Matrix Games Forums

Hell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not?

 
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 >> Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 7:16:30 AM   
jay102

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 8/15/2005
Status: offline
There are some US Army divisions originally under West Coast(R) can be transfer to unrestricted Air HQs(like XI Bombers Command) with small PP cost. Is this considered gamey? I think it makes no sense to have Air HQs commanding several Army divisions for combat purpose IRL.
Post #: 1
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 7:53:16 AM   
Commander Cody


Posts: 866
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
I would say it's between you and your opponent. The IJ can do some of that as well, so you should clear up in advance whether it's cool or not.

Concerning going up against the AI, the AI needs all the help it can get so I personally don't do that in order to make the game more challenging.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 2
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 8:19:13 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
Personally, I think its fine to put base forces under an air HQ. I think (and have always said) that its a hole in the game (IMHO) to allow ground combat units to be under the command of air or naval HQs. And truth be told, you are actually better off putting your combat forces under a ground HQ and have that HQ close. Unfortunately its hard to accumulate enough PPs to do it in the game.

I dont think I would go as far as calling it gamey though.

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 2/23/2012 8:20:19 AM >

(in reply to Commander Cody)
Post #: 3
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 8:47:38 AM   
Gunner98


Posts: 1021
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline
I could see a situation - under enemy pressure - where the highest ranking officer and his HQ take over as a local 'joint command'. Not sure if using the feature to save PP on the West Coast fits the bill but as has been said - its up to you and your opponent. Against the AI, I wouldn't do it, would just have to wait until the paper pushers in DC got around to releasing the unit (i.e. accumulate the higher number of PP).

B

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 4
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 9:01:10 AM   
koniu

 

Posts: 2196
Joined: 2/28/2011
From: Konin, Poland, European Union
Status: offline
Very common HR is to not allow to switch LCUs to Ari HQ as it t allow to save lots of PP.

But calling it gamay will be to big word as it not using flows and limitation of game engine.


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 5
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 9:07:30 AM   
jay102

 

Posts: 197
Joined: 8/15/2005
Status: offline
Thanks guys. I've checked it, IJ could also use this trick to release restricted divisions from China theatre. So it's up to players to decide whether there should be a house rule, regarding what kind of taste suits them best, historical semblance or gaming probabilities.

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 6
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 9:14:18 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1696
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
I think some of the Devs have said that this Air HQ trick was not their intention.

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 7
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 9:16:11 AM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
Why? I mean really if someone wants to "get around" the PP cost of units, its doable.

What I do, and would certainly be allowed under any "house rule" provision, is to transfer 14th army to Korea, 15th army to China, and 16th army to Japan. This allows me to move those units into an unrestricted army command from any place restricted units come from.

As allied I transfer 1st Amphib corps to the west coast. Does the same thing.

So really, the only time I pay "full cost" is when Im assembling units that are broken down under multiple commands. Like the Jap 55th div or Aus 8th div.

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 2/23/2012 9:18:56 AM >

(in reply to jay102)
Post #: 8
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 5:43:03 PM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Why? I mean really if someone wants to "get around" the PP cost of units, its doable.

What I do, and would certainly be allowed under any "house rule" provision, is to transfer 14th army to Korea, 15th army to China, and 16th army to Japan. This allows me to move those units into an unrestricted army command from any place restricted units come from.

As allied I transfer 1st Amphib corps to the west coast. Does the same thing.

So really, the only time I pay "full cost" is when Im assembling units that are broken down under multiple commands. Like the Jap 55th div or Aus 8th div.


Same thing can be down with army or corps headquarters. Move the corps hq to the (R), transfer all intended troops, then move the corps HQ to the destination HQ (SWPac for example), transfer them all out. Much cheaper.

But to the more gamey question...having 10 divisions and 38 individual fighting elements under the US I Corps is a bit gamey imo. But I think it's a legit to do move units in an out of theatres. Really, the best way to just formally form the Corps as a fighting unit, and then move the entire Corps between theatres as needed. I think a reasonable Corps size is ~4 divisions and maybe a doezen individual elements (AA, ART, Eng).

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 9
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 9:34:30 PM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
That would be fine, if you had enough HQs and PPs to do that.

You dont. At least the allies dont in 1941-42. The Japanese dont in 1943 on (unless you send some of the Korean perma restricted HQs to Burma by land maybe). Case in point, my current game:

Date: 26 Oct 1943
Japanese have currently (additional units by the end of 1943 in parentheses)

9 "Army" HQs (corps)
3(+1) "Area Army" HQs (army) that are unrestriced

Into which I have unrestricted (I could add more from China if I wanted to):

58 divs (counting 4 armor and 4 VM divs)
6(+9 to 16 - 7 are restricted but changeable) bdes
22(+1) regts
1 infantry group (becomes a division)
7 garrison units (become brigades)
Plus a whole slew of nav gds, bn sized units, detachments, armored regts and bdes, ect. I basically just counted units with an AV of 100+ for the most part.

I have 20,676 PPs currently available. All air units have been released. Several units have been bought back. Most commanders have been replaced. The 1e IJA bombers are all flying Helens. In other words, I havent exactly "skimped" on spending PPs.

