Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Political Point Shortcuts

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Political Point Shortcuts Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Political Point Shortcuts - 2/7/2010 5:22:27 PM   
wwengr


Posts: 678
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


But to be blunt, it's f'ed up, its extrodenarly gamey.

As noted above its very easy for the Allies to buy Divishions in such quanitys early on to destabalise the game, even US Divishions that are pricey.



Brady I agree that it's gamey (unless the devs chime in and say "WAD"), but it is not easy for the Allies to buy divisions early on. As ckammp pointed out, some of them would only stay cheap if you left replacements off, in which case you get 1/2 a division. More likely to be grist for the mill than stopping the IJ tsunami.


Maybe leave replacements off until you buy them out. By them out piecemiel so you can build them up and train.


_____________________________

I have been inputting my orders for the campaign game first turn since July 4, 2009. I'm getting close. In another month or two, I might be able to run the turn!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 31
RE: Political Point Shortcuts - 2/7/2010 5:35:23 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


But to be blunt, it's f'ed up, its extrodenarly gamey.

As noted above its very easy for the Allies to buy Divishions in such quanitys early on to destabalise the game, even US Divishions that are pricey.



Brady I agree that it's gamey (unless the devs chime in and say "WAD"), but it is not easy for the Allies to buy divisions early on. As ckammp pointed out, some of them would only stay cheap if you left replacements off, in which case you get 1/2 a division. More likely to be grist for the mill than stopping the IJ tsunami.


Maybe leave replacements off until you buy them out. By them out piecemiel so you can build them up and train.



Moving them to small bases without much in the way of supplies or support will also reduce the PP cost, by slowing the recovery of disabled squads. Of course, this will again lower the effectiveness of the unit once it has been bought out.

(in reply to wwengr)
Post #: 32
RE: Political Point Shortcuts - 2/7/2010 5:51:53 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


But to be blunt, it's f'ed up, its extrodenarly gamey.

As noted above its very easy for the Allies to buy Divishions in such quanitys early on to destabalise the game, even US Divishions that are pricey.



Brady I agree that it's gamey (unless the devs chime in and say "WAD"), but it is not easy for the Allies to buy divisions early on. As ckammp pointed out, some of them would only stay cheap if you left replacements off, in which case you get 1/2 a division. More likely to be grist for the mill than stopping the IJ tsunami.


Maybe leave replacements off until you buy them out. By them out piecemiel so you can build them up and train.



I know, but if you leave replacements off it will be even longer until they build up. I'm not complaining, rather pointing out that it's not so easy as it might seem to be at first glance. The real issue is how fast is your opponent moving. If even quasi-historical no problem. If quickly than maybe the extent of the restraints are a tad unrealistic as surely IRL there would have been a suitable response.

(in reply to wwengr)
Post #: 33
RE: Political Point Shortcuts - 2/7/2010 10:04:25 PM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Great info ckammp! I think I am becoming convinced it is gamey, but not sure. I am going to do some looking into the scenario 1 OB to see what the total of units are that start and arrive restricted, including airgroups. The manual section is certainly not clear-cut.


I think the restrictions on Americal, 41st ID, and the Marine units are "gamey." So I really don't mind getting them out at the lowest price by any means.

I truly wonder how many players move the Asiatic Fleet HQ *after* they pay points for each of her base and air units? The idea that I should pay individually for each unit in Indian III Corps or the Asiatic Fleet *before* I can move the HQ, strikes me as ridiculous.

That leaves us with the Australians in Malaysia and the Dutch; but even with many of the Dutch units, there are perma-restrictions on units the scenario designers want to have destroyed in DEI. And it might be gamey to choose the cheaper Eastern command over the pricier I Corps.

The argument really seems to boil down to they're *supposed* to die in Malaysia, or the DEI, and the Japanese can't possibly win the game if those particular US units aren't restricted.

