Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is resizing a gamey?

 
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 >> Is resizing a gamey? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 9:37:51 AM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
I don't think of course about programmed resizing. But something like this isn't it?
quote:

Most IJN fighter squadrons using the Zero can be resized to size 81, and divided into 27 plane components. Whereas previously I used all three detachments in combat, I'm going to try to keep the absolute best for the front lines.

Mechanics of resizing is for flexibility of aviation groups on aircraft carriers. Game hasn't possibility to freely create air forces.
For example not carrier capable air forces (like army air forces) can't be freely resized. So, IMHO resizing mechanich should be limited. Actions as in the quote (resizing and dividing to to increase the quantity air groups) are especially against the game.
I know that players can agree on each rule. That's not what I meant. I don't write it against any player.
For real I have to limited myself. ;-)
My english isn't very good, sorry for it.

< Message edited by Anomander Rake -- 12/31/2017 9:39:26 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 11:07:31 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2969
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
Even if you resize groups to 181 airfract, it doesn't matter. Nothing will stop the Allied juggernaut.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 2
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 11:12:46 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 991
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
No, nothing in the engine is gamey per se. There are several AARs going on where everything the engine allows is allowed.
What is gamey is to take advantage of some game mechanics without your partner consent. As long as you both agree all is good

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 3
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 11:48:01 AM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
GetAssista - you haven't read exactly what i wrote. I know that we can agree to transfer all trops from Manchukuo to China or something like that.
But I asked if that isn't it the use of game mechanisms contrary to the purpose?
Why should we be able to freely develop fleet airforces exclusively, and it is only Japanese?
quote:

Even if you resize groups to 181 airfract, it doesn't matter. Nothing will stop the Allied juggernaut.

So probably shouldn't we play at all?

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 4
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 11:56:36 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2969
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
Play it. You just have to conquer the CONUSA before 1944 or there will be crying and gnashing of teeth.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 5
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 11:59:39 AM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
Only once I managed to play outside of 1942. So I have experience here. :-P
But this is not the topic.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 6
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 12:05:25 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 2969
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
The only gamey aspect is using 81 aircraft as one group. If you resize and use them as three 27-aircraft groups it seems legit.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 7
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 12:24:21 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
Why? If if you think that resizing is ok then why using groups of 81 aircraft isn't? Both things give an unjustified advantage.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 8
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 12:38:46 PM   
Korvar


Posts: 406
Joined: 9/3/2014
Status: offline
I believe Yaab is saying that even if resizing the groups to get more total aircraft in service is an unfair advantage, the Japanese can use all the advantages they can get.

Keeping them as one group would be gamey due to the concentration that would allow. With three separate groups, at least there will be the usual coordination considerations if you kept them all at one airfield. 27 aircraft per group falls within the parameters of how the Japanese sized their air groups.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 9
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 12:39:11 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9246
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
My general 'rule of thumb' for re-sizing when playing Japan is not to make them larger than an existing air group. So, IJN fighters go to 45 and DB/TB/LB to 36. I rotate FP groups unto CS to re-size to 24. I remove the second FP group from BB/CA and re-size. The Allies have very few groups that can re-size.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 10
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 1:08:02 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
I saw it and I last time used something similiar.
quote:

The Allies have very few groups that can re-size.

They also don't always have free planes. Also we can't freely resize army airforces.
These are the points why I have doubts to freely resizing.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 11
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 1:55:25 PM   
RickInVA

 

Posts: 133
Joined: 4/27/2011
Status: offline
On the other hand, why, if I have sufficient aircraft and pilots, should I not be able to create as many new air groups as I want to and/or make them whatever size I want? If there is a penalty in the engine for group size then I would be properly penalized, etc.

I expect to hear "because that isn't what happened". On the Japanese side that also contributes to "that may be why we lost", so why not have the option to go beyond the poor decisions made by the real actors?

