RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ENG units stacking!

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: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ENG units stacking!

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ENG units stacking!

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 4 [5]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 10:25:29 AM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Did someone forget to tell Cmdr. Bisset that he can�t stack a hundred Engineer battalions on an island like Okinawa? He must be total Allied Fanboy!!! Didn�t he know that would completely unbalance the game in the Allies favor? What was he thinking?

LOL! Good point, for the most part. We have a concept in the business side of the software development world called the "Sanity Check". I've come to the conclusion, that game developers have no idea what that is. Probably because someone's money, health, or life, is not at stake if the software fails or generates an odd result, because of some outlandish condition. Agreed, that the realistic maximum of engineer stacking is probably a fairly LARGE number. But as large as it may be, it STILL exists. And the smaller the base, the more glaring and visible its existence. The "sanity check" exists to catch the preposterous, outlandish, ridiculous. But as we have seen, put into the hands of humans, software, including game software, becomes a excerise of the preposterous, outlandish and the ridiculous. Only a human wargame player would ever even think of trying to stack 250 engineering squads on an atoll.... That's what "sanity checks" are all about. To check the "insane".

(in reply to tacticon)

Post #: 121

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 4:25:27 PM

BartM

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

How many engineer units would the US have committed to make Kyushu an Insta-Base for Operation Olympic? How many Engineer Units would be able to work efficiently once the Island was captured? These kinds of arguments always come down to what was Historical vs. what was Possible. We know that it was historical for the Allies to build a level two port in Normandy under fire, with out capturing the hex over night. A single Seabee unit could put down a working fighter strip on coral islands in 4 to 5 days.

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/personnel/seabees/seabee1.html
http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq67-3.htm

�More than 325,000 men served with the Seabees in World War II, fighting and building on six continents and more than 300 islands. In the Pacific, where most of the construction work was needed, the Seabees landed soon after the Marines and built major airstrips, bridges, roads, warehouses, hospitals, gasoline storage tanks and housing�.

So if the average Seabee Unit has 900 men it them (including the support squads) the US fielded the equivalent of 335 Seabee construction battalions in WitP terms. This leaves out all the Army Combat Engineers and Base forces. Although many Seabee units were withdrawn during the war, sent to other theaters or cannibalized for new units. I counted 115 Seabee units in the data base. Sounds right to me.

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq67-3.htm

�As the war progressed and construction projects became larger and more complex, more than one battalion frequently had to be assigned to a base. For efficient administrative control, these battalions were organized into a regiment, and when necessary, two or more regiments were organized into a brigade, and as required, two or more brigades were organized into a naval construction force. For example, 55,000 Seabees were assigned to Okinawa and the battalions were organized into 11 regiments and 4 brigades, which, in turn, were all under the command of the Commander, Construction Troops, who was a Navy Civil Engineer Corps officer, Commodore Andrew G. Bisset. Moreover, his command also included 45,000 United States Army engineers, aviation engineers, and a few British engineers. He therefore commanded 100,000 construction troops in all, the largest concentration of construction troops during the entire war.�

Did someone forget to tell Cmdr. Bisset that he can�t stack a hundred Engineer battalions on an island like Okinawa? He must be total Allied Fanboy!!! Didn�t he know that would completely unbalance the game in the Allies favor? What was he thinking?

_____________________________

Tacticon

Also Black Cats and Arnir's last couple of posts I agree with

I still believe this is a game, a representation of the conflict of world war II in the pacific theater and a very good historical tool. I still would like a way to sort commanders (another shameless wish list plug) heh, and other small cosmetic, OOB items fixed as well as the game a little more smoother. Besides that, rewritting the game to be as specific as possible to "what happened" is hard, and really, without some flexability, what is the point ? If you are given the "This happened between January 1st, 1942 through July 15th, 1942) and only allowed to copy this action, then... what exactly is the point to this game ?

Gamey tactics are usually (usually) called foul when someone was caught by surprised by an opponants ingeniuous attempt to change the history and in turn help his side to better attack a situation....

