Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

quote:

Please don´t tell me to use Hurricanes or P-40N (just the same crap as P-40E a year earlier).

We must have a different game installed because in the past I've found the P-40N and even the K a much superior airframe than the E model and in my game which the E model is doing most of the battling they are doing fantastic against the Zeke and Oscar C model when air support gives me the opportunity to fight as most all air action is in China. I love the '38s too but they just stay on the ground too long after a mix up. The hurricanes IMO are better than anything I have right now but since I won't move them to China they sit in India sweeping unopposed Burmese skies.

Edit: The opposing player has taken complete control of China airspace and nothing I can do about that because of air support not because of deficent airframes if the right tactics are utilized. Maybe I'm just jaded or "loving the one I'm with" but I'm ok with the intel numbers which may or may not be off some.

This game was started post last patch so all air conflict has been with broken radar.

quote:

Rudolph:

The Allies have a huge amount of advantages, and some times Buggs give them more advantages (like no working Ground to Air Radar Bugg).

Thanks for the laugh Rudolph.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

Elf has posted at least on 2 occasions on the board that the 2nd air is working as intended. Do a search if you want to check.

I guess it is common courtesy that the person making the claim in fact proves it. Do remember that "working as designed" (aka, it does what it is programmed to do) is different from "working as intended" (aka, the programming only allows the scenarios that were thought of beforehand). I wouldn't be surprised if the Elf said it was WAD in the first sense, but that doesn't mean that the design can not be exploited for gamey purposes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

Designers sayed at one point that it was WAD.

Do you have a link?

Pages 178 - 179 in the manual.

quote:

HQ’s can be categorized as restricted, temporarily restricted, static restricted and unrestricted
(i.e., normal). The effects of each category are as follows:

»» Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless the
HQ is changed. Even when HQ’s are changed subordinate
units need to be individually acquired via PP’s.

»» Temporarily Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless
the HQ is changed. When the HQ’s are changed subordinate
units change to the classification of the parent.

»» Static Restricted - HQ’s (and on some occasions units) are
restricted and may never have their HQ changed – they
remain and always shall be permanently restricted.

»» Unrestricted – None of the above restrictions apply.

I understand the opinions that it is gamey. However, as developers have posted it was put in the game on purpose. I think it is like some other things in that you and your opponent must simply agree on it one way or the other. It is not inherently gamey, because it is inherently designed and intended by the developers (as evidenced by it being explicitly included in the manual). Most of all, when commenting on other people's PBM's, I think it's a stretch to say they are being gamey if they use this. I recommend players discuss it and come to agreement.

In my PBM we did not discuss it (IIRC we did not know of it), so I have not used it.

Having seen the number of units that an Allied player must pay PP's for more than once (that's right - a significant number of USMC & USN air units that require PP's to leave west coast, later withdraw temporarily, and then require PP all over again to leave west coast when they re-enter the game), I am not totally convinced that this feature is out of whack. It might simply be one of the PP 'balancing mechanisms'.

Personally, I would rather do without the 'change only the HQ to get all the units' thingy and also do without the need to pay PP multiple times for the same air units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


compare the N5 and the E! And then compare them to the K. While the E and N5 (of which you get loads of) are nearly identical, the K is better. But if you lose with P-40E in late 41 then the N5 won´t win in late 43 or 44 with the Japanese having made three steps forward while you stayed in place.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

Elf has posted at least on 2 occasions on the board that the 2nd air is working as intended. Do a search if you want to check.

I guess it is common courtesy that the person making the claim in fact proves it. Do remember that "working as designed" (aka, it does what it is programmed to do) is different from "working as intended" (aka, the programming only allows the scenarios that were thought of beforehand). I wouldn't be surprised if the Elf said it was WAD in the first sense, but that doesn't mean that the design can not be exploited for gamey purposes.

Took me all of 5 mins to find this. If you want to actually see Elfs post, YOU look for it. Not wasting any more time on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

Designers sayed at one point that it was WAD.

Do you have a link?

Pages 178 - 179 in the manual.

quote:

HQ’s can be categorized as restricted, temporarily restricted, static restricted and unrestricted
(i.e., normal). The effects of each category are as follows:

»» Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless the
HQ is changed. Even when HQ’s are changed subordinate
units need to be individually acquired via PP’s.

»» Temporarily Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless
the HQ is changed. When the HQ’s are changed subordinate
units change to the classification of the parent.

»» Static Restricted - HQ’s (and on some occasions units) are
restricted and may never have their HQ changed – they
remain and always shall be permanently restricted.

»» Unrestricted – None of the above restrictions apply.