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 12
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 2:35:59 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 4580
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: online
The game engine works to allow a specific squadron to perform its function according to squadron regardless of size. Thus, only because of the game engine, all 81 of your Japanese fighters would be allowed to take off at the same time even though no Japanese or American carrier could physically spot (and warm up the engines of) 81 aircraft on their flight deck simultaneously. Perhaps the Americans in 1944-45 could do more than a "deck spot" since they could open up their hangar decks to the air but according to "Shattered Sword" the enclosed hangar decks of all Japanese CV (types) required that the Japanese had to warm up the engines of their aircraft on the flight deck and 81 aircraft would completely fill that flight deck to the extent that there would be no take-off run whatsoever.

I always resize the UK carrier air-groups to fill up the carrier capacity (to 110%) and make the squadrons larger to a more useful size (can't imagine why anybody would have an attack squadron of 6 air-frames but I guess that worked in the Med against the Italians)

< Message edited by spence -- 12/31/2017 2:45:40 PM >

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 13
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 3:33:20 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9414
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Why? If if you think that resizing is ok then why using groups of 81 aircraft isn't? Both things give an unjustified advantage.


Not really, it is much easier to get three 81 plane air groups to coordinate that to get nine smaller units to do so. That is my biggest complaint about resizing. Basically I am not opposed to resizing as long as it is not beyond historical patterns. So I do create a few more 42 plane Allied carrier fighter groups and expand a lot of nine plane torpedo squadrons to 24 or 27 but object to creating large 80-90 plane air units.

BTW if you are playing a hard fought PBEM then the Allies just do not have the surplus planes to do much of this but with control of production the Japanese can. So within reason......

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 14
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 3:43:34 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7586
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton


quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Why? If if you think that resizing is ok then why using groups of 81 aircraft isn't? Both things give an unjustified advantage.


Not really, it is much easier to get three 81 plane air groups to coordinate that to get nine smaller units to do so. That is my biggest complaint about resizing. Basically I am not opposed to resizing as long as it is not beyond historical patterns. So I do create a few more 42 plane Allied carrier fighter groups and expand a lot of nine plane torpedo squadrons to 24 or 27 but object to creating large 80-90 plane air units.

BTW if you are playing a hard fought PBEM then the Allies just do not have the surplus planes to do much of this but with control of production the Japanese can. So within reason......


My 600+ Hellcats in the pools would disagree... and 800+ FM-2's...

I mean, I don't have that many in the pools anymore, but I did at one point.

Same with the 1200+ TBM's.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 15
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 3:47:07 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9414
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

My general 'rule of thumb' for re-sizing when playing Japan is not to make them larger than an existing air group. So, IJN fighters go to 45 and DB/TB/LB to 36. I rotate FP groups unto CS to re-size to 24. I remove the second FP group from BB/CA and re-size. The Allies have very few groups that can re-size.


Actually the Allies have a ton of groups that can resize. Every CVE carries 18 fighters and 9 torpedo bombers, and all of these groups can be resized. When you consider that the Allies get close to 100 CVEs then... And, not to mention the groups that come in on the dozen or so CVLs that the Allies get. Then you have British carriers. You are probably talking 200 units that can resize. However, as I said above, until around 1945 the Allies just do not have enough planes in their pools to go crazy with resizing. I tend to resize some CVE units to bring them up to 27-30 planes but in 4/44, my pools are too thin to have done it with more than a dozen units or so.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 16
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 3:50:37 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
quote:

I expect to hear "because that isn't what happened".

But you won't hear it. "Because it give unjustified advantage for Japanese side" is answer. Only Japanese side can produce any number of aircraft. And also you can do it for navy airforce only but not for army. It's ridiculous.
quote:

I always resize the UK carrier air-groups to fill up the carrier capacity (to 110%) and make the squadrons larger to a more useful size (can't imagine why anybody would have an attack squadron of 6 air-frames but I guess that worked in the Med against the Italians)

I think that this mechanism was conceived just for such situations. But not for multipling air groups.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 17
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 3:51:33 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9414
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RickInVA

On the other hand, why, if I have sufficient aircraft and pilots, should I not be able to create as many new air groups as I want to and/or make them whatever size I want? If there is a penalty in the engine for group size then I would be properly penalized, etc.

