RE: Several issues arising out of game. (Full Version)

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



Message

USSAmerica -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/15/2011 9:49:18 PM)

Well, the game does not prevent Restricted Command LCU's from marching across the border into China.  Nor does it prevent Indian Restricted LCU's from marching all the way to Burma, Thailand, Incochina, China, Korea, etc. 

Without a HR to limit this, there are lots of Japanese Manchurian command LCU's that can march into China while leaving enough AV behind to meet the garrison limit.



treespider -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 2:48:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Well, the game does not prevent Restricted Command LCU's from marching across the border into China.  Nor does it prevent Indian Restricted LCU's from marching all the way to Burma, Thailand, Incochina, China, Korea, etc. 

Without a HR to limit this, there are lots of Japanese Manchurian command LCU's that can march into China while leaving enough AV behind to meet the garrison limit.



Nor do all of the scores of artillery, tanks, engineers and aircraft count very much toward the garrison limit...coupled with the limit being 8000 and the starting garrison = 11000 ish ... the Japanese can remove 5-6 divisions plus all of the artillery and tanks without concern about the "limit".

So without a HR this army seriously tips the proverbial scales...

In my mod I added to the HR by permanently restricting a fair amount of what historically stayed in Manchuria the entire war. As a result a bunch of artillery and engineers stay in Manchuria watching the Russians.



Numdydar -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 3:09:02 AM)

Well that explain it as I thought that nothing there could be moved without paying PP.  So I never even tried to move anything across the border unless I paid for it first. So I was using a HR without even knowing it lol.



CV 2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 8:22:53 AM)

It also doesnt cost 1800 PPs. More like 500, if you know what you are doing (which most Jap players do). So you can release a division every 10 days or so.



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 5:34:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

It also doesnt cost 1800 PPs. More like 500, if you know what you are doing (which most Jap players do). So you can release a division every 10 days or so.


How so? I know they are cheaper if you set replacements off prior to them attaining their full TOE and you can then purchase them for less. Once they are full strength they cost as stated in the 1600-1800 PP range. Unless you're pulling the same trick as changing the HQ's to a non-restricted HQ then I don't see how you are getting divisions for so cheap? An artillery rgt. alone will run you 400 PP's so factor in two infantry regiments, maybe an infantry brigade, a recon rgt. and an engineer rgt. how do you buy a division for 500 PP's?



Fletcher -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 6:00:53 PM)

Under my own experience, I paid near 1.800 PP to exit 8th Infantry Division from Machukuo to Southern Seas (03 infantry regiments, 1 arty regiment, 1 recon regiment and 1 engineer regiment). It´s expensive. Agree with SqzMylemon.

For the other hand, we played like gentleman, no tricks or similar to change HQ´s [&:]... this could be absurd ! After many House Rules playing with trickys (??!)

Ramón





CV 2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 6:12:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

It also doesnt cost 1800 PPs. More like 500, if you know what you are doing (which most Jap players do). So you can release a division every 10 days or so.


How so? I know they are cheaper if you set replacements off prior to them attaining their full TOE and you can then purchase them for less. Once they are full strength they cost as stated in the 1600-1800 PP range. Unless you're pulling the same trick as changing the HQ's to a non-restricted HQ then I don't see how you are getting divisions for so cheap? An artillery rgt. alone will run you 400 PP's so factor in a two infantry regiments, maybe an infantry brigade, a recon rgt. and an engineer rgt. how do you buy a division for 500 PP's?


You attach an unrestricted HQ (like the 15th army for example) to Kwangtung and everything coming out of Manchuria costs 1/4th its normal cost going into 15th army.

I usually attach 15th army to Kwang, 25th to China, and Southern Army to Japan. ALL my changes then are 1/4 cost.



cantona2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 6:24:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

It also doesnt cost 1800 PPs. More like 500, if you know what you are doing (which most Jap players do). So you can release a division every 10 days or so.


How so? I know they are cheaper if you set replacements off prior to them attaining their full TOE and you can then purchase them for less. Once they are full strength they cost as stated in the 1600-1800 PP range. Unless you're pulling the same trick as changing the HQ's to a non-restricted HQ then I don't see how you are getting divisions for so cheap? An artillery rgt. alone will run you 400 PP's so factor in a two infantry regiments, maybe an infantry brigade, a recon rgt. and an engineer rgt. how do you buy a division for 500 PP's?


