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: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or is it?

 
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 >> RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or is it? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/15/2018 1:46:51 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 1972
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The PP system simply wasn't fully fleshed out. It was a nice notion, that could have made a better "comeback mechanic" than the emergency reinforcements, but it has too many sources drawing from it to be an effective gameplay mechanic. Separating the points needed to change leaders and to move units between commands would have been a good step, as it would still have made nice dilemmas for the early war (do I replace Percival or all the USN sub captains?) without being silly (Percival costs as many PP's as a British brigade).

At least that way there would be a given capita of points for buying out units vs leaders, and no a continual drain.




I agree the PP system is a blunt force tool. There are many ways it could be improved, but the primary wish of mine is for it to ramp up over time for the Allies. If it really is "political" points then the daily ration should not be the same on 12/8/41 as 1/1/45. And assigning leaders, as you say more or less, should not involve the same type of decision as changing a major HQ's chain of command.


The elegant solution IMO would have been to tie VP production with the VP ratio and control of certain key bases as well as the date. That way, an Allied player who has lost Hawaii and is losing badly on VP's can buy out units left, right and centre to effect a comeback, while on the opposite side of the table the IJ player would struggle to find the VP's to buy out additional units.

I think that PP's have a role to play, as all the Allied AV on the board on Dec 7th, if deployed against Japan, could easily steamroll them. I just wish it was a bit more granular.


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 31
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/15/2018 3:23:36 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

If you buy two units now at 50% instead of one later at 100% for the same PP price, you have two unrestricted divisions once they reach 100% instead of one. So can steamroll Japan back towards the home islands more effectively and thus faster - and that was the point the OP tried to make about the pace of the game. Btw he asks for the same rule be applied for Japan, which impacts the use of destroyed units repurchased which arrive restricted. So the proposed HR impacts both sides - no need to cry "foul play" - and may slow down the fast-paced game.


I have bolded the relevant portion you are seeking to hand-wave away.

Without consulting the beginning Allied OOB (it's complicated, and different issues by nation), IF you had two units that were "cheap" to buy-out of restricted status they would be cheap due to being well under 100% TOE. So you can spend fewer PPs buying them crippled. True. But then you have to make them useful. Devices flow into Allied pools at set rates; they cannot be accelerated. This is entirely different than the system used for Japan in the game design. So you can have two unrestricted LCUs for the price of one 100% LCU (let's say), but the two are weak in devices (also experience and probably leadership versus Japan of this era, but forget that for now.)

So you rush these two LCU forward into the war zone. Say you plunk one down on Suva and one on Adak. Fine. You have "rushed" Japan as the OP fears. What happens then? They sit there crippled for a LONG time because the Allies can't afford the supply piles and leaders on those islands that would maximize device pulls from the pools as would happen optimally at San Francisco or LA. No free lunch. Japan, using the amphib bonus, can land a 70 EXP ID on either island without prep and whack those two sad IDs with 40 EXP, and cause the Allies to have to buy them back, AND use 100% new devices from limited pools to rebuild from scratch. Still with low EXP.

As Andy Mac says in the thread linked to above, re the 41st Div., a decision was made in stock to allow some early buy-outs so the Allied player has the option of taking the risk I describe. It's not a free pass. And it's not as if there are hundreds and hundreds of loose PPs floating around available to buy out even crippled large LCUs. But the option is there.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 32
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/15/2018 3:30:21 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The elegant solution IMO would have been to tie VP production with the VP ratio and control of certain key bases as well as the date. That way, an Allied player who has lost Hawaii and is losing badly on VP's can buy out units left, right and centre to effect a comeback, while on the opposite side of the table the IJ player would struggle to find the VP's to buy out additional units.

I think that PP's have a role to play, as all the Allied AV on the board on Dec 7th, if deployed against Japan, could easily steamroll them. I just wish it was a bit more granular.




In other Grigsby games holding key bases does impact turn-by-turn resources. I believe War in the West has some of this. It's certainly true in the US psyche that losing Hawaii, or a landing in CONUS, would have pegged public opinion and led to an infinite supply of "political" will to do whatever was necessary.

