Another use for PP's (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Black Mamba 1942 -> Another use for PP's (2/10/2006 11:10:30 PM)

Whenever the code gets released to modders.[:D]

I'd like to see PP's expended to put ships into a TF.

Also a PP expenditure to change an aircraft groups location to a new base.

For LCU's, PP's expended when prep point destination is changed.

This would give more meaning and usage for PP's.
Simulating a kind of operational PP expenditure for future operations.

Opinions?[sm=00000506.gif]



Feinder -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/10/2006 11:13:22 PM)

Fundamentlly, and ecellent idea. Reminds me of the "activation cost" in the old Pacific War board game. Would definately slow the pace of things. Would take a bit balancing the PP costs of various units, and how many points were available per month. But it's a good idea.

-F-



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/10/2006 11:18:55 PM)

Point costs would definitely have to be explored.
I figured that I would just lay the basic idea out for future thought.


Matrix, are you listening?[:D]
This would really help to turn this into a "more" strategic game, instead of a game of massed combat.



wworld7 -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/10/2006 11:28:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Point costs would definitely have to be explored.
I figured that I would just lay the basic idea out for future thought.


Matrix, are you listening?[:D]
This would really help to turn this into a "more" strategic game, instead of a game of massed combat.


I think the idea has merrit. Yet it would require a serious reprogramming effort and not just a little modification. But don't get your hopes up too soon about the code being released anytime soon. I can't see THAT happening anytime soon (maybe not even in our lifetimes).

Flipper



rogueusmc -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/10/2006 11:31:10 PM)

Mike already said that there is a surprise coming with the 1.8 patch...[8D]



wworld7 -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/10/2006 11:39:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Mike already said that there is a surprise coming with the 1.8 patch...[8D]


A surprise yes, but I am expecting something like leaders being removed or free WITP cats (I heard Mr. Frag has THOUSANDs).

Flipper



anarchyintheuk -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/10/2006 11:40:35 PM)

The idea for spending pps to add/remove ships from tfs would have worked well w/ Ron's idea for divs and squadrons.



niceguy2005 -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 12:29:40 AM)

Honestly, it sounds cumbersome. I think I see where you're going with the idea and it has merit, but would really reduce the playability I think. I often create a TF at a port get all the ships assembled and then change my mind. To me this just reflects a planning process that the command would go through. The ships aren't actually setting sail and then redocking.



DeepSix -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 12:35:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Honestly, it sounds cumbersome. I think I see where you're going with the idea and it has merit, but would really reduce the playability I think. I often create a TF at a port get all the ships assembled and then change my mind. To me this just reflects a planning process that the command would go through. The ships aren't actually setting sail and then redocking.


That's pretty close to my thoughts, too. I genuinely like the idea of moving away from massive numbers in favor of strategy, but when I read that about spending PP to change a/c bases, it makes me head spin. I often change my mind, too -- chalk it up to perennial newbiness rather than strategic brilliance. But if something could be done that would have the same effect without limiting the playability, I'm all for it.



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 12:50:07 AM)

I call it operational planning.[:D]

It would stop the "throwing units in the way" practice.[;)]

It could be modified to a basic PP cost for a certain type TF being created, and such.
There are a few alternatives to it's implementation.

I'm hoping this might get "inquiring minds" inquiring.[:D]

Are you saying WITP isn't cumbersome already?[:D]



DeepSix -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 1:29:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Are you saying WITP isn't cumbersome already?[:D]



I congratulate you, sir. You have me there.[:D] It would certainly make me think twice before "taking my hand off the chess piece." I do like the idea, but I don't know if I'm man enough.[:)]



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 1:46:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DeepSix


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Are you saying WITP isn't cumbersome already?[:D]



I congratulate you, sir. You have me there.[:D] It would certainly make me think twice before "taking my hand off the chess piece." I do like the idea, but I don't know if I'm man enough.[:)]


Well said![:D]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 2:28:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Whenever the code gets released to modders.[:D]

I'd like to see PP's expended to put ships into a TF.

Also a PP expenditure to change an aircraft groups location to a new base.

For LCU's, PP's expended when prep point destination is changed.

This would give more meaning and usage for PP's.
Simulating a kind of operational PP expenditure for future operations.

Opinions?[sm=00000506.gif]


This was suggested almost almost to the letter wayback and got nowhere. Perhaps it will this time.



dereck -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 2:54:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Mike already said that there is a surprise coming with the 1.8 patch...[8D]


I don't want surprises :( I just would like the missing leader and missing unit bugs fixed.

After that I can stop worrying about patching and what happens with this game and just have a stable game.



treespider -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 4:12:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dereck


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Mike already said that there is a surprise coming with the 1.8 patch...[8D]


I don't want surprises :( I just would like the missing leader and missing unit bugs fixed.

After that I can stop worrying about patching and what happens with this game and just have a stable game.




