RE: PP's (political points) a discussion

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: PP's (political points) a discussion

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: PP's (political points) a discussion

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 5:50:26 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Prep is staff work mostly, there's no reason I know of it can't proceed aboard ship. The soldiers don't have a clue where they are going, whether by foot, by sea or by air.

I think our posts crossed. It's not really prep work.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 31

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 5:59:22 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

Planning session scheduled. "Oh, let's see, can I work that in between tanning in a deck chair and my shuffleboard tournament?

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 32

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 6:02:42 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

I was reacting to the previous poster, not you. Agree with you. So I'm not delusional? Once upon a time prep did advance shipboard?

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 33

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 7:14:39 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

I see this most often when combining three regiments or brigades into a division - whereupon the AI chooses the least competent commander of the three regiment COs to be Divisional Commander. And then there are all the ones who have some bizarre number like 30 or 50 or even 250 as their PP value,

Happens all the time as Japan also, though I've never come across one that expensive. At least with Japanese units, some of the Chinese fighting for Japan are that way, but who cares, they're nothing better than garrison troops anyway.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 34

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 7:17:16 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

I've never really found a hardship in finding enough PPs to meet my needs and find some of the mods with inflated PP rates per day over the top.

Yeah, I meant to mention I was speaking about stock scenarios as that's all I've played so far.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 35

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 7:21:04 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

The only thing I think is wrong with the PP system, in broad strokes (I've got quibbles beyond this Big Quibble), is that Japan starts with a bank of them while the Allies do not. The Allies should start with at least 200 PPs, IMHO.

Japan starts with 500 PP's IIRC. That's not even enough to buy out a Brigade, so I don't think its that bad. Though I'd have no problem with the Allies starting with a few points as well.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 36

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 7:23:19 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

The thing I really don't know about is how restrictive this may be the the Allied OOB.

Back to the original question about the restrictiveness of PPs re the Allied OOB.

The following early reinforcement divisions are assigned to the West Coast Command:
27th, 32nd, 40th and 41st...IIRC one can buy them out at reduced cost at less than TO&E saving 500 PPs or so on the first one (but they will have poor experience and morale).

The Americal Division starts out needing to have the 164th Regt bought out - the other regiments are already in a non-restricted command (forget which one).

Each of the Divisions in Hawaii at start are assigned to the restricted Hawaii Command but each contains only 2 regts. The third for each is assigned to a non-restricted command (forget which one).

The 2nd Marine Division has one Regt assigned to the West Coast at start and lacks the 6th Regt which enters at reduced strength some months after the start.

Thus the US has no major combat formations that may be immediately assigned to a non restricted command except for 1 Marine Regt and two Army Regts.

Thanks Spence, that's good info of which I was unaware.

< Message edited by rustysi -- 1/27/2018 6:45:50 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 37

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 7:26:18 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

The deployable Chinese forces were meant to be purchased 'on the cheap'.

Exactly what I thought, and no problem or argument here.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 38

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 7:32:53 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

buying out engineers and some of the artillery and flak units are ridiculously cheap,

Artillery seems rather expensive to me. I don't buy much/any out early.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 39

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 7:39:04 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

I should add is my biggest headache is when I have bought out regiments to only discover that one part of a division is assigned to a different HQ. There is 700 PP down the toilet...

Been there, done that...

Lessons learned, always check a units' component assignments before committing to a new HQ.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 40

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 7:40:08 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

OK guys, thanks for the input.

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 41

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 8:31:23 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

quote:

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

I would spend all my Political Points for the entire game to have Jody drafted, in uniform and sent overseas.

Is that a US thing? Who the h%^% is Jody.

Absolutely. Jody is the protagonist of many of the favorite marching songs in the Army. He's the 'friend' who stayed at home after you joined the service. Sample marching lyrics:

"I used to drive a Cadillac . . . now I'm marching there and back."
. . .
"Ain't no use in going back . . . Jody's got my Cadillac.
Ain't no use in going home . . . Jody's got my girl and gone."

If you were in the Army, Jody was not a popular guy.

The cadences soldiers sing while they march are known as 'Jodies'.

Yes.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 42

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 8:38:40 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

Should buyouts be at a certain strength level or not?

For me, no. It allows a unit to be transfer to a location to be built up. I often refer to "Political Points" as "Administrative Points" as it's a real world organizational condition as to how much could be accomplished in a certain amount of time in the moving of units, assigning of commanders and the other PP required actions.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 43

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 8:41:02 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

buying out engineers and some of the artillery and flak units are ridiculously cheap,

Artillery seems rather expensive to me. I don't buy much/any out early.

Some of it is but the 81mm mortars and the mountain guns are good deals.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 44

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 8:45:33 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

The thing I really don't know about is how restrictive this may be the the Allied OOB.

Back to the original question about the restrictiveness of PPs re the Allied OOB.

The following early reinforcement divisions are assigned to the West Coast Command:
27th, 32nd, 40th and 41st...IIRC one can buy them out at reduced cost at less than TO&E saving 500 PPs or so on the first one (but they will have poor experience and morale).