A lot of ways you could adjust the current PP system if you could get into the EXE, without re-writing the whole thing. I'd be OK with just allowing at-will swaps of ship, LCU, and air unit COs for free. Those were command decisions, not political in any way. Unless you wanted to sack Mac.

As far as Allied AV on 12/7, I'd disagree. There's no supply where a huge amount of that AV lives (China), and no sealift to take the white restricted USA forces where they could fight. The IJN was better on that day than the USN. Certainly the air balance, both in model design and pilot experience, was also on Japan's side. The main advantage the Allies have in those early months is simply distance between targets. And even then the losses are in the hundreds of thousands of men and devices.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/15/2018 3:32:52 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 33
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/16/2018 1:50:26 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 6277
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: online
[/quote]


I think that PP's have a role to play, as all the Allied AV on the board on Dec 7th, if deployed against Japan, could easily steamroll them. I just wish it was a bit more granular.


[/quote]



On Dec. 7 the Allies have more things to defend than they have troops to defend them. Sure, if an Allied player single mindedly concentrates what little he has in one loacale he can disrupt the Japanese advance in that locale while leavingv his pants down everywhere else.


How is that any different than the flexibility the Japanese player has to concentarte what he wants to take what he wants?

Why should only one side have this flexibility?



And further more, you all continually overlook the fact that US divisions start or enter at or near full TOE.

There simply aren't any US divisions that can be bought out at 25% TOE like can be done with a handful of 40 experience Indian divisions.


< Message edited by HansBolter -- 9/16/2018 1:51:19 PM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 34
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/16/2018 7:53:07 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1470
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
My take on this is that fixed PP cost for LCUs could've been implemented like it was for the airgroups, but the devs chose not to.
Mainly because it is not easy to gamble the system.
Also, the devs chose understrength (hence cheaper) LCUs to arrive, and not full (and expensive) accompanied by the reduction in device replacement rate

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 35
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/17/2018 10:00:19 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
Well I can see there's more to discuss here, and I've things to add, but limited time today so I'll try tomorrow.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 36
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/18/2018 11:10:50 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3789
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
The Japanese player has the flexibility to concentrate 12 divisions and division-equivalents on Dec. 07 "to take what he wants" because - well, those units WERE allocated to the Southern operation IRL, so they are unrestricted in the game.

With these assets, the Japanese can take any location they want early in the war, but they cannot take every location they want.

They should be enough to capture the historic perimeter and some more, either a part of India, or a part of Australia, or some islands in the deep South Pacific, maybe even Hawaii or Portland if the Japanese player is daring and good.

So the issue regarding Japanese conquering more in the game than IRL is not a question of PPs, but of garrison requirements within the historic perimeter.


On the US side, only three divisions were deployed in the PTO on Dec. 07. Four more arrived within six months (Americal, 41st, 32nd, 27th). The problem is that some units sent to the PTO were assigned guard duty on the West Coast before being released for overseas duty (like the 7th, 27th and 41st Divs). So either you place the units on the map on Dec 07 but restricted, or you place them on the map unrestricted on the historic date they were ordered to deploy overseas.

In the first case you will have to face the dreaded PP system, in the latter case the WC will be weakly defended early in the war and may invite Japanese invasions like the "Portland Gambit" to destroy the industry assets and shipbuilding queue.

But if you put them on the map on Dec 07 unrestricted "for equal flexibility", you do injustice to the Japanese players because they only get what was actually assigned to the Southern Op on Dec. 07 while the Allies would get a "head-start" with unrestricted divisions which were NOT (yet) assigned for overseas deployment.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/18/2018 11:27:35 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 37
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/18/2018 11:26:20 AM   
btd64


Posts: 5352
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
That makes good sense. Thanks LST....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 38
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/18/2018 1:22:49 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The Japanese player has the flexibility to concentrate 12 divisions and division-equivalents on Dec. 07 "to take what he wants" because - well, those units WERE allocated to the Southern operation IRL, so they are unrestricted in the game.

