Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Replying to MM, but really the whole thread.

Slept on this. Woke up thinking about it. Opened the game and Tracker and studied some tings. Learning ensued.

First a word on Lokasenna. MM also plays him; won't claim to speak for him. But Loka has been accused here multiple times of cheating. I wish that would stop now. It's a heinous charge in our community. Reading your opponent's AAR is cheating. Paying 25% PPs under the game design is not. Loka plays a good, hard game. He has played strategy games his whole, short () life and is very good at them. Better than me. But he is not a cheater. Any of you could only wish for an opponent as gracious, funny, and willing to share, to educate. I have learned so much about how to play this beast from our interactions. When I have had Very Bad Things happen to my forces he has never gloated or trash-talked even once. He has given me OpSec material more than once to let me see why something disastrous happened. In short, he does not deserve the allegations that have been heaped on him here.

We agreed to a no-HR game. He plays it that way. I self-censored my buy-outs to play as some here state must be the method in part out of a feeling of "Air vs. Land", but more because I just never paid much attention to all the threads about how to do the cheaper buy-outs. In previous games it never mattered. But with Loka I find myself in straits because he's so damn good at playing Japan. I need those guys trapped in California by my decisions. I will say up until this thread I didn't know he had bought out Land to Air. But in a no-HR there's ne reason I should have. Further, to some posters' challenges, he has over 10,000 PP in the bank. Reduce that stack by 75% and have him pay full freight and he'd still have thousands of excess. As he says, for Japan it just doesn't matter.

Finally, to the issue of Air versus Land, he has made the point at least twice that the effects are the same in the game design. This doesn't seem to have penetrated, so I'll try once more. The game gives no advantage to any HQ type in land combat. An Air HQ behaves the same way as a Land in ground combat terms. Similarly the USMC can work for a Chinese general and all is the same. It's just the way it is. And the 25% method works equally well for WC land LCUs moving to Air HQs as does the Aussie Army moving to I Corps and then out to unrestricted status by buying I Corps out to itself or to a theater command. NO DIFFERENCE. The game doesn't care. But some here are fine with I Corps but not with WC simply because of that one, deadly word: "Air." It just doesn't matter.

OK. So some here would then argue that doing the I Corps move is somehow also "cheating." That an Aussie brigade which starts out working for Australia Command ought to pay 100% PPs to go to, say, SWPAC, rather than pay 25% to go to I Corps. And that's just ridiculous. That's putting on a hair shirt for no reason other than you have a hair shirt. That brigade, in RL military terms, OUGHT to be working for I Corps before it's working for SWPAC. (It ought to be working for a division CO, but that's a different argument.) But some here would advocate having it work for the "wrong" boss just to avoid paying 25% PPs. And when the 25% PP rule is built into the core of the game design.

So let's step back here. Nobody is cheating, foremost among us Lokasenna. For Japanese players it doesn't really matter. For Allied players it really does. And this whole thing has taught me so much about how to improve my game in the final game years. It's been good that way. And a smarter Moose is a more dangerous Moose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing






About the only thing I stop short of is excessive single ship TF's to soak up OPS points, as that's more engine manipulation.

yup...in the same abandoned game that prompted me to start the thread...the guy who was playing the allies before me has single ship TFs sprinkled all over the map. It has taken me weeks to gather them all up again. The amount of mouse clicks involved in his turns must of taken an hell of a long time. It's not the only thing I have found just more of the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Why is it that every time the word "gamey" comes up , after reading the "discussion" for a couple of pages I always want to run to the toilet to throw up, then I have a need for a shower? Then I seriously think about ripping the game out of my computer and dropping my discs and manuals into the trash? How is it that individuals manage to make this wonderful , brilliant game sound so dirty?

Why can we have thread after thread on house rules , yet never seem to agree on "what's gamey?". Cause THAT is the question. I've always been lead to consider the most important word to be INTENT. The intent to exploit a flaw in the game machinery in a manner that is essentially CHEATING. Am I wrong? Am I somehow ignorant , or misinformed? Then why can't we come to some kind of a working consensus?

My understanding is that the purpose (in REAL LIFE) of assigning a unit to another command (which we not very bright sailors call "chopping") is to facilitate command. To unify command. To consolidate command. Apparently some people do it to cheat. I didn't know that. OK. So the problem remains "what is gamey?". And once again , the answer comes down to "Intent".

