alanschu
Posts: 405
Joined: 12/21/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote:
ORIGINAL: alanschu Isn't it kind of odd that you don't move around DEI units because it's a bit gamey and exploitative, yet have no problems not sending back ships that the United Kingdom feels would be useful on the Home Front or in the Mediterranian? Not really. First, there's a political points penalty for doing so. (though i think it should be more severe) Second, the Withdrawl routine is randomly generated and not based on historical precidents. The PP/withdrawl routine was a compromise decision as it was considered more ahistorical to have UK ships, regardless of where they were, suddenly disapear from the map in PacWar. Is there not a political point cost for switching ABDA as well? Well, you acknowledge that there PP cost of the withdrawl is not severe enough. Perhaps your issue with the DEI withdrawls is that the cost of converting a unit off of ABDA is too cheap as well. It just seems odd that you write off one game mechanic because it's gamey, but not a similar one because you're "greedy." It seems that since withdrawl is not historical, and because the PP cost isn't punitive enough, you opt to just ignore withdrawl altogether (which would seem to me to be significantly more ahistorical than the ahistorical withdrawl requests). In your eyes it's okay to spend minimal PP to ahistorically ignore withdrawl altogether, but not to spend minimal PP for ahistoric troop movements? You say that the Dutch would never leave the DEI (which I agree with), but do you think that the British, in the midst of defending the Suez, as well as knee deep in the Battle of the Atlantic, would simply allow needed (even if less than historically) ships to remain in the Pacific/Indian Ocean? Would it be different if the requests were based on history?
|