Gamey play (Full Version)

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



Message

rroberson -> Gamey play (9/24/2015 12:24:40 AM)

[image]http://i1100.photobucket.com/albums/g402/asurob/gamey_zpsuqsmz4wi.png[/image]

Seems I keep running into this one. I by no means am perfect, but do players really truly believe that it's okay to assign land units to air HQs. It's the king of gamey play. My current opponents are not guilty of this (its one of my house rules now) but I took over an abandoned game and it is filled with this sort of thing (I have Dutch units all over Australia etc...)

I simply don't get how gaming the rules is fun for anyone.



Mike Solli -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 12:34:16 AM)

What's the point of doing that?



rroberson -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 12:39:00 AM)

Cheaper PP costs. It's pretty against the spirit of the game and I have had at least one opponent do it for sure...and I suspected another one. I now make sure that all my future opponents are well aware of it.

I was simply stunned by this abandoned game though...It's taken me a month of game turns to begin to sort it out...



dr.hal -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 12:48:00 AM)

I never even thought of trying that one.... I agree, totally out of bounds....



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 1:45:19 AM)

A ground LCU should not be able to have an air HQ.



geofflambert -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 1:47:09 AM)

There might be some reasonable exceptions. For instance some US Army units were assigned to a French HQ in WWII and others to British HQs there as well. For the most part it shouldn't be done and in any case an LCU will benefit from the presence of a friendly HQ even if they are not assigned to it. I think the issue mainly arises when there simply are no unrestricted HQs in the same service. The US as I recall has a problem there early on. They can either attach to a USN or a USAAF HQ that is at the front or sit on their hands in CA. I suppose they could attach to an Aussie HQ. Ad hoc interservice cooperation did happen. I believe Adm. Hewitt was in overall command in the field in all of his amphibious landings e.g..



Lokasenna -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 2:13:33 AM)

Come on guys. For the purposes of command structure, an HQ is an HQ is an HQ is an HQ. It's just somewhere on the organizational hierarchy. It doesn't matter whether it's an air, ground, sea, or kitchen HQ for whether a unit is restricted or not. Yes, most of these examples are air HQs, but some aren't. And besides that, unless the person in question moved the VII Bomber Command to some other top-level HQ besides the one it starts in (Pacific Ocean Areas IIRC), there's no "saving" on the PP cost in that case anyway.

You're not about to insist that because the I Australian HQ is within the Australia Command restricted HQ hierarchy that buying out your Australian units to the I Australian, for "one quarter" of the non-Australian cost, is really against your vaunted Spirit Of The Game, are you? Not to mention that Dutch units in Australia, which participated in the ABDA command (hint: the D stands for Dutch), is not at all out of bounds. Don't be ridiculous.

I say the spirit of the game is to smash our units together until they're all broken on one side. I don't get how restricting yourself in a sandbox alternate history game is any fun for anyone. A house rule against ground units having air HQs is even more bonkers than a no strategic bombing in 1943 rule. [sm=nono.gif]



iley -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 2:19:32 AM)

If the Ide is to attach 2nd marine to VII bomber and then pay points to change bomber command taking 2nd marine with it for free. Not gonna work. You must pay to move second marine two VII bomber. Would only work with units that start out attached to a HQ. Of course I could be completely wrong would not be the first time.

Iley



dr.hal -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 2:43:25 AM)

But the point of having political points is to prohibit or slow down certain actions. Now if you are playing a game where nothing is out of bounds, so be it, but if the game is to have some restrictions that ask players to somewhat conform to reality... that too is fine... players choice. But to purposely use a command that is so off base just to shave political points in a game, is a game I would not want to be engaged in, would be contrary to the spirit in which I would want the game played (but again player's choice). Yes a HQ is a HQ is a HQ but there is SOME talent in HQs that is usually needed for that type of HQ it is, so the marines would be hard pressed to find that talent in an Army Air Corps HQ... The developers put them in there for a reason in my humble opinion. HQs are a lot of chrome in the game, UNLESS you want them to be something more.... which is fine too.



rroberson -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 3:20:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Come on guys. For the purposes of command structure, an HQ is an HQ is an HQ is an HQ. It's just somewhere on the organizational hierarchy. It doesn't matter whether it's an air, ground, sea, or kitchen HQ for whether a unit is restricted or not. Yes, most of these examples are air HQs, but some aren't. And besides that, unless the person in question moved the VII Bomber Command to some other top-level HQ besides the one it starts in (Pacific Ocean Areas IIRC), there's no "saving" on the PP cost in that case anyway.

