Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

About HQs

 
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 >> About HQs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
About HQs - 8/29/2009 1:35:33 AM   
romanovich

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 12/8/2004
From: SoCal
Status: offline
Related to a unit benefiting from prepping for a target:

I believe it was said that the HQ of a unit prepping for an objective needs to be prepping that same target at the time the subordinate unit is carrying out its move on the objective (i.e. disembarks for the invasion, if such was the objective) in order to get the prep bonus.

I didn't think about that too much until I read some entries related to the new beta vs of patch 1:

quote:

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

55. When calculating the bonus for land unit planning for a target, the land unit and its HQs (corps and command) must be planning for same target to get the bonuses.

What Does this mean?
Does this mean that the 14th Army can only have 1 planning target set for the whole 14th Army at one time

As it reads literally, it's even worse. Everything within Southern army only gets a bonus if Southern Army HQ is planning for the same target they are. Is that really what this means? That's quite a change...

Also, does it matter how much prep the command HQ has? Could you have units, at, say 100 prep for various spots and change the command HQ each day to change the unit(s) that get the bonus?

end quote

In light of that - 'the HQ must prep as unit does'-rule would have huge implications. So much for the Japs is Southern Army, for example. Ultimately, most LCUs in the early going report up to HQ Southern Army. How do you have to play that as Jap in order to get the prep bonuses? How does the HQ bonus rule work exactly?

< Message edited by romanovich -- 8/29/2009 1:36:54 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: About HQs - 8/29/2009 4:02:21 AM   
tacfire


Posts: 137
Joined: 12/9/2007
Status: offline
This new rule in the beta patch is concerning me as well, and I would also like to know what it all means.

(in reply to romanovich)
Post #: 2
RE: About HQs - 8/29/2009 7:41:47 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
Bump.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to tacfire)
Post #: 3
RE: About HQs - 8/29/2009 1:03:17 PM   
keeferon01


Posts: 334
Joined: 6/18/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline
I think this is a good rule, I mean how many major objectives can a
HQ plan for at once, take the German offensive on Moscow for example,
Army Group Center and its 50 plus infantry divisions and its 15 Panzer
divisions was all prepped for Moscow , 1 objective ..

_____________________________


(in reply to romanovich)
Post #: 4
RE: About HQs - 8/29/2009 2:03:52 PM   
Dobey455

 

Posts: 441
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline
That's not entirely true.
Although the whole army group would have been given the over-all task of "Take moscow", the individual division ad regimental objectives would not have been "everybody advance to the city centre".

Many of the sub-units would have been prepping to take the avenues of advance (Highways and ridge lines, etc), Some would take the smaller outlier towns and cities on the outskirts of Moscow, others would have been "Break-through" units whose only task was to force a way through the enemy fortification and finally those few divisions that were actually expected to enter Mosocow would have had different objectives within the city.

So although they shared the same over-all campaign object the lower level units would have had their own individual targets and goals that they would have prepared for.

So as the point above makes, the lower level units (Div, Rgts) should be able to plan their own objectives independant of the top level HQ

< Message edited by Dobey -- 8/29/2009 2:07:04 PM >

(in reply to keeferon01)
Post #: 5
RE: About HQs - 8/29/2009 2:30:08 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron James

I think this is a good rule, I mean how many major objectives can a
HQ plan for at once, take the German offensive on Moscow for example,
Army Group Center and its 50 plus infantry divisions and its 15 Panzer
divisions was all prepped for Moscow , 1 objective ..


Yes, the HQ should only be able to plan for one major objective, but the subordinate units should be able to plan for other objectives. They just wouldn't get the assistance of the HQ.

(in reply to keeferon01)
Post #: 6
RE: About HQs - 8/29/2009 2:33:52 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1609
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich

Related to a unit benefiting from prepping for a target:

I believe it was said that the HQ of a unit prepping for an objective needs to be prepping that same target at the time the subordinate unit is carrying out its move on the objective (i.e. disembarks for the invasion, if such was the objective) in order to get the prep bonus.

I didn't think about that too much until I read some entries related to the new beta vs of patch 1:

quote:

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

55. When calculating the bonus for land unit planning for a target, the land unit and its HQs (corps and command) must be planning for same target to get the bonuses.

What Does this mean?
Does this mean that the 14th Army can only have 1 planning target set for the whole 14th Army at one time

As it reads literally, it's even worse. Everything within Southern army only gets a bonus if Southern Army HQ is planning for the same target they are. Is that really what this means? That's quite a change...

Also, does it matter how much prep the command HQ has? Could you have units, at, say 100 prep for various spots and change the command HQ each day to change the unit(s) that get the bonus?

end quote

In light of that - 'the HQ must prep as unit does'-rule would have huge implications. So much for the Japs is Southern Army, for example. Ultimately, most LCUs in the early going report up to HQ Southern Army. How do you have to play that as Jap in order to get the prep bonuses? How does the HQ bonus rule work exactly?


I suspect patch item #55 is meant to read as follows

"55. When calculating the bonus for land units planning for a target, in order for a corps HQ to add its bonus, the corps HQ must be planning for the same target as the LCU and must be in range. In order for a command HQ to add its bonus, the corps HQ and the command HQ must be planning for the same target as the LCU and both HQ's must be in range. In addition, the command HQ may act as a corps HQ and contribute a "corps-level" bonus only if the command HQ is in range and planning for the same target as the LCU, and no corps HQ is in range. LCU's can still prep for different targets than their parent HQ's, they simply will not receive any HQ bonus."