The Americal Division starts out needing to have the 164th Regt bought out - the other regiments are already in a non-restricted command (forget which one).

Each of the Divisions in Hawaii at start are assigned to the restricted Hawaii Command but each contains only 2 regts. The third for each is assigned to a non-restricted command (forget which one).

The 2nd Marine Division has one Regt assigned to the West Coast at start and lacks the 6th Regt which enters at reduced strength some months after the start.

Thus the US has no major combat formations that may be immediately assigned to a non restricted command except for 1 Marine Regt and two Army Regts.

Thanks Spence, that's good info of which that I was unaware.

I believe this is an intentional speed bump to keep the US from getting too many high AV LCUs operational too early and throwing cogs into the gears of the initial Japanese expansion.

Its a play to game balance that I don't begrudge as an avowed AFB unlike so many other well documented grudges of mine).

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 45

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 8:47:27 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

buying out engineers and some of the artillery and flak units are ridiculously cheap,

Artillery seems rather expensive to me. I don't buy much/any out early.

I think this is a carry over from the early days (maybe it was WiTP and not the early days of AE) where artillery could be used as a land Death Star.

They toned done the lethality of artillery but never reduced the inflated cost.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 46

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 8:52:46 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Its a play to game balance that I don't begrudge as an avowed AFB unlike so many other well documented grudges of mine).

Well documented grudges? Citation required.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 47

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 10:21:38 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I was reacting to the previous poster, not you. Agree with you. So I'm not delusional? Once upon a time prep did advance shipboard?

Two different questions.

quote:

So I'm not delusional?

Yes, you are!

quote:

Once upon a time prep did advance shipboard?

Yes, IIRC.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 48

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 11:04:42 PM

Zorch

Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I was reacting to the previous poster, not you. Agree with you. So I'm not delusional? Once upon a time prep did advance shipboard?

Two different questions.

quote:

So I'm not delusional?

Yes, you are!

quote:

Once upon a time prep did advance shipboard?

Yes, IIRC.

If you think you're delusional, then you're not. If you don't think you are, well, then...

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 49

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 11:23:23 PM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Once upon a time prep did advance shipboard?

And they prepped happily ever after.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 50

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/25/2018 11:52:46 PM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

I believe I discussed PP with Alfred in an AAR, and if I remember correctly, the PP system was never completely finished. (Sorry if this was covered above).
The conversation came about over my frustration on PP costs to change within theater as I was willing to pay PP to get Corps, etc. aligned under HQs within
theaters but some of the costs were the same as releasing the unit from restricted status etc..

(in reply to MakeeLearn)

Post #: 51

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/26/2018 4:19:37 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 9297
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

buying out engineers and some of the artillery and flak units are ridiculously cheap,

Artillery seems rather expensive to me. I don't buy much/any out early.

I think this is a carry over from the early days (maybe it was WiTP and not the early days of AE) where artillery could be used as a land Death Star.

They toned done the lethality of artillery but never reduced the inflated cost.

I seem to remember some devices having been adjusted downwards at some time since 2011, but perhaps not all.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 52

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/26/2018 6:40:24 PM

Oldguard1970

Posts: 578
Joined: 7/19/2006
From: Hiawassee, GA
Status: offline

Hans raises an interesting point about desire to use commands to reflect real organization.

I would like the ability to swap between unrestricted commands at zero pp. That would permit players to organize armies, corps, fleets, etc. while preserving the limitations of restricted commands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

...

In those kinds of games I would be squandering PPs simply for the aesthetics of moving units into proper commands for their deployment.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 53

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/26/2018 7:39:18 PM

Macclan5

Posts: 1065
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

The thing I really don't know about is how restrictive this may be the the Allied OOB.

Back to the original question about the restrictiveness of PPs re the Allied OOB.

The following early reinforcement divisions are assigned to the West Coast Command:
27th, 32nd, 40th and 41st...IIRC one can buy them out at reduced cost at less than TO&E saving 500 PPs or so on the first one (but they will have poor experience and morale).

The Americal Division starts out needing to have the 164th Regt bought out - the other regiments are already in a non-restricted command (forget which one).

Each of the Divisions in Hawaii at start are assigned to the restricted Hawaii Command but each contains only 2 regts. The third for each is assigned to a non-restricted command (forget which one).

The 2nd Marine Division has one Regt assigned to the West Coast at start and lacks the 6th Regt which enters at reduced strength some months after the start.

Thus the US has no major combat formations that may be immediately assigned to a non restricted command except for 1 Marine Regt and two Army Regts.

Thanks Spence, that's good info of which that I was unaware.

I believe this is an intentional speed bump to keep the US from getting too many high AV LCUs operational too early and throwing cogs into the gears of the initial Japanese expansion.

Its a play to game balance that I don't begrudge as an avowed AFB unlike so many other well documented grudges of mine).

True ?

A great catch observation Hans.

I was under the impression that OOB was historically modeled; or very closely so. Hard to be perfect.

