Matrix Games Forums

A new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!Deal of the Week Espana 1936War in the West coming in December!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Disband? Gamey?

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Disband? Gamey? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 12:29:00 PM   
christian brown


Posts: 1428
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline
Now that I know how useful this can be, I think I've begun to abuse it. How in the heck is Japan supposed to reap 30+ supply in the end game from turning in all those HF/Lfs on the production spiral? This totally smacks of gameyness though I do not have a solution for it off hand.....please help! This basically amounts to "saving up" resources............and is totally lame, but very tempting to do...it even makes for purposefully losing damaged units in order to reap resources.....very troubling.

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson
Post #: 1
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 12:59:39 PM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline
Huh? Care to elaborate? Where's that huge exploit?

(in reply to christian brown)
Post #: 2
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 1:03:14 PM   
JanSorensen

 

Posts: 3677
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Aalborg, Denmark
Status: offline
Its always been the case that you can disband a damaged naval units to have a couple of resources returned. Thats been standard play in WaW and I am sure is in AWD as well. I see no exploit here.

(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 3
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 1:07:45 PM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline
Oh, didn't know that. How is that done - do you simply disband it in the production queue? And how many resources do you get?

(in reply to JanSorensen)
Post #: 4
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 1:13:59 PM   
christian brown


Posts: 1428
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline
You get +/- half of the resources hence spent on unit construction when you disband, I.E. an HF almost completed will give you 4-6 resources......the problem here is that it tempts you to purposefully lose damaged units in order to reap resources........

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 5
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 1:21:09 PM   
christian brown


Posts: 1428
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline
For the record, when I get strapped for resources (as Japan or even the Wa if the sub war is raging) I'm doing this just about every turn............  not very fair.......I just came to realize the benefit of sending out suicide missions in order to buy supply, very sad. Guilty as charged!

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to christian brown)
Post #: 6
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 4:42:25 PM   
templeton


Posts: 40
Joined: 10/27/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown
the problem here is that it tempts you to purposefully lose damaged units in order to reap resources........


Why is that a problem...?

For the other side, they simply remove another enemy unit - and since Heavy Fleets take so long to build, for the US it can be quite advantegous for the Japanese to surrender control of the seas for more resources.


I don't see what the exploit is - the cost is you disband a unit that could be back in service in a couple of turns or less for some resources in exchange.

You lose the unit.

Unless it's cheaper to build units to suicide them to get supply than to build suppy, but I don't understand the exploit at the moment.

< Message edited by templeton -- 12/3/2006 4:46:41 PM >

(in reply to christian brown)
Post #: 7
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 9:02:35 PM   
christian brown


Posts: 1428
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline
The relevant point here is that you can purposefully kill your own units for resources, a real problrm, IMHO.

_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to templeton)
Post #: 8
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/3/2006 10:26:46 PM   
wargameplayer

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline
One way to handle it:

Maybe put a delay on it. i.e. to prevent gaming..make it so that there is a 1 turn lag before the materials end up back in production as usable. thats an extra 3-6 months which represents recycle time and it's harder to game vs. conditions in the battlefield. you could also make it random in terms of recycle time too if you really wanted to prevent gaming it vs. the battlefield.



< Message edited by wargameplayer -- 12/4/2006 12:12:46 AM >

(in reply to christian brown)
Post #: 9
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/4/2006 1:57:23 AM   
christian brown


Posts: 1428
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline
quote:

One way to handle it:

Maybe put a delay on it. i.e. to prevent gaming..make it so that there is a 1 turn lag before the materials end up back in production as usable. thats an extra 3-6 months which represents recycle time and it's harder to game vs. conditions in the battlefield.


This sounds fairly reasonable and may help take some of the temptation away from doing it. Good idea!


_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to wargameplayer)
Post #: 10
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/4/2006 6:59:54 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21524
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
Perhaps we should have allowed a unit to disband while in port and regain resources. The original intent was to allow you to scrap units in production and regain some of the production value already spent. The fact that you can't do this with units once built is something that is missing. In the ideal world this should be added as well as a delay perhaps for the damaged units. However, in reality I don't see the current situation as being a big deal. Sure, you can suicide your units, but you regain little in the way of resources and in reality they should have been able to be scrapped anyway. I doubt it's worth the trouble to add new rules as the gain would be small, IMHO.

