Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Can someone help me understand the issue here please. Has anyone done the 'overstacking test'? What is the fastest Tinian can be built up by (a) cheating in the editor, and dumping huge supply and as many ENG as you like, and (b) doing it for real, with shipped in supply?

Until some numerical data is produced (shared) I suspect you might be debating CPU size with a caveman (i.e. no common frame of reference)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
snip...
for me Tinian with 2 Bgd represents the "state-of-the-art" as defined by history. Everything esle is subjective conjecture....

quote:

So the stacking limit for construction units should be MORE than 12,206.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The issue is that a player can stack an infinate # of ENG units at a single base in order to ultra-accelerate base building. A similar comparison would be players who might try to create 100 ship air combat TF's in order to create so high a flak rating as to make them invulnerable to air attack (and this could be done in PacWar up to the size limit of the TF's)

WitP of course fixed that scenerio by introducing a "diminishing returns" rule for total AA. From the 16th ship onward, the AA value increase becomes less than the full stated value of the ship's AA component and so on and so on.

The suggestion is that a similar rule be applied to ENG units in that once a certain # of "engineers" is reached that they produce increasingly diminishing returns the higher above that # is reached. Players can still stack, they just wont get total value out of all those hundreds of diggers and their D8's

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980
snip...
for me Tinian with 2 Bgd represents the "state-of-the-art" as defined by history. Everything esle is subjective conjecture....

I don't think Tinian really is the best example to determine build rates. As I said earlier, much of the building that went on for many months isn't modelled in the game. They were building for one very specific AC. They built 500 foot wide runways. It was built to efficiently accomodate more aircraft than the game even allows without restrictions (50*Airfield Size = 500 max without penalties).

I even wonder how much of it was built as a showcase. By game standards, IMO it's a "brick outhouse".

I think Henderson Field gives a more realistic idea of what needs to be done consistently in the game. But no one example should be used to make the determination. I'm sure the designers based their decisions on multiple historic examples plus previous games.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The issue is that a player can stack an infinate # of ENG units at a single base in order to ultra-accelerate base building. A similar comparison would be players who might try to create 100 ship air combat TF's in order to create so high a flak rating as to make them invulnerable to air attack (and this could be done in PacWar up to the size limit of the TF's)

WitP of course fixed that scenerio by introducing a "diminishing returns" rule for total AA. From the 16th ship onward, the AA value increase becomes less than the full stated value of the ship's AA component and so on and so on.

The suggestion is that a similar rule be applied to ENG units in that once a certain # of "engineers" is reached that they produce increasingly diminishing returns the higher above that # is reached. Players can still stack, they just wont get total value out of all those hundreds of diggers and their D8's

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If you want some fun, send a couple of BB's to bombard a base with 50 ENG units there. You'll LOVE it!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

The real suggestion is that "congestion" rules be put in anywhere "congestion" could be an issue. .

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

The real suggestion is that "congestion" rules be put in anywhere "congestion" could be an issue. .

I'm familar with what I suggested. What you want may be something different. Please reread my comments on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

If you want some fun, send a couple of BB's to bombard a base with 50 ENG units there. You'll LOVE it!!!

"Mongo only pawn..in game of life"

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

Again, if the development team is going to look at the engineering stacking issue, they SHOULD look at ANY place "stacking" or "congestion" could be a future issue that isn't already dealt with. I don't need to reread your comments to understand the nature of the issue. My point is, it is more than just base-building, it's "stacking" in general.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The issue is that a player can stack an infinate # of ENG units at a single base in order to ultra-accelerate base building.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

The stacking of ENG units is only gamey if it gives an unrealistic/unhistorical benefit. If you can't actually supply them, and they don't actually build quicker, it is not gamey. Please, someone, how fast CAN you build Tinian (or any other base)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat


I See Now !! **your Ideas,** which seriously impact the US player who is **working against the clock** and needs to build bases fast, which they did BTW, are " historicaly accurate".

BUT any idea which makes the Japanese player play in a historically accurate way ( as Splinterheads above ) is not comparable.....Yes I see now.

Good try Leo in Screwing the US Player ....but why not just use House Rules eh ?? You never answered that one

You see nothing. Apollo is not trying to "screw" the Allied player. If you have followed his posts for the past year you will see that he is, in no way, a Japanese fanboy. He is just trying to prevent gamey tactics.

