Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Lowpe, how are you coping with so few political points this late in the campaign?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, you played it correctly.  No dev has ever approved of transferring LCU to an Air HQ to get the PP discount.  Not just not approved, several have posted that it should not be done as it is a clear player "cheat".  There are no circumstances which justify use of the "cheat" if there is any intent to be realistic to the conditions and capabilities of the era. 

You will get posters saying this is not so but every single one of them will fail to provide you with a quote where a dev approved the practice.

Players who approve of the "cheat" may as well edit the scenario to allow Japan the Atomic Bomb on 7 Dec 1941, to deploy a B-52 equivalent, Tomcats on the KB, and Abrams tanks in every single LCU.  Oh, and a Manchukuo garrison requirement of zero AV.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, you played it correctly.  No dev has ever approved of transferring LCU to an Air HQ to get the PP discount.  Not just not approved, several have posted that it should not be done as it is a clear player "cheat".  There are no circumstances which justify use of the "cheat" if there is any intent to be realistic to the conditions and capabilities of the era. 

You will get posters saying this is not so but every single one of them will fail to provide you with a quote where a dev approved the practice.

Players who approve of the "cheat" may as well edit the scenario to allow Japan the Atomic Bomb on 7 Dec 1941, to deploy a B-52 equivalent, Tomcats on the KB, and Abrams tanks in every single LCU.  Oh, and a Manchukuo garrison requirement of zero AV.

Alfred

That is good to know. Thanks! I had people telling me the opposite... In my game with Jocke, we swapped emails on this topic and decided not to use it, but in the mod there are no free air HQ commands to transfer into or at least not many on the Japanese side.

The other Japanese ploy is to expand Naval squadrons, and I really don't like that either.

I could use a few Abrams about now...heck, I will settle for a Pershing or two.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, you played it correctly.  No dev has ever approved of transferring LCU to an Air HQ to get the PP discount.  Not just not approved, several have posted that it should not be done as it is a clear player "cheat".  There are no circumstances which justify use of the "cheat" if there is any intent to be realistic to the conditions and capabilities of the era. 

You will get posters saying this is not so but every single one of them will fail to provide you with a quote where a dev approved the practice.

Players who approve of the "cheat" may as well edit the scenario to allow Japan the Atomic Bomb on 7 Dec 1941, to deploy a B-52 equivalent, Tomcats on the KB, and Abrams tanks in every single LCU.  Oh, and a Manchukuo garrison requirement of zero AV.

Alfred

That is good to know. Thanks! I had people telling me the opposite... In my game with Jocke, we swapped emails on this topic and decided not to use it, but in the mod there are no free air HQ commands to transfer into or at least not many on the Japanese side.

The other Japanese ploy is to expand Naval squadrons, and I really don't like that either.

I could use a few Abrams about now...heck, I will settle for a Pershing or two.

The expand naval squadrons ploy is not quite so clear cut.

I don't recall ever searching for dev comments limited to that ploy whereas I can assure you I have conducted several searches on the LCU reattachment to air HQ practice. There are many dev posts on the LCU reattachment, all quite negative. I don't recall in doing those searches coming across one on the naval air but I'm quite confident they would not approve of that ploy too.

The reason why the naval ploy is not so clear cut is that it is intended that air units which operate from aircraft carriers be able to undertake their historical resizing. Historically these air units always remained on the aircraft carriers after the resizing (obviously if the carrier were sunk or decommissioned for repairs etc that is a different scenario). What did not occur historically was the 1 day placement onto a carrier of a terrestrial air unit which was expanded to maximum CV air capacity and then immediately withdrawn back to terra firma to conduct terrestrial operations.

It is a weakness of the game engine that the naval ploy is possible. With the current engine you cannot have the historical resizing option for permanent carrier units whilst simultaneously preventing any carrier capable unit which operated exclusively from land, from doing likewise. Attempting to plug the code loophole leads to other problems such as stopping carrier capable units from both operating off carriers and being capable of upskilling to carrier trained status.

I'll give you another game ploy which is not supported by historical praxis even though those who benefit from it will vociferously claim otherwise. Operating off a carrier is a high skill operation which requires constant practice to maintain the skills. In real life, if you are relocated to operate from land for an extended period of time, you will lose those carrier skills. A more robust game engine would therefore result in carrier trained units which are relocated to operate from land bases, losing their carrier trained status and reverting at the very least to the lesser carrier capable status. That would have a dramatic impact on game play and make it much more realistic too. Imagine combining that with no resizing to carrier capacity for dedicated terrestrial air units.

Basically the devs wanted to remove hard coded restrictions and allow flexibility. But flexibility within historical, real world constraints. Unfortunately the game engine, like all game engines, allows players to exploit loopholes. Plugging any loophole always creates another; and that is without taking into account whether the resources were available or best utilised on plugging that loophole at the expense of other coding tasks.

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No.

As I said, it isn't so clear cut.  British carriers tend to arrive without a full complement of air units and many need to have FAA units moved onto the carrier.  This initial topping off can justify doing it in reverse too.

In practical game terms it isn't much of an issue because British aircraft pools are not that plentiful nor are British carrier capable aircraft models that good in performance terms.  Plus the unit sizes tend to be on the small side.  So in practical terms retaining them is not really going to boost the Allied performance.  If the game engine supported deskilling the FAA units left behind, I wouldn't have any objections.  But the same is not true of Japanese or American carrier units where the carriers remain active on the map but are hidden but the air wings are thrown into the thick of battle for months at a time.  That did not happen historically.  If an IJN or USN carrier was in theatre and active, it had aircraft on board.

Everything comes back to whether players attempt to play within the real world parameters of the era or just want to find any excuse to get a "game" edge to win over their opponent.  For example there are Allied players who justify their decision to load their early 1942 carriers with marine fighter units (even taking off all bomber units using the carriers as mobile flak traps) on the basis that it was done in the war.  Well yes, very later in the war in 1945.  Wasn't done in 1942 or 1943 because doctrine could not accommodate it, there weren't spare USMC units to do it, the logistics weren't in place and so on.  But heck who cares about those real limitations if they can get a gaming edge using doctrine and resources from the future.

It is all a bit like the man who goes fishing using dynamite and at the end of the day turns to a fisherman who used a fishing rod and claims to have won because he "caught" so many more fish.  Sure he has a big catch but it was a rather hollow "victory".

Alfred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

It absolutely is not much, but it is something.

Hopefully I can nail something down here...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

No, you played it correctly.  No dev has ever approved of transferring LCU to an Air HQ to get the PP discount.  Not just not approved, several have posted that it should not be done as it is a clear player "cheat".  There are no circumstances which justify use of the "cheat" if there is any intent to be realistic to the conditions and capabilities of the era. 

You will get posters saying this is not so but every single one of them will fail to provide you with a quote where a dev approved the practice.

Players who approve of the "cheat" may as well edit the scenario to allow Japan the Atomic Bomb on 7 Dec 1941, to deploy a B-52 equivalent, Tomcats on the KB, and Abrams tanks in every single LCU.  Oh, and a Manchukuo garrison requirement of zero AV.

Alfred

quote:

Basically the devs wanted to remove hard coded restrictions and allow flexibility. But flexibility within historical, real world constraints. Unfortunately the game engine, like all game engines, allows players to exploit loopholes. Plugging any loophole always creates another; and that is without taking into account whether the resources were available or best utilised on plugging that loophole at the expense of other coding tasks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

It is all a bit like the man who goes fishing using dynamite and at the end of the day turns to a fisherman who used a fishing rod and claims to have won because he "caught" so many more fish.  Sure he has a big catch but it was a rather hollow "victory".