In law , the judges often cite what's called "the reasonable man doctrine". What that comes down to here is very much the same. A restricted command in modern militaries is essentially a "training command" . Once a unit reaches it's proper status (full combat readiness) it is assigned to a Combat command. Other units are "home guard" equivalents. In the case of Australia in ww2 ALL units were considered "home guard" in nature unless they were assigned to "Imperial commands". Like the 1st Australian corps. Then they could go overseas.

The ABDA was a joint command. Nations "chopped" units into it and out of it as needed.

I don't see any of these things as "gamey". I don't think any "reasonable man" would. The infantry unit sent to a Air HQ definitely raises my eyebrow (in fact both of them!). I would ask any opponent to justify his action.....then wait for what had better be a damned good explanation.

But no matter how we define "gamey" , one thing won't help is for people to get "hot under the collar". So let's take a time out. Each of us should come up with a list of things we regard as "gamey" and WHY! And come up with solutions OTHER then having the opponent do EXACTLY what we want. In other words we need some serious compromise. A code of conduct as it were. There are some very bright , knowledgeable people on this forum (then there's the rest like me) , and I can't believe that we can't come up with a good , solid code of conduct based on agreement and compromise. Or we can just keep screwing around and clawing a each other like a bunch of unruly cats.

Except in the game the HQ has no effect in most cases on command. It's not real life. People keep trying to make it real life, but it isn't.

The devs could have solved the WC issue by not nesting Air HQs inside restricted Land HQs. They didn't. If they had a whole lot of angst could have been avoided.

Saying "full PPs in all cases" is nice, but the budgets don't work. My opponent reports he has over 8000 PPs in his account as Japan in late 1943. I have 50. I have not "cheated" in that game even once. But look at what the Allied player has to buy out just from the American OOB. The purchase values were assigned by the devs. The budgets were assigned by the devs. The Allies need to buy out at minimum four IDs in 1942, at a cost of over 2000 PPs each. Do the math.

As I said above, should any ID arrive in CONUS after June 1942 and need extra WC HQ training? No. They can be left there, but a Pacific unrestricted HQ should already own them. It's that fact in the stock scenarios that drives Allied players to use nesting to save PPs. I can't speak for Japanese players' problems. But the difference between 8000 and 50 is pretty stark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson
moving a combat division under an air HQ needs one heck of a good explanation.

I've got one: because it's not forbidden, and was in fact designed to be possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The fix is more reasonable than playing the game with the revered intentions handed down from on high.

At the start of your post following the design intent was what justified your play. But when faced with a quote that says what you are doing was not intended suddenly the intent is dismissed with sarcasm. In fact your whole argument shifts from Only ridiculous people think using Aus. I corps is not intended to The game is broken, and only by avoiding the intent can you get a good match

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson
only players looking to gain an unfair advantage over an otherwise trusting opponent would bend the system like this

That's just as pointlessly incendiary. Lokasenna isn't doing it to gain a competitive advantage, he is doing it because he thinks HRs are a bad way to try and control actions, and it is better to find an opponent who thinks like he does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

The only people doing wrong are those tell their opponent they aim to play the intent, and then do things like this behind the scenes. If you aren't paying 100% of the PP value of a restricted unit when you make it unrestricted, your opponent should know that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

You remind me a lot of MMO players who look for every exploit possible to cheat the intent of the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I also want to clarify that I think what Bullwinkle meant in terms of "it doesn't matter whether it's an Air HQ or a Ground HQ or a Naval HQ or a Command HQ" is that it doesn't matter what the unit is assigned to. An Air HQ certainly doesn't give you a bonus in combat .

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

For the Allies side the PP costs work fine. By mid 43 arriving restricted units pretty much disappear and the Allies really do not have to worry about PP costs. The idea is to slow down the Allied capabilities in the first half of the war and it really seems to do that very well. I don't really care much what my opponent is doing or how much PP points he has accumulated. Quite frankly, if the Allied player is up to snuff, then virtually all Japanese players are going to be hating life come 1944-no matter their PP situation. Works fine for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Replying to MM, but really the whole thread.

