RE: Political Point Shortcuts

RE: Political Point Shortcuts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

wwengr -> RE: Political Point Shortcuts (2/7/2010 5:22:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Brady But to be blunt, it's f'ed up, its extrodenarly gamey.[X(] As noted above its very easy for the Allies to buy Divishions in such quanitys early on to destabalise the game, even US Divishions that are pricey. Brady I agree that it's gamey (unless the devs chime in and say "WAD"), but it is not easy for the Allies to buy divisions early on. As ckammp pointed out, some of them would only stay cheap if you left replacements off, in which case you get 1/2 a division. More likely to be grist for the mill than stopping the IJ tsunami. Maybe leave replacements off until you buy them out. By them out piecemiel so you can build them up and train.

Smeulders -> RE: Political Point Shortcuts (2/7/2010 5:35:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Brady But to be blunt, it's f'ed up, its extrodenarly gamey.[X(] As noted above its very easy for the Allies to buy Divishions in such quanitys early on to destabalise the game, even US Divishions that are pricey. Brady I agree that it's gamey (unless the devs chime in and say "WAD"), but it is not easy for the Allies to buy divisions early on. As ckammp pointed out, some of them would only stay cheap if you left replacements off, in which case you get 1/2 a division. More likely to be grist for the mill than stopping the IJ tsunami. Maybe leave replacements off until you buy them out. By them out piecemiel so you can build them up and train. Moving them to small bases without much in the way of supplies or support will also reduce the PP cost, by slowing the recovery of disabled squads. Of course, this will again lower the effectiveness of the unit once it has been bought out.

witpqs -> RE: Political Point Shortcuts (2/7/2010 5:51:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Brady But to be blunt, it's f'ed up, its extrodenarly gamey.[X(] As noted above its very easy for the Allies to buy Divishions in such quanitys early on to destabalise the game, even US Divishions that are pricey. Brady I agree that it's gamey (unless the devs chime in and say "WAD"), but it is not easy for the Allies to buy divisions early on. As ckammp pointed out, some of them would only stay cheap if you left replacements off, in which case you get 1/2 a division. More likely to be grist for the mill than stopping the IJ tsunami. Maybe leave replacements off until you buy them out. By them out piecemiel so you can build them up and train. I know, but if you leave replacements off it will be even longer until they build up. I'm not complaining, rather pointing out that it's not so easy as it might seem to be at first glance. The real issue is how fast is your opponent moving. If even quasi-historical no problem. If quickly than maybe the extent of the restraints are a tad unrealistic as surely IRL there would have been a suitable response.

Central Blue -> RE: Political Point Shortcuts (2/7/2010 10:04:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr Great info ckammp! I think I am becoming convinced it is gamey, but not sure. I am going to do some looking into the scenario 1 OB to see what the total of units are that start and arrive restricted, including airgroups. The manual section is certainly not clear-cut. I think the restrictions on Americal, 41st ID, and the Marine units are "gamey." So I really don't mind getting them out at the lowest price by any means. I truly wonder how many players move the Asiatic Fleet HQ after they pay points for each of her base and air units? The idea that I should pay individually for each unit in Indian III Corps or the Asiatic Fleet before I can move the HQ, strikes me as ridiculous. That leaves us with the Australians in Malaysia and the Dutch; but even with many of the Dutch units, there are perma-restrictions on units the scenario designers want to have destroyed in DEI. And it might be gamey to choose the cheaper Eastern command over the pricier I Corps. The argument really seems to boil down to they're supposed to die in Malaysia, or the DEI, and the Japanese can't possibly win the game if those particular US units aren't restricted. If the techniques wasn't intended to be used, what is the point of having it to begin with? Why pay an absurd penalty to organize Americal under XIV corps when I can just move the 164th to Pacific Ocean and leave it there? Just throw everyone into any old top-level command and use the corp and army HQ's indiscriminately as little booster chits wherever you want them.