I expect to hear "because that isn't what happened". On the Japanese side that also contributes to "that may be why we lost", so why not have the option to go beyond the poor decisions made by the real actors?


Well, it is hard to argue against this. But having gone deep as the Allies in two games there is a price to pay by the Japanese
player producing too many planes and creating too many air units. So few games go deep but it is very possible to run the Japanese economy into the ground with over production.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to RickInVA)
Post #: 18
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 3:58:44 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
quote:

Well, it is hard to argue against this.

I don't think so, it's easy. Look above.

I think that resizing gives advantage to Japanese side especially at the early moment of the war. And maybe gives this advantege to allied side when they produce a lot of aircraft. So it acts against the game, strengthening always the stronger side.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 19
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 6:05:52 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

quote:

Well, it is hard to argue against this.

I don't think so, it's easy. Look above.

I think that resizing gives advantage to Japanese side especially at the early moment of the war. And maybe gives this advantege to allied side when they produce a lot of aircraft. So it acts against the game, strengthening always the stronger side.


This is a farily accurate statement. I agree with you and think for play balance (and for historical accuracy) there should be some limit on group resizing. However, that is my opinion, and others have differing opinions. Whatever your opinion is, you should agree on a rule, even a rule as vague as "reasonable" limits to group resizing, with any PBEM opponent. Ultimately, the Japanese are limited by supply and heavy industry. The allies are limited by air-frames. Resizing does not break the game, so long as massive squadrons of fighters are not used to gain a completely unrealistic numbers advantage.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 20
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 6:19:29 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
I play as Japan and first of all so I am looking for a good solution to limit myself.
And also, when I see ideas like this quoted, I think that we play different games.

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 21
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 6:22:29 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1510
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: PRUSSIA (not "Germany")
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

The only gamey aspect is using 81 aircraft as one group. If you resize and use them as three 27-aircraft groups it seems legit.


Imo nope - see my post about the Jack too. It would "free up" units for the IJN that can take eg. the Jack or George when in reality the number of non CV based IJN (fighter) units is small. Eg. you have 3 CVs then create one big 81 plane unit, divide it in 3...this means you have 2 more units you can use land based. Which historically were not available for this task. Well except ofc your CVs are sunk or you mothballed them. Then I guess re-activation of ex-CV units for land use is perfectly ok.

One should stick to max average biggest unit size, which seems to be 36 - there is one Zero unit which is bigger (up to 1943 I did not play further as Japan) but this seems an exception and not the rule.

Remember IJ is already overpowered in most mods and scen2. Scen1 seems still pretty balanced.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 12/31/2017 6:23:28 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 22
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 6:47:11 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake
And also you can do it for navy airforce only but not for army.

Actually, you can.

The unabashedly gamey JFB is incredibly excited to see one plane in mid-44: Ki-76 Stella. You can see its attributes below:

Name Max Cruise Max Alt Climb Man Dur Armor Gun Fry Rng RngE Load AF
Ki-76 Stella 111 96 18470 790 34 21 0 2 9 3 4 264


The Ki-76 Stella, on paper, is pretty useless:

• Its cruise speed is LESS THAN 100 mph!
• Its max range is ONLY 4!
• It has a pathetic max Altitude of 18470
• It has a pathetic durability of 21, making it one of easiest to destroy aircraft in the Japanese inventory.
• If has a gun strength of 2 - the lowest of the low!
• And it's 264 pound load means there are AK's that its bombs will bounce off of!
• And it's such a technical marvel, the Japanese get it in July of 44!

No, I am not crazy. The Stella has one overwhelming benefit:

• It is carrier capable

So what?

• It allows you to resize IJA squadrons with IJN carriers.

You can convert a squadron to the Stella, transfer it to a carrier, resize it, transfer it off and convert it to a bomber of your choice. You can also use it to convert bombers to a fighter bomber like the Ki-45 KAIa Nick and get more 4E killers.

Gamey, yes. But in a NHR game, it allows you to field a lot more planes and train a lot more pilots. I almost find myself wondering if it is worth it to research the little guy.