I am no expert historian in this albeit I found no particular flaws.

My only "undocumented gripe" is the divisions with restricted Hawaiian Command - especially the two divisions mentioned above. I am uncertain when POA took over Hawaiian Command (i.e. not when Nimitz landed and formally took over - more when all Units in Hawaiian Command were placed at his disposal so to speak ).

King had well documented concerns regarding Suva / Pago Pago / Canton / Christmas and the 'lane'.

I cannot envision that those units were not immediately available - immediately - even before Nimitz got off the Super Chief (train) at Los Angeles.

It may represent (abstract) the US fear of Hawaiian invasion but even that is a bit flimsy as the game doesn't really model all the displaced sailors (sunken / damaged ships) marching around on high alert.

Hawaiian should become unrestricted command effective i.e. Dec 25 when the initial panic died down.

< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 1/26/2018 7:41:27 PM >

_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 54

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/26/2018 7:49:02 PM

Mundy

Posts: 2869
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline

Probably my only wish is that once purchased off restricted status, units should be able to be moved around freely.

_____________________________

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 55

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/26/2018 8:42:09 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mundy

Probably my only wish is that once purchased off restricted status, units should be able to be moved around freely.

They can move freely, unless you are talking about switching to other non-restricted HQs at no cost?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Mundy)

Post #: 56

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/26/2018 9:42:43 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

The initial panic was not limited to Hawaii and lasted longer than Dec 25. The four "early reinforcement" divisions were initially deployed to defend against an anticipated invasion of the West Coast and were released from this assignment and readied for oversea duty starting in March 1942, four months into the war. So having them restricted to West Coast Command seems to be quite right. Altetnatively one could make them unrestricted but not on map until the date they were detached from West Coast Command.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 57

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/27/2018 3:15:31 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

I was under the impression that OOB was historically modeled; or very closely so. Hard to be perfect.

I am no expert historian in this albeit I found no particular flaws.

My only "undocumented gripe" is the divisions with restricted Hawaiian Command - especially the two divisions mentioned above. I am uncertain when POA took over Hawaiian Command (i.e. not when Nimitz landed and formally took over - more when all Units in Hawaiian Command were placed at his disposal so to speak ).

Mac,

I was responsible for the US land OOB, so errors there rest on my shoulders. The Devs did try to model the OOBs historically. With PPs we strove for a balance of allowing the Allies flexibility top choose which units to release, but to have only enough PPs for the overall # of divisions and brigades to be deployed at roughly the historical rate.

The 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions, starting at Pearl Harbor, with 'round out' brigades coming from San Francisco, give the allies some early war flexibility. Historically, the 2 Hawaiian divisions didn't leave the islands until November of 1942, and mid-1943. However, the player can deploy them elsewhere in the Pacific much sooner, if he is willing to leave Oahu vulnerable.

Switching the regiments of the Hawaiian command to the Pacific Fleet costs ~150 PP per regiment, because of the discount rate to change HQs within the Command HQ. They can be combined with the two 'round out' regiments coming from San Francisco that are already attached to the Pacific Fleet (34th regiment for the 24th Division; 161st regiment for the 25th Division). [Pacific Fleet HQ later morphs into POA].

So within two weeks, the Allies can have 2 combined, deploy-able US divisions available at Pearl Harbor -- if they don't spend their PPs on anything else.

The Allies get one major PP 'freebie'in the early war. Because only unrestricted LCUs can board ships, the veteran Australian 6th and 7th divisions arrive in January unrestricted, and can be sent anywhere. In the actual war, Churchill, with Roosevelt's support, tried to get Australian permission to send the divisions to defend Burma. At the insistence of Australian Prime Minister Curtin, the divisions were returned to Australia for home defense.

Most allied players 'buy out' key units in the Philippines, Malaya and DEI in the first weeks, as well as changing air, naval and (sometimes) HQ commanders. These changes come at the cost of delaying the deployment of the rest of the allied forces. For the allies, it is a case of 'choose your poison' in the early war.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Macclan5)

Post #: 58

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/27/2018 3:35:14 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldguard1970

Hans raises an interesting point about desire to use commands to reflect real organization.

I would like the ability to swap between unrestricted commands at zero pp. That would permit players to organize armies, corps, fleets, etc. while preserving the limitations of restricted commands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

...

In those kinds of games I would be squandering PPs simply for the aesthetics of moving units into proper commands for their deployment.

Yep. Or a token amount; say 1 PP for changing HQs within a Command HQ. The clock ran out before we could fully implement HQs in the release of AE. A change like this could presumably be addressed in a patch.

_____________________________

(in reply to Oldguard1970)

Post #: 59

RE: PP's (political points) a discussion - 1/27/2018 12:11:57 PM

Mundy

Posts: 2869
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
They can move freely, unless you are talking about switching to other non-restricted HQs at no cost?

Yeah, that's what I meant. As I understood it, units tended to be freely redistributed to other commands. I figure once a unit is bought off of restriction, I should be able to more freely put it under the HQ I want.

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 60