If the techniques wasn't intended to be used, what is the point of having it to begin with? Why pay an absurd penalty to organize Americal under XIV corps when I can just move the 164th to Pacific Ocean and leave it there? Just throw everyone into any old top-level command and use the corp and army HQ's indiscriminately as little booster chits wherever you want them.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to wwengr)
Post #: 34
RE: Political Point Shortcuts - 2/7/2010 11:31:58 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue


quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Great info ckammp! I think I am becoming convinced it is gamey, but not sure. I am going to do some looking into the scenario 1 OB to see what the total of units are that start and arrive restricted, including airgroups. The manual section is certainly not clear-cut.


I think the restrictions on Americal, 41st ID, and the Marine units are "gamey." So I really don't mind getting them out at the lowest price by any means.

I truly wonder how many players move the Asiatic Fleet HQ *after* they pay points for each of her base and air units? The idea that I should pay individually for each unit in Indian III Corps or the Asiatic Fleet *before* I can move the HQ, strikes me as ridiculous.

That leaves us with the Australians in Malaysia and the Dutch; but even with many of the Dutch units, there are perma-restrictions on units the scenario designers want to have destroyed in DEI. And it might be gamey to choose the cheaper Eastern command over the pricier I Corps.

The argument really seems to boil down to they're *supposed* to die in Malaysia, or the DEI, and the Japanese can't possibly win the game if those particular US units aren't restricted.

If the techniques wasn't intended to be used, what is the point of having it to begin with? Why pay an absurd penalty to organize Americal under XIV corps when I can just move the 164th to Pacific Ocean and leave it there? Just throw everyone into any old top-level command and use the corp and army HQ's indiscriminately as little booster chits wherever you want them.



I fully agree with you about the 41st ID being restricted, I wish the devs had not changed it, and when I play vs. AI, I use the editor to change it back to unrestricted. I also think the 43rd ID should not arrive restricted.
As for the Americal Division, and the 2nd Marine Division, they have only 1 restricted regiment each, so the PP cost is not too high.

In Malaya, the units assigned to III Corps are not restricted, even though III Corps HQ is restricted. In PI, the units assigned to Asiatic Fleet are also not restricted. There is no need to pay for any of these units. You do have to pay for Malaya Army units, and units assigned to USAFFE.

What I felt was "gamey" about the HQ transfer method was using it unlock a large group of restricted units without paying the full PP price. Using a HQ that's not even assigned to the same theatre is even worse.

Having said that, I fully believe that using this method for unrestricted units is not only fair, but WAD. As you have noted, this method is really the only way for the Allies to assign units to the various Corps HQs. It gives the game a more "historical' feel.

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 35
RE: Political Point Shortcuts - 2/8/2010 12:29:25 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Using a HQ that's not even assigned to the same theatre is even worse.



This seems to be pleading the case that it didn't happen that way in real life. Where does that argument ever end?

And if you aren't making that argument, would you really feel better if they were assigned to Burma Command? That would be the cheapest solution.

quote:

As for the Americal Division, and the 2nd Marine Division, they have only 1 restricted regiment each, so the PP cost is not too high.


A number of of the Fleet Marine Forces are restricted. And it strikes me as ridiculous. If there was ever any serious debate about sending those forces to North Africa or Europe, I missed it.

After a few months around here, I get the feeling that none of the remaining active devs are likely to comment on topics like this. But it seems to me that the argument that the tactic is "gamey" assumes that the coders didn't understand the ramifications of the code they were writing, and assumes that the in-house scenario designers didn't understand the ramifications of the code when they were making choices about which units to permanently restrict to death or a prison camp.

_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 36
RE: Political Point Shortcuts - 2/8/2010 5:44:24 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady


But to be blunt, it's f'ed up, its extrodenarly gamey.

As noted above its very easy for the Allies to buy Divishions in such quanitys early on to destabalise the game, even US Divishions that are pricey.



Brady I agree that it's gamey (unless the devs chime in and say "WAD"), but it is not easy for the Allies to buy divisions early on. As ckammp pointed out, some of them would only stay cheap if you left replacements off, in which case you get 1/2 a division. More likely to be grist for the mill than stopping the IJ tsunami.


In my limited experience as Allies, I keep replacements off until I buy them out (keep PP down) and then fill them out before I use them.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 37
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Political Point Shortcuts Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.125