Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary)

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/22/2016 11:37:24 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16690
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
This report is made in the context of many test games, including one in which I am forced by technical necessity to examine the details of both sides every (game) day.

It is surprising, but I find I have gone from a harsh critic of the entire concept
to somewhere between toleration and a fan. WHEN the number of points available is appropriately set, AND WHEN players actually use them as they should, the kinds of constraints they impose on player choices are realistic and even fun.

Disclaimer: PP are probably poorly named. One suggestion which I like is to consider them to be "Staff Planning Points." I think that better describes the intended concept.

For context, I will give some values:

Stock Scenario 1 gives both sides 50 pp per day; Japan starts with 500; the Allies start with 100.

Strictly Historical RHS Scenarios give Japan 1000 per day, and just like every day, it starts with 1000. The Allies get 1500 per day, but they only start with 500. That is because the Allies have many more units and officers needing pp; but they start the game at less than wartime readiness.

Japan Enhanced RHS Scenarios give Japan 1500 per day, but it gets a one time bonus to start at 2000. The Allies remain at 1500 per day and 500 to start.

Over time, in response to player feedback and problems indicated by testing,
we have tried values as low as 300 per day, and as high as 3000. It was always clear that the stock values of 50 per day more or less render realistic play impossible. With such values, it is impossible to wait long enough to actually rationalize commands when anything important needs to be changed. It is barely possible to assign appropriate commanders. On the other hand, too many points appear to be able to crash a game! As well, too many points mean players are never constrained in how many units can change commands; everything you want to do is always instant and painless.

I am surprised to report that IF you consistently use political points to "rationalize commands" such that units in fact attacking with a given headquarters actually report to it, and if you also replace commanders when appropriate, you never have more than two days of points in inventory as Japan nor four days as the Allies (in the rare case you didn't use any). As well, on most days, you have only a handful left at the end of the day as Japan, and perhaps a few hundred as the Allies. Both of these comments apply if you NEVER let the Russians use any. If the Russians use any, it tends to limit your options as the Allies. I am not sure that is ideal, but it is tolerable for a day or so.

More surprising still, IF you use pp for both unit command and to insure good leaders in ALL the units in EVERY attack, your forces are more effective. In particular when in terrain difficult to achieve odds in (major urban hexes, mountains, jungle, etc).

I now believe the concept of pp was well formed. The principle problem in implementation was that not enough were made available. For that reason, players tend to ignore them.





< Message edited by el cid again -- 9/22/2016 11:38:49 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/23/2016 8:43:50 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 3890
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
More PPs would work provided PPs were only used for leader changes and unit HQ assignments. However, PPs can also be used for retaining ships and air groups set to withdraw as well as incurring penalties for their use in PTO. If you have too many PPs you can retain many (if not all) ships and air groups set for Europe. This would skew the game in favour of the Allies. One can understand why the devs made the PPs to scarce in stock scenarios - you have to give away those ships and air groups to Europe or you will not have the PPs needed to change leaders or release LCUs.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/23/2016 9:50:59 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
I totally agree. The stock limitation was not realistic. In WitE it was worse (and they understood they had to change the philosophy). With the very limited PPs it was absolutely impossible to simulate the massive use by Stavka of the Strategic Reserves: we are talking about whole armies here, not mere leaders.

In the end, what was possible during the conflict should be possible in the game. End of story.

_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 3
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/23/2016 9:59:26 AM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
Anyways er, let's not forget the Peter Pinciple. Getting rid of all the many incompetents? Realistic or a pipe dream? An army of Robocops may not describe reality after all.



_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 4
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/23/2016 2:22:08 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
I also feel stock WITP (and AE) gave too few points at the beginning...especially considering FDR already had industry on a war footing from 1940 on.

I know how long it takes to train an army, and CONUS had a far greater ability to deploy to either coastline thanks to its' railroads and highway system, (even that early).

Big fan of the many improvements RHS has offered to the game, and its' contributors.
Sid of course has made HUGE contributions both in time and pushing the envelope on theory.



_____________________________




(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 5
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/23/2016 2:59:51 PM   
szmike

 

Posts: 315
Joined: 8/30/2009
Status: offline
It takes about 5 to 6 weeks in stock to release division, it's not prohibitve time imho. Giving more points decreases their value and trade offs start disappearing.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 6
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/23/2016 4:30:32 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3124
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
I hate to be contrary, BUT.... I have to challenge El Cid's disclaimer. El Cid, you state: "PP are probably poorly named. One suggestion which I like is to consider them to be 'Staff Planning Points.' I think that better describes the intended concept." I'm not sure I agree with this. I agree that the majority of instances that use PPs may relate to such mundane things as changing commands (definitely a staffing issue) but there are very important issues involving PPs that reflect very important political considerations, such as taking troops OUT of Singapore before it falls, OR NOT sending in troops before it falls. In reality this was a HUGE political decision and I can not imagine under ANY circumstances where Churchill would have condoned such a decision (let alone Parliament). Others political aspects involve moving troops across national boundaries (such as allowing the Thai troops into neighboring countries or allowing Indian troops to move out of the country). Even a change of command could have political implications, such as the fight between MacArthur and Nimitz over resources. So, in summary, many of the uses of PPs are related to every day staffing functions, but what I could see as strategic PPs are definitely political and to my poor judgement are a far more vital use of them than the day to day running of a unit. This goes to another comment made by Tullius about the "peter principle" and what is "realistic" and what is not.

