Is that gamey?

Is that gamey? (Full Version)

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

Message

Flicker -> Is that gamey? (11/25/2013 8:10:21 PM)
I'm curious as to what players consider to be gamey. For example: When ships or troops are due to be withdrawn, I trade out the commander if they're worth saving. Is that gamey? At least a month before air groups are due to be withdrawn, I'll try to 'upgrade' the planes with older planes. Is that gamey? If an LCU is scheduled to be withdrawn, I keep reinforcements off. I also try to use it up in combat without getting it destroyed, then park it in a safe spot until it disappears. Is that gamey? Feel free to comment on these and add your own "Is that gamey?"

Lecivius -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/25/2013 8:19:27 PM)
No

AW1Steve -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/25/2013 8:20:02 PM)
I strip air groups off, and try to use the ship to fuel others. If I could, I'd steal the light bulbs and toilet paper too! [:D] Gamey? Consider this....you are the "Grand-poo-bah" of your side. On the Japanese side, the IJN and the IJA speak with one voice. Gamey? OH YOU BETCHA![:D] On the Allied side, FDR, Churchill ,Chaing Kai shek, Mae Ze Dung, Macarthur, John Curtin , and a whole bunch of leaders are total in agreement in everything. Oh, sure, like THAT's realistic. [:D][:D][:D] Point is, this IS a game. Unless you are doing something to exploit a problem in the programing to gain an edge over your problem , it might be gamey , but that's ok. WHAT YOU and your opponent think is gamey is all that matters. If you consider an act to be "unsportsmanlike", then don't do it. (Unless you are totally happy with being a louse and a jerk![:D]). opinions are like rear ends. Everyone has at least one. And everybody's stinks but yours. [:D] The real question you need to ask is "do I feel right doing this act".

witpqs -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/25/2013 8:47:10 PM)
+1 to what Lecivius and Steve said. And mine in bold, as you did ask: quote: ORIGINAL: Flicker I'm curious as to what players consider to be gamey. For example: When ships or troops are due to be withdrawn, I trade out the commander if they're worth saving. Is that gamey? Not at all. At least a month before air groups are due to be withdrawn, I'll try to 'upgrade' the planes with older planes. Is that gamey? Naw, but I don't like to do it. No problem if my opponent wants to do so, though. BTW, I use all available groups for training pilots, so on withdrawal day I pull all the pilots. If an LCU is scheduled to be withdrawn, I keep reinforcements off. Not gamey. I also try to use it up in combat without getting it destroyed remember that losing electrons unnecessarily counts toward you doing poorly, including in VP count if you pay attention to them., then park it in a safe spot until it disappears. Is that gamey? No. Feel free to comment on these and add your own "Is that gamey?"

Terminus -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/25/2013 9:46:27 PM)
I usually go by the standard of "if I have ask whether something is gamey, then it probably is", but the ones listed by "Flicker" are very minor league.

Chickenboy -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/26/2013 1:15:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flicker When ships or troops are due to be withdrawn, I trade out the commander if they're worth saving. Is that gamey? Not at all. Use the on-map resources the way you see fit. As Steve said, strip out any air groups, use the fuel up and dump any decent commanders from the ship back to your pool. quote: At least a month before air groups are due to be withdrawn, I'll try to 'upgrade' the planes with older planes. Is that gamey? Nope. Do it all the time. Makes good sense. quote: If an LCU is scheduled to be withdrawn, I keep reinforcements off. I also try to use it up in combat without getting it destroyed, then park it in a safe spot until it disappears. Is that gamey? Nope. If you intentionally suicide attacked with it for the sole express purpose of killing it off and having it regenerate magically elsewhere, that would be questionable. But what you're doing doesn't sound problematic. ETA: This is against a human PBEM, of course. The computer AI cheats like a m***-****. I wouldn't hesitate to use any exploits against it that I could.

tocaff -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/26/2013 9:12:16 AM)
Nothing is gamey if your opponent thinks that it's OK to do. Still there are things that I would never consider doing because nobody in their right mind wouldn't consider them gamey. A good rule of thumb would be to ask yourself how you would feel from the other side about it being done. I consider myself a self admitted cheater as I've told my PBEM opponent, Steve, as our WITP GC finally winds down. After all I am playing the Allies.

