quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral


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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking

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.

quote:

There are many reasons for disbanding units. Such as the need for squads to fill out other units or devices such as the scarce 25 pounder gun.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Bullwinkle,

I simply don't understand, I've always found the Dutch units to be very useful... I'm not so sure why you don't see their value, but I would never forego them given the limited assets the Allies have in early '42... Plus my father (born in the Netherlands) would never sanction giving them up and my ohma would agree!.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I was informed by Lokasenna that my previously described plan to buy I Aus Corps out to itself is indeed stupid and wasteful. Instead, buy the Aussie Army, which is almost all under Australia Command (restricted) into I Corps while I Corps still works for Australia Command. Get them for cheap. Then buy I Corps out to itself.

Bad Moose, bad!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

There are many reasons for disbanding units. Such as the need for squads to fill out other units or devices such as the scarce 25 pounder gun.

If this is why you were disbanding them, that would be a valid reason. But you stated you were disbanding them to circumvent the PP cost. It is the motivation, not the clicks, that serve to define something as gamey to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If you want to put forth that "what was intended" for people to do with respect to buying units out to unrestricted commands... why did the developers, and later scenario designers, put unrestricted HQs within the umbrella that you can put units into? If they wanted to stop you from putting units into the unrestricted air HQs (except for the I and II Aus Corps under Australia Command), then why didn't they make those commands either restricted or put them elsewhere such that you had to pay full value?

Hoisting yourself up on your horse and berating others for playing the game fully, which you don't deign to do, is distasteful at best. I posted with the tone that I did because I found the prior language to be angry and offensive, similar to "Pfah! Can you BELIEVE what this peasant did? Look at how he assigned some LCUs to one of the valid options within the game but...it is an "air" HQ within the entire command umbrella! Us proper men would NEVER do something like this, and anyone who is not with us is scum! Pfah!"

I mean really. Play the game how you want, that's fine. But don't be ridiculous.

Edit: Ahem -

[image]local://upfiles/41335/3FB461A489794934BBA3A3468D5A707D.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing






About the only thing I stop short of is excessive single ship TF's to soak up OPS points, as that's more engine manipulation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Why is it that every time the word "gamey" comes up , after reading the "discussion" for a couple of pages I always want to run to the toilet to throw up, then I have a need for a shower? Then I seriously think about ripping the game out of my computer and dropping my discs and manuals into the trash? How is it that individuals manage to make this wonderful , brilliant game sound so dirty?

Why can we have thread after thread on house rules , yet never seem to agree on "what's gamey?". Cause THAT is the question. I've always been lead to consider the most important word to be INTENT. The intent to exploit a flaw in the game machinery in a manner that is essentially CHEATING. Am I wrong? Am I somehow ignorant , or misinformed? Then why can't we come to some kind of a working consensus?

My understanding is that the purpose (in REAL LIFE) of assigning a unit to another command (which we not very bright sailors call "chopping") is to facilitate command. To unify command. To consolidate command. Apparently some people do it to cheat. I didn't know that. OK. So the problem remains "what is gamey?". And once again , the answer comes down to "Intent".

In law , the judges often cite what's called "the reasonable man doctrine". What that comes down to here is very much the same. A restricted command in modern militaries is essentially a "training command" . Once a unit reaches it's proper status (full combat readiness) it is assigned to a Combat command. Other units are "home guard" equivalents. In the case of Australia in ww2 ALL units were considered "home guard" in nature unless they were assigned to "Imperial commands". Like the 1st Australian corps. Then they could go overseas.

The ABDA was a joint command. Nations "chopped" units into it and out of it as needed.

I don't see any of these things as "gamey". I don't think any "reasonable man" would. The infantry unit sent to a Air HQ definitely raises my eyebrow (in fact both of them!). I would ask any opponent to justify his action.....then wait for what had better be a damned good explanation.