Of the 13 ground HQs above, I only have units assigned to 6 of them. The others came in after units were assigned. Now with 20k PPs, changing at the reduced rate, I could change the HQ of 40+ divisions if I wanted. But why bother? The PP part of the game wasnt very well thought out by GG from the original, and it has never been changed since.

Edit: This is scenario 2.

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 2/23/2012 9:53:19 PM >

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 10
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 10:52:52 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2906
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
Gamey.

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 11
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/23/2012 11:21:59 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
"That would be fine, if you had enough HQs and PPs to do that. "

IMO, that is why we have the PP system - to prevent an unrealistic build up of forces in the early going of the war.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 12
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 12:14:46 AM   
gradenko_2000

 

Posts: 779
Joined: 12/27/2010
Status: online
Not having enough PPs to do everything you want is precisely the point, as PPs are a mechanic designed to throttle the player's ability to concentrate his forces.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 13
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 10:07:49 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
The # of Political Points (PPs) were set so that the Allied and Japanese players could "release" restricted units into theater at about the rate they did historically, and to allow for some flexibility -- freeing up an extra Australian Division early means delaying a US Division on the West Coast, fx. However, the model only works if the players pay 'retail' (full cost) to change units from restricted to unrestricted commands.

By that standard, everything else is gamey, even though the game mechanics make it possible. The PP and HQs changes were never fully implemented. The dev team did not have time to implement and test every desired change* -- and other things had priority.

You can see the glimmers of what was intended. The goal was to allow transfers of LCUs between unrestricted Command HQs at 1/4 cost, by assigning LCUs to subordinate Army/Corps, then shifting the HQ to another command. But as a game mechanic it allows a player to reassign an unrestricted HQ to release restricted units at a reduced rate, which was not the intent.

In real life, what became the I Amphibious Corps started the war assigned to the West Coast Command. In AE, it starts attached to the Pacific Fleet precisely to avoid having the West Coast divisions released at a reduced PP cost. From the designer's intent, transferring an unrestricted Corps HQ to a restricted command in order to attach LCUs and release them at the 'wholesale' (reduced PP) rate is another loophole -- though a more realistic one than attaching combat units to Air HQs, or to unrestricted HQs that haven't arrived yet, and won't arrive until 1944-45.

To see what was intended within a restricted HQ, look to China: the NCAC HQ arrives already attached to China Command, a restricted HQ, but the NCAC can be transferred to an unrestricted command HQ. This was meant to allow Chinese divisions (there are nine eligible) to transfer to the NCAC at the reduced PP cost, then have the HQ transfer to a Burma/India Command.

My house rules to enforce "Original Intent" would be:
1. Restricted LCUs may transfer to any on-map Corps, Army or Command HQs (only).
2. HQs may not be reassigned from an unrestricted Command HQ chain-of-command to a restricted Command HQ chain-of-command.
3. Engineer-type units, including base forces, can be assigned to any on-map HQs

Having said all that, I don't think it affects play balance all that much (in Scenario 1, at least) if players are using the loopholes to release ground units more rapidly; as long as both players are aware of the loopholes and are using the same ones.



*= participating in AE development was an eye-opener for me. I never appreciated how much time and testing had to go into verifying even minor changes, especially in a code-complicated game like AE, where 'unintended consequences' were constantly cropping up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: aphrochine


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Why? I mean really if someone wants to "get around" the PP cost of units, its doable.

What I do, and would certainly be allowed under any "house rule" provision, is to transfer 14th army to Korea, 15th army to China, and 16th army to Japan. This allows me to move those units into an unrestricted army command from any place restricted units come from.

As allied I transfer 1st Amphib corps to the west coast. Does the same thing.

So really, the only time I pay "full cost" is when Im assembling units that are broken down under multiple commands. Like the Jap 55th div or Aus 8th div.


Same thing can be down with army or corps headquarters. Move the corps hq to the (R), transfer all intended troops, then move the corps HQ to the destination HQ (SWPac for example), transfer them all out. Much cheaper.

But to the more gamey question...having 10 divisions and 38 individual fighting elements under the US I Corps is a bit gamey imo. But I think it's a legit to do move units in an out of theatres. Really, the best way to just formally form the Corps as a fighting unit, and then move the entire Corps between theatres as needed. I think a reasonable Corps size is ~4 divisions and maybe a doezen individual elements (AA, ART, Eng).



< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 2/24/2012 10:14:59 AM >


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 14
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 1:27:20 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16135
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Thanks, Blackhorse! I've always heard people use the excuse, "if the dev's didn't want it to work that way, they would not have allowed it to happen in the game." I don't think I've heard a clear description of the dev team's "intent" before now. Working in the software development industry, I understand completely that the code delivered is not always what the developers fully intended!

I like your HR's to enforce the "intent" and will use them in all future games. I'll also suggest them to my current opponent, as we are just getting started on a new campaign. We have a HR related to this, but yours spell things out very clearly.

Cheers!