Is Central command unable to attack Kwajalien in 1942 ? He could... and build up the bases (islands) around there and completely change how the historical begining assault the US did was done. Is this gamey ? or good tactics ?

again as Mongo stated, I think we beat this issue to death, but really what is it we want ? game ballance ? to limit the Seebees and bsae force personel from over-stacking a hex, you are opening a huge can of worms, from the smallest LCU to the largest. and basically asking to completely re-write the games internal handling of LCU combat, preperation and planning. IF you just want something written to stop Seebees from being stacked... then it sounds more predjuduce twards a certain LCU who were in fact designed to do just that... *shrugs*

lets give the actual game a couple of more months to see how horrible this issue really is :)

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 122

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 5:30:30 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

When the game's designers get around to fixing play so that you can't assign one
man per square foot and more garrison strengths to Atolls, then I'll worry about
"How many engineers can dance on the head of a pin?" Untill then, I'd like to
suggest that all the energy and effort this thread represents would have been
better spent trying to encourage Matrix to fix that God-Awful, distance-warped,
Japanese Fan-Boy inspired map they've stuck us with. Go ahead and get out a
real map or globe and start comparing distances with the Game's Map just to see
how long it takes you to find some egregeous game-play effecting errors. If it's
more than 5 minutes you aren't trying....

(in reply to BartM)

Post #: 123

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 5:56:32 PM

UncleBuck

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

Hey tacticon,

I like yor post but just a quick point of etiquette. CMDR is the abbreviation for Commander, IN USN that is an 0-5 (lt. Col. in Army/Marines) A Commodore is a Rear Admiral Lower Half or 0-7. The Abbreviation is RADM. The US Navy abolished teh title of Commodore in 1899. I know it is petty crap but hey, I thought it was interesting stuff and thought you woudl like to know.

As for your post, I agree. I do nto think that CB's or other engineers would be at much of a disadvantage if they were used in significant numbers. I worked with modern CB's 1994 to 1996. ACB-1 was comprised of 5 companys. Each COmpany was a self contianed unit of 100 men. 4 of the companies were actual construction units, and the 5th was administration, comprised of other CB's and a few non construction people, PN's,AK's and YM. They are not that large and by your own description shows that they were not massive formations. Many of them could be deployed and be effective.

_____________________________

(in reply to tacticon)

Post #: 124

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 6:20:54 PM

tacticon

Posts: 83
Joined: 7/18/2002
From: Arizona
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleBuck

Hey tacticon,

I like yor post but just a quick point of etiquette. CMDR is the abbreviation for Commander, IN USN that is an 0-5 (lt. Col. in Army/Marines) A Commodore is a Rear Admiral Lower Half or 0-7. The Abbreviation is RADM. The US Navy abolished teh title of Commodore in 1899. I know it is petty crap but hey, I thought it was interesting stuff and thought you woudl like to know.

Thanks, UB I got lazy and didn't bother to look up the abbreviation for Commodore, it doesn't come up in regular conversations much. The Navy's own website listed Bisset as a Commodore and not a RADM. However, I never knew the rank of Commodore had been more or less discontinued so long ago in the Navy.

_____________________________

Tacticon

What if there were no hypothetical situations?

(in reply to UncleBuck)

Post #: 125

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 6:32:20 PM

UncleBuck

Posts: 633
Joined: 10/31/2003
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Status: offline

Yeah a Commodore in the USN was actually a Captain that was placed in charge of a Squadron of ships or so. This was a temporary assignment and the officer would revert back to his original rank after the assignment was over. The Rank was usually Captain but I would imagine that a Commander would also be able to do the job. Since he was in charge of so many different autonomous units including Army units they probably called him that for admin reasons and he may have actually been of lower than Flag rank. I dunno.

I used to work for several guys that were called Commodores, COMDESRON commanders. These were usually one stars but I think COMDESRON9 was a Captain for a while. Since they were responsible for the entire Destroyer Squadron they used the archaic title of Commodore.

As I said no big deal just one of those things that I found interesting and researched a bit. Since this is a unique group I thought others would find it interesting.

UB

_____________________________

(in reply to tacticon)

Post #: 126

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 6:33:49 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

When the game's designers get around to fixing play so that you can't assign one
man per square foot and more garrison strengths to Atolls, then I'll worry about
"How many engineers can dance on the head of a pin?" Untill then, I'd like to
suggest that all the energy and effort this thread represents would have been
better spent trying to encourage Matrix to fix that God-Awful, distance-warped,
Japanese Fan-Boy inspired map they've stuck us with. Go ahead and get out a
real map or globe and start comparing distances with the Game's Map just to see
how long it takes you to find some egregeous game-play effecting errors. If it's
more than 5 minutes you aren't trying....