But no matter how we define "gamey" , one thing won't help is for people to get "hot under the collar". So let's take a time out. Each of us should come up with a list of things we regard as "gamey" and WHY! And come up with solutions OTHER then having the opponent do EXACTLY what we want. In other words we need some serious compromise. A code of conduct as it were. There are some very bright , knowledgeable people on this forum (then there's the rest like me) , and I can't believe that we can't come up with a good , solid code of conduct based on agreement and compromise. Or we can just keep screwing around and clawing a each other like a bunch of unruly cats. [:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If you want to put forth that "what was intended"...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
I always (and the game was designed for) pay 100% PP's to tranfer units out of a restricted command.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Why is it that every time the word "gamey" comes up , after reading the "discussion" for a couple of pages I always want to run to the toilet to throw up, then I have a need for a shower? Then I seriously think about ripping the game out of my computer and dropping my discs and manuals into the trash? How is it that individuals manage to make this wonderful , brilliant game sound so dirty?

Why can we have thread after thread on house rules , yet never seem to agree on "what's gamey?". Cause THAT is the question. I've always been lead to consider the most important word to be INTENT. The intent to exploit a flaw in the game machinery in a manner that is essentially CHEATING. Am I wrong? Am I somehow ignorant , or misinformed? Then why can't we come to some kind of a working consensus?

My understanding is that the purpose (in REAL LIFE) of assigning a unit to another command (which we not very bright sailors call "chopping") is to facilitate command. To unify command. To consolidate command. Apparently some people do it to cheat. I didn't know that. OK. So the problem remains "what is gamey?". And once again , the answer comes down to "Intent".

In law , the judges often cite what's called "the reasonable man doctrine". What that comes down to here is very much the same. A restricted command in modern militaries is essentially a "training command" . Once a unit reaches it's proper status (full combat readiness) it is assigned to a Combat command. Other units are "home guard" equivalents. In the case of Australia in ww2 ALL units were considered "home guard" in nature unless they were assigned to "Imperial commands". Like the 1st Australian corps. Then they could go overseas.

The ABDA was a joint command. Nations "chopped" units into it and out of it as needed.

I don't see any of these things as "gamey". I don't think any "reasonable man" would. The infantry unit sent to a Air HQ definitely raises my eyebrow (in fact both of them!). I would ask any opponent to justify his action.....then wait for what had better be a damned good explanation.

But no matter how we define "gamey" , one thing won't help is for people to get "hot under the collar". So let's take a time out. Each of us should come up with a list of things we regard as "gamey" and WHY! And come up with solutions OTHER then having the opponent do EXACTLY what we want. In other words we need some serious compromise. A code of conduct as it were. There are some very bright , knowledgeable people on this forum (then there's the rest like me) , and I can't believe that we can't come up with a good , solid code of conduct based on agreement and compromise. Or we can just keep screwing around and clawing a each other like a bunch of unruly cats. [:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Why is it that every time the word "gamey" comes up , after reading the "discussion" for a couple of pages I always want to run to the toilet to throw up, then I have a need for a shower? Then I seriously think about ripping the game out of my computer and dropping my discs and manuals into the trash? How is it that individuals manage to make this wonderful , brilliant game sound so dirty?

Why can we have thread after thread on house rules , yet never seem to agree on "what's gamey?". Cause THAT is the question. I've always been lead to consider the most important word to be INTENT. The intent to exploit a flaw in the game machinery in a manner that is essentially CHEATING. Am I wrong? Am I somehow ignorant , or misinformed? Then why can't we come to some kind of a working consensus?

My understanding is that the purpose (in REAL LIFE) of assigning a unit to another command (which we not very bright sailors call "chopping") is to facilitate command. To unify command. To consolidate command. Apparently some people do it to cheat. I didn't know that. OK. So the problem remains "what is gamey?". And once again , the answer comes down to "Intent".

In law , the judges often cite what's called "the reasonable man doctrine". What that comes down to here is very much the same. A restricted command in modern militaries is essentially a "training command" . Once a unit reaches it's proper status (full combat readiness) it is assigned to a Combat command. Other units are "home guard" equivalents. In the case of Australia in ww2 ALL units were considered "home guard" in nature unless they were assigned to "Imperial commands". Like the 1st Australian corps. Then they could go overseas.

The ABDA was a joint command. Nations "chopped" units into it and out of it as needed.