And then I will start playing again. I don't see the point in starting a game I know is broken.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 4:51:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Whenever the code gets released to modders.[:D]

I'd like to see PP's expended to put ships into a TF.
Also a PP expenditure to change an aircraft groups location to a new base.
For LCU's, PP's expended when prep point destination is changed.
This would give more meaning and usage for PP's.
Simulating a kind of operational PP expenditure for future operations.

Opinions?[sm=00000506.gif]


Based on what justification? PP's are supposed to represent getting "political permission" to move troops and equipment to another political area. Assigning ships and escorts to a TF isn't a political decision. Sending troops from Northern Luzon to Central Luzon isn't a political decision. We are already hamstrung with having to use PP's to move things from one part of the DEI to another because the East Indies is composed of islands and the stupid PP system thinks any time you get on a boat you must be switching theatres. I like the "idea" of PP's, but in practice they are already too restrictive. Adding more "artificial" restraints would be fixing one mistake with another.



treespider -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 5:04:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Whenever the code gets released to modders.[:D]

I'd like to see PP's expended to put ships into a TF.
Also a PP expenditure to change an aircraft groups location to a new base.
For LCU's, PP's expended when prep point destination is changed.
This would give more meaning and usage for PP's.
Simulating a kind of operational PP expenditure for future operations.

Opinions?[sm=00000506.gif]


Based on what justification? PP's are supposed to represent getting "political permission" to move troops and equipment to another political area. Assigning ships and escorts to a TF isn't a political decision. Sending troops from Northern Luzon to Central Luzon isn't a political decision. We are already hamstrung with having to use PP's to move things from one part of the DEI to another because the East Indies is composed of islands and the stupid PP system thinks any time you get on a boat you must be switching theatres. I like the "idea" of PP's, but in practice they are already too restrictive. Adding more "artificial" restraints would be fixing one mistake with another.



One could argue the use of ships to support McArthur's ops vs Nimitz's ops were "political"....the same for Japanese operations.



ctangus -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 5:12:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Honestly, it sounds cumbersome. I think I see where you're going with the idea and it has merit, but would really reduce the playability I think. I often create a TF at a port get all the ships assembled and then change my mind. To me this just reflects a planning process that the command would go through. The ships aren't actually setting sail and then redocking.


I also agree that the idea has merit. To keep it playable, I'd say make the PP cost automatic (instead of several mouse clicks as it takes to change a unit's HQ now) and also include an undo function, up to 10-12 actions. Without an undo function, it would all be done on paper or you would need to make a new save after every move.

While none of us have seen the code, I'd suspect the first (making the cost automatic) would be relatively easy to implement but the second (undo function) would be a b----. Maybe we'll see this in WITP II or III.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 5:36:19 AM)


[[/quote]

One could argue the use of ships to support McArthur's ops vs Nimitz's ops were "political"....the same for Japanese operations.

[/quote]


One could argue that the sun rises in the West..., that doesn't make it true. You SHOULD have to pay PP's to assign a West Coast Air Unit to the SW Pacific, or a Manchurian Infantry Division to Malaya---but to have to spend more to move them from Sydney to Brisbane or Kuala Lumpur to Singapore is idiotic. If a unit is assigned to a theatre, it should be free to move WITHIN that Theatre.



treespider -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 5:39:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:



One could argue the use of ships to support McArthur's ops vs Nimitz's ops were "political"....the same for Japanese operations.




One could argue that the sun rises in the West..., that doesn't make it true. You SHOULD have to pay PP's to assign a West Coast Air Unit to the SW Pacific, or a Manchurian Infantry Division to Malaya---but to have to spend more to move them from Sydney to Brisbane or Kuala Lumpur to Singapore is idiotic. If a unit is assigned to a theatre, it should be free to move WITHIN that Theatre.



So is it idiotic to suggest that a ship based in Pearl Harbor that is reassigned to to be based in Brisbane shouldn't have PP paid to change the base?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 5:56:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So is it idiotic to suggest that a ship based in Pearl Harbor that is reassigned to to be based in Brisbane shouldn't have PP paid to change the base?


Yep. It would totally hamstring the Japanese initial assult. Is KB supposed to operate from Hiroshima the whole game? How about shipping resources home? Every forward move of an air unit during the expansion phase cost PP's? It's an interesting idea in theory..., but a "tar-baby" in practice. Given how screwed up PP's are already, expanding their use is just asking for trouble.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 12:54:41 PM)

Another system of PP would be to have areas defined on the map (for example PI, DEI, West Coast, Australia) with a minimum number of troops (in assault points), aircraft (in AC number, excluding transports) and warships (in durability points). Everytime the area is falling under the limit, the concerned side will lose PPs each turn depending of the difference between the current level and the minimum level. Points lost in defending an area will reduce the required level (maybe one point for each 3 points lost).

This will allow to move troops inside DEI or PI freely (that is if Japan doesn't sink them).

Total of points defined for a given area will be given by the base value and political modifiers. And by the proximity of the enemy.

If should be possible to dissolve a command area, if the "capital" is taken... that will set all requirements of the area to zero but will have a negative result on units. Units of the local area (PA Div for PI, Indonesian for DEI) will have a chance to surrender or dissolve immediatly. Those that pass the test may be shipped elsewhere.