With these assets, the Japanese can take any location they want early in the war, but they cannot take every location they want.

They should be enough to capture the historic perimeter and some more, either a part of India, or a part of Australia, or some islands in the deep South Pacific, maybe even Hawaii or Portland if the Japanese player is daring and good.

So the issue regarding Japanese conquering more in the game than IRL is not a question of PPs, but of garrison requirements within the historic perimeter.


On the US side, only three divisions were deployed in the PTO on Dec. 07. Four more arrived within six months (Americal, 41st, 32nd, 27th). The problem is that some units sent to the PTO were assigned guard duty on the West Coast before being released for overseas duty (like the 7th, 27th and 41st Divs). So either you place the units on the map on Dec 07 but restricted, or you place them on the map unrestricted on the historic date they were ordered to deploy overseas.

In the first case you will have to face the dreaded PP system, in the latter case the WC will be weakly defended early in the war and may invite Japanese invasions like the "Portland Gambit" to destroy the industry assets and shipbuilding queue.

But if you put them on the map on Dec 07 unrestricted "for equal flexibility", you do injustice to the Japanese players because they only get what was actually assigned to the Southern Op on Dec. 07 while the Allies would get a "head-start" with unrestricted divisions which were NOT (yet) assigned for overseas deployment.


RE 41st Division. Let's apply some countervailing facts here. (I'm in a hurry, so terse. Sorry.)

The 41st was not held for six months. Arrived in OZ in April 1942 I believe.

And, for the screenshot, you can see that the 41st on 12/7/41 in a stock game is worthless, restricted or unrestricted. It has to be held on the WC to build out. And build out with 1941 devices and at pre-war experience levels.

What's the buy-out? 1222 PPs. At it's current, crippled status. The Allies have 150 PPs on Dec. 8. So you either save for a month, spending no PPs on other critical needs, or you get a fleshed out 41st on the historical date at full PPs, roughly double the 12/8 PP price. There's no free lunch.

As always , I care not that much about the early game stuff. People argue about it endlessly because they play the early game over and over. I care a lot more for 1943-44 US Army IDs that arrive restricted at 3000 PP prices. Why? They were going overseas. It was programmed. There was no WC defense mission. Yet the scenarios continue to punish the Allies on a PP basis all along.

In the game I handed off to obvert I had less than 300 PPs in December 1944 and was still trying to buy out LCIUs. In conversations with Lokasenna I knew he had many, many thousands of PPs and nothing really to do with them. Late-war PPs are not balanced against stock restricted states.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/18/2018 1:24:09 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 39
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/18/2018 1:37:13 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5352
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
I have found thru experimentation that 100 PP's per day works better. I like round numbers so 150 seemed to be just a little to much and 50 way to little. Over 200 is just way to much.
But with 100 points you have some flexibility....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 40
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/18/2018 2:38:59 PM   
szmike

 

Posts: 314
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline
The easiest, but maybe not from programming view, would be to make unrestricted units free to change HQ.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 41
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/18/2018 3:10:01 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3789
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I didn't say that 41st was held for six months, just that the unit was assigned to WC defense before being sent overseas.

I'm well aware of the deployment dates of the US Army divisions:

Philippine - Luzon 1941
24th - Hawaii Is. garrison 1941
25th - Hawaii IS. garrison 1941

23rd (Amercial) - main elements embarked Jan 23, 1942 at EC; arrived Melbourne Feb 27; moved to New Caledonia 12 March 1942 (division formally activated on NC)
41st - WC defense 1941; alerted for overseas duty Feb 42; arrived Australia April 1942
32nd - alerted for ETO Jan 42; switched to PTO March 1942; arrived Australia May 1942
27th - WC defense 1941; moved to Hawaii May 1942
37th - arrived Fiji June 1942
40th - WC defense 1941; arrived Hawaii Sept 1942
43rd - arrived New Zealand Oct 1942

7th - WC defense 1941; amphib training for Attu May 1943
33rd - moved to Hawaii July 1943
1st Cav - arrived Australia July 1943
6th - moved to Hawaii July/Aug 1943

38th - arrived Hawaii Jan 1944
93rd - arrived Guadalcanal Jan 1944
31st - moved to New Guinea March 1944
77th - arrived Hawaii March 1944
98th - arrived Hawaii April 1944
11th AB - arrived New Guinea May 1944
81st - arrived Hawaii June/July 1944
96th - arrived Hawaii July 1944

I'm also not defending the existing PP system or the restriction or non-restriction of certain units.