You're not about to insist that because the I Australian HQ is within the Australia Command restricted HQ hierarchy that buying out your Australian units to the I Australian, for "one quarter" of the non-Australian cost, is really against your vaunted Spirit Of The Game, are you? Not to mention that Dutch units in Australia, which participated in the ABDA command (hint: the D stands for Dutch), is not at all out of bounds. Don't be ridiculous.

I say the spirit of the game is to smash our units together until they're all broken on one side. I don't get how restricting yourself in a sandbox alternate history game is any fun for anyone. A house rule against ground units having air HQs is even more bonkers than a no strategic bombing in 1943 rule. [sm=nono.gif]



Bullshit.

I know for a fact....a fact...that an unscrupulous Japanese player can go hog wild releasing Japanese divisions via the PP route and using air HQs which are much cheaper then land HQs. I had one do this very thing to a couple of years back and I couldn't figure out how each and EVERY one of his invasions contained multiple divisions until one of his former opponents mentioned what he was doing to me. It's beyond gamey and borders on out right cheating.




Lokasenna -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 4:06:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Come on guys. For the purposes of command structure, an HQ is an HQ is an HQ is an HQ. It's just somewhere on the organizational hierarchy. It doesn't matter whether it's an air, ground, sea, or kitchen HQ for whether a unit is restricted or not. Yes, most of these examples are air HQs, but some aren't. And besides that, unless the person in question moved the VII Bomber Command to some other top-level HQ besides the one it starts in (Pacific Ocean Areas IIRC), there's no "saving" on the PP cost in that case anyway.

You're not about to insist that because the I Australian HQ is within the Australia Command restricted HQ hierarchy that buying out your Australian units to the I Australian, for "one quarter" of the non-Australian cost, is really against your vaunted Spirit Of The Game, are you? Not to mention that Dutch units in Australia, which participated in the ABDA command (hint: the D stands for Dutch), is not at all out of bounds. Don't be ridiculous.

I say the spirit of the game is to smash our units together until they're all broken on one side. I don't get how restricting yourself in a sandbox alternate history game is any fun for anyone. A house rule against ground units having air HQs is even more bonkers than a no strategic bombing in 1943 rule. [sm=nono.gif]



Bullshit.

I know for a fact....a fact...that an unscrupulous Japanese player can go hog wild releasing Japanese divisions via the PP route and using air HQs which are much cheaper then land HQs. I had one do this very thing to a couple of years back and I couldn't figure out how each and EVERY one of his invasions contained multiple divisions until one of his former opponents mentioned what he was doing to me. It's beyond gamey and borders on out right cheating.




OK, I'll call your bullhonkey bluff with a nice steaming pile of facts. I take it by the tone of your response that I touched a nerve, and well.. truth stings sometimes. You know the Allies can do the exact same thing, right? If anything, PPs are even harder on the Allies. Not doing this as the Allies would hamstring them more than the Japanese - it would take months to buy out just 2 divisions, but instead you can do this and it would take weeks. The PP system is awful at this aspect of the game. PPs themselves are an afterthought to the game's design. They work fine for unit COs and such, but for the purchasing of units... they just don't. Or for ship withdrawals. But that's a different (though related) discussion.

Air HQs aren't innately cheaper than land HQs. It's the fact that there are unrestricted air HQs nested within a couple of the large top-level HQs. I think you're just getting hung up on the "air" HQ part of it. I'll list some off the top of my head:

For Japan, in China/Manchuria, there is the 8th Air Division (I think). Maybe it's 13th. For the Home Islands stuff, it's 11th Air Flotilla. That's it.

For the Allies:
There's the I Australian (and maybe II Australian, I forget) for Australia... but if you change either of those, which are themselves restricted while their subunits are not, then you can't do this.

There are several British/Indian examples.

Eleventh USAAF (and 2 sub-HQs within it) for the US.

For the Dutch, you can switch them to ABDA - that's a top level and not even one of these hated Air HQs!


