PP Suggestion

PP Suggestion (Full Version)

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

Message

Cavalry Corp -> PP Suggestion (10/17/2011 5:36:13 PM)
It seems to me that a free or reduced pp payment should be made to change units within a command . The big commands have many small Army / Corps etc but who is expected to pay the PP points again to change command at such a low level? I cannot imagine many players changing an Army HQ for Divisions say under Southern Army, i imagine you just stick with it. I do agree the PP should be charged for the big switches. I think that was the original idea. I find myself say attaching many units to Southern Army simply because is seems the best HQ with the longest range??? Cav

crsutton -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/17/2011 7:27:22 PM)
Since it has been said that HQ control has no real effect. (That is any HQ will help a unit in range) then the only thing that matters is changing from a restricted to unrestricted HQ. Anything else would be a waste of PP. I did screw up a couple of times and changed the HQ of regiments from the same division to different HQs (ie North Pacific and South) and it cost mucho PP to change one back in order to recombine the division.

SgtSwanson -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/17/2011 11:43:02 PM)
This version gives you more commands to choose from, but just like in the original they are sorely lacking in one of the most important aspects of the game. If you want to see how it really should work, DL the original Pacific War game (free here still I think) and play it.

CaptBeefheart -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 2:57:44 AM)
The only thing PPs should be used for regarding ground units is changing from a restricted to unrestricted command--it doesn't matter if they fall under nearby corps or army commands (perhaps they should, but that's a different story). One other consideration is air HQs. If the air HQ matches the base (e.g. 5th Air Froce HQ at a SW Pacific base) then you can get the full command radius in extra stacking, rather than half. That's the only time you'd need to consider changing between unrestricted commands, and that would be for bases mainly, as far as I know. If there is any other reason, I'd love to learn about it. Cheers, CC

Puhis -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 6:59:54 AM)
Does TOE upgrades need spesific HQ to be near enough? That might be the only reason to use "correct" command structure.

Cavalry Corp -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 8:37:04 AM)
So every Jap unit from a restricted command may just as well be attached to SA?

Puhis -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 9:01:13 AM)
Infantry, armour and artillery units, yes. However, base forces have TOE upgrades, so it might be more convenient to use closer HQ. (If spesific HQ is really needed to upgrade take place)

Oldguard1970 -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 2:53:56 PM)
So, it seems that Base and HQ command relationships have an impact, but for other LCUs, one only cares if the command is restricted or not. Accordingly, I pay the PP price to shift LCUs to unrestricted commands, but I do not mess with the command structure beyond that. If there were a zero PP cost to shift LCUs, (other than HQ units), between unrestricted Commands and HQs, I might find myself fiddling with subordinate organization in order to put some order into my ground force structure. It would have no real game impact, but it might help me "see" my organization and match my organization to my plans. That would be fun, perhaps even useful to the player, but it would not alter the present impact of PPs on game play

Cavalry Corp -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 4:20:07 PM)
I think that is how it should be and Army HQ should have a benefit only to the units under their command - otherwise PP point are fairly silly and a lot of effort in a proper command structure is wasted by the game designers. Cav

mc3744 -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 4:55:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OldGuard1970 If there were a zero PP cost to shift LCUs, (other than HQ units), between unrestricted Commands and HQs, I might find myself fiddling with subordinate organization in order to put some order into my ground force structure. It would have no real game impact, but it might help me "see" my organization and match my organization to my plans. That would be fun, perhaps even useful to the player, but it would not alter the present impact of PPs on game play I agree 100%. It kind of bothers me to have a unit under an HQ that is a thousand miles away, even though it made sense when I first attached the unit or when it first came into the game. The initial suggestion has a lot of merit IMHO. The real switches that count are from restricted to unrestricted and for Air HQ to match the base. The rest is cosmetic.

Charbroiled -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 5:05:48 PM)
The way the PP system is set up now actually reduces "some" enjoyments and is really frustrating to us "OC" types. Since the command of a base does not affect game play, it shouldn't cost PP to change a command of a base. If this was the case, I could see where someone may change a base to a restricted unit in order to fly air unit of a restricted HQ to it. To avoid this, I would make it that bases can not be changed to a restricted HQ if possible. Basically, the only thing that should cost PP is to change a restricted unit to a non-restricted HQ.....and this should be expensive to do.

crsutton -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 9:06:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Infantry, armour and artillery units, yes. However, base forces have TOE upgrades, so it might be more convenient to use closer HQ. (If spesific HQ is really needed to upgrade take place) Base force upgrade (any force upgrades for that matter) are not dependent on the location of an HQ at all. Any unit at a base, without enemy units in it, will upgrade as long as it has enough supply and there are enough devices in the pool. I am not sure but don't think base size matters.

Puhis -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/18/2011 9:28:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crsutton quote: ORIGINAL: Puhis Infantry, armour and artillery units, yes. However, base forces have TOE upgrades, so it might be more convenient to use closer HQ. (If spesific HQ is really needed to upgrade take place) Base force upgrade (any force upgrades for that matter) are not dependent on the location of an HQ at all. Any unit at a base, without enemy units in it, will upgrade as long as it has enough supply and there are enough devices in the pool. I am not sure but don't think base size matters. Yes, I know that device upgrades don't need HQs. Actually I meant TOE upgrades, when after certain day unit gets new type of devices. For exampe in 1943 big IJN base forces get 12 cm and 8 cm DP guns and radars. At least I had to ship Southeast area fleet HQ around Pacific to make that happen. [:)] Later all IJA and IJN AF base forces get 20 mm or 25 mm AA guns etc.

USSAmerica -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/19/2011 3:44:26 PM)
TOE upgrades only require the LCU to be in Rest mode with Replacements On, and to be in the radius of any Command HQ. It does not have to be the Command HQ that the LCU is assigned to.

mc3744 -> RE: PP Suggestion (10/20/2011 10:17:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: USS America TOE upgrades only require the LCU to be in Rest mode with Replacements On, and to be in the radius of any Command HQ. It does not have to be the Command HQ that the LCU is assigned to. Very good to know. Thanks [:)] Where do you see in Q6 that a TOE upgrade is due?

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.625