Flicker -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/26/2013 6:50:09 PM)
Thanks for the responses. My circumstances don't allow playing PBEM, so my opponent is that cheating mofo of an AI. However I play using some of the more common House Rules: no 4E naval attack under 10K, pay PPs to cross national boundaries, no outrageous HQ swaps, etc. I try to emulate playing against a human as much as possible. I play with VPs somewhat in mind. For example I've got a US / CAN construction effort focused on building up airfields. Um, is that gamey? ;) I also don't like losing troops, so suicide missions are generally frowned upon. However I have seen fragments attack so that the parent unit will be whole. For example, I've seen the Dutch rig an abandoned ovelwagon (too big for the Catalina) with a brick on the accelerator and run it into the Japanese.

Yaab -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/27/2013 5:08:19 AM)
Building bases is not gamey. Switch to the AI side and see how many bases the AI is building. You will be ashamed.

Lokasenna -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/27/2013 2:46:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Building bases is not gamey. Switch to the AI side and see how many bases the AI is building. You will be ashamed. My yardstick for measuring how well I'm doing as the Japanese is looking at the AI's fortifying efforts. I never measure up. The bases in CONUS are only worth what, 1 or 2 VPs to the Allied player? Building them up won't help that much, but if you're trying to fight off autovictory...every one you improve with your swarm of engineers increases the denominator for your opponent, requiring 4 or 8 additional VPs on their end for each base improvement that you achieve.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/27/2013 4:14:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Building bases is not gamey. Switch to the AI side and see how many bases the AI is building. You will be ashamed. My yardstick for measuring how well I'm doing as the Japanese is looking at the AI's fortifying efforts. I never measure up. The bases in CONUS are only worth what, 1 or 2 VPs to the Allied player? Building them up won't help that much, but if you're trying to fight off autovictory...every one you improve with your swarm of engineers increases the denominator for your opponent, requiring 4 or 8 additional VPs on their end for each base improvement that you achieve. Some CONUS bases have a base VP of 2-3, but they can be built to a dozen. They add up. Las Vegas for example. It's a dust bowl. But move a 1/3 split of an infantry regiment with 3-4 engineers and leave it alone and pretty soon you have AF 7 and some VPs. CONUS bases never, ever are short of supply. The white restricted units don't have to squat and wait to withdraw. They can be put to work.

HexHead -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/27/2013 5:52:12 PM)
Why the combat LCU frag? Why not just the Engs?

castor troy -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/28/2013 7:00:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead Why the combat LCU frag? Why not just the Engs? because nearly all eng units aren't restricted and you can move them out of CONUS and they are really needed everywhere else in the first year. In 44/45 you have so many of them you might not to know what to do with them but in the beginning you never have enough.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/28/2013 3:06:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead Why the combat LCU frag? Why not just the Engs? because nearly all eng units aren't restricted and you can move them out of CONUS and they are really needed everywhere else in the first year. In 44/45 you have so many of them you might not to know what to do with them but in the beginning you never have enough. That. In early 1942 a real base force is worth about what an infantry regiment is worth.

Feltan -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/28/2013 5:43:34 PM)
Do the Russian bases count for the Allies? I always start fortifying and building in early '42. Takes me about a half-hours to go through all the Russian bases and start building. Easy VP's? Don't know -- but I'd do it whether VP's were involved or not. Regards, Feltan

HexHead -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/28/2013 10:17:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead Why the combat LCU frag? Why not just the Engs? because nearly all eng units aren't restricted and you can move them out of CONUS and they are really needed everywhere else in the first year. In 44/45 you have so many of them you might not to know what to do with them but in the beginning you never have enough. That. In early 1942 a real base force is worth about what an infantry regiment is worth. Gentlemen, I don't think you understand what I'm asking. Why the Inf unit - at all? I have noticed some Inf Divs have Eng elements - so, are you implying that an Inf frag (with Eng elements) is what you are using? To get the Eng squads, in any form, yeah - but as originally stated, all I can infer is a small combat element. Being a player who is still a bit wet behind the ears, if this was an inference I should have understood, my apologies pro forma. IOW, I didn't understand why the Inf, unless it's for attached Engs.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/29/2013 4:53:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: HexHead Why the combat LCU frag? Why not just the Engs? because nearly all eng units aren't restricted and you can move them out of CONUS and they are really needed everywhere else in the first year. In 44/45 you have so many of them you might not to know what to do with them but in the beginning you never have enough. That. In early 1942 a real base force is worth about what an infantry regiment is worth. Gentlemen, I don't think you understand what I'm asking. Why the Inf unit - at all? I have noticed some Inf Divs have Eng elements - so, are you implying that an Inf frag (with Eng elements) is what you are using? To get the Eng squads, in any form, yeah - but as originally stated, all I can infer is a small combat element. Being a player who is still a bit wet behind the ears, if this was an inference I should have understood, my apologies pro forma. IOW, I didn't understand why the Inf, unless it's for attached Engs. It's for the engineers, yes. You have to check device lists. No engineers no building. Just like some base forces have aviation support, and many don't. My main points were 1) don't forget to build CONUS because VPs are VPs and 2) engineers are where you find them early on. Do what you have to do to get building. White restricted does not equal useless in CONUS.