I'm just pointing out the historical situation and the choices a scenario designer is facing.

In my Bottlenecks mod, the US Army divisions that deployed to the PTO are all unrestricted - but they arrive "late" i.e. on the date they deployed overseas. The mod is made for "historic" players so I count on their "moral restraint" not to exploit the weakness of the early WC defenses with unrealistic trans-oceanic invasions.

The designers of the official scenarios made a different choice - maybe because they have to reckon with the "anything goes" type of players which would embark on unrealistic ventures which exploit the game engine in order to gain an advantage.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/18/2018 3:55:36 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 42
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/19/2018 2:27:01 AM   
DesertedFox


Posts: 185
Joined: 8/3/2004
Status: offline
Interesting discussion.

Firstly, an aside, I like LST’s new mod and the ideas behind it.

However, allowing “our assumed political thinking” of the time to dictate what players should or shouldn’t do for me is very wrong, especially if it is applied to one side only. This game is about both sides are given an OOB and do with it what you will. House rules such as paying PP’s to cross borders for restricted troops etc are not only fine, but indeed necessary for balancing purposes.

A long, long time ago I was playing the board game “War in the Pacific” as the allies. My opponent wanted a HR to not allow any deployment of American troops to India. He of course was allowed to deploy more Japanese divisions to that theatre than they did historically, which would allow him to not only completely trash the British forces there, but waltz into and conquer India.

The same can be said of this excellent game. The Japanese have a large number of divisions available to them to deploy as he sees fit. Should he deploy most of these against Burma/India, the British, without extra assistance would crumble. One could argue “Whilst the cats away the mice will play” and the US could start an early offensive in the Pacific region. That is of course if the KB has been defeated, which usually it hasn’t at this stage of the war. I don’t believe the KB is necessary to help an invasion of India in any case. However, if it is, once the Japanese are firmly established in India, it could return to the Pacific.

Basically, I am against political house rules that restrict the strategic range that this game gives us.
Good players make their opponent react to their initiatives, but their opponent's reaction shouldn’t be hamstrung by perceived political house rules, only material assets, and the game mechanics.



< Message edited by DesertedFox -- 9/19/2018 2:29:06 AM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 43
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/19/2018 11:08:36 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64

I have found thru experimentation that 100 PP's per day works better. I like round numbers so 150 seemed to be just a little to much and 50 way to little. Over 200 is just way to much.
But with 100 points you have some flexibility....GP


I played an AI GC with 75 and that seemed enough for me. I don't play with PPs to cross borders though; that is an additional burden on the budget. IMO, 50 is just too low to play the game as it was designed to be played when CO swaps consume so many.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 44
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/19/2018 11:24:25 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11298
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I didn't say that 41st was held for six months, just that the unit was assigned to WC defense before being sent overseas.

...

I'm just pointing out the historical situation and the choices a scenario designer is facing.

In my Bottlenecks mod, the US Army divisions that deployed to the PTO are all unrestricted - but they arrive "late" i.e. on the date they deployed overseas. The mod is made for "historic" players so I count on their "moral restraint" not to exploit the weakness of the early WC defenses with unrealistic trans-oceanic invasions.

The designers of the official scenarios made a different choice - maybe because they have to reckon with the "anything goes" type of players which would embark on unrealistic ventures which exploit the game engine in order to gain an advantage.


I'll ignore that last swipe because I read what Andy Mac wrote in the linked thread up-thread, and he describes his trade-off dilemma as to date/PPs.