And if you noticed him using so many divisions... that has its own consequences, such as a Manchuria that's at 8001/8000 AV for the garrison. Or a weak China. Or a weak Burma. Maybe you can' take advantage right away, but you could eventually.



Banzan -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 5:25:10 AM)

Allies have far more unrestricted air HQs avaible at start then land HQs. So "cheating" the PP system by jumping to restricted and back to save pps on moving units from restricted to unrestricted would be done mainly by using air HQs.

I am actually not sure who can benefit more of this, the allies or the empire.



rroberson -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 6:02:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Come on guys. For the purposes of command structure, an HQ is an HQ is an HQ is an HQ. It's just somewhere on the organizational hierarchy. It doesn't matter whether it's an air, ground, sea, or kitchen HQ for whether a unit is restricted or not. Yes, most of these examples are air HQs, but some aren't. And besides that, unless the person in question moved the VII Bomber Command to some other top-level HQ besides the one it starts in (Pacific Ocean Areas IIRC), there's no "saving" on the PP cost in that case anyway.

You're not about to insist that because the I Australian HQ is within the Australia Command restricted HQ hierarchy that buying out your Australian units to the I Australian, for "one quarter" of the non-Australian cost, is really against your vaunted Spirit Of The Game, are you? Not to mention that Dutch units in Australia, which participated in the ABDA command (hint: the D stands for Dutch), is not at all out of bounds. Don't be ridiculous.

I say the spirit of the game is to smash our units together until they're all broken on one side. I don't get how restricting yourself in a sandbox alternate history game is any fun for anyone. A house rule against ground units having air HQs is even more bonkers than a no strategic bombing in 1943 rule. [sm=nono.gif]



Bullshit.

I know for a fact....a fact...that an unscrupulous Japanese player can go hog wild releasing Japanese divisions via the PP route and using air HQs which are much cheaper then land HQs. I had one do this very thing to a couple of years back and I couldn't figure out how each and EVERY one of his invasions contained multiple divisions until one of his former opponents mentioned what he was doing to me. It's beyond gamey and borders on out right cheating.




OK, I'll call your bullhonkey bluff with a nice steaming pile of facts. I take it by the tone of your response that I touched a nerve, and well.. truth stings sometimes. You know the Allies can do the exact same thing, right? If anything, PPs are even harder on the Allies. Not doing this as the Allies would hamstring them more than the Japanese - it would take months to buy out just 2 divisions, but instead you can do this and it would take weeks. The PP system is awful at this aspect of the game. PPs themselves are an afterthought to the game's design. They work fine for unit COs and such, but for the purchasing of units... they just don't. Or for ship withdrawals. But that's a different (though related) discussion.

Air HQs aren't innately cheaper than land HQs. It's the fact that there are unrestricted air HQs nested within a couple of the large top-level HQs. I think you're just getting hung up on the "air" HQ part of it. I'll list some off the top of my head:

For Japan, in China/Manchuria, there is the 8th Air Division (I think). Maybe it's 13th. For the Home Islands stuff, it's 11th Air Flotilla. That's it.

For the Allies:
There's the I Australian (and maybe II Australian, I forget) for Australia... but if you change either of those, which are themselves restricted while their subunits are not, then you can't do this.

There are several British/Indian examples.

Eleventh USAAF (and 2 sub-HQs within it) for the US.

For the Dutch, you can switch them to ABDA - that's a top level and not even one of these hated Air HQs!


And if you noticed him using so many divisions... that has its own consequences, such as a Manchuria that's at 8001/8000 AV for the garrison. Or a weak China. Or a weak Burma. Maybe you can' take advantage right away, but you could eventually.



Yup and it makes them JUST as unscrupulous if they are doing that, which is rather the entire point of my original post. Who spends the time doing this crap. Where is the fun in gaming the system to the point that you can't get play a decent game anymore. The system was not designed to be used this way and only players looking to gain an unfair advantage over an otherwise trusting opponent would bend the system like this.

I have played the Japanese almost exclusively for 10 years. Only recently have I gotten to play the allies (the last two years or so). I am well versed in the orders of battle of each side. So when I see massed divisions making landings 3 or 4 months after the game starts...I'm pretty positive I know exactly what is going on. The abandoned game I took over, the guy before me flipped all the dutch units to ABDA and moved them to Australia...really? Why bother to even play the game.