You attach an unrestricted HQ (like the 15th army for example) to Kwangtung and everything coming out of Manchuria costs 1/4th its normal cost going into 15th army.

I usually attach 15th army to Kwang, 25th to China, and Southern Army to Japan. ALL my changes then are 1/4 cost.



Gamey in the extreme IMHO. HR's would need to be in place to avoid this!



Fletcher -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 6:39:00 PM)

Absolutely GAMEY (case, of course)

PS: In my game vs Cantona2 in 9 months of war, I got to exit from Manchuria three divisions:

14th Infantry Division (to Carolines, General Reserve of IJA)
8th Infantry Division (2nd Army, to salomons)
10th Infantry Division (XVII Army, to New Guinea)



inqistor -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 7:15:27 PM)

I think China is pretty balanced, if you do not enter outside forces. But thinking of it, Japan can send there quite a lot unrestricted troops, so I think simple HR should resolve this:

All units in combat operations, against Chinese units (including garrison requirements), from China territory, should belong to China Command.

That way you can use unrestricted planes from Burma/Vietnam/Manchuria etc. territory, but all your extra LCUs should be bought out.



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 7:18:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

You attach an unrestricted HQ (like the 15th army for example) to Kwangtung and everything coming out of Manchuria costs 1/4th its normal cost going into 15th army.

I usually attach 15th army to Kwang, 25th to China, and Southern Army to Japan. ALL my changes then are 1/4 cost.


Ah, I figured as much. Agree with the others, blatantly gaming the system to get an unfair advantage in my opinion. You did the same with all the air units from the 2nd Air Division too no doubt? [:-]



CV 2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 7:24:57 PM)

No more gamey than the allies assigning III corps or Burma to India. 2 Aus to New Zealand. I Amphib to West coast. Im sure Im the only one that has ever done this. Please.

Both sides can do it so it so it isnt like its giving 1 side an advantage over the other. And Im sure that 1 if not both players in 90% of the games going does this.

All that would have to be done to prevent this is to not make HQs able to change commands. Pretty simple fix. Hell, that isnt even a code change, thats a database change. I remember everyone saying that changing 2nd air army and releasing almost all the Manchurian air units was "gamey" until Elf said that was the way he designed it. Well, same thing. I cant believe that after what? 4 years now from test to current no one has ever encountered this? You can safely assume it was. And since thats the way it is, then it was probably intended to be that way.



cantona2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 7:33:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

No more gamey than the allies assigning III corps or Burma to India. 2 Aus to New Zealand. I Amphib to West coast. Im sure Im the only one that has ever done this. Please.

Both sides can do it so it so it isnt like its giving 1 side an advantage over the other. And Im sure that 1 if not both players in 90% of the games going does this.

All that would have to be done to prevent this is to not make HQs able to change commands. Pretty simple fix. Hell, that isnt even a code change, thats a database change. I remember everyone saying that changing 2nd air army and releasing almost all the Manchurian air units was "gamey" until Elf said that was the way he designed it. Well, same thing. I cant believe that after what? 4 years now from test to current no one has ever encountered this? You can safely assume it was. And since thats the way it is, then it was probably intended to be that way.



I am sure you are not the only one to it CV2 I still think its a gamey strategy to get troops released on the cheap. Totally agree with you on your last point untill your last sentence. IT still sucks big eggs and is a Gamey strategy to get troops on the cheap. For the record I have never done this, frankly I'd forgotten I could but there are enough PP's to go around to release troops as and when and for the Allies the need is never as great as during the first 3-6 months of war.






GreyJoy -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 7:56:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona2


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

No more gamey than the allies assigning III corps or Burma to India. 2 Aus to New Zealand. I Amphib to West coast. Im sure Im the only one that has ever done this. Please.

Both sides can do it so it so it isnt like its giving 1 side an advantage over the other. And Im sure that 1 if not both players in 90% of the games going does this.

All that would have to be done to prevent this is to not make HQs able to change commands. Pretty simple fix. Hell, that isnt even a code change, thats a database change. I remember everyone saying that changing 2nd air army and releasing almost all the Manchurian air units was "gamey" until Elf said that was the way he designed it. Well, same thing. I cant believe that after what? 4 years now from test to current no one has ever encountered this? You can safely assume it was. And since thats the way it is, then it was probably intended to be that way.