I know you were using an average when you said "six months." I was only seeking to show that the 41st, given PP constraints and a 2-4 week transit to an operating base in the PTO, can't be on-line in even a crippled state much before it historically was on-line.

I just spent some time noodling around in a fresh Scen 1 Dec. 8 turn to refresh my memory. I looked at all of the 1942 US Army yellow restricted units. All arrive between 33-50% disabled. So my previous contention that pool fill rates are the bottleneck isn't really true. There are some device holes, but the squads are there, although disabled. The PP costs to buy out vary, but are mostly in the 1200-1500 PP range AS IS. This last is important since the PP cost will increase as the devices heal. That rate will be variable even in CONUS bases, so it's impossible to say how much each unit will cost once the PP budget fills out enough to try a buy-out. At 1500 PP/month best-case (no PPs are spent on anything else, which IMO is almost fatal to the air effort in the first six months) you can buy out one US Army division, in a less than 100% TOE state, by late January to early February 1942. Then you can start on the second, which would be mid-March or so at best, before transit time.

To return to the OP's concern, which is how this all started, it simply isn't possible to "rush" the PTO with early unrestricted US LCUs. This was by design, per Andy Mac's post. Where the OP goes off the rails IMO in an HR proposal, is to require the Allied player to hold LCUs back that he has paid for, until they heal to some specified level. The healing rate can't really be affected by the player, except to provide supply and leadership and to stay out of malaria zones (I think)--it's under-the-hood stuff. But the current OOB allows the Allied player to make the decision to chance it, to send a partially-healed division forward as soon as the PPs can be raised. This is very risky since their experience levels are generally 40ish and they have pre-war devices with terrible anti-hard ratings and few organic engineers. But the game allows that choice, as it should. To allow an opponent to reach into units and demand they sit for an unspecified time is an abuse. You play yours and I'll play mine.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/19/2018 11:30:08 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 45
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/19/2018 4:16:24 PM   
Macclan5


Posts: 778
Joined: 3/24/2016
From: Toronto Canada
Status: offline
Again I do not want to weigh in and aggravate opinions.

However I think we are discussing different issues and different points of view.

1) Game Mechanics

Perfect or imperfect they are what they are.

They allow both the Japanese player and the Allied player some advantages to "super cede historical results"; however there are costs /points/ trade offs with any such move.

Debating the mechanics is unnecessary because the game engine is unlikely to change.

Bullwinkle / Hans / many others have answered the question about mechanics.

2) The Historic

It cannot be one sided. It is for both players to take advantage of the mechanics as they see fit.

If an Allied player chooses to manage Political Points judiciously and buy out restricted units to contest historic Japanese conquests - then it is.

If the Japanese player decides to optimize their aircraft production to remain competitive in the air war in 1945 - then it is.

The bottom line is:

As a Japanese player you cannot and should not expect the Allied Player / AI / whatever to historically and accurately play Allied Constraints if you are unwilling to play historic constraints as a Japanese Player.

Furthermore visa verse ..Allied Player no constraints Japanese Player constraints


I.E. (i) The Allied fear of a west coast landing and debate / reserve of troops on the west coast. (ii) The Europe first strategy which King supported but demanded clarity and more assets for the Pacific (iii) the Australian debate to protect the home front as opposed to troops supporting British Imperial Aims (iv) the fledgling Indian Independence movement and sympathy with Japanese anti colonial rhetoric. etc etc etc

I.E. (i) Japanese Naval / Army rivalry which not only prevented optimization of aircraft production but actually led to competing and secret projects working side by side within the same factory (ii) The Imperial Council debate about an Invasion of Ceylon (iii) the Imperial Council debate about an invasion of Australia (iv) the outright lies / omissions by the Imperial Japanese Navy after the losses at Midway in keeping the Government and Army informed. etc etc etc

To demand an opponent of any sort "conform" to your expectations of a good game based 'loosely upon' historic constraints is an one sided game, unfair and in my opinion not very sporting.