ckammp -> RE: Political Point Shortcuts (2/7/2010 11:31:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Central Blue quote: ORIGINAL: wwengr Great info ckammp! I think I am becoming convinced it is gamey, but not sure. I am going to do some looking into the scenario 1 OB to see what the total of units are that start and arrive restricted, including airgroups. The manual section is certainly not clear-cut. I think the restrictions on Americal, 41st ID, and the Marine units are "gamey." So I really don't mind getting them out at the lowest price by any means. I truly wonder how many players move the Asiatic Fleet HQ after they pay points for each of her base and air units? The idea that I should pay individually for each unit in Indian III Corps or the Asiatic Fleet before I can move the HQ, strikes me as ridiculous. That leaves us with the Australians in Malaysia and the Dutch; but even with many of the Dutch units, there are perma-restrictions on units the scenario designers want to have destroyed in DEI. And it might be gamey to choose the cheaper Eastern command over the pricier I Corps. The argument really seems to boil down to they're supposed to die in Malaysia, or the DEI, and the Japanese can't possibly win the game if those particular US units aren't restricted. If the techniques wasn't intended to be used, what is the point of having it to begin with? Why pay an absurd penalty to organize Americal under XIV corps when I can just move the 164th to Pacific Ocean and leave it there? Just throw everyone into any old top-level command and use the corp and army HQ's indiscriminately as little booster chits wherever you want them. I fully agree with you about the 41st ID being restricted, I wish the devs had not changed it, and when I play vs. AI, I use the editor to change it back to unrestricted. I also think the 43rd ID should not arrive restricted. As for the Americal Division, and the 2nd Marine Division, they have only 1 restricted regiment each, so the PP cost is not too high. In Malaya, the units assigned to III Corps are not restricted, even though III Corps HQ is restricted. In PI, the units assigned to Asiatic Fleet are also not restricted. There is no need to pay for any of these units. You do have to pay for Malaya Army units, and units assigned to USAFFE. What I felt was "gamey" about the HQ transfer method was using it unlock a large group of restricted units without paying the full PP price. Using a HQ that's not even assigned to the same theatre is even worse. Having said that, I fully believe that using this method for unrestricted units is not only fair, but WAD. As you have noted, this method is really the only way for the Allies to assign units to the various Corps HQs. It gives the game a more "historical' feel.

Central Blue -> RE: Political Point Shortcuts (2/8/2010 12:29:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ckammp Using a HQ that's not even assigned to the same theatre is even worse. This seems to be pleading the case that it didn't happen that way in real life. Where does that argument ever end? And if you aren't making that argument, would you really feel better if they were assigned to Burma Command? That would be the cheapest solution. [:)] quote: As for the Americal Division, and the 2nd Marine Division, they have only 1 restricted regiment each, so the PP cost is not too high. A number of of the Fleet Marine Forces are restricted. And it strikes me as ridiculous. If there was ever any serious debate about sending those forces to North Africa or Europe, I missed it. After a few months around here, I get the feeling that none of the remaining active devs are likely to comment on topics like this. But it seems to me that the argument that the tactic is "gamey" assumes that the coders didn't understand the ramifications of the code they were writing, and assumes that the in-house scenario designers didn't understand the ramifications of the code when they were making choices about which units to permanently restrict to death or a prison camp.

erstad -> RE: Political Point Shortcuts (2/8/2010 5:44:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Brady But to be blunt, it's f'ed up, its extrodenarly gamey.[X(] As noted above its very easy for the Allies to buy Divishions in such quanitys early on to destabalise the game, even US Divishions that are pricey. Brady I agree that it's gamey (unless the devs chime in and say "WAD"), but it is not easy for the Allies to buy divisions early on. As ckammp pointed out, some of them would only stay cheap if you left replacements off, in which case you get 1/2 a division. More likely to be grist for the mill than stopping the IJ tsunami. In my limited experience as Allies, I keep replacements off until I buy them out (keep PP down) and then fill them out before I use them.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.342773