I am sure you are not the only one to it CV2 I still think its a gamey strategy to get troops released on the cheap. Totally agree with you on your last point untill your last sentence. IT still sucks big eggs and is a Gamey strategy to get troops on the cheap. For the record I have never done this, frankly I'd forgotten I could but there are enough PP's to go around to release troops as and when and for the Allies the need is never as great as during the first 3-6 months of war.






Didn't even know we could do that...oh well[:o]



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 8:32:36 PM)

I never said you were the only one doing it. Most players agree before they start a match whether PP's need to be used to have units cross national boundaries and it's either discussed or understood that if you do buy out units you assign them to an active unrestricted HQ paying full PP costs. Yes, the Allies can do it too as you pointed out so it evens out. I guess the point is does your opponent know you did this and was it agreed to prior to starting? If so...have at it...if not...you're gaming the system to get an advantage.

I don't know what Elf said regarding the air HQ, but I remember a discussion amongst players before where the concensus was it was not designed to circumvent having to pay full PP's to assign air units to non-restricted commands, nor have air units assigned to the Kwantung Army operating out of Rabaul for example.

To each their own...but my opponents and I agreed to pay full PP's to buy out units. If at some point I learned that one or the other reassigned the HQ to lower the cost of the PP's without owning up to it, I'd feel they had cheated.

If you and your opponent agreed then no harm no foul, or if you are playing the AI...who cares what you do, it cheats like a mofo [;)].



CV 2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 10:07:51 PM)

Hmmm, interesting. I hear people on the boards all the time whining that it costs so much to re-assign units to commands to use as "real corps" all the time. When I show them how to do just that, other people call it "gamey". To each his own I guess. I certainly see nothing wrong with it. So both sides get units for the same cost. Whats the difference if that cost is 2000 or 500 as long as it is the same for both?

I'd like to see saves from everyone that says they dont do it with passwords so I can confirm that, because frankly, I dont believe it for a second.



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 10:24:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Hmmm, interesting. I hear people on the boards all the time whining that it costs so much to re-assign units to commands to use as "real corps" all the time. When I show them how to do just that, other people call it "gamey". To each his own I guess. I certainly see nothing wrong with it. So both sides get units for the same cost. Whats the difference if that cost is 2000 or 500 as long as it is the same for both?

I'd like to see saves from everyone that says they dont do it with passwords so I can confirm that, because frankly, I dont believe it for a second.


You miss my point. Do whatever floats your boat. [:D]



USSAmerica -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/16/2011 11:20:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I'd like to see saves from everyone that says they dont do it with passwords so I can confirm that, because frankly, I dont believe it for a second.




[image]local://upfiles/7870/C27AA328B58B439BB6C852922E2FDEB1.jpg[/image]



CV 2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 12:39:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

I'd like to see saves from everyone that says they dont do it with passwords so I can confirm that, because frankly, I dont believe it for a second.




[image]local://upfiles/7870/C27AA328B58B439BB6C852922E2FDEB1.jpg[/image]


This is supposed to mean what? Have any Marine aircraft assigned to 11th airforce hot-shot? I'll bet you do. Same thing, right? Avoiding PP costs? Isnt that "gamey"? They should be assigned to a naval or marine command, right? Thats the FIRST place I'd look. And I'd bet 90% or more of you AFB that said its "gamey" have done just that.

So put THAT in your tin foil hat.



USSAmerica -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 12:48:53 AM)

I've got a thousand dollars that says I don't, Big Boy. 

Go hug something else, yamato. 



witpqs -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 12:59:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

No more gamey than the allies assigning III corps or Burma to India. 2 Aus to New Zealand. I Amphib to West coast. Im sure Im the only one that has ever done this. Please.

Both sides can do it so it so it isnt like its giving 1 side an advantage over the other. And Im sure that 1 if not both players in 90% of the games going does this.

All that would have to be done to prevent this is to not make HQs able to change commands. Pretty simple fix. Hell, that isnt even a code change, thats a database change. I remember everyone saying that changing 2nd air army and releasing almost all the Manchurian air units was "gamey" until Elf said that was the way he designed it. Well, same thing. I cant believe that after what? 4 years now from test to current no one has ever encountered this? You can safely assume it was. And since thats the way it is, then it was probably intended to be that way.