I don't see any of these things as "gamey". I don't think any "reasonable man" would. The infantry unit sent to a Air HQ definitely raises my eyebrow (in fact both of them!). I would ask any opponent to justify his action.....then wait for what had better be a damned good explanation.

But no matter how we define "gamey" , one thing won't help is for people to get "hot under the collar". So let's take a time out. Each of us should come up with a list of things we regard as "gamey" and WHY! And come up with solutions OTHER then having the opponent do EXACTLY what we want. In other words we need some serious compromise. A code of conduct as it were. There are some very bright , knowledgeable people on this forum (then there's the rest like me) , and I can't believe that we can't come up with a good , solid code of conduct based on agreement and compromise. Or we can just keep screwing around and clawing a each other like a bunch of unruly cats. [:(]

Except in the game the HQ has no effect in most cases on command. It's not real life. People keep trying to make it real life, but it isn't.

The devs could have solved the WC issue by not nesting Air HQs inside restricted Land HQs. They didn't. If they had a whole lot of angst could have been avoided.

Saying "full PPs in all cases" is nice, but the budgets don't work. My opponent reports he has over 8000 PPs in his account as Japan in late 1943. I have 50. I have not "cheated" in that game even once. But look at what the Allied player has to buy out just from the American OOB. The purchase values were assigned by the devs. The budgets were assigned by the devs. The Allies need to buy out at minimum four IDs in 1942, at a cost of over 2000 PPs each. Do the math.

As I said above, should any ID arrive in CONUS after June 1942 and need extra WC HQ training? No. They can be left there, but a Pacific unrestricted HQ should already own them. It's that fact in the stock scenarios that drives Allied players to use nesting to save PPs. I can't speak for Japanese players' problems. But the difference between 8000 and 50 is pretty stark.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve


OK. That point seems reasonable. But is the fix reasonable? (I really don't know. I'm asking). You are a very intelligent guy (nobody gets into nuke boats that isn't a brain. Even the cook is brainy). I was always taught as a junior PO "don't ever bring a complaint or a problem without a proposed solution"). So what's your solution? If you are going to do it that way , you need to talk with your opponent 1st (I don't mean you Moose...your"e an experienced and well respected player... I mean "you" in the generic sense). Or perhaps you could discuss this problem with a potential opponent and ask for an adjustment of an increased number of points via the editor. And perhaps this can be a regular form of "handicapping" based upon the two players experience.

The important thing is that we need to hash this out here and come up with a usable , workable proposed solution as part of the negotiation for the next player who decides to have a PBEM. We discuss house rules. How about a handicap? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Yes, it is cheating. If you are moving your 161st brigade under the 11th AF so you can save the PPs (Im not sure of the cost difference) so you can spend those PPs somewhere else what else would you call it?

I mean this is pretty black and white.

If you and your opp agree not to do those sorts of things...or worse he is unaware that you can do those things...then you are in fact gaming the game.

your miles might vary.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

moving a combat division under an air HQ needs one heck of a good explanation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If you want to put forth that "what was intended"...

It is Andy Mac, JWE and Kereguelen that put forward the fact that what you describe is not intended, and was not fixed because of the complexity of the code involved.

The developer's intention was that the discount was only intended to be used when both commands were unrestricted, but they could not make that work in the time frame available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
I always (and the game was designed for) pay 100% PP's to tranfer units out of a restricted command.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2556829

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2607644&mpage=2&key=

Credit to Alfred for digging up these threads in a previous "is it gamey?" thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Except in the game the HQ has no effect in most cases on command. It's not real life. People keep trying to make it real life, but it isn't.

The devs could have solved the WC issue by not nesting Air HQs inside restricted Land HQs. They didn't. If they had a whole lot of angst could have been avoided.

Saying "full PPs in all cases" is nice, but the budgets don't work. My opponent reports he has over 8000 PPs in his account as Japan in late 1943. I have 50. I have not "cheated" in that game even once. But look at what the Allied player has to buy out just from the American OOB. The purchase values were assigned by the devs. The budgets were assigned by the devs. The Allies need to buy out at minimum four IDs in 1942, at a cost of over 2000 PPs each. Do the math.