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 23
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 6:47:26 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 338
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

The only gamey aspect is using 81 aircraft as one group. If you resize and use them as three 27-aircraft groups it seems legit.


Imo nope - see my post about the Jack too. It would "free up" units for the IJN that can take eg. the Jack or George when in reality the number of non CV based IJN (fighter) units is small. Eg. you have 3 CVs then create one big 81 plane unit, divide it in 3...this means you have 2 more units you can use land based. Which historically were not available for this task. Well except ofc your CVs are sunk or you mothballed them. Then I guess re-activation of ex-CV units for land use is perfectly ok.

One should stick to max average biggest unit size, which seems to be 36 - there is one Zero unit which is bigger (up to 1943 I did not play further as Japan) but this seems an exception and not the rule.

Remember IJ is already overpowered in most mods and scen2. Scen1 seems still pretty balanced.

Tainan KuS-1 and 3rd KuS-1 are both 45 plane Zero units if you reattach their detachments. I do this by default because I prefer to keep the 45 together or to split 3 x 15 instead of 27/9/9 splits. These are not even the largest air groups Japan will get. The attached screenshot is from Scenario 1.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by InfiniteMonkey -- 12/31/2017 6:54:49 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 24
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 7:47:21 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7586
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake
And also you can do it for navy airforce only but not for army.

Actually, you can.

The unabashedly gamey JFB is incredibly excited to see one plane in mid-44: Ki-76 Stella. You can see its attributes below:

Name Max Cruise Max Alt Climb Man Dur Armor Gun Fry Rng RngE Load AF
Ki-76 Stella 111 96 18470 790 34 21 0 2 9 3 4 264


The Ki-76 Stella, on paper, is pretty useless:

• Its cruise speed is LESS THAN 100 mph!
• Its max range is ONLY 4!
• It has a pathetic max Altitude of 18470
• It has a pathetic durability of 21, making it one of easiest to destroy aircraft in the Japanese inventory.
• If has a gun strength of 2 - the lowest of the low!
• And it's 264 pound load means there are AK's that its bombs will bounce off of!
• And it's such a technical marvel, the Japanese get it in July of 44!

No, I am not crazy. The Stella has one overwhelming benefit:

• It is carrier capable

So what?

• It allows you to resize IJA squadrons with IJN carriers.

You can convert a squadron to the Stella, transfer it to a carrier, resize it, transfer it off and convert it to a bomber of your choice. You can also use it to convert bombers to a fighter bomber like the Ki-45 KAIa Nick and get more 4E killers.

Gamey, yes. But in a NHR game, it allows you to field a lot more planes and train a lot more pilots. I almost find myself wondering if it is worth it to research the little guy.



Only a small number of IJA squadrons have the ability to resize, so you can't go nuts with 81-plane Frank units. I've only seen 1 unit, but there should be a few others.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 25
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 8:26:06 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
quote:

You can convert a squadron to the Stella, transfer it to a carrier, resize it, transfer it off and convert it to a bomber of your choice. You can also use it to convert bombers to a fighter bomber like the Ki-45 KAIa Nick and get more 4E killers.

Gamey, yes. But in a NHR game, it allows you to field a lot more planes and train a lot more pilots. I almost find myself wondering if it is worth it to research the little guy.

For real I have heard about it. But this is antigamey topic not pro. ;-)
This case still doesn't make resizing the normal practice for air units. It's exception and as you wrote gamey exception.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 26
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 8:50:23 PM   
Aurorus

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 5/26/2014
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

I play as Japan and first of all so I am looking for a good solution to limit myself.
And also, when I see ideas like this quoted, I think that we play different games.


I use the larger AVs to resize my Jake floatplane squadrons to size 9. I typically resize the squadrons on CS to "fit the ship." This results in size 10 or 12 squadrons on the CS, which is good, because I like to base 1 squadron of Jakes and 1 squadron of Rufes on my CS. I like 18 A6M2s and 9 DBs on my CVEs, so I will either break down 2 size 27 LBA A6M squadrons to fill 2 CVEs or resize a size 12 A6M squadron on a CVE to size 18. This is all of the resizing of squadrons that I do. Otherwise, I play the game with the squadrons at their original size. This is what I consider to be a "reasonable" use of the resize ability. Others may have different opinions as to what constitutes "reasonable." Again, Japan is limited by supply and heavy industry, so fielding more airplanes does not give Japan the supply needed to fly those airplanes.