III Corps changes its HQ assignment at a certain date as part of the scenario.



CV 2 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 10:00:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've got a thousand dollars that says I don't, Big Boy. 

Go hug something else, yamato. 



Send your opponents name and your password then. I will get a save from him a few turns back. If you arent afraid of being proven wrong that is. And please note, I said 90%. So even if it is true, which again I seriously doubt, you would be the exception rather than the rule and fall into that very small 10%.

And I submit at this point if you dont provide it, you HAVE just been proven wrong. So put up or shut up.

(Ed. Big boy? Resorting to name-calling now? Oh yeah? Well my dad can beat up YOUR dad. Grow up.)



Erkki -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 11:31:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Hmmm, interesting. I hear people on the boards all the time whining that it costs so much to re-assign units to commands to use as "real corps" all the time. When I show them how to do just that, other people call it "gamey". To each his own I guess. I certainly see nothing wrong with it. So both sides get units for the same cost. Whats the difference if that cost is 2000 or 500 as long as it is the same for both?

I'd like to see saves from everyone that says they dont do it with passwords so I can confirm that, because frankly, I dont believe it for a second.


Green button.



herwin -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 11:43:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Hmmm, interesting. I hear people on the boards all the time whining that it costs so much to re-assign units to commands to use as "real corps" all the time. When I show them how to do just that, other people call it "gamey". To each his own I guess. I certainly see nothing wrong with it. So both sides get units for the same cost. Whats the difference if that cost is 2000 or 500 as long as it is the same for both?

I'd like to see saves from everyone that says they dont do it with passwords so I can confirm that, because frankly, I dont believe it for a second.


Green button.


Amen.



USSAmerica -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 12:33:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

I've got a thousand dollars that says I don't, Big Boy. 

Go hug something else, yamato. 



Send your opponents name and your password then. I will get a save from him a few turns back. If you arent afraid of being proven wrong that is. And please note, I said 90%. So even if it is true, which again I seriously doubt, you would be the exception rather than the rule and fall into that very small 10%.

And I submit at this point if you dont provide it, you HAVE just been proven wrong. So put up or shut up.

(Ed. Big boy? Resorting to name-calling now? Oh yeah? Well my dad can beat up YOUR dad. Grow up.)



You have no clue what you're talking about. And you are sure not ready to back up your words, are you? If you're ready to bet $1000 let me know. [8|]

If you had even the tiniest clue, instead of assuming the rest of the world is in some big conspiracy to get you, you might realize I'm playing a 2x2 PBEM game. Think about that for a while before you decide to chicken out on the bet anyway.

Buh-bye.

[image]local://upfiles/7870/D5F14A8DFC2D447A895F7B17EBAECE78.jpg[/image]



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 5:23:12 PM)

Removed by poster for forum etiquette.



Rainer -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 5:39:35 PM)

You're feeding it ...



SqzMyLemon -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 5:50:49 PM)

True enough, the thread raised some interesting points and I'm contributing to it degenerating. Time to step back.



Nemo121 -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 6:23:49 PM)

Or begin quoting Chuck Norries, the time-honoured response to trolls.

The only thing more powerful than a troll is, of course, Chuck Norris.



JWE -> RE: Several issues arising out of game. (5/17/2011 8:36:11 PM)

Before this devolves into the usual, must return, for just a moment, to the intent of the OP. Jonathan and Ramon have both commented on the apparent lack of AT for Chinese units. While I do agree Chinese units are quite thin in this respect, I must suggest ya'll take a look at Treespider v witpqs's AAR at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2754161, where a bunch of Chinese units (ordinary Corps stuff) attack a Japanese stack with a bunch of Infantry and a pantload of Tank Regiments, and absolutely smoke them; 72% casualties (killed or disrupted, mostly killed) to vehicle units. Several other Combat Reports, at other places, show Tank/Vehicle devices incurring reasonable casualties.

Spidey and witpqs are playing Spidey's mod which is based on Babes. Really think that Babes data tweaks (in this area) represent a noticeable improvement in combat outcomes.

Ramon, Jonathan, take a vacation in the Balearics (and invite me along). When you come back, try out a Babes scenario. Ciao. J



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.1875