I think the new rule was intended to make it impossible for HQ's to contribute a bonus when they were not also planning for the target in question. I believe as the game originally functioned you would get ridiculous situations like this. Let's imagine the 41st Rgt (25th Army) is prepped for and attacks Malacca. Also in Malacca, but prepped for Singapore are the 25th Army HQ and the Southern Army HQ. Prior to the patch, both HQ's would give bonuses to the 41st Rgt simply because they were within range. The planning targets were irrelevant. The patch was intended to fix this.

I believe that the developers intend the system to work according to my wording above, not the original wording. You're right, the original wording would make it next to impossible for large commands to branch out in multiple directions. The rephrased version makes sense. It would allow individual LCU's to act independently, but they would be unable to get extra help from their HQ's. Corps HQ's could act to improve the function of units in range, but only if the HQ and the LCU are planning for the same target (the corps HQ can only help with one target at a time). Command HQ's could only help corps HQ's if they were also planning for the same target as a corps HQ. Lastly, command HQ's could substitute as corps HQ's when a corps HQ is not in range. All of these effects make sense, and I think/hope it's how the developers intended the rule to operate.

As a bit of an aside, it seems to me that computer-game-related writers very often imply (and do not explicitly state what they mean). Romanovich's understandable confusion is the result.

As a person with many years of science-related writing (professional journals, students' lab reports and such), I've gotten used to people explicitly saying everything they need to say. If something is not explicitly stated, then it is not meant to be conveyed to the reader. There is no assuming. If you intend something to be, say it. Assume nothing, state everything. I wish writers in other fields could follow this guideline. (I know it would add greatly to the length of passages, but at least they would be clear and unambiguous.)

(in reply to romanovich)
Post #: 7
RE: About HQs - 8/29/2009 6:40:19 PM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline
Correct, why should any unit get a ‘HQ PLANNING BONUS’ if said HQ is planning to invade for all we know Mars.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich

Related to a unit benefiting from prepping for a target:

I believe it was said that the HQ of a unit prepping for an objective needs to be prepping that same target at the time the subordinate unit is carrying out its move on the objective (i.e. disembarks for the invasion, if such was the objective) in order to get the prep bonus.

I didn't think about that too much until I read some entries related to the new beta vs of patch 1:

quote:

ORIGINAL: StoneAge

55. When calculating the bonus for land unit planning for a target, the land unit and its HQs (corps and command) must be planning for same target to get the bonuses.

What Does this mean?
Does this mean that the 14th Army can only have 1 planning target set for the whole 14th Army at one time

As it reads literally, it's even worse. Everything within Southern army only gets a bonus if Southern Army HQ is planning for the same target they are. Is that really what this means? That's quite a change...

Also, does it matter how much prep the command HQ has? Could you have units, at, say 100 prep for various spots and change the command HQ each day to change the unit(s) that get the bonus?

end quote

In light of that - 'the HQ must prep as unit does'-rule would have huge implications. So much for the Japs is Southern Army, for example. Ultimately, most LCUs in the early going report up to HQ Southern Army. How do you have to play that as Jap in order to get the prep bonuses? How does the HQ bonus rule work exactly?


I suspect patch item #55 is meant to read as follows

"55. When calculating the bonus for land units planning for a target, in order for a corps HQ to add its bonus, the corps HQ must be planning for the same target as the LCU and must be in range. In order for a command HQ to add its bonus, the corps HQ and the command HQ must be planning for the same target as the LCU and both HQ's must be in range. In addition, the command HQ may act as a corps HQ and contribute a "corps-level" bonus only if the command HQ is in range and planning for the same target as the LCU, and no corps HQ is in range. LCU's can still prep for different targets than their parent HQ's, they simply will not receive any HQ bonus."

I think the new rule was intended to make it impossible for HQ's to contribute a bonus when they were not also planning for the target in question. I believe as the game originally functioned you would get ridiculous situations like this. Let's imagine the 41st Rgt (25th Army) is prepped for and attacks Malacca. Also in Malacca, but prepped for Singapore are the 25th Army HQ and the Southern Army HQ. Prior to the patch, both HQ's would give bonuses to the 41st Rgt simply because they were within range. The planning targets were irrelevant. The patch was intended to fix this.

I believe that the developers intend the system to work according to my wording above, not the original wording. You're right, the original wording would make it next to impossible for large commands to branch out in multiple directions. The rephrased version makes sense. It would allow individual LCU's to act independently, but they would be unable to get extra help from their HQ's. Corps HQ's could act to improve the function of units in range, but only if the HQ and the LCU are planning for the same target (the corps HQ can only help with one target at a time). Command HQ's could only help corps HQ's if they were also planning for the same target as a corps HQ. Lastly, command HQ's could substitute as corps HQ's when a corps HQ is not in range. All of these effects make sense, and I think/hope it's how the developers intended the rule to operate.

As a bit of an aside, it seems to me that computer-game-related writers very often imply (and do not explicitly state what they mean). Romanovich's understandable confusion is the result.

As a person with many years of science-related writing (professional journals, students' lab reports and such), I've gotten used to people explicitly saying everything they need to say. If something is not explicitly stated, then it is not meant to be conveyed to the reader. There is no assuming. If you intend something to be, say it. Assume nothing, state everything. I wish writers in other fields could follow this guideline. (I know it would add greatly to the length of passages, but at least they would be clear and unambiguous.)




_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 8
RE: About HQs - 8/30/2009 1:48:23 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Ahh. That's very, very different.


(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 9
RE: About HQs - 9/19/2009 6:05:57 AM   
morphin

 

Posts: 342
Joined: 4/26/2002
From: Switzerland
Status: offline
So how about the planning level?

Maybe it is good to switch the target of a command HQ shortly before combat for geeting comand HQ bonus?

Andy

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 10
RE: About HQs - 9/19/2009 10:54:43 AM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline
level and target are checked.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to morphin)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> About HQs 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

0.130