Quesions about possible HQ rearrangement in CHS

[el cid again]

I would also be in favor of a mod that had reinforcements arrive as West Coast or Home Island (or whatever the IJ HQ is), with an appropriate amount of PP added to move them to an appropriate (in the mind of the player) HQ. The same should apply to various other Allied units - some NZ and Aussie untis come to mind - that are currently part of the general allied effort. Instead of coming in for say, SoPac, they should come in to NZ and Aus respectively, with PP's available to reassign tehm to an appropriate command.

This defeats the intent of the scenario design.

It is more of a free play scenario. I propose to do that when we have the Matrix-like scenarios right. It is a completely different game. It will result in radically different play. What word would best indicate a scenario of this sort?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I would also be in favor of a mod that had reinforcements arrive as West Coast or Home Island (or whatever the IJ HQ is), with an appropriate amount of PP added to move them to an appropriate (in the mind of the player) HQ. The same should apply to various other Allied units - some NZ and Aussie untis come to mind - that are currently part of the general allied effort. Instead of coming in for say, SoPac, they should come in to NZ and Aus respectively, with PP's available to reassign tehm to an appropriate command.

This defeats the intent of the scenario design.

Now that I have been thinking about it, I am thinking this could be a interesting possibility. It would put the allocation of US land/air resources in the Pacific wholly in the hands of the player, rather than having it pre-ordained to a certain extent. I don't know if it agree that it defeats the intent of the scenario design, but it would make the game a bit different.

Is there anyone else who thinks such an arrangement would be a good idea? or a bad idea? If implemented it would also require a bit of work, determining the PP cost of all the LCUs and airgroups that should be available for reassignent, and from that calculating how many additional PPs to give the players per day.

Andrew

[el cid again]

Is there anyone else who thinks such an arrangement would be a good idea? or a bad idea? If implemented it would also require a bit of work, determining the PP cost of all the LCUs and airgroups that should be available for reassignent, and from that calculating how many additional PPs to give the players per day.

I want Japan free to invade Hawaii - it planned for such an op since 1910 -
and similar things. It would nicely permit the Allies to balance such unorthodox options. I like it myself. But just proposing increasing pp causes objections - so I think we need to give players a Matrix like set of choices - then do this one for the more free thinkers.

[witpqs]

Andrew,

I thought I should add the reason I think it's a good idea.

The current state, with LCU's being allocated to specific areas, is based entirely on how the war proceeded IRL.

The problem with that in the game is that players can make radically different choices, and certainly have different luck. Just a quick and dirty example, if Japan laid seige to Pearl Harbor, why would all those units get assigned to South Pacific area right off the bat? Answer: they wouldn't.

That's why I favor this idea.

El Cid,

I disagree that this idea defeats the intent of the scenario's design. Rather, I think it's right in line with it - strategic choices to the player. The part about PP's is so that players are somewhat constrained after they make that initial assignment (from the home area to a front line command), as I believe they realistically would be.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Andrew,

I thought I should add the reason I think it's a good idea.

The current state, with LCU's being allocated to specific areas, is based entirely on how the war proceeded IRL.

The problem with that in the game is that players can make radically different choices, and certainly have different luck. Just a quick and dirty example, if Japan laid seige to Pearl Harbor, why would all those units get assigned to South Pacific area right off the bat? Answer: they wouldn't.

That's why I favor this idea.

And I agree with the reasoning. However although it is an interesting idea I would take a lot more convincing before changing CHS along these lines, as it is a major change. Perhaps a scenario variant using this setup can be prepared and tested to see how it works in-game? I would be interested on testing it myself if I get the chance.

Andrew

[JeffroK]

1 good idea every 150 posts, going good.

They basis to my thougts.

Units which arrive at "San Francisco" still under the control of G C Marshall.

Depending on the vagaries of the war they decide to allocate resources to the needy areas. SW Pac might