I recall a pretty good thread a few weeks ago on map projections. I guess their problem in this game, is they are modelling half the world and probably did not have the mathematical skills onhand to adequately encode all the spherical transforms needed to represent a hemisphere, much less display it adequately on a 2D surface. A big problem is representing much more than 30 deg of latitude in any one map. Mercator projections are useless north or south of about 45- 50 deg. I guess they could have provided two dozen smaller regional maps? But that has its own problems.

Speaking of distances has anyone developed a mileage chart like what you see in road atlases? I guess a 400+ X 400+ grid is a bit much, I suppose.... Maybe a Distance Dialog". Select two bases and it give you a distance in hexes.

< Message edited by ZOOMIE1980 -- 8/13/2004 4:34:04 PM >

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 127

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 10:35:09 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

I See Now !! **your Ideas,** which seriously impact the US player who is **working against the clock** and needs to build bases fast, which they did BTW, are " historicaly accurate".

BUT any idea which makes the Japanese player play in a historically accurate way ( as Splinterheads above ) is not comparable.....Yes I see now.

Good try Leo in Screwing the US Player ....but why not just use House Rules eh ?? You never answered that one

This is free forum and you are entitled to your own opinion as I am to my own and as others are to their own.

But why should almost every debate be ended with "us" against "them" argument when proper arguments fail for some of the participants?

I would like to repeat what I always maintained (but for clarity sake here we go again):

#1
The massing of ENG units in WitP game can significantly increase building speed and drastically lower the time needed for something to be build (be it airbase or port).

#2
Historically the times of all construction work in WWII Pacific was rather long and hard hard work and nothing was build overnight.

#3
Since bases were key to WWII in Pacific this is very important aspect of the simulation.

#4
The proposed rule of "diminishing returns" (what "Nikademus" so beautifully described) would affect both sides and would be historic and accurate.

This means that it would prevent, for example:

a)
Japanese to build instant overnight "Death Star" Betty/Nell bases at the beginning of the war.

b)
US to build instant overnight B-29 bases to pummel Japan to ashes.

Therefore this affects alll and does not favors any side.

quote:

I have no idea and care less what Leo posted for "the past year" since I only became interested in this Forum when The Game Was Available And Comments Could Be Based upon An Actual Product. Fair Enough ?

During WitP development we (old hands - UV veterans) frequently discussed this very same issue.

Unfortunately when hacker attacked Matrix site few months ago most of those very interesting threads were lost.

So... this is not something new - this is just continuation of old discussions.

BTW, when I first raised this questions (long long ago) Joel Billings of Matrix/2By3 and some WitP ALPHA testers (WitP was in ALPHA then) tested Tinian build up and it was agreed that time of construction was OK with usage of historic work force of ENG units.

quote:

Last, I object to the PBEM Guys wanting to alter the Historical Game Design to suite their visions of History or give them the ability to re-write it.

Asking for these endless little SPECIFIC changes may unbalance the Campaign Game for the VAST majority who just play against the AI and basing these out of context requests on less then a month of playing ( The Game is just out ) is just absurd.

Please read what I wrote above - this is old issue discussed several times in past (but unfortunately lost when hacker attacked Matrix site). Construction work was always considered very important part of WitP game.

Also I am very very sorry to dissapoint you but both UV and WitP are meant for PBEM playing and that is what 90% of all users will do (whether playing small or large scenarios).

The AI in both WitP and UV was never meant to be more than training tool for introducing players.

The one and the only way to appreciate UV and WitP is, sad but unfortunately true, to play against human opponent...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Black Cat)

Post #: 128

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 10:43:21 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Also I am very very sorry to dissapoint you but both UV and WitP are meant for PBEM playing and that is what 90% of all users will do (whether playing small or large scenarios).

The AI in both WitP and UV was never meant to be more than training tool for introducing players.

BULLCRAP!!!

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 129

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 10:51:11 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Also I am very very sorry to dissapoint you but both UV and WitP are meant for PBEM playing and that is what 90% of all users will do (whether playing small or large scenarios).

The AI in both WitP and UV was never meant to be more than training tool for introducing players.