(in reply to wargameplayer)
Post #: 11
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/4/2006 10:05:13 PM   
wargameplayer

 

Posts: 105
Joined: 4/4/2005
Status: offline
Maybe he has examples of where it tipped the balance of fighting. i.e. i could see maybe japan scrapping carriers and building a ton of infantry if the war in the pacific was lost. i dunno.



quote:

easonable and may help take some of the temptation away from doing it. Good idea!


_____________________________

Very respectfully,
Christian

(in reply to wargameplayer)
[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 10
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/4/2006 4:59:54 AM
New Messages
Joel Billings
Moderator



Posts: 6188
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Encinitas, CA
Status: online Perhaps we should have allowed a unit to disband while in port and regain resources. The original intent was to allow you to scrap units in production and regain some of the production value already spent. The fact that you can't do this with units once built is something that is missing. In the ideal world this should be added as well as a delay perhaps for the damaged units. However, in reality I don't see the current situation as being a big deal. Sure, you can suicide your units, but you regain little in the way of resources and in reality they should have been able to be scrapped anyway. I doubt it's worth the trouble to add new rules as the gain would be small, IMHO.

(in reply to wargameplayer)
[Send Private Message] Report | Post #: 11
Page: [1]
[Reply to Message] All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Disband? Gamey? Page: [1]

Fast Reply








more smileys..



Remove Text Formatting Add [code] tag Add
quote:

tag
Bold Italic Underline

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 12
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/4/2006 10:53:00 PM   
christian brown


Posts: 1428
Joined: 5/18/2006
From: Vista, CA
Status: offline
Well Joel has weighed in on this, so it's dead as far as I'm concerned.  Just to be crystal clear for the record, this is what I see the problems as being.

1. It is a way to artificially "store up" resource points.
2. It allows an isolated nation (like Japan late in the game) to continue to buy "hold 'em off longer" units, like supply, INFs and Fighters.
3. It encourages putting useless units (HFs for everybody, CVs for Japan late in the game) in harms way on purpose. For me, this is by far the biggest problem-it encourages actions that never would have happened historically.

Clearly, the best way to deal with this is to:
Leave enemy capital ships alone late in the game, unless you are sure to destroy them outright.

I will probably ask future opponents for a house rule limiting this behavior to 1 unit disband per turn.



_____________________________

"Those who would give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither and will lose both."
~ Thomas Jefferson

(in reply to wargameplayer)
Post #: 13
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/5/2006 12:37:05 AM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2132
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: christian brown

Well Joel has weighed in on this, so it's dead as far as I'm concerned.  Just to be crystal clear for the record, this is what I see the problems as being.

1. It is a way to artificially "store up" resource points.
2. It allows an isolated nation (like Japan late in the game) to continue to buy "hold 'em off longer" units, like supply, INFs and Fighters.
3. It encourages putting useless units (HFs for everybody, CVs for Japan late in the game) in harms way on purpose. For me, this is by far the biggest problem-it encourages actions that never would have happened historically.

Clearly, the best way to deal with this is to:
Leave enemy capital ships alone late in the game, unless you are sure to destroy them outright.

I will probably ask future opponents for a house rule limiting this behavior to 1 unit disband per turn.



In context of all of the related limitations of the game it makes sense.

I think that the real issue is that damaged naval units can zip back to port/factories with no supplies expended and regardless of what kind of blockade is between the naval unit and home. The correct way to fix the problem, if at all, is to somehow improve this general situation.

A simple and sensible improvement might be to have a different range for tracing to factory for units that are in supply than for units that are out of supply.

This is actually a relatively simple change, and it improves the problem with blockading out-of-supply HF hulks, so I would actually propose it.

