This, I think, is what the restricted commands are intended to reflect. But these cases are the exceptions.

Has anyone mentioned the politics of inter-service rivalry that affected both sides... IMO that is what the PP's also represent.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to msieving1)

Post #: 390