Its a game. Play to be challenged.



< Message edited by Macclan5 -- 9/19/2018 4:23:52 PM >


_____________________________

A People that values its privileges above it's principles will soon loose both. Dwight D Eisenhower.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 46
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/19/2018 4:30:07 PM   
Veloz


Posts: 276
Joined: 8/27/2018
Status: offline
Foxy

< Message edited by Veloz -- 9/19/2018 4:59:09 PM >


_____________________________

sicnt est pecunia Provis num; zeke

(in reply to Macclan5)
Post #: 47
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/19/2018 9:37:06 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
Once again I've spent too much time here on other things and must now leave. Add to that my list of inputs/comments has risen. Aren't ya' all lucky. I'll try again next time.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Veloz)
Post #: 48
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 6:11:01 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
Grrrrrrrr.... Kicked off while responding. Shoot, sucks to be me...

Anyway here we go again. OK, had to re-read everything to get back up to speed.

quote:

As well as B-29 squadrons with COs in the 20 on Air.


Japan has the same problems, including a couple of lousy air leaders on her starting CV's. To believe that every unit in the game should have an optimal leader is rather naive. Especially when on considers that you only know a 'good' leader once he's been tested. Now the game OTOH tells us who the 'good' leaders are. I have many leaders in my games that are just 'good enough'.

Heck I haven't even looked at naval leaders beneath a BB commander. I wouldn't have the PP's to spend changing lower leaders anyway. If a player spends PP's to optimize every little unit in the game, she/he deserves to have their best ID's stuck on the US WC.



_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 49
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 6:31:22 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
Went looking for something, and couldn't find it. Oh well.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 50
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 6:50:16 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

If you add on paying PPs to cross borders your proposal would hamstring the Allied effort until well into 1943,


Well I really couldn't address that, because I haven't played the Allies. I can however tell you it would be devastating for China.

To not pay PP's to cross borders would effectively release all Japanese forces in Manchukuo, at least up to the 8000 AV limit. One of the real limiting factors to a Japanese early overrun of China is her lacking enough units to clean up everywhere at once. Manchukuo makes that a moot point. If I could get the roughly 10 ID's, armor, AAA, engineer, and AS battalions that simply 'sit' in Manchukuo into China on day one I could go through that country, "Like crap through a goose".

From there its straight into Burma, and India in turn. All w/o spending a single PP. Its the one scenario where I could see the Japanese being able to conquer the Asian sub-continent.

In addition to that I can see the opportunity to 'buy' out reduced units in the China fighting, thus having the option to deploy these as I see fit to oppose my opponents' counter moves.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 51
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 7:12:14 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

The PP system simply wasn't fully fleshed out.


Looks that way.

quote:

it has too many sources drawing from it to be an effective gameplay mechanic. Separating the points needed to change leaders and to move units between commands would have been a good step,


Sounds good, although we'll never see it.

quote:

On the subject of house rules, they're a crutch.


Disagree. The code does have its limitations, and other things may not sit well with certain players. I see HR's simply as two like minded players making adjustments as they see fit. Do it or not doesn't matter to me. You 'pays your money, you plays your game' as you like.

quote:

do I replace Percival
quote:

all the USN sub captains


Things like this, and buying out Dutch units, among other things, used to bother me a bit. Not any more as I've become more familiar with the game. What does bother me is Allied players that do such things and then cry foul that their ID's are stuck on the WC of the USA. My answer to that is to simply spend those PP's wisely. I myself am very stingy with what I spend them on. Heck I haven't even looked at a naval commander lower than a BB captain, because I know I don't have the points to make a change anyway.

quote:

If you were to have a house rule for every time the game threw a wobbler, you'd have a document bigger than the game manual.


Maybe I will. I already call mine 'The Book of HR's', but that's really a misnomer. Its simply me putting things down so I can find a like minded player. In all but a few instances that player would more likely say 'I don't do that anyway so no big deal'.