Slept on this. Woke up thinking about it. Opened the game and Tracker and studied some tings. Learning ensued.

First a word on Lokasenna. MM also plays him; won't claim to speak for him. But Loka has been accused here multiple times of cheating. I wish that would stop now. It's a heinous charge in our community. Reading your opponent's AAR is cheating. Paying 25% PPs under the game design is not. Loka plays a good, hard game. He has played strategy games his whole, short () life and is very good at them. Better than me. But he is not a cheater. Any of you could only wish for an opponent as gracious, funny, and willing to share, to educate. I have learned so much about how to play this beast from our interactions. When I have had Very Bad Things happen to my forces he has never gloated or trash-talked even once. He has given me OpSec material more than once to let me see why something disastrous happened. In short, he does not deserve the allegations that have been heaped on him here.

We agreed to a no-HR game. He plays it that way. I self-censored my buy-outs to play as some here state must be the method in part out of a feeling of "Air vs. Land", but more because I just never paid much attention to all the threads about how to do the cheaper buy-outs. In previous games it never mattered. But with Loka I find myself in straits because he's so damn good at playing Japan. I need those guys trapped in California by my decisions. I will say up until this thread I didn't know he had bought out Land to Air. But in a no-HR there's ne reason I should have. Further, to some posters' challenges, he has over 10,000 PP in the bank. Reduce that stack by 75% and have him pay full freight and he'd still have thousands of excess. As he says, for Japan it just doesn't matter.

Finally, to the issue of Air versus Land, he has made the point at least twice that the effects are the same in the game design. This doesn't seem to have penetrated, so I'll try once more. The game gives no advantage to any HQ type in land combat. An Air HQ behaves the same way as a Land in ground combat terms. Similarly the USMC can work for a Chinese general and all is the same. It's just the way it is. And the 25% method works equally well for WC land LCUs moving to Air HQs as does the Aussie Army moving to I Corps and then out to unrestricted status by buying I Corps out to itself or to a theater command. NO DIFFERENCE. The game doesn't care. But some here are fine with I Corps but not with WC simply because of that one, deadly word: "Air." It just doesn't matter.

OK. So some here would then argue that doing the I Corps move is somehow also "cheating." That an Aussie brigade which starts out working for Australia Command ought to pay 100% PPs to go to, say, SWPAC, rather than pay 25% to go to I Corps. And that's just ridiculous. That's putting on a hair shirt for no reason other than you have a hair shirt. That brigade, in RL military terms, OUGHT to be working for I Corps before it's working for SWPAC. (It ought to be working for a division CO, but that's a different argument.) But some here would advocate having it work for the "wrong" boss just to avoid paying 25% PPs. And when the 25% PP rule is built into the core of the game design.

So let's step back here. Nobody is cheating, foremost among us Lokasenna. For Japanese players it doesn't really matter. For Allied players it really does. And this whole thing has taught me so much about how to improve my game in the final game years. It's been good that way. And a smarter Moose is a more dangerous Moose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing






About the only thing I stop short of is excessive single ship TF's to soak up OPS points, as that's more engine manipulation.

yup...in the same abandoned game that prompted me to start the thread...the guy who was playing the allies before me has single ship TFs sprinkled all over the map. It has taken me weeks to gather them all up again. The amount of mouse clicks involved in his turns must of taken an hell of a long time. It's not the only thing I have found just more of the same.

Well, was he winning? That answer in itself will pretty much show if his tactics were worth it. If he abandoned the game I suspect he was not winning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I never got the impression that anyone was actually accusing me of cheating, merely that because I do things allowed by the game (but that aren't engine/mechanics exploitation) I get the side-eye. Or maybe it's because I find the concept a bit absurd.

I also want to clarify that I think what Bullwinkle meant in terms of "it doesn't matter whether it's an Air HQ or a Ground HQ or a Naval HQ or a Command HQ" is that it doesn't matter what the unit is assigned to. An Air HQ certainly doesn't give you a bonus in combat .

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

OK. So at this point there is NO consensus as to if this is "gamey" , unethical or unusual. Apparently we'll have to "agree to disagree". How about we simply agree to discuss this with any potential opponent and disclose our "philosophies" before we start a PBEM? Will this handle the problem? No judgments , just a "this is what I do , take it or leave it?"