As I said above, should any ID arrive in CONUS after June 1942 and need extra WC HQ training? No. They can be left there, but a Pacific unrestricted HQ should already own them. It's that fact in the stock scenarios that drives Allied players to use nesting to save PPs. I can't speak for Japanese players' problems. But the difference between 8000 and 50 is pretty stark.

OK. That point seems reasonable. But is the fix reasonable? (I really don't know. I'm asking). You are a very intelligent guy (nobody gets into nuke boats that isn't a brain. Even the cook is brainy). I was always taught as a junior PO "don't ever bring a complaint or a problem without a proposed solution"). So what's your solution? If you are going to do it that way , you need to talk with your opponent 1st (I don't mean you Moose...your"e an experienced and well respected player... I mean "you" in the generic sense). Or perhaps you could discuss this problem with a potential opponent and ask for an adjustment of an increased number of points via the editor. And perhaps this can be a regular form of "handicapping" based upon the two players experience.



The important thing is that we need to hash this out here and come up with a usable , workable proposed solution as part of the negotiation for the next player who decides to have a PBEM. We discuss house rules. How about a handicap? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Yes, it is cheating. If you are moving your 161st brigade under the 11th AF so you can save the PPs (Im not sure of the cost difference) so you can spend those PPs somewhere else what else would you call it?

I mean this is pretty black and white.

If you and your opp agree not to do those sorts of things...or worse he is unaware that you can do those things...then you are in fact gaming the game.

your miles might vary.

It is 25% of the cost.

My point is that it's not an innate "moving it to an AIR HQ" thing. It's that there is an HQ within a restricted umbrella that just so happens to be an air-type HQ. But the type of HQ doesn't matter at all. It could be a "ground" HQ, like the I and II Australian Corps. For PPs and command structure, any HQ is an HQ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

moving a combat division under an air HQ needs one heck of a good explanation.

I've got one: because it's not forbidden, and was in fact designed to be possible.

Also, which HQ your ground units are assigned to doesn't matter. Maybe if your LCUs had to be assigned to the same HQ that's prepping for their target to get bonuses, but they don't. You can have units assigned to the KISS Army get their AV bonus from the Salvation Army, as long as the Salvation Army is a Corps/Army or Command HQ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Amoral

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

If you want to put forth that "what was intended"...

It is Andy Mac, JWE and Kereguelen that put forward the fact that what you describe is not intended, and was not fixed because of the complexity of the code involved.

The developer's intention was that the discount was only intended to be used when both commands were unrestricted, but they could not make that work in the time frame available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
I always (and the game was designed for) pay 100% PP's to tranfer units out of a restricted command.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2556829

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands. Actually we even did some steps to prevent this especially with regard to Kwantung Army (to prevent such things 2nd Area Army does not start under Kwantung - as it historically did - and 20th Army remains permanently restricted and renames to 34th Army while historically 20th Army (HQ) moved to China in 1944 and was replaced by 34th Army in Kwantung Army). Seems tha we did not consider Air HQ's then. The 2nd Air Division is just a loophole and ostensibly not even our Beta testers realized this during the testing.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2607644&mpage=2&key=

Credit to Alfred for digging up these threads in a previous "is it gamey?" thread.

Sure... except that they didn't successfully design it that way. They also pretty much failed at balancing PPs. Is there anyone that would dispute that?

The last quote in here from Kereguelen refers to an issue that was fixed, I believe? Maybe not.

And they could have made it work by making all of the commands within a restricted command... restricted. Anyone who opens the scenario editor could do the same.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Except in the game the HQ has no effect in most cases on command. It's not real life. People keep trying to make it real life, but it isn't.

The devs could have solved the WC issue by not nesting Air HQs inside restricted Land HQs. They didn't. If they had a whole lot of angst could have been avoided.

Saying "full PPs in all cases" is nice, but the budgets don't work. My opponent reports he has over 8000 PPs in his account as Japan in late 1943. I have 50. I have not "cheated" in that game even once. But look at what the Allied player has to buy out just from the American OOB. The purchase values were assigned by the devs. The budgets were assigned by the devs. The Allies need to buy out at minimum four IDs in 1942, at a cost of over 2000 PPs each. Do the math.

