Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Sudden Carrier Loss Syndrome i think :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

To those taking the unreasonable position that transferring units to HQs that have not entered the game yet is somehow "gamey", how do you reconcile your position with the simple fact that not only do units enter as reinforcements attached to those very same HQs that have not yet entered the game, but units actully START THE GAME ON THE MAP attached to those very same HQs that have not yet entered the game? Are you accusing the scenario designers of being "gamey"?

Just because an HQ hasn't yet entered the game to be deployed on the map doesn't mean it isn't in existence off map somewhere. The simple reality is that most Allied HQs don't start the game on map. The Allies are in the unenviable position of starting the war unprepared and have to "gear up" and deploy to get things going. They are already more than hampered enough in the early months. What the proponents of the "no transfers to off map HQs" seem to be looking for is an opponent with both hands tied behind his back instead of one, completely unable to react in any way to the IJ steamroller. They want a patsy not an opponent and the claims that transfers to off map HQs is somehow gamey stinks of something rotten in Denmark.

As for the claim that air units should have to be forced to change HQs every time they transfer to another base. it couldn't be more absurd. There simply aren't enough air HQs on either side to accomodate such a wish. How would the Japanese player like it if he had to spend precious PPs every time he staged his land based air forward as his perimeter expands? Again, this smacks of a sad grasp at a straw to preclude the kind of audacious result suffered by an attack on Truk when it was unexpected. The unexpected happens and accusing some one of gamey play and calling for a house rule just because one suffered a bad result from the unexpected is just plain sad!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So if I attach a unit to the lets say 17th army before it arrives its gamey ? O.O I think not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since both sides can assign units to a HQ due to arrive months or years away, how is that gamey?? Neither side is getting an advantage over the other.

Single ship TF - I have a HR that allows the Allies to do so for the rest of Dec '42. Afterwards, they cannot form them up deliberately. For Japan, they can as they may need to try to resupply and evac by-passed bases later on. The big things is the AI coding will often have those single ship ignored by Nell/Betty that easily in range. My Allied opponent is having them move back and forth across the South Pacific this way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So if I attach a unit to the lets say 17th army before it arrives its gamey ? O.O I think not.

If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.
2. People and assets were distributed elswhere in other units.

It would be less gamey if you do it one month before it arrives but 5-6 month in the future is not reasonable at all. You can pretend that you moved the people assets into place and thats why you are assigning troos to hq that arrives 5 months into future. But same pretending can couse using fast turns to invade DEI or move KB to australia with explanation: "they tried to be stealthy" Simply its not realistical and unreasonable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin

So if I attach a unit to the lets say 17th army before it arrives its gamey ? O.O I think not.

If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.

But it's perfectly fine for the Japanese player to know on 12/7/1941 what aircraft carrier will be delivered to the USN on a date certain in 1946? Or how many of each aircraft model will be delivered per month when US designers hadn't even concieved of the model yet? Gotcha.

The code allows assignment of restricted LCUs to unrestricted LCUs if the PPs are paid. PPs are scarce. That's the constraint. Not history.

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

If you would assign units to it in december 41 then yes its gamey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Army_(Japan)

1. Nobody could ever know what will happen in 5 months.

But it's perfectly fine for the Japanese player to know on 12/7/1941 what aircraft carrier will be delivered to the USN on a date certain in 1946? Or how many of each aircraft model will be delivered per month when US designers hadn't even concieved of the model yet? Gotcha.

The code allows assignment of restricted LCUs to unrestricted LCUs if the PPs are paid. PPs are scarce. That's the constraint. Not history.

Wrong - arrival dates can be randomized. Again realistical game vs fantasy game. And the pp points are one of the many things that make witp ae more of board game then a simulator. I prefer to stick with realism someone can like fantasy gameplay i dont mind. To everyone that what he likes best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

armin, I too think there is no gameyness in assining units to HQs with arrival date in the future.

Why should it? If, for example, your intention is to set up a strong defense for the Solomons before the
Japanese did historically, this should prevent you to assign a unit to the 17th early?

If your intention is to build a specific OOB with PP investement, just because you start bottom up instead of top down that does not
change the underlying logic or make it less legitimate.


Crackaces put it quite well: based on your argumentation it should be questionable to invade Australia as Japan. Or India. Or Noumea. If you are forbidden to
do anything beyond the historical Japanese operations, for the Japanese player it does not make sense to play at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: armin

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

armin, I too think there is no gameyness in assining units to HQs with arrival date in the future.

Why should it? If, for example, your intention is to set up a strong defense for the Solomons before the
Japanese did historically, this should prevent you to assign a unit to the 17th early?

If your intention is to build a specific OOB with PP investement, just because you start bottom up instead of top down that does not
change the underlying logic or make it less legitimate.


Crackaces put it quite well: based on your argumentation it should be questionable to invade Australia as Japan. Or India. Or Noumea. If you are forbidden to
do anything beyond the historical Japanese operations, for the Japanese player it does not make sense to play at all.

I get your point my reasoning behind assigning units to hq is that the game works as board game and alllows units to move faster and further then in reality it was possible. Im not against not historical invasion if well prepared but sometimes for me as for japanese is too easy to advance on certain places and same goes for my american opponents. Most deployment looks like they would be done in late 42-43 and its early stage. If PP points are not used properly or someone is saving them it can create huge imbalance. And in the game you can set most of the things or they are on computer preset settings but pp system is beyond any control. Of course someone can use it to buy leaders, units etc. However its outside factor that has nothink to do with reality. PP points use should be strictly limited and some things that are payed should be for free. Like for example changing leaders as basicaly its your job as leader of the army. Upgrading ok makes some sense its payed. Then we have chaging of hq which should be for free again becouse its basicaly responsibility of central command. It just creates mess in current games becouse lot of stuff depends on PP system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Actually this thread reminded me of an old idea I had, which basically was that all units arrive under restricted command. Then you allow, or better force, the player to create new
command HQs using PP, and afterwards unrestrict and assign units to those commands further using PP.

What you currently pay for is a deviation from the historical path, with the modification you could entirely create your own command structure from the start.

It could be an interesting mod, but balancing would be extremely hazardous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

If the opponent is paying full PPs what's the complaint?

Not that I see evidence of it here but regarding single ship task forces

I'm not a big fan of the single ship TF as I've witnessed first hand (over many turns) to what an abundance of them does to the game engine. Every game has it's own set of rules but I view it as fair if the opponent is using single ships to escape the Japanese during the first few weeks but if it's an operational procedure to head north with supply, use numbers of them to confuse or make opponents use up sorties and ammo, and/or saturate the area with one point singe ship task forces to confuse the game engine is really not someone I'd enjoy playing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since both sides can assign units to a HQ due to arrive months or years away, how is that gamey?? Neither side is getting an advantage over the other.

Single ship TF - I have a HR that allows the Allies to do so for the rest of Dec '42. Afterwards, they cannot form them up deliberately. For Japan, they can as they may need to try to resupply and evac by-passed bases later on. The big things is the AI coding will often have those single ship ignored by Nell/Betty that easily in range. My Allied opponent is having them move back and forth across the South Pacific this way.