To those of us who might have issues with such tactics , it doesn't matter what you do or don't do. It obviously didn't occur to us that anyone would do it, so we didn't ask. We feel "blindsided" at best and "cheated" at worst. ALL could be avoided with full disclosure. Then everybody can do or not do as they wish. No anger , name calling , or being judgmental. Just acting like adults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

OK. So at this point there is NO consensus as to if this is "gamey" , unethical or unusual. Apparently we'll have to "agree to disagree". How about we simply agree to discuss this with any potential opponent and disclose our "philosophies" before we start a PBEM? Will this handle the problem? No judgments , just a "this is what I do , take it or leave it?"

To those of us who might have issues with such tactics , it doesn't matter what you do or don't do. It obviously didn't occur to us that anyone would do it, so we didn't ask. We feel "blindsided" at best and "cheated" at worst. ALL could be avoided with full disclosure. Then everybody can do or not do as they wish. No anger , name calling , or being judgmental. Just acting like adults.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Replying to MM, but really the whole thread.

Slept on this. Woke up thinking about it. Opened the game and Tracker and studied some tings. Learning ensued.

First a word on Lokasenna. MM also plays him; won't claim to speak for him. But Loka has been accused here multiple times of cheating. I wish that would stop now. It's a heinous charge in our community. Reading your opponent's AAR is cheating. Paying 25% PPs under the game design is not. Loka plays a good, hard game. He has played strategy games his whole, short () life and is very good at them. Better than me. But he is not a cheater. Any of you could only wish for an opponent as gracious, funny, and willing to share, to educate. I have learned so much about how to play this beast from our interactions. When I have had Very Bad Things happen to my forces he has never gloated or trash-talked even once. He has given me OpSec material more than once to let me see why something disastrous happened. In short, he does not deserve the allegations that have been heaped on him here.

We agreed to a no-HR game. He plays it that way. I self-censored my buy-outs to play as some here state must be the method in part out of a feeling of "Air vs. Land", but more because I just never paid much attention to all the threads about how to do the cheaper buy-outs. In previous games it never mattered. But with Loka I find myself in straits because he's so damn good at playing Japan. I need those guys trapped in California by my decisions. I will say up until this thread I didn't know he had bought out Land to Air. But in a no-HR there's ne reason I should have. Further, to some posters' challenges, he has over 10,000 PP in the bank. Reduce that stack by 75% and have him pay full freight and he'd still have thousands of excess. As he says, for Japan it just doesn't matter.

Finally, to the issue of Air versus Land, he has made the point at least twice that the effects are the same in the game design. This doesn't seem to have penetrated, so I'll try once more. The game gives no advantage to any HQ type in land combat. An Air HQ behaves the same way as a Land in ground combat terms. Similarly the USMC can work for a Chinese general and all is the same. It's just the way it is. And the 25% method works equally well for WC land LCUs moving to Air HQs as does the Aussie Army moving to I Corps and then out to unrestricted status by buying I Corps out to itself or to a theater command. NO DIFFERENCE. The game doesn't care. But some here are fine with I Corps but not with WC simply because of that one, deadly word: "Air." It just doesn't matter.

OK. So some here would then argue that doing the I Corps move is somehow also "cheating." That an Aussie brigade which starts out working for Australia Command ought to pay 100% PPs to go to, say, SWPAC, rather than pay 25% to go to I Corps. And that's just ridiculous. That's putting on a hair shirt for no reason other than you have a hair shirt. That brigade, in RL military terms, OUGHT to be working for I Corps before it's working for SWPAC. (It ought to be working for a division CO, but that's a different argument.) But some here would advocate having it work for the "wrong" boss just to avoid paying 25% PPs. And when the 25% PP rule is built into the core of the game design.

So let's step back here. Nobody is cheating, foremost among us Lokasenna. For Japanese players it doesn't really matter. For Allied players it really does. And this whole thing has taught me so much about how to improve my game in the final game years. It's been good that way. And a smarter Moose is a more dangerous Moose.

Well again, I think its great he has found someone willing to put up with his gaming. You clearly are. However, with him paying just 25 percent of the PPs he should be paying...it allows him to free up many more combat divisions very EARLY in the game. And that makes a huge difference during the happy times for the JFB when they still have the amphib landing bonus. You don't think it affected your game? It did.