BULLCRAP!!!

Believe what you want... but AI is 100x inferior to even worst PBEM opponent in any game of this scope in the world... once you play competent PBEM human opponent you will never again play AI...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 130

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 11:04:36 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Believe what you want... but AI is 100x inferior to even worst PBEM opponent in any game of this scope in the world... once you play competent PBEM human opponent you will never again play AI...

Leo "Apollo11"

Fine but that's not what you origiinally said. You said "both UV and WitP are meant for PBEM playing and that is what 90% of all users will do".

90% is more likely closer to 20%; PBEM players are the minority - they're over-represented on these boards. And if WitP was meant to be played PBEM then I would demand my money back as Matrix is guilty of consumer fraud. Luckily that's not the case.

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 131

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 11:18:24 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Believe what you want... but AI is 100x inferior to even worst PBEM opponent in any game of this scope in the world... once you play competent PBEM human opponent you will never again play AI...

Leo "Apollo11"

Fine but that's not what you origiinally said. You said "both UV and WitP are meant for PBEM playing and that is what 90% of all users will do".

Nope... I wrote what I wrote...

Almost any PC game nowadays can be played against AI or via PBEM/on-line against humans.

Since AI in any PC games is inferior to humans (I wrote 100x and will stick to it) most people who can afford it (money/time etc) will always prefer to play against humans because playing vs. AI and playing vs. humans can not be compared...

That's why the only true way to appreciate WitP (and UV) is to play PBEM against capable human opponent - because of that I wrote that game is meant to be played this way!

quote:

90% is more likely closer to 20%; PBEM players are the minority - they're over-represented on these boards. And if WitP was meant to be played PBEM then I would demand my money back as Matrix is guilty of consumer fraud. Luckily that's not the case.

I think I remember one poll in old UV days where there was pool for all people who visit forums (and most owners do visit forum).

The poll asked if they play AI or PBEM.

I think 90% said PBEM.

BTW, this WitP game (same as UV) is meant for small hard core Grognard community and casual players are few and apart here.

This game is not even sold other than by direct buy from manufacturer/producer (i.e. it is not available in shops nor it ever will be).

So... I am 100% sure that 90% of all owners will play PBEM...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 132

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/13/2004 11:21:34 PM

ZOOMIE1980

Posts: 1284
Joined: 4/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Also I am very very sorry to dissapoint you but both UV and WitP are meant for PBEM playing and that is what 90% of all users will do (whether playing small or large scenarios).

The AI in both WitP and UV was never meant to be more than training tool for introducing players.

BULLCRAP!!!

Believe what you want... but AI is 100x inferior to even worst PBEM opponent in any game of this scope in the world... once you play competent PBEM human opponent you will never again play AI...

Leo "Apollo11"

That may very well be true, in fact. And is more a sad statement on the state of game AI programming and design, in general, due to it being almost always the most expendable item in a budget. And what makes it even more sad, the overwhelming majority of turn based wargame posters do NOT play PBEM or multi-player games. Remember, even if a majority of posters to this forum play PBEM, that represents only a SMALL fraction of game purchacers, overall.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 133

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/14/2004 4:52:54 AM

mongo

Posts: 260
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: Ohio, USA
Status: offline

_____________________________

"Mongo only pawn..in game of life"

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 134

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/14/2004 5:42:28 AM

Cmdrcain

Posts: 1161
Joined: 8/21/2000
From: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

I think I remember one poll in old UV days where there was pool for all people who visit forums (and most owners do visit forum).

The poll asked if they play AI or PBEM.

I think 90% said PBEM.

BTW, this WitP game (same as UV) is meant for small hard core Grognard community and casual players are few and apart here.

This game is not even sold other than by direct buy from manufacturer/producer (i.e. it is not available in shops nor it ever will be).

So... I am 100% sure that 90% of all owners will play PBEM...

Leo "Apollo11"

I'm a long time member and never saw the poll your talking about.

_____________________________

Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!

Battlestar Pegasus

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 135

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/14/2004 9:51:24 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain

I'm a long time member and never saw the poll your talking about.

I can almost swear that I remember that poll...

Leo "Apollo11"

P.S.
It appears that "Poll" option does not exist in forums any longer so that we can't crate new one that would ask WitP players their preferences (AI and/or PBEM)...