As I said above, should any ID arrive in CONUS after June 1942 and need extra WC HQ training? No. They can be left there, but a Pacific unrestricted HQ should already own them. It's that fact in the stock scenarios that drives Allied players to use nesting to save PPs. I can't speak for Japanese players' problems. But the difference between 8000 and 50 is pretty stark.

OK. That point seems reasonable. But is the fix reasonable? (I really don't know. I'm asking). You are a very intelligent guy (nobody gets into nuke boats that isn't a brain. Even the cook is brainy). I was always taught as a junior PO "don't ever bring a complaint or a problem without a proposed solution"). So what's your solution? If you are going to do it that way , you need to talk with your opponent 1st (I don't mean you Moose...your"e an experienced and well respected player... I mean "you" in the generic sense). Or perhaps you could discuss this problem with a potential opponent and ask for an adjustment of an increased number of points via the editor. And perhaps this can be a regular form of "handicapping" based upon the two players experience.



The important thing is that we need to hash this out here and come up with a usable , workable proposed solution as part of the negotiation for the next player who decides to have a PBEM. We discuss house rules. How about a handicap? [&:]

The fix is more reasonable than playing the game with the revered intentions handed down from on high.

As the aforementioned Japanese opponent in late 1943, I have 10740 PPs on 12/01/1943. Partially, this is because I've purchased my units out to air HQs. Did I need to? Not really, no - I could've spent the full price and had pretty much the same troop allocations. There was just no reason to. For Japan, this is mountains out of molehills. But for the Allies... it's hamstringing in the most literal sense. You can't fight a good fight unless you do this. This is caused partially by ahistorical aspects built into the game engine:

1) Not being able to leapfrog bases due to torpedoes being created out of rice and beans, planes flying on rice and beans, and magical torpedoes in general, which leads to:

2) The prep system being unforgiving with respect to the built-in timetable. You can't win unless you get VPs by a certain date. You can't get the VPs unless you gain certain territory by a certain date. Did it take 60+ days for a unit to study maps of a landing zone? No. But it does in the game. Therefore:

3) Without extra units freed up by using this totally cheating and dishonorable PP method, you can't accomplish what you need to accomplish. Unless someone here would like to say that the Moose and I are both awful at this game, which is actually completely plausible. Maybe we're the idiots here. But I don't think so.


By the way, war was never about being honorable. That's a romantic fantasy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

Yes I know. And this forum has more than a few veterans who can tell you 1st hand. But THIS IS a game. Not war. And even war has rules. I'm afraid the I find the code of ethics you espouse rather disturbing. Are you aware of just how bad it sounds? Maybe you should take another look at what you wrote . Hopefully it's just your passion speaking? Full disclosure , although I play as both sides in PBEMs , in the GC I play as the allies (so far , haven't quite mastered that "production thing"). I DO understand your frustration . But surely there is another way to "balance things" without resorting to such tactics? [&:]

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson


It is 25% of the cost.


Yup and its cheating. The system was never meant to allow the player base to do that as said by multiple designers of the game. So when you have a borked system that you are happy to take advantage of. You end up with 10K in PPs while your opponent has 108. You can justify it however you like, but dems the facts. Now the fact that you have found a player who is happy to allow you this...great...thus the prescreening and discussion "prior" to starting the 4 year game.

I've got one: because it's not forbidden, and was in fact designed to be possible.

Not intentionally which has been show to you...by all means though continue to pretend that's not true.

Also, which HQ your ground units are assigned to doesn't matter. Maybe if your LCUs had to be assigned to the same HQ that's prepping for their target to get bonuses, but they don't. You can have units assigned to the KISS Army get their AV bonus from the Salvation Army, as long as the Salvation Army is a Corps/Army or Command HQ.

It's crazy. We are playing a historical game that we hope will have some semblance in realism. Which is why the 75 percent less Air HQs stand out when you assign land units to them.

I mean I get the whole fantasy based gaming...but this one is a wargame ;-).


Except in the game the HQ has no effect in most cases on command. It's not real life. People keep trying to make it real life, but it isn't.


Except in the case where you are taking the 75 percent PP discount by assigning your combat divisions to air HQs.

oops.