As to why a house rule wouldn't fix this (like it would fix a 2nd day Peal Harbor strike) is because it is not verifiable from the other side. You will know if the Japanese stick around for multiple day strikes at Pearl Harbor but you WON'T know if 100,000 engineers are building a base together. (Ironically, you would know if the Japanese tried it because of the sigint advantage and the fact that they wouldn't be building anywhere else in the whole world because it would take all of their engineers.)

quote:

Asking for these endless little SPECIFIC changes may unbalance the Campaign Game for the VAST majority who just play against the AI and basing these out of context requests on less then a month of playing ( The Game is just out ) is just absurd.

quote:


Asking for these endless little SPECIFIC changes may unbalance the Campaign Game for the VAST majority who just play against the AI and basing these out of context requests on less then a month of playing ( The Game is just out ) is just absurd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Asking for these endless little SPECIFIC changes may unbalance the Campaign Game for the VAST majority who just play against the AI and basing these out of context requests on less then a month of playing ( The Game is just out ) is just absurd.

Whew! That was a calorific post for sure. But I gotta say, I am in total agreement with this last little bit here.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

Asking for these endless little SPECIFIC changes may unbalance the Campaign Game for the VAST majority who just play against the AI and basing these out of context requests on less then a month of playing ( The Game is just out ) is just absurd.

Whew! That was a calorific post for sure. But I gotta say, I am in total agreement with this last little bit here.....

Me too.

Should the entire USN CB force be allowed on Midway? No. OTOH, why is Tinian suddenly the holy grail of engineering? I have seen many comments about it being the US top priority and if they only used 2 (or X) CB units then that's the max. (Generality). I haven't seen any proof that the US limited Tinian to X units because it was the end all be all formula for building the base.

Diminishing returns exist, but they have to be determined. How many engineering units should kick in the diminishing returns? If we are going to do that for engineers, then we need to do that for any land unit. Stacking restrictions for all units by hex and terrain. What is going to be the determining rule for that? It is quite easy to say all this should be fixed, but we need some hard data here. Not to mention studies from each nation to determine what their engineering capacities were. (And then sit back and wait for screams of propaganda from various quarters).

How many players have overstacked engineers on an island? (Ignoring that we don't agree what overstacking is.) How big of a problem is this?

If someone can actually PROVE what the engineer limit is, more power to them to getting it in the game. Until then, I can handle the current situation.

I am afraid that MY playing experience is going to be diminished by other loud players who insist that THEIR views be adopted by 2by3. Of course, the changes are up to 2by3, but I would feel better with a bit more evidence and less noise. As I said earlier, if we are to simply follow historical results, give us our money back so that we can watch documentaries.

Pearl Harbor was gamey. The Doolittle raid was gamey. The atomic bomb was gamey. Having pilots attempt suicide raids is gamey. The war was gamey to some point. Who gets to decide what is gamey? Somebody has to.

quote:

I used Tinian because it represents the highest level of civil engineering achieved in the Pacific theater in WWII. And lacking any other historical facts, such as a Corp of Engineering or their Naval counterpart, report on the subject, it represents the max capable achievement if you are looking for a specific number.

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

I used Tinian because it represents the highest level of civil engineering achieved in the Pacific theater in WWII. And lacking any other historical facts, such as a Corp of Engineering or their Naval counterpart, report on the subject, it represents the max capable achievement if you are looking for a specific number.

No, Tinian represents the max actually achieved. And if a greater accomplishment had been needed somehow, what then? Would the USA have folded its arms and said, no way, this other is the best that I can do? I don't think so. What was necessary to be achieved, was achieved. That was how the USA worked, and how it would work today if it had to. If Tinian needed to be 2X as large in the same time, or the same size in half the time, can you doubt that it would have happened? Was there anything strategic after January 44 which had to happen that didn't?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

I agree completely that somebody has to make the decision. I would like to see some more information about this issue before someone rushes to judgement on the issue.

I posit that other historical facts are out there, but they will take some effort to dig up. I disagree that Tinian "represents the max capable achievement" in this case. It is the max achievement, but I don't know that it is the max capability. It may very well be the best current number, I'm just saying that I don't know if it is and so far I haven't seen enough to instill confidence. But then again, I don't have a brain bigger than a walnut so who am I to talk?

To reiterate, I think that there needs to be a demonstrable *real* problem and then a solution that is demonstrably better than the problem. I'm not sure if there has been enough evidence presented yet to show that the proposed solutions will not cause as many issues and the perceived problem.