Sure he has banked 10K (due to the fact he is not paying full PPs) and apparently Japan doesn't need it late in game. But he is breaking the design. Good that you guys don't mind. And good that I know because I would never play him or anyone who lives to game the system as opposed to the opponent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

OK. So at this point there is NO consensus as to if this is "gamey" , unethical or unusual. Apparently we'll have to "agree to disagree". How about we simply agree to discuss this with any potential opponent and disclose our "philosophies" before we start a PBEM? Will this handle the problem? No judgments , just a "this is what I do , take it or leave it?"

To those of us who might have issues with such tactics , it doesn't matter what you do or don't do. It obviously didn't occur to us that anyone would do it, so we didn't ask. We feel "blindsided" at best and "cheated" at worst. ALL could be avoided with full disclosure. Then everybody can do or not do as they wish. No anger , name calling , or being judgmental. Just acting like adults.

Thank you, Mr. UN.

Anyone who has been around here for long is aware of this practice. There were mega-threads over and over for years when the game was newer. I skimmed them, but never really dug into the mechanics because at the time I was playing the AI and you don't need to ever consider doing it against the AI. And I never discussed it because I play an open game. If anyone is bothered by it I'd say for sure discuss it.

But I'd also urge Allied players to also discuss raising the Allied PP daily. Maybe in exchange for something else, but it's a key number. And very easy to change.

In addition, if you want a list of discussions, MindMessing's list of the things he's done in Loka's game would be a good start for Allied players to chat with their Japanese opponents. The kami activation one in particular the Allied player has no counter for. I think it could have been coded better to make the Japanese player actually take back a base rather than just not take one, but it is what it is. And it can really swing 1944 in a big way. Super-sizing Japanese air units would be second, especially with "free" torpedoes.

(While I'm wool-gathering, how great would the game be if torpedoes were managed like mines? Limited pools, but draw-able at any properly-sized base? Torpedoes are an order of magnitude more expensive and complex than mines, but an xAKL can "carry" 300-400 of them in supply dropped at a base with an Air HQ. They're essentially free.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I never got the impression that anyone was actually accusing me of cheating, merely that because I do things allowed by the game (but that aren't engine/mechanics exploitation) I get the side-eye. Or maybe it's because I find the concept a bit absurd.

I also want to clarify that I think what Bullwinkle meant in terms of "it doesn't matter whether it's an Air HQ or a Ground HQ or a Naval HQ or a Command HQ" is that it doesn't matter what the unit is assigned to. An Air HQ certainly doesn't give you a bonus in combat .

Cheating no. Your opponents are well aware of what you are doing and that is fine. You are exploiting the game engine, but as long as your opponents know and agree to play an open game like that...no harm no foul.

I started the thread based on my experiences when my opponent was doing what you were doing while I was being a dumb ass and trying to play the game as intended, as opposed to taking advantage of ever exploit possible.

Air HQs don't give you a bonus in combat, I don't think that has ever been said...it fives you a bonus of being able to buy your combat divisions out at a 75 percent discount. That is a HUGE advantage in game particularly early when Japan is scraping around for PPs to release all those unused Manchurian units facing the soviets. And that is the center of my argument.

By 43/44, it doesn't matter because and competent player should be kicking Japan's ass...but who wants to spend a year playing someone who is exploiting the game design and patiently wait for the game to finally be on even terms?

quote:

In addition, if you want a list of discussions, MindMessing's list of the things he's done in Loka's game would be a good start for Allied players to chat with their Japanese opponents. The kami activation one in particular the Allied player has no counter for. I think it could have been coded better to make the Japanese player actually take back a base rather than just not take one, but it is what it is. And it can really swing 1944 in a big way. Super-sizing Japanese air units would be second, especially with "free" torpedoes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I never got the impression that anyone was actually accusing me of cheating, merely that because I do things allowed by the game (but that aren't engine/mechanics exploitation) I get the side-eye. Or maybe it's because I find the concept a bit absurd.

I also want to clarify that I think what Bullwinkle meant in terms of "it doesn't matter whether it's an Air HQ or a Ground HQ or a Naval HQ or a Command HQ" is that it doesn't matter what the unit is assigned to. An Air HQ certainly doesn't give you a bonus in combat .