1) Damaged surface naval units that are in supply can trace 20MPs to a friendly port/factory (unchanged).
2) Damaged surface naval units that are unsupplied (can only apply on defense) can trace 10MPs to a friendly port/factory (reduced).
3) MPs are counted including the penalty for no adjacent land (is it this way currently???)

Of course, 10MPs to Japan is far enough to include a lot of sea zones, unless the no-friendly-land penalty is applied.

Even though I think I like this idea, I'm not actually of the opinion that any changes are a high priority.

(in reply to christian brown)
Post #: 14
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/5/2006 9:05:51 PM   
GKar


Posts: 617
Joined: 5/18/2005
Status: offline
I don't think that the "disband for resources" option is a problem. Basically you exchange each production point ( = one factory point plus one resource point) against one resource point, that isn't a good deal. Sure, it is an option especially as Japan when fighting for your survival, but unless game-breaking problems are reported because of it, I think everything is alright.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 15
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/16/2006 10:48:20 PM   
PanzerKampfwagen

 

Posts: 323
Joined: 7/1/2006
Status: offline
I regularly disband production spiral material later in the war, ( as Japan ), and in fact, this very thing causes me to mainly build Carriers and Battleships, light fleets, etc. early in the war, so that I can fight hard with them, but later, when I inevitably get blown to smithereens by the Allies, I can just cancel the junked fleets and get a stack of resources.

This strategy is extremely useful when the Allies come to bomb Japan. Just build a stack of flak guns and/or fighters in Honshu, and then force the Allies to fly through them to bomb out your infrastructure. Except that every time the Allies knock out the infrastructure, you just cancel some more units and use the resources gained to build supplies in order to fix the infrastructure, thus forcing the Allies to bomb it out all over again, and again, and again. Now I don't necessarily think that this is unrealistic, but you shouldn't have to sail your fleets into harm's way purposefully in order to get those resources ( such as sailing directly under a single patrolling Allied CAG in order to have your ships damaged with OP-fire, but hopefully not sunk since it's a single CAG ).

When the Japanese needed resources for more supplies, they didn't just go out to the closest naval base and say, "Hey there, boys, time to commit suicide! lets sail out and get severely blown up so that we can sail back and use the wrecked ship to build supplies". I mean, that's ridiculous. If you decide one day that you don't want your car anymore, and you're going to sell it for spare parts, you don't need to drive the car into a tree first before you can legitimately dismantle it. Playing this canceling game can keep the Japanese alive for a year or more, while they slowly cancel stuff on the production lines. That's not bad, it's just that they shouldn't artificially store resources in ships by building there war strategy around a big navy, so that they can have the resources later in the war when the ships are wrecked, or needing to purposefully wreck their ships in order to get the resources out of them.

(in reply to GKar)
Post #: 16
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/16/2006 11:41:46 PM   
WanderingHead

 

Posts: 2132
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PanzerKampfwagen
( such as sailing directly under a single patrolling Allied CAG in order to have your ships damaged with OP-fire, but hopefully not sunk since it's a single CAG ).


Shouldn't fear on that. Op-fire is bombardment, which can only cause damage and never destroy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PanzerKampfwagen
That's not bad, it's just that they shouldn't artificially store resources in ships by building there war strategy around a big navy, so that they can have the resources later in the war when the ships are wrecked, or needing to purposefully wreck their ships in order to get the resources out of them.


Expensive navies are not a very efficient resource storage mechanism, since you only get about 3/8 of the resources you invest in them back.

< Message edited by WanderingHead -- 12/16/2006 11:50:31 PM >

(in reply to PanzerKampfwagen)
Post #: 17
RE: Disband? Gamey? - 12/18/2006 3:40:04 PM   
PanzerKampfwagen

 

Posts: 323
Joined: 7/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Expensive navies are not a very efficient resource storage mechanism, since you only get about 3/8 of the resources you invest in them back.


Yes, but that's better than getting nothing at all. At least you get 3/8 of your resources back, and that helps a lot when the war is going against you.

(in reply to WanderingHead)
Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Disband? Gamey? Page: [1]
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

0.086