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Cmdrcain)

Post #: 136

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/14/2004 7:48:43 PM

BartM

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline

lol Mongo you crack me up

as for the pbem thing, feh, its a 80's thing, but is still used, dont glorify it too much :)

carriers at war, SSG, was not 100x worse ai... try it once :)

anyway, back to this discussion. I still believe, doing what is suggested would completely alter the LCU combat in the game. if your going to limit engineers, then you would have to take out "historical" groups, as the allies simply have tons of them, and if only a certain amount would be allowed on a hex, then you are forcing the allies to send engineers all over the map just to get them kinda deployed. deminished returns, is yet an ever worse nightmare I would think, as the computer would have to take into account the normal cost in supplies to build up an airbase a port and a defence point, then determine if the LCUs are that base hsa the supplies, then determain how many engineers are there (remember, normal infantry divisions have normal non-combat engineers attached to them, so that would have to be changed, else you could run into problems with deminished combat as well) then determain if they are combat engineers or non-combat, then give those a stacking limit, then determin at what point is "too much", which of course means anything worthwhile would have to have high SPS (non-historical), otherwise you give the allies this slow...long drawn-out build of a base.

Now given all that, you add to distruption from the enemy via air and sea, and of course if you want to defend a base with infantry (again they would have to have their combat and non-combat engineers removed from the OOB, otherwise they would force a deminished result simply by being there defending) leaving combat and non-combat engineers alone to build (not even remotely historical).

using guadalcanal again as an example, while the 1st marines were there, and once clark was captured, even while combat was going on, the combat engineers were working to get the runway working within the first 24 hours, and I believe it was the day after they had like 9 fighters and a couple of dauntlesses there. (seems awfully fast for one combat group..hehe)

*shrugs*

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 137

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/14/2004 7:55:14 PM

BartM

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Also I am very very sorry to dissapoint you but both UV and WitP are meant for PBEM playing and that is what 90% of all users will do (whether playing small or large scenarios).

The AI in both WitP and UV was never meant to be more than training tool for introducing players.

BULLCRAP!!!

Believe what you want... but AI is 100x inferior to even worst PBEM opponent in any game of this scope in the world... once you play competent PBEM human opponent you will never again play AI...

Leo "Apollo11"

sorry for back to back posts, but re-reading Leo, think you kinda hung yourself with this discussion. if in fact 90% of the people here play PBEM, and you play a compitent player, then what exactly is the issue ?

Simply discuss a house rule with your opponent about stacking limits, and move on with the game :)

ttfn

(in reply to BartM)

Post #: 138

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/14/2004 8:11:22 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

We already have following rules:

#1
Although combat TFs can have as much as 25 ships from the 16th ship onward you have "diminishing returns" from combined AAA power.

This was done to discourage players to cream as many ships in TF in order to over-boost AAA.

This was done in UV and exists in WitP as well.

#2
In WitP we have new CV air coordination limit depending on historic year meaning that you can not create "Death Star" CV TF with too many aircraft on board.

If you do that your air strikes will be uncoordinated (i.e. piece meal).

Both examples above are 100% historical and nobody argues those rules.

So... what is wrong with proposal of similar historic rule that would prevent gamey tactics of hording dozens and dozens of ENG units to do 100% unrealistic "overnight" base building?

BTW, both example of already existing rules were, possibly, fixable by house rules - but they made it into game as default/obligatory rule...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to BartM)

Post #: 139

RE: Idea how to slow building speed down - let's limit ... - 8/15/2004 3:52:53 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

I'll argue them..., the second (especially) is pure crap designed at the behest of
Japanese Fan-Boys to "hamstring" Allied Operations as long as possible. The Japanese started the war in violation of this "rule" even in the more generous "allowance" that
they are given. To say that the Allies, with their massive advantage in radar and communications could NOT have at least "matched" Kido Butai's efforts before 1944
is pure nonsense. They chose not to, because the smaller multi-taskgroup organiza-
tion was more flexible and easier to control, and because with their huge advantage
in communications gear they could form up strikes from multiple TF's if they felt the
target required it. The game doesn't allow this, so if the Allies want to deliver a large
strike they would have to combine TF's---but wait, the game doesn't allow that either!
Instant Japanese Fan-Boy joy! And pure, unadulterated, BS.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 140