Cheating no. Your opponents are well aware of what you are doing and that is fine. You are exploiting the game engine, but as long as your opponents know and agree to play an open game like that...no harm no foul.

I started the thread based on my experiences when my opponent was doing what you were doing while I was being a dumb ass and trying to play the game as intended, as opposed to taking advantage of ever exploit possible.

Air HQs don't give you a bonus in combat, I don't think that has ever been said...it fives you a bonus of being able to buy your combat divisions out at a 75 percent discount. That is a HUGE advantage in game particularly early when Japan is scraping around for PPs to release all those unused Manchurian units facing the soviets. And that is the center of my argument.

By 43/44, it doesn't matter because and competent player should be kicking Japan's ass...but who wants to spend a year playing someone who is exploiting the game design and patiently wait for the game to finally be on even terms?

Where in the manual, the game, or anywhere else does it say that you are required required to move certain types of units to a certain type of HQ?

You keep using the phrase "playing the game as intended". How, exactly, is the game intended to be played? Your "rules"?

It seems to me that anyone with a approach to the game that differs from yours is either cheating or exploiting the game engine.

quote:

In addition, if you want a list of discussions, MindMessing's list of the things he's done in Loka's game would be a good start for Allied players to chat with their Japanese opponents. The kami activation one in particular the Allied player has no counter for. I think it could have been coded better to make the Japanese player actually take back a base rather than just not take one, but it is what it is. And it can really swing 1944 in a big way. Super-sizing Japanese air units would be second, especially with "free" torpedoes.

It gives me a strange sense of pride that I'm the baseline for all the nefarious tricks Japan can pull off :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


It gives me a strange sense of pride that I'm the baseline for all the nefarious tricks Japan can pull off :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: iley

If the Ide is to attach 2nd marine to VII bomber and then pay points to change bomber command taking 2nd marine with it for free. Not gonna work. You must pay to move second marine two VII bomber. Would only work with units that start out attached to a HQ. Of course I could be completely wrong would not be the first time.

Iley

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I never got the impression that anyone was actually accusing me of cheating, merely that because I do things allowed by the game (but that aren't engine/mechanics exploitation) I get the side-eye. Or maybe it's because I find the concept a bit absurd.

I also want to clarify that I think what Bullwinkle meant in terms of "it doesn't matter whether it's an Air HQ or a Ground HQ or a Naval HQ or a Command HQ" is that it doesn't matter what the unit is assigned to. An Air HQ certainly doesn't give you a bonus in combat .

Cheating no. Your opponents are well aware of what you are doing and that is fine. You are exploiting the game engine, but as long as your opponents know and agree to play an open game like that...no harm no foul.

I started the thread based on my experiences when my opponent was doing what you were doing while I was being a dumb ass and trying to play the game as intended, as opposed to taking advantage of ever exploit possible.

Air HQs don't give you a bonus in combat, I don't think that has ever been said...it fives you a bonus of being able to buy your combat divisions out at a 75 percent discount. That is a HUGE advantage in game particularly early when Japan is scraping around for PPs to release all those unused Manchurian units facing the soviets. And that is the center of my argument.

By 43/44, it doesn't matter because and competent player should be kicking Japan's ass...but who wants to spend a year playing someone who is exploiting the game design and patiently wait for the game to finally be on even terms?

Where in the manual, the game, or anywhere else does it say that you are required required to move certain types of units to a certain type of HQ?

You keep using the phrase "playing the game as intended". How, exactly, is the game intended to be played? Your "rules"?

It seems to me that anyone with a approach to the game that differs from yours is either cheating or exploiting the game engine.

quote:

In addition, if you want a list of discussions, MindMessing's list of the things he's done in Loka's game would be a good start for Allied players to chat with their Japanese opponents. The kami activation one in particular the Allied player has no counter for. I think it could have been coded better to make the Japanese player actually take back a base rather than just not take one, but it is what it is. And it can really swing 1944 in a big way. Super-sizing Japanese air units would be second, especially with "free" torpedoes.