I will also distinguish two types of units, "local ones" (PI Div, Dutch units made of mostly Indonesian troops, Canadian troops, Australian militia, most Chinese troops on Allied side, Thai and Vichy troops on the Japanese side) that should pay PP to be allowed to leave their area of command, and "overseas" one. Other units may move freely and be replaced by a new unit to keep the overall level respected.

You can use PPs to:
_ change a hex of command, if this hex is adjacent to the new command
_ reduce the requirements of a given command
_ pay the penalties for being under the requirements

Another advantage would be to allow to have the full Chinese OOB, but with Allied China divided into 3 areas (Communist, Nationalist and disputed), the main Chinese forces will be restricted to areas not one the frontline (as they kept their forces for the Civil War) but will stop the Japanese if they move too far.

This is needing another change for supplies and so on (or China will starve). A rule I thought also about would be that food, and other supplies like that to avoid units disablement or restore them should be provided for free in big cities having manpower points, for example 50 points for manpower. If not used these supplies will be lost (consumed by population) and they can't be used to create replacement, resplenish ships or in battles.



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 1:34:55 PM)

I don't consider PP's as political points.
That's just the name the designers decided give to them.[;)]

They SHOULD be called command points.
As there is probably no way to break up all the command theatres, it would be better to keep the expenditure on a basic level.

Points are to build a NEW TF.
This keeps the KB and all ther TF's intact for whatever ops are being considered.
Only the initial building of the TF would cost the points.

Airgroup transfer would be a SET cost.
Such as 1 point per plane.

For LCU's the prep point destination is more important than it's command HQ, after it has been changed to a non-restrictive command.
A player could still deploy LCU's without the prep bonus, but those that pay will be much more efficient in combat.

Just trying to think of this usage in simple terms.
I don't think this games code could handle too many severe changes.[:D]





treespider -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 2:19:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I don't consider PP's as political points.
That's just the name the designers decided give to them.[;)]

They SHOULD be called command points.
As there is probably no way to break up all the command theatres, it would be better to keep the expenditure on a basic level.

Points are to build a NEW TF.
This keeps the KB and all ther TF's intact for whatever ops are being considered.
Only the initial building of the TF would cost the points.


Not really viable because TF need to disband in port for a variety of different reasons and not necessarily everyu time they reach port. Plus what are you going to do with the hundreds of mundane supply TF's all over the map. How about a PP cost to change the home base of a TF?

quote:


Airgroup transfer would be a SET cost.
Such as 1 point per plane.

For LCU's the prep point destination is more important than it's command HQ, after it has been changed to a non-restrictive command.
A player could still deploy LCU's without the prep bonus, but those that pay will be much more efficient in combat.


Are you talking about PREP points or POLTICAL points...two entirely different creatures.

quote:



Just trying to think of this usage in simple terms.
I don't think this games code could handle too many severe changes.[:D]







Zecke -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 2:21:01 PM)

I dont agree with this idea of PPs for making Task force,,, whats the point for japan side,, you genltement want to make WITP just unplayable for japan side,, Japan needs those PPs for his LCUs to change operationaly,, and remenber that japan can only bombard in china,, to get some PPs

Allies can get PPs easily but not japan[:-]



treespider -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 2:21:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zecke

I dont agree with this idea of PPs for making Task force,,, whats the point for japan side,, you genltement want to make WITP just unplayable for japan side,, Japan needs those PPs for his LCUs to change operationaly,, and remenber that japan can only bombard in china,, to get some PPs

Allies can get PPs easily but not japan[:-]



To implement this obviously the PP would have to be adjusted.



Black Mamba 1942 -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 2:50:55 PM)

I'm saying that PP's would be expended to change the prep target.
The HQ change is another matter.

As for TF's I'm looking at 1 point per ship.
So this is really not a GREAT number of PP's being spent.
I'm not thinking in 100's or 1000's of points per TF.[:D]

This is just a basic idea anyway.

Does KISS mean anything to ya?[:D]



treespider -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 3:03:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I'm saying that PP's would be expended to change the prep target.
The HQ change is another matter.

As for TF's I'm looking at 1 point per ship.
So this is really not a GREAT number of PP's being spent.
I'm not thinking in 100's or 1000's of points per TF.[:D]

This is just a basic idea anyway.

Does KISS mean anything to ya?[:D]


Then why bother?[;)]


If we can change the captain of the lowliest freighter, or have to worry ourselves with Aichi engine production then why Keep It Simple, Stupid?[sm=00001746.gif]



BlackVoid -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 5:00:35 PM)

Good idea, but remove restricted command. Prep change would cost PP instead.
It is crazy, that you cannot move units by sea just because they belong to a restricted command! You cannot even air transport troops within a restricted command and that is really weird.



BlackVoid -> RE: Another use for PP's (2/11/2006 5:01:48 PM)

As for the ships - they should start with a more sensible setup at the start. Or give us a way to move around stuff prior to first turn (at least for Japan).



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8515625