< Message edited by Aurorus -- 12/31/2017 8:53:02 PM >

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 27
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 9:08:41 PM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
+1 for resizing style
quote:

Again, Japan is limited by supply and heavy industry, so fielding more airplanes does not give Japan the supply needed to fly those airplanes.

I think that many players don't think about this problem and as I saw don't find this problem.
I think also that supply&hevy industry limit doesn't prevent unrestricted resizing.

(in reply to Aurorus)
Post #: 28
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 12/31/2017 10:08:56 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7586
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
I may veer a bit off topic with this response...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

+1 for resizing style
quote:

Again, Japan is limited by supply and heavy industry, so fielding more airplanes does not give Japan the supply needed to fly those airplanes.

I think that many players don't think about this problem and as I saw don't find this problem.
I think also that supply&hevy industry limit doesn't prevent unrestricted resizing.


It is there (the "problem" of being limited by supply/heavy industry), however it is more nuanced than just "Japan doesn't have enough supply sources to feed all the expanded units" (or buy back lots of dead divisions, etc.).

The supply of supply for Japan is somewhat elastic - there are non-Oil, non-Fuel (and therefore non-Heavy Industry) sources of supply available on the map. There is still a finite amount, but it is less constrained than the straight Oil -> Fuel -> HI -> Supplies chain. That is by far the largest source of supplies, so it gets a lot of emphasis and attention.

However, imagine the following hypothetical scenario. Typically Japan does not run short of supplies until late in the war - 1945 sometime, if properly played. Japan also typically has a glut of Resources (unlike Oil) - many more than the Light and Heavy Industry centers will use. It does need to be trucked/shipped around the map, which does cost Fuel (which in turn constrains HI), but a judicious player should still have a few million extra Resources sitting around in a "normal" game (I never hauled out of Sumatra, for example, which produced 1M+ Resources in 3 years). There have been arguments about whether or not to expand Light Industry, which does not provide a "return" on the supply invested until 1100 days after the expansion. This means the investment will only start to pay off 3 years afterwards and needs to be done as soon as possible (and definitely not after June 1942, probably) or else Japan risks running out of supply during her critical expansion phase. It would also need to be done on a large enough scale to make a difference (say, +2000 LI) - which means that it will need to be done over a multitude of locations. And it also costs 2.2M supply to conduct that expansion, which is what the kids used to call a "buttload." But consider what could happen if Japan were to capture a large stockpile of Allied supply somewhere (300K, say at Colombo or Calcutta or Pearl Harbor) early in the war. Doing so could help buy Japan more units with which to slow down the conquering tide. Supply buys more sandbags.


The -10% efficiency to Japanese refineries is a reason why I'll never play any DBB scenarios that change that ratio without either changing it back or changing it to a 10:10 Oil to Fuel production ratio (instead of 10:9).

(in reply to Anomander Rake)
Post #: 29
RE: Is resizing a gamey? - 1/1/2018 10:57:49 AM   
Anomander Rake

 

Posts: 48
Joined: 3/28/2014
Status: offline
There was a complaint so I can suggest such home rules:
1) programmed resizing is always accepted, of course;
2) player can have resized airgroups to fit ship;
3) one ship can have only one dedicated and resized airgroups or set of resized airgroups or part of resized aigroup (or set of part airgroups);
Small airgroups:
4) 1-2 aircraft airgroups can be changed to ship capacity only;
5) 3+ aircraft airgroups can be always resized to max 12 aircraft and player can use them freely.
Examples for point 3:
CV Kaga - have 3 airgroups we can changed them freely to fit this ship (in any size for each group);
CVE Taiyo - without their own airgroups, so we can transfer on this ships one or more airgoups and resized them to fit this ships or we can resized some aigroups, divded them and transefer to Tayio and others ships.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Is resizing a gamey? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

0.152