No sir, I get that there are players who win and any costs and I hope they have many games against each other...for my gaming I will continue to seek honorable opponents who enjoy the trip, not those who are in a race to the finish.

So I ask you again, why would you even play a game where you are gaming the system rather then you know...playing the game...



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 6:51:39 AM)

I get your point regarding ground units switching to air HQs. Since it seems wrong, it should be discussed by the players before spooling up a game. That and supersized naval air units seem to be a valid point of discussion.

I have a related question for the group: Is it cool to switch CONUS air units to 11th Air Force? That's done at 1/4 the PP cost of switching to Pacific Ocean or SoPac or whatever else.

Cheers,
CC



rroberson -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 6:59:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

I get your point regarding ground units switching to air HQs. Since it seems wrong, it should be discussed by the players before spooling up a game. That and supersized naval air units seem to be a valid point of discussion.

I have a related question for the group: Is it cool to switch CONUS air units to 11th Air Force? That's done at 1/4 the PP cost of switching to Pacific Ocean or SoPac or whatever else.

Cheers,
CC



I'd say no, but again that's me. I try to keep my units in HQs where they are heading (ie 10th air force in burma where the HQ shows up etc)...

As far as the KB/allied deathstar...I have just learned to accept that all players mass their carriers in one group and float around killing everything possible until they run into their opponent's death star. One of my current players doesn't use the death star much (if at all) and it's a breath of fresh air to watch him hammer other parts of the map with two or 3 carriers. Keeps me on my toes...and makes for a more enjoyable game.



HansBolter -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 10:30:04 AM)

Chiming in to state that I agree completely with the OP.

I don't even play competitive games, mine are solely against the AI and I still abide by the self imposed restriction to NOT game the system in such an obviously exploitative manner.



Lecivius -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 2:04:32 PM)

I see the point in the OP. I would never think of assigning land to an Air HQ. I just try to keep things within my mind of what 'feels right'.

I have a question, though. "flipped all the dutch units to ABDA and moved them to Australia". I do this with several of the Dutch base units, as those are always nice to have. I never thought of this as gamey. Did I miss a memo?



mind_messing -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 2:33:33 PM)

I'm one of those players that rroberson describes as unscrupulous. I'll use every trick in the books to spend as few PP's as possible. Air HQ's, reassigning bases to restricted commands, resizing air groups, the lot. It's a no HR game, so it's all fair.

The political points system is an abstraction. It does a good job, but to properly encapsulate the political dimension of the Pacific War would require a second game to get right.

The freedom should be there for the Allied player to switch the Dutch to ABDA and withdraw them from the DEI.

Would the IJA, if it's embarking on an extensive campaign, be unable to move divisions from garrison to the frontlines because they lacked sufficent "points" to do so?

Would the Japanese be unable to fly troops to an threatened island because it was under the wrong command?




dr.hal -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 2:50:09 PM)

This all gets back to the basic principle on how you want to play the game. When I was living in Plymouth England, I was in a 5mm figure Napoleonic gaming contest. Each contestant could acquire 1200 points of figures from what ever country he (no women in the contest) wanted (some countries had unique characteristics) and play each other. In one set up, a friend of mine was being beaten badly, his troops being routed all over. While standing there watching, I noticed things were not right. I asked my friend's opponent what level of troops each of his units were ("A" being expert trained, while down at "D" was conscripts and scrubs!). The higher the rating, the more points it cost to acquire the unit, thus with a 1200 point limit, the fewer the troops you could field. It quickly became apparent that his troops added up to WAY more than the 1200 limit (over 1400 points in fact). It was a clear case of him wanting to win no matter what.... so he cheated and was caught. The truth is winning, for some players is what the whole game is about. That's why screening your opponent is a vital first step to get a game that is "good" for both sides.



crsutton -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 2:51:38 PM)

Too complicated to argue. The only solution is to find a player with similar philosophy about the game and have a frank discussion about what you expect before starting. HRs become too vague and although I use them, my opponent and I have as few as possible. In the end, they cause more arguments than they solve and can end friendships.