Amoral -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/29/2013 6:47:23 PM)
Building bases deep in CONUS is pursuing a strategy that makes no sense in the real world to take advantage of part of the simulation that the designers probably did not consider. Upping the autovic denominator in this way takes autovictory off the table for the Japanese. With those two things in mind, it is something that you might want to talk to your opponent about.

witpqs -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/29/2013 7:08:35 PM)
I'm sure they did consider it. The VP there are very small for the Allied payer. Remember that the VP for a base has different values for the Japanese than for the Allies.

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/29/2013 8:11:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I'm sure they did consider it. The VP there are very small for the Allied payer. Remember that the VP for a base has different values for the Japanese than for the Allies. No HRs. No discussion. Play the design. Japan has building opportunities at home too.

AW1Steve -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/29/2013 8:34:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I'm sure they did consider it. The VP there are very small for the Allied payer. Remember that the VP for a base has different values for the Japanese than for the Allies. No HRs. No discussion. Play the design. Japan has building opportunities at home too. No Moose. You forget the JFB mantra "Pass up no Whine before it's time. And the second you hear about the whine, it's time". [:D] Of course that goes with the plan , "house ruling the way to victory over the allies, one house rule at a time!". [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/29/2013 8:48:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I'm sure they did consider it. The VP there are very small for the Allied payer. Remember that the VP for a base has different values for the Japanese than for the Allies. No HRs. No discussion. Play the design. Japan has building opportunities at home too. No Moose. You forget the JFB mantra "Pass up no Whine before it's time. And the second you hear about the whine, it's time". [:D] Of course that goes with the plan , "house ruling the way to victory over the allies, one house rule at a time!". [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif] Do you have a day job to not quit? [:)] I agree with the sentiment though. Claiming the Allies shouldn't be allowed to build up AFs in CONUS to train on and ports to be able to load more quickly. That this breaks the design and prevents AV when the devs specifically left in the ability to . . . build up bases in CONUS. Wow.

JeffroK -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/29/2013 9:02:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flicker I'm curious as to what players consider to be gamey. For example: When ships or troops are due to be withdrawn, I trade out the commander if they're worth saving. Is that gamey? At least a month before air groups are due to be withdrawn, I'll try to 'upgrade' the planes with older planes. Is that gamey? If an LCU is scheduled to be withdrawn, I keep reinforcements off. I also try to use it up in combat without getting it destroyed, then park it in a safe spot until it disappears. Is that gamey? Feel free to comment on these and add your own "Is that gamey?" As you are playing the AI, I believe these moves are gamey. I might soften this attitude a bit in a PBEM. Most withdrawals are to support the ETO, remember "Germany First" Your moves would be seen as putting the Second Front back by months and you would be reassigned to the Falklands Defence Force. My only tactic is to not fill out any squadron due for release, if it starts with only a handful of aircraft it doesnt get any more.

AW1Steve -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/30/2013 1:14:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I'm sure they did consider it. The VP there are very small for the Allied payer. Remember that the VP for a base has different values for the Japanese than for the Allies. No HRs. No discussion. Play the design. Japan has building opportunities at home too. No Moose. You forget the JFB mantra "Pass up no Whine before it's time. And the second you hear about the whine, it's time". [:D] Of course that goes with the plan , "house ruling the way to victory over the allies, one house rule at a time!". [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif] Do you have a day job to not quit? [:)] I agree with the sentiment though. Claiming the Allies shouldn't be allowed to build up AFs in CONUS to train on and ports to be able to load more quickly. That this breaks the design and prevents AV when the devs specifically left in the ability to . . . build up bases in CONUS. Wow. Why do you ask? Because I take the day after t-day for an extra-long weekend? [&:][:D] I'm just tired of people trying to manipulate the game (and house rules) to their own nefarious ways and claiming "fairness". [:(]SHUT UP AND PLAY! I say! Just shut up and play![:D] The games not perfect, but it's close enough! [:D]

Lokasenna -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/30/2013 3:17:04 AM)
You guys are silly. Build up the bases. There are more uses for built up bases than just VPs, you know. Like upgrading air groups or having more options for ship repair. Jeez. Besides, all you AFBs need all the help you can get.