< Message edited by rustysi -- 9/25/2018 7:25:50 PM >


_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 52
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 7:25:00 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

I agree the PP system is a blunt force tool. There are many ways it could be improved, but the primary wish of mine is for it to ramp up over time for the Allies. If it really is "political" points then the daily ration should not be the same on 12/8/41 as 1/1/45. And assigning leaders, as you say more or less, should not involve the same type of decision as changing a major HQ's chain of command.


I can get on board with this statement. While I like the concept of the PP system, its implementation in the game is lacking.

I do see it as a way to 'control things', but to me it has severe limits. And I get it, the Dev's only had so much time and effort that they could expend on the project.

Its kinda like the old Civil War games if you think about it some. I don't know how many here attempted to play those, but if you remember they use to limit the Union player from moving all of his forces by rolling a die. Forces ending on hex numbers ending in the die roll couldn't move. Lousy system, but the only way at the time to limit the Union from using far superior numbers to simply over-run the South. That all changed when Victory Games used a variably timed turn limit to run things. Still the best Civil War game I've ever played, board or computer.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 53
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 7:47:02 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

If you buy two units now at 50% instead of one later at 100% for the same PP price, you have two unrestricted divisions once they reach 100% instead of one. So can steamroll Japan back towards the home islands more effectively and thus faster - and that was the point the OP tried to make about the pace of the game.


Thanks, until this statement I thought I had somehow spoken a different language when I made my initial post.

quote:

Btw he asks for the same rule be applied for Japan, which impacts the use of destroyed units repurchased which arrive restricted.


This may be a little off the mark of what I had in mind. While I would apply the rule to both sides, and even possibly at a different level as I've said above, I wouldn't ask a player on either side to pay full price for the same unit twice. You may think this might favor Japan, but if you look at another recent post I linked a thread where PaxMondo pointed out its very costly for Japan to reinstate ID's due to their cost, and her limited ARM points. From my perspective and his costs I estimate this as maybe 3-4 ID's, and that maybe too much. BTW that cost is 100k supply and 100k ARM points per/ID. I may have suppply to do a few more, but as of Feb. '43 I only have 200k ARM points, and I figure I need those for reinforcements and replacements.

quote:

Fully agree though that the PP system could be improved.


I think we could all agree on that.

quote:

US Army and even Marines plus the entire US carrier fleet and sizeable US surface assets in the Indian Ocean and Burma in his counterattack. As a result I will lose Palembang in 02/1944. IRL the US government was strongly opposed to the use of US assets to reconquer the colonial possessions of their Allies, so the use of massed US assets in the IO is pretty unrealistic,


Couldn't agree more.

quote:

There is nothing wrong with using HRs. They are not intended to tie hands but to add some realism, which IMO isn't a bad thing in a history game. If someone wants a game with HRs he just needs to find an opponent with the same mindset. Same if you want a "no restrictions" game.


Same feelings here.





_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 54
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 8:15:06 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

So you rush these two LCU forward into the war zone. Say you plunk one down on Suva and one on Adak. Fine. You have "rushed" Japan as the OP fears. What happens then?


OK, fair enough, but I'll give you another scenario. Say you 'rush' those units to say Pearl. Even in their reduced state they could probably hold any Japanese invasion of PH with her other defenses off for an extended period, not that Japan could spend that much time there anyway. IOW her conquest would need to be swift, or at her peril. Now what, PH has two good ID's stationed there? Move these forward. It you don't think these could interfere with Japan's initial expansion, all I can say is try to play Japan.

In addition to that those forward ID's will 'flesh out' in Pearl just as well as the WC of the USA. I'm sure you'll have plenty of support and supply there to assist their 'recovery'. Japan can't effectively do any such thing. To 'flesh' out her reinforcements at a forward base is counter-productive. The main reason is fuel. Supply has to be transported to the location, and for Japan that means fuel. IOW to transport the supply to a forward base to 'flesh' out units=fuel, and that's not a cost that Japan can afford. Therefore all her reinforcements that come in 'understrength' need to be 'fleshed' out at home.