I have my own rules as far as the Allies go. I never reassign ground units to Air HQ. But, I do find as many ways to economize PPs as I can. I assign Australian division to the 1 Corps. In India (assuming you are not allowing restricted units to move into Burma) I disband divisions and brigades and reform them 180 days later and buy them out at a minimal cost before rebuilding. I have no qualms about this because you lose the unit for 180 days and have to retrain it as well. A fair trade in my book. As for my opponent, I do not ask what he is doing but know he is a fair player. We have agreed that if one of us has an issue then we just talk it out (sometimes with heat) until we find a solution. We have had about ten major disputes in our 8 years of campaigning. But if you do not have a HR and have not discussed things with your opponent before starting. Then they can do what they want. Like a famous supreme court justice once said " I can not accurately define gamey "but I know it when I see it."



WriterNotViking -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 2:57:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I have a question, though. "flipped all the dutch units to ABDA and moved them to Australia". I do this with several of the Dutch base units, as those are always nice to have. I never thought of this as gamey. Did I miss a memo?


Since the restricted KNIL command is subordinate to ABDA, which is NOT an Air HQ, I see absolutely no reason to consider this gamey. Without this, the only way to move Dutch LCUs around the DEI is by air transport, which means for the most part, your only defensive strategy in that area becomes "die where you stand." Of course, that's what actually happened, but most people that play this game already have a fairly good idea of how the war progressed historically. What's the point of playing the game if we artificially limit the extent to which our operations can deviate from history? The longer this game exists, and the more AARs are posted, the harder it becomes to surprise your opponent with a strategy they haven't seen before. What's not to like about the potential for being surprised where your enemy appears, and what forces he brings?

I see the point regarding assigning land units to Air HQ's, but even that should be negotiated for each game, since (as someone else said) this option is available to both sides. When it comes to unrestricted army subcommands of larger restricted ones, I see zero problems. It wouldn't have been included, or at the least would have been fixed in a patch, if it wasn't meant to be a valid option. Ultimately, this is a subject that should be covered between opponents before the start of a game to ensure both are on the same page about the issue, and no one has grounds for complaints later on.



Amoral -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 3:36:41 PM)

It doesn't bother me if people want to play using the PP system as it was intended. It does not bother me if people want to play the system as it is enforced. Where I think trouble will come up is people who have creative tricks to pay less than full price to transfer a restricted unit, and justify that to themselves. But still say that they are playing the PP system as intended, and not in a gamey fashion.

Disbanding units to change command and then re-buying them is the very definition of gamey. It is a course of action you taken not because it has a real world explanation, but because it is a way to defeat the game engine. Doing something like that is fine, if your opponent knows that defeating the game engine is something he should be trying to do as well.



rroberson -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 3:47:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I see the point in the OP. I would never think of assigning land to an Air HQ. I just try to keep things within my mind of what 'feels right'.

I have a question, though. "flipped all the dutch units to ABDA and moved them to Australia". I do this with several of the Dutch base units, as those are always nice to have. I never thought of this as gamey. Did I miss a memo?



You know, I think I would be okay with it if it was one or two base units. The game I took over the other guy was flipping dutch units en masse. When I get home I will post a screen shot of what Australia currently looks like...it's entertaining to say the least.



rroberson -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 3:52:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Too complicated to argue. The only solution is to find a player with similar philosophy about the game and have a frank discussion about what you expect before starting. HRs become too vague and although I use them, my opponent and I have as few as possible. In the end, they cause more arguments than they solve and can end friendships.

I have my own rules as far as the Allies go. I never reassign ground units to Air HQ. But, I do find as many ways to economize PPs as I can. I assign Australian division to the 1 Corps. In India (assuming you are not allowing restricted units to move into Burma) I disband divisions and brigades and reform them 180 days later and buy them out at a minimal cost before rebuilding. I have no qualms about this because you lose the unit for 180 days and have to retrain it as well. A fair trade in my book. As for my opponent, I do not ask what he is doing but know he is a fair player. We have agreed that if one of us has an issue then we just talk it out (sometimes with heat) until we find a solution. We have had about ten major disputes in our 8 years of campaigning. But if you do not have a HR and have not discussed things with your opponent before starting. Then they can do what they want. Like a famous supreme court justice once said " I can not accurately define gamey "but I know it when I see it."