JocMeister -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/30/2013 7:54:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna Besides, all you AFBs need all the help you can get. [:D]

AW1Steve -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/30/2013 5:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna You guys are silly. Build up the bases. There are more uses for built up bases than just VPs, you know. Like upgrading air groups or having more options for ship repair. Jeez. Besides, all you AFBs need all the help you can get. Yes , if for no other reason than most highly experienced players will go over to the Japanese side eventually , if for no other reason than to increase the challenge. Players of lesser experience (like myself) are not yet ready to play as Japan. It's the lessor experienced players who want to start out as Japan before they've learned to master the game who scream for all the advantages. A well seasoned , experienced player doesn't generally scream "gamey". He (or in the case of Graffin) say's "So?" And shuts up and plays. [&o][&o][&o]To those players , we who are not yet ready to play (as LYB's) salute you and admire you. To the rookies constantly trying to gain some kind of edge, we say "Shut up and play!" and "Learn your game! REAL JFB's don't need house rules!". [:D]

Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/30/2013 5:38:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs I'm sure they did consider it. The VP there are very small for the Allied payer. Remember that the VP for a base has different values for the Japanese than for the Allies. No HRs. No discussion. Play the design. Japan has building opportunities at home too. No Moose. You forget the JFB mantra "Pass up no Whine before it's time. And the second you hear about the whine, it's time". [:D] Of course that goes with the plan , "house ruling the way to victory over the allies, one house rule at a time!". [sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif][sm=00000289.gif] Do you have a day job to not quit? [:)] I agree with the sentiment though. Claiming the Allies shouldn't be allowed to build up AFs in CONUS to train on and ports to be able to load more quickly. That this breaks the design and prevents AV when the devs specifically left in the ability to . . . build up bases in CONUS. Wow. Why do you ask? Because I take the day after t-day for an extra-long weekend? [&:][:D] I'm just tired of people trying to manipulate the game (and house rules) to their own nefarious ways and claiming "fairness". [:(]SHUT UP AND PLAY! I say! Just shut up and play![:D] The games not perfect, but it's close enough! [:D] Nah, I was just joking about your lyric-writing. [:)] You know how I feel about "shut up and play", bro.

Numdydar -> RE: Is that gamey? (11/30/2013 7:30:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AW1Steve quote: ORIGINAL: Lokasenna You guys are silly. Build up the bases. There are more uses for built up bases than just VPs, you know. Like upgrading air groups or having more options for ship repair. Jeez. Besides, all you AFBs need all the help you can get. Yes , if for no other reason than most highly experienced players will go over to the Japanese side eventually , if for no other reason than to increase the challenge. Players of lesser experience (like myself) are not yet ready to play as Japan. It's the lessor experienced players who want to start out as Japan before they've learned to master the game who scream for all the advantages. A well seasoned , experienced player doesn't generally scream "gamey". He (or in the case of Graffin) say's "So?" And shuts up and plays. [&o][&o][&o]To those players , we who are not yet ready to play (as LYB's) salute you and admire you. To the rookies constantly trying to gain some kind of edge, we say "Shut up and play!" and "Learn your game! REAL JFB's don't need house rules!". [:D] Damn right [:)]

Flicker -> RE: Is that gamey? (12/2/2013 6:20:36 PM)
Thanks for the discussion. I think if I were to play PBEM I would prefer the Moose approach - no house rules (except for some Turn 1 agreements like China warzone, existing TF flexibility, and CAP). This leads into a gamey question - if PPs are required to cross national borders, what do players do about Canadian Base Forces? If they are stuck in Canada then I guess Canada gets built up to the max on Ports and AFs, since the Canadians usually don't have to defend their territory. Also, only unrestricted US units could move north to assist in the defense. In my AI game, I limit myself to buying out Chinese units - because most restricted units must be bought out to transport anyway (i.e., Indian and British restricted units in India can fight in Burma and Southeast Asia and China, as long as they walk). I like to use Canadian Base Forces to help construct and operate US West Coast ports. Is that gamey?

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1