I understand the opinions that it is gamey. However, as developers have posted it was put in the game on purpose. I think it is like some other things in that you and your opponent must simply agree on it one way or the other. It is not inherently gamey, because it is inherently designed and intended by the developers (as evidenced by it being explicitly included in the manual). Most of all, when commenting on other people's PBM's, I think it's a stretch to say they are being gamey if they use this. I recommend players discuss it and come to agreement.

In my PBM we did not discuss it (IIRC we did not know of it), so I have not used it.

Having seen the number of units that an Allied player must pay PP's for more than once (that's right - a significant number of USMC & USN air units that require PP's to leave west coast, later withdraw temporarily, and then require PP all over again to leave west coast when they re-enter the game), I am not totally convinced that this feature is out of whack. It might simply be one of the PP 'balancing mechanisms'.

Personally, I would rather do without the 'change only the HQ to get all the units' thingy and also do without the need to pay PP multiple times for the same air units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

Elf has posted at least on 2 occasions on the board that the 2nd air is working as intended. Do a search if you want to check.

I guess it is common courtesy that the person making the claim in fact proves it. Do remember that "working as designed" (aka, it does what it is programmed to do) is different from "working as intended" (aka, the programming only allows the scenarios that were thought of beforehand). I wouldn't be surprised if the Elf said it was WAD in the first sense, but that doesn't mean that the design can not be exploited for gamey purposes.

Took me all of 5 mins to find this. If you want to actually see Elfs post, YOU look for it. Not wasting any more time on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

Designers sayed at one point that it was WAD.

Do you have a link?

Pages 178 - 179 in the manual.

quote:

HQ’s can be categorized as restricted, temporarily restricted, static restricted and unrestricted
(i.e., normal). The effects of each category are as follows:

»» Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless the
HQ is changed. Even when HQ’s are changed subordinate
units need to be individually acquired via PP’s.

»» Temporarily Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless
the HQ is changed. When the HQ’s are changed subordinate
units change to the classification of the parent.

»» Static Restricted - HQ’s (and on some occasions units) are
restricted and may never have their HQ changed – they
remain and always shall be permanently restricted.

»» Unrestricted – None of the above restrictions apply.

I understand the opinions that it is gamey. However, as developers have posted it was put in the game on purpose. I think it is like some other things in that you and your opponent must simply agree on it one way or the other. It is not inherently gamey, because it is inherently designed and intended by the developers (as evidenced by it being explicitly included in the manual). Most of all, when commenting on other people's PBM's, I think it's a stretch to say they are being gamey if they use this. I recommend players discuss it and come to agreement.

In my PBM we did not discuss it (IIRC we did not know of it), so I have not used it.

Having seen the number of units that an Allied player must pay PP's for more than once (that's right - a significant number of USMC & USN air units that require PP's to leave west coast, later withdraw temporarily, and then require PP all over again to leave west coast when they re-enter the game), I am not totally convinced that this feature is out of whack. It might simply be one of the PP 'balancing mechanisms'.

Personally, I would rather do without the 'change only the HQ to get all the units' thingy and also do without the need to pay PP multiple times for the same air units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

I've seen it and witpqs has seen it. If you doubt it, send a PM to Elf and ask him. He designed it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV2

I've seen it and witpqs has seen it. If you doubt it, send a PM to Elf and ask him. He designed it.

Well, not exactly. The Japanese Land OOB for the AE was designed by Joe Wilkerson and me. Don't know about any statement from Ian (Elf) about this, but if he gave any statement, he most likely only referred to the technical effects (as the manual does).

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.

However, you've bought the game and you can do with it what you want. Anyway, it is not up to us (the developers) to decide what is 'gamey' and what is not or to criticize what you or others do with the game.

K

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

As to the original post topic about PP's. They are your PP's; do with them as you will. The downside of what you propose has been pointed out.

To the larger topic. WiTP and AE are games. They have deliberately given advantages to the Japanese player that did not exist in RL. After all, who would want to play JGiBKiP (Japan Gets It Butt Kicked in the Pacific)? So we have the production model that gives the Japanese player a chance to at least extend the interesting part of the war. That said, the "Has Anyone Won a PBEM as Japan" thread in the War Room shows that even elite Japanese players have found it near impossible to win the game, i.e., Autovictory.

As to 1600 fighters a month: that is nearly 700k HI a year. While that may be sustainable for a short time, I would think it would eventually destroy the economy. I know Rudolph's territorial gains are substaintial but eventually he will lose those gains or at least access to them. I know Rudolph rubs a lot of people the wrong way but you have to admire his understanding of the game system. To get the Japanese economy to this point is nothing more than masterful.

That said, I think there may need to be some adjustments to the high end of the Japanese Economic model. If this type of expansion is possible, there probably needs to be some adjustment. Yes, the game is more enjoyable by giving the Japanese player some freedom, but this type of growth does echo of Command and Conquer vice a game that is supposed to be a relistic view of the PTO