From: Vienna, Austria
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.
That PP has nothing to do with reality is incorrect.
As with many other game features it is an abstraction of reality. It is an attempt to quantify an administrative and/or political cost
accompanied with certain command decisions.
What you are critizising is a design decision. The design decision was done to at the same time limit, but on the other hand enable,
the ability of the player to deviate from historical paths and explore new options.
PP management (in combination with HRs) is a part of that system, which in my opinion works pretty well. Saving PP for specific occasions
is part of the game.
The huge imbalance you claim to see simply does not exist. The above situations is the same for both players, an imbalance is only possible if
one uses specific features of the game mechanisms and the other does not. This can and should be discussed per HR, so not an issue.
And last: Usually it is too easy to advance (for both sides) because you are not playing a DBB grand campaign, which you should in case
you seek historical accuracy.
As I see it there is not really much to debate about...