The devs could have solved the WC issue by not nesting Air HQs inside restricted Land HQs. They didn't. If they had a whole lot of angst could have been avoided.

Must be why we have house rules....I mean they could have solved the whole stratosphere sweeps by fighters too...they ran out of time so the players get together and agree not to max out their caps...makes for a better game


3) Without extra units freed up by using this totally cheating and dishonorable PP method, you can't accomplish what you need to accomplish. Unless someone here would like to say that the Moose and I are both awful at this game, which is actually completely plausible. Maybe we're the idiots here. But I don't think so.


funny, I have been on the wrong end of a number of jfb games. Somehow someway my allied opponents always managed to accomplish what they needed to accomplish without cheating out their combat divisions.

By the way, war was never about being honorable. That's a romantic fantasy.

Good thing is a game, and hopefully we have "some" honor among fellow gamers.

But hey...it's your game play it how you want...I'm glad you found another player who shares your tactics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson


It is 25% of the cost.


Yup and its cheating. The system was never meant to allow the player base to do that as said by multiple designers of the game. So when you have a borked system that you are happy to take advantage of. You end up with 10K in PPs while your opponent has 108. You can justify it however you like, but dems the facts. Now the fact that you have found a player who is happy to allow you this...great...thus the prescreening and discussion "prior" to starting the 4 year game.

I've got one: because it's not forbidden, and was in fact designed to be possible.

Not intentionally which has been show to you...by all means though continue to pretend that's not true.

Also, which HQ your ground units are assigned to doesn't matter. Maybe if your LCUs had to be assigned to the same HQ that's prepping for their target to get bonuses, but they don't. You can have units assigned to the KISS Army get their AV bonus from the Salvation Army, as long as the Salvation Army is a Corps/Army or Command HQ.

It's crazy. We are playing a historical game that we hope will have some semblance in realism. Which is why the 75 percent less Air HQs stand out when you assign land units to them.

I mean I get the whole fantasy based gaming...but this one is a wargame ;-).


Except in the game the HQ has no effect in most cases on command. It's not real life. People keep trying to make it real life, but it isn't.


Except in the case where you are taking the 75 percent PP discount by assigning your combat divisions to air HQs.

oops.

The devs could have solved the WC issue by not nesting Air HQs inside restricted Land HQs. They didn't. If they had a whole lot of angst could have been avoided.

Must be why we have house rules....I mean they could have solved the whole stratosphere sweeps by fighters too...they ran out of time so the players get together and agree not to max out their caps...makes for a better game


3) Without extra units freed up by using this totally cheating and dishonorable PP method, you can't accomplish what you need to accomplish. Unless someone here would like to say that the Moose and I are both awful at this game, which is actually completely plausible. Maybe we're the idiots here. But I don't think so.


funny, I have been on the wrong end of a number of jfb games. Somehow someway my allied opponents always managed to accomplish what they needed to accomplish without cheating out their combat divisions.

By the way, war was never about being honorable. That's a romantic fantasy.

Good thing is a game, and hopefully we have "some" honor among fellow gamers.

But hey...it's your game play it how you want...I'm glad you found another player who shares your tactics.

House rules seem to exist as crutches. I think that's why we have them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson
moving a combat division under an air HQ needs one heck of a good explanation.

I've got one: because it's not forbidden, and was in fact designed to be possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
The fix is more reasonable than playing the game with the revered intentions handed down from on high.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson
only players looking to gain an unfair advantage over an otherwise trusting opponent would bend the system like this

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

We will have to agree to disagree. I recognize the design flaws for what they are and avoid using them to my advantage...its not fair to my opponents...and why would I want to win through those flaws.

You believe they are design enhancements.

quote:

I dislike house rules as much as the next guy, but they are hardly crutches. The game isn't perfect and some of us enjoy some semblance of realism in our "historical" games. Thus the house rules. I have played too many sans any rules and exploits there be plenty. At the end of the day I play for fun, not trying to find every flaw in a game and using it in a manner not intended by the designers of said game.

quote:

You remind me a lot of MMO players who look for every exploit possible to cheat the intent of the game.