It gives me a strange sense of pride that I'm the baseline for all the nefarious tricks Japan can pull off :)

Yes I'm sure your mother is/would be proud of you. Well, now that your ethical feeling in game play are out it will be most interesting to see who will play a PBEM with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


It gives me a strange sense of pride that I'm the baseline for all the nefarious tricks Japan can pull off :)

Well, yeah, but there's still 1945 . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

Just to be clear, since you wanted one more shot, it was you I was referring to when I spoke about posters calling him a cheater. That was despicable.

I'm going to give you a green-button vacation.

quote:

What rule says that full PP costs have to be paid for anything?

Where is it written in the manual?

If what we have discussed in the HQ/PP system was an exploit, it would have been fixed by now. Many more issues have.

Lokasenna does not cheat. His attitude to the game differs from your own. This does not make him a cheater.

The sooner you realize this, the better. It does not sit well with me (and others) to call people out as cheaters.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

WitP can be seen in two ways, is it a simulation or a game. If you see it as a simulation, doing anything that couldn't happen historically is a problem. If you see it as a game, you do anything within the rules that allows you to get an advantage.

Whether taking advantage of loopholes in the rules is cheating or not is up to the people playing a particular game. It may not be what you would tolerate, but that's what house rules are for.

In any case, please chill with the finger pointing. It isn't needed and it doesn't help anything.

Bill

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

quote:

What rule says that full PP costs have to be paid for anything?

Where is it written in the manual?

If what we have discussed in the HQ/PP system was an exploit, it would have been fixed by now. Many more issues have.

Lokasenna does not cheat. His attitude to the game differs from your own. This does not make him a cheater.

The sooner you realize this, the better. It does not sit well with me (and others) to call people out as cheaters.

quote:

It has been pointed out by others that the way that Lok has admitted to using the PP rules was not the intent of the designers. When they did the refresh of the game they wanted to fix it, but they simply ran out of time to correct it...(given the laundry list of issues with the game that's easy to see).

quote:

But in multiple threads they have said no, we don't want the players using the HQs this way. I mean, that's straight from the horse's mouth, I don't know what more evidence you need.

quote:

Lok has admitted he dislikes house rules...of course he does...it means he can't use the various exploits he has discovered in the game design. It's great that he has found like-minded players. It doesn't change my opinion of him or others who would use the game breaking exploits so they can win an online game. How he plays is up to him and that's great...I'm happy for you. But don't pretend like you or he aren't exploiting the game system with your style of play. Happily, you guys have revealed yourselves so players like me can be sure not to invest time in a game with you.

quote:

If you feel I am calling him a cheater, that's how you feel. I don't think I have openly said anyone was cheating.

quote:

By their intent they are cheating...if Lok or you are feeling guilty...perhaps a strong look in the mirror is in order.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

For the Allies side the PP costs work fine. By mid 43 arriving restricted units pretty much disappear and the Allies really do not have to worry about PP costs. The idea is to slow down the Allied capabilities in the first half of the war and it really seems to do that very well. I don't really care much what my opponent is doing or how much PP points he has accumulated. Quite frankly, if the Allied player is up to snuff, then virtually all Japanese players are going to be hating life come 1944-no matter their PP situation. Works fine for me.

I have to disagree, as I have before. Take a look at your queues. For the US Army alone you get WC restricted IDs in 1943 and 1944--7th and 98th (?) Those are each about 4 months of PPs to buy out. You get a lot of restricted AA. You get several restricted engineering units. And that's just the US Army.

You say in your post you haven't been able to use the Kiwis; you should be able to by 1943.

For me I still haven't got the 7th fully bought in December 1943 because I needed the Aussie divisions for NG and I didn't do the I Corps move. I paid full boat for the Aussies at about 550 PP per third. Ouch. A month per third.

I've got no PPs to get the 98th next spring unless I start saving now, and I can't as I need another 700+ to finish the 7th.

You've played the full game before, so you know how many TFs need new COs, how many subs come with pretty bad COs, etc. In the early game you spend replacing scores of air leaders in the 20s; in the late game you need PPs for TFs. Which is fine, but you're trying to buy IDs that should be fully trained when they arrive for deployment.

As you say Michael added new PP freight too. I don't mind, but it's another leak.

I don't know if I'll ever start another game. But I'd want at least 60/day. 70/day would be better. The Kiwis are useful.