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 15
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 3:32:03 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16135
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
BTW, I just wanted to add, in my opinion, if both players agree to use PP's and LCU's in what ever way they choose, it is not the slightest bit gamey. It's all about both sides agreeing.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 16
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 3:40:44 PM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

BTW, I just wanted to add, in my opinion, if both players agree to use PP's and LCU's in what ever way they choose, it is not the slightest bit gamey. It's all about both sides agreeing.


That is the rub. As long as both sides are doing the same it is not a problem, it is when one side does and the other does not that there is a problem.

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 17
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 4:41:02 PM   
CV 2

 

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline
Thats exactly my point, as long as both sides can do it, and both sides CAN do it, then it falls into the realm of house rules and is therefore NOT GAMEY.

I WAS a play tester. I KNOW that playing with the HQ and PP cost of stuff would NOT have impeded the other stuff we were testing. While Blackhorse makes it sound all nice, frankly, it isnt true. The truth is because of the way the game was developed, meaning 3 separate teams (air, land, sea) that had limited contact between them, getting a unified PP system was impossible.

Look at air/land for a perfect example. Air units pay PP costs based on TO&E strength whereas ground units pay for current undisrupted strength. So to cheaply release a ground unit, you attack at low odds in China and get the unit disrupted and you pay 10 PPs to release a full strength division (yes, I call THAT gamey). Personally I think land units should have to pay TO&E costs same as air, but thats my humble opinion. But thats a glimpse into the background of the development process that AE undertook.

If the intent was for unrestricted units to pay full price to be released, then thats the way it should have been coded. Naval units HQ has little bearing on the game. So much so, that it doesnt even cost PPs to change a units HQ. It should really. Naval TFs use the naval HQ commaders rating in combat also I believe. Thats the way it was in PacWar and since this is a long lost relative of that game and every other aspect uses code from that game, Im guessing its still in place here. That being the case, setting land units as restricted or not with their actual HQ assignment being freely changeable would actually serve the game better, would have been easier to code, and would do the job that people are always asking about, that being able to switch units between commands with no hassles. Ed: Frankly, air should be the same ie restricted or not IMHO.

But hey, easier for the fanboy club to circle the wagons and attack anyone that doesnt agree with them then to actually try to work out a solution. And thats the way it was in development. "I want it this way or I quit!" (and thats not an exaggeration)

< Message edited by CV 2 -- 2/24/2012 4:55:45 PM >

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 18
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 6:10:53 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16135
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Don't you ever get tired of replaying that same old, tired recording, yamato?

(Yes, the entire world is out to get you. We already know that. )

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 19
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 8:07:18 PM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline
I'm not a fan of ignoring HQ hierarchy in the game. So I'm constantly spending PPs on other things to ensure the HQ's line up. I try to make sure that AA units sitting in a SoPac base are indeed SoPac, not PAC. When I rebase air units, I try to change their HQ's. To that end, I would say the PP system is overly restricting. If you forget to assign that small island base to SoPac and then build it up to a 5-8 base, the PP cost goes up to what 1900 or something like that. Moving air units around and reassigning them to SWPac or 224 Group when you rebase them also costs PPs. This creates a situation where I think players are trying to do too much with too little. If we reassigned units to different HQ's every time we switched bases or moved around land units we'd NEVER have enough PP's to pull units out of restriction as with the above described "intent". The frontline shuffling alone is enough to drain your PP pool. So any way I can save on restriction PP usage, I have to take it so I have PPs available for proper organization of my front line units.

Ultimately, it's a partially implemented system that both players can use. Not Gamey. If you want a house rule, go for it. With all due respect, I'd rather be fighting with units and both of us receiving proper bonuses from sync'd HQ's than worrying about "intent" of the devs.

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 20
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 9:41:03 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7155
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Real men pay retail. Nuff said.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 21
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 9:50:00 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2906
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

As long as both sides are doing the same it is not a problem, it is when one side does and the other does not that there is a problem


Nopes . It is still gamey, the only difference is that it is equally gamey. Both cheat against the game engine

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 22
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 10:02:25 PM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Real men pay retail. Nuff said.



Haha!! Next time you buy a car...

_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 23
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/24/2012 10:31:19 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Personally, I think its fine to put base forces under an air HQ. I think (and have always said) that its a hole in the game (IMHO) to allow ground combat units to be under the command of air or naval HQs. And truth be told, you are actually better off putting your combat forces under a ground HQ and have that HQ close. Unfortunately its hard to accumulate enough PPs to do it in the game.


You've summed up the reason why it isn't "gamey" in a nutshell. If the game gave you enough PP's to correctly organize your forces it might be..., but as it stands now "any ol' HQ in a storm" is perfectly reasonable.

(in reply to CV 2)
Post #: 24
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? - 2/25/2012 12:07:33 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6000
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America

Don't you ever get tired of replaying that same old, tired recording, yamato?

(Yes, the entire world is out to get you. We already know that. )


+1

There is quite a history in this, regarding "CV2" aka "Yamato Hugger".

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 2/25/2012 12:09:24 PM >


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not? 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

0.106