What about considering breaking PPs into two differing types, Political Points (PPs) and Staffing Points (SPs) and define the limits of use for each? This would allow restrictions on certain activities, while freeing up other activities.

I think you are right El Cid, PPs are an interesting and vital part of the "play" and in my view limit the players from tending toward "all knowing" and thus stretching the realistic aspects of the game beyond credibility (but not playability). However, this is valid only when one values a "realistic" game, which is not for everyone.

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 9/23/2016 4:44:16 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to szmike)
Post #: 7
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/23/2016 5:24:27 PM   
TulliusDetritus


Posts: 5305
Joined: 4/1/2004
From: The Zone™
Status: offline
For all I care -as an AI guy and hardcore historical freak- many units could be totally restricted ie the 32nd and 41st divisions go to MacArthur's army yes or yes.

Some choices should not be possible either. Yes, Churchill wanted the veteran Aussies (the 6th and 7th divisions) to protect the British Empire aka India, and this while Australia was threatened and maybe directly invaded

Politics, and we can't change them. But in PBEM, where players don't have to follow the line, you need these PPs IMHO. Without them it would be like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

Investing Noumea and Port Moresby on december, early january? OK, I am allowed to cheat as well... gimme those PPs, please

< Message edited by TulliusDetritus -- 9/23/2016 5:32:50 PM >


_____________________________

a nu cheeki breeki iv damke

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 8
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/25/2016 1:09:03 PM   
mussey


Posts: 650
Joined: 12/2/2006
From: Cleve-Land
Status: offline
In a nod to Hal what's needed (but unlikely) are two classification:1) true Political Points, 2) Staffing Points. The later to only change Corp/Army/Command unit assignments that are already unrestricted. Unless this could be done, the only way I can think off is to increase the PP's but also create another house rule that the additional points are used only for Staffing purposes.

A good case. After the isolation of Rabaul the SoPac was disbanded/reduced and its assets reassigned, USA and USAAF to SWPAC, USN to CenPac. That's a lot of Staffing Points needed.

< Message edited by mussey -- 9/25/2016 1:42:42 PM >


_____________________________

Col. Mussbu

The long arm of the law - "The King of Battle"


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 9
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/25/2016 3:32:20 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2400
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
The simple fact is that political points was left under-developed to focus on the core mechanics of the game. I'm fine with this. There was great potential, but we have what we have and we need to live with it. Ditto the leaders system.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 10
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/27/2016 9:17:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16690
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
The problem remains: STRICTLY HISTORICAL operations are impossible under the limited numbers of pp issued
in stock (and any mod which preserves that level). You cannot change enough units commands to permit their
transit by sea or use in a different theater of operations.

The solution for cases (which I agree exist) that a unit should never be reassigned are two:

1) Make the unit static (unable to move)

2) Make the command assignment one that a player cannot change by spending political points.

These are sufficient tools to restrict units needing restriction.


quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

For all I care -as an AI guy and hardcore historical freak- many units could be totally restricted ie the 32nd and 41st divisions go to MacArthur's army yes or yes.

Some choices should not be possible either. Yes, Churchill wanted the veteran Aussies (the 6th and 7th divisions) to protect the British Empire aka India, and this while Australia was threatened and maybe directly invaded

Politics, and we can't change them. But in PBEM, where players don't have to follow the line, you need these PPs IMHO. Without them it would be like fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

Investing Noumea and Port Moresby on december, early january? OK, I am allowed to cheat as well... gimme those PPs, please


(in reply to TulliusDetritus)
Post #: 11
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/28/2016 2:40:29 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5670
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: szmike

It takes about 5 to 6 weeks in stock to release division, it's not prohibitve time imho. Giving more points decreases their value and trade offs start disappearing.


Correct.

The devs carefully looked at the pace of PP expenditure and there are sufficient PPs to release every Allied unit on the historical timeframe to their initial historical unrestricted commands.

Players who claim that is impossible are experiencing the repercussions of their own unhistorical meddling. They should not spend 150 PPs to replace Perceval; a rather ironic unhistorical action from players who otherwise insist on AE maintaining 100% fidelity to historical accuracy. Nor should they waste spending PPs to replace air unit leaders, both the historical and randomly generated leaders. Not to overlook those who replace the randomly generated ship leaders. Of course they wouldn't dream of squandering PPs to resurrect destroyed land and air units which historically were never reconstituted.

PPs are sufficient.

Alfred

(in reply to szmike)
Post #: 12
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/30/2016 5:47:31 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 3890
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
I think Allied players mostly grumble about the early part of the war when Japan uses the unhistorical amphibious bonus and the Allies lack the PPs to counteract it.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 13
RE: Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) - 9/30/2016 8:43:37 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3968
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Keep it simple. IMO unrestricting restricted units should always cost 100% PPs (no "shortcuts" for 25% of PPs by reassigning to an unrestricted Air HQ within the chain for example) and changing HQs for unrestricted units should cost nothing. Will keep the limited number of PPs available for the release of units on the historical timeframe and allows to keep the chain of command of unrestricted units "tidy".

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Political Points in AE (Report & Commentary) 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

0.141