Now the same is true for the Allies, but who cares. She swims in fuel, and has enough supply for all and then some. Yeah, yeah, you can say its difficult to get forward. To that I respond for what two, maybe three months. Even with that I'm sure it'll be possible to get it to critical areas, say between the US and Australia with some proper planning in a reasonable amount of time.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 55
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 8:21:37 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

And further more, you all continually overlook the fact that US divisions start or enter at or near full TOE.


Wrong. At least according to this...

quote:

I just spent some time noodling around in a fresh Scen 1 Dec. 8 turn to refresh my memory. I looked at all of the 1942 US Army yellow restricted units. All arrive between 33-50% disabled.


And that's exactly the time frame I'm most concerned with. Even though they're 'relatively weak' they can still have a large effect on Japan's expansion. Maybe only they 'need' to be restricted for a while? Don't know.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 56
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 8:45:38 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

A long, long time ago I was playing the board game “War in the Pacific” as the allies. My opponent wanted a HR to not allow any deployment of American troops to India. He of course was allowed to deploy more Japanese divisions to that theatre than they did historically, which would allow him to not only completely trash the British forces there, but waltz into and conquer India.


Looks to me like your opponent knew what he was doing. 'Playing' you to 'win his game'. I find a new opponent, as my intent is to never do such a thing. If I found something I asked for to be tilting the game too much I would do my best to remedy the situation with my opponent. BTW that doesn't include adjusting something just because I'm winning, as long as I'm winning justly.

quote:

The Japanese have a large number of divisions available to them to deploy as he sees fit.


Pure fantasy. (Of course that depends on what you call a 'large number')

quote:

Should he deploy most of these against Burma/India, the British, without extra assistance would crumble.


I currently have ten divisions on the Burma front. I have crossed across the border slightly against the AI, and the British front has not crumbled as yet. The AI has thrown quite a few of those 'poor' units against me, and I defeated them all. But their sacrifice was not in vain, as it has delayed my efforts. That said I'm sure it would delay his counter-attack some. Maybe to an historical time-frame. All I'm looking for. Besides even if I wiped out his forces opposing me, I doubt I could take India with ten divisions.

BTW, if you think Japan could put more than ten divisions against India in a scenario one game I invite you to play Japan and show me. Which if you do as a Japanese player I'll know you've nothing elsewhere and I as an Allied player I will in fact overrun the rest of your Empire.

quote:

One could argue “Whilst the cats away the mice will play” and the US could start an early offensive in the Pacific region. That is of course if the KB has been defeated, which usually it hasn’t at this stage of the war.


True, but you understand that by the time I identify your push into India I will have a much better fleet. Say mid-42. At that time I wouldn't fear opposing Japan's carriers if I had to because I know the a one-for-one trade of carriers is doom for Japan. So even if all I have is Enterprise against Japan (as happened IRL for a while) I know I will win as long as I've traded my carriers for yours.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 57
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/25/2018 8:55:30 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 4873
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
And I/we could go on with this discussion ad nauseam, if we haven't already.

To really attempt to do something like this would take a lot of time to play-test it to see if:

1) It could work.

2) Be reasonable to both sides.

3) And above all. Is it really necessary? Probably not.

That's time I can't invest at the moment, although I wish I could.

Anyway, I would really like to sincerely thank all who participated in my 'fantasy'. Of course feel free to make further comments if you choose.

Ciao

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 58
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/26/2018 5:41:32 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3905
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

That all changed when Victory Games used a variably timed turn limit to run things. Still the best Civil War game I've ever played, board or computer.



Best ever. I still have that around somewhere.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 59
RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or... - 9/27/2018 3:42:07 PM   
brian800000

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 9/15/2010
Status: offline
Not a veteran player, but you get the 6th and 7th Australian divisions as unrestricted units. This was definitely not the case in the real war--but I understand why it is necessary from a gameplay perspective. Considering this, isn't it somewhat fair that the Allies are somewhat hamstrung regarding PP early in the war?

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Political Points (PP). Full price is full price. Or is it? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.169