I agree with this. I don't mind a loose game. I have often said if I wanted to repeat history I would crack open a book. The problem I have found is there are simply too many little exploits that some players are happy to take advantage of to not have a few house rules on the books. I do have a minimal set of rules now and I do screen players and feel them out. No amount of screen will catch everything though so at the end of the day you have to hope you are playing like-minded players. I don't think in 10 years I have ever "won" a game. I still play for the simply blowing things up part of the game. SO I guess that paints my play style and why I don't understand the win at any cost mentality.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 4:02:41 PM)

I don't do "gamey." Hate the word, find the concept undefinable.

I have played or am playing three PBEM games as the Allies. All were no-HR games. In most I have not reassigned land LCUs to Air HQs to save PPs. It's an internal edit. In some cases I have. When I did, why I did is my business.

There are four points on this issue I think are worth mentioning:

1. The PP daily budget is a scenario variable decided by the designer. In the case of stock, the devs. It was not handed down from on high to Moses. For the Allies it's usually 50/day. This number was set about seven years ago when the late game had minimal play-testing and JFBs had not learned to hyper-optimize the early game. But it's not a holy number.

2. Similarly, which HQ arriving LCUs plop into is a scenario designer decision. I disagree with many of them in stock. For example, I don't believe any USMC unit should be WC restricted. For sure not the shooters. They were and are an expeditionary force. They were intended to be assault troops. Why make them administratively stop on the WC and be bought out? Same with the beginning US Army independent regiments.

The US had a period of shock and paralysis after Pearl Harbor that lasted weeks and at most maybe four months. After that we were on a war footing and the risk of WC invasion steadily decreased. But in the first months PPs should be precious and require real trade-offs. The problem is the PP system doesn't ramp. The scenario number is the number for the duration. And LCUs continue to arrive restricted even though a dog could figure out they're going forward into combat as soon as possible. It's why at Christmas 1943 I'm still trying to buy out an ID in thirds I've been trying to buy out for a year.

3. The devs had the option of not co-mingling WC Land HQs with WC Air HQs. They didn't. If they had separated them into peer-level groups the WC issue wouldn't be an issue. And the WC HQs to me as an Allied player represent most of the question. The Dutch stuff and the Aussie stuff are molehills. The Dutch have no replacements to speak of and fairly primitive devices. Their air force is a joke. A lot of the Aussie army in stock is restricted, but you can buy it into the I Corps pretty cheaply. Having to do that, however, does lead to starvation for the Americans for a lot of 1943. Same with the Kiwis.

4. The common HR to pay to cross borders was not, so far as I know, foreseen when the 50/day budget was set in the stock scenarios. The border system was not finished, true, but the PP system was not jacked up to allow for this common HR. Having it makes the starvation in CONUS even worse. I've never played with it, but given how low my PPs have always run I don't see how anyone could play a good Japan player in Burma and still have a US army to use before mid-1944. Perhaps a lot of Allied players who don't have trouble ought to play better Japan players.



WriterNotViking -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 4:06:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Their air force is a joke.


Hey, no need to be harsh... [:D]



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 4:09:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Their air force is a joke.


Hey, no need to be harsh... [:D]


Not trying to be. But a lot of AFBs play 1942 over and over and over. So it might seem to be at least average. It's not in span of the entire war.



nate25 -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 4:20:56 PM)

I'm not quite wrapping my head round this.

So my switching the I Aus Corps to the Southwest Pacific is gamey?

I routinely link Allied base forces to whatever Air HQ they are serving.

Not sure why this is "Cheating".

Someone want to put a little finer point on it?

Thanks, Nate





Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 4:31:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: nate25

I'm not quite wrapping my head round this.

So my switching the I Aus Corps to the Southwest Pacific is gamey?

I routinely link Allied base forces to whatever Air HQ they are serving.

Not sure why this is "Cheating".

Someone want to put a little finer point on it?

Thanks, Nate



No. You switch I Aus Corps from Australia Command to itself for 87 PPs and after that it's unrestricted and can accept most Aussie LCUs under its umbrella.



WriterNotViking -> RE: Gamey play (9/24/2015 4:40:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Their air force is a joke.


Hey, no need to be harsh... [:D]


Not trying to be. But a lot of AFBs play 1942 over and over and over. So it might seem to be at least average. It's not in span of the entire war.


I'm just joking. Being Dutch, I'm legally required by my country's laws to glorify our achievements in the war. [:'(] I've played 1942 way too often, and a big part of my fun is making the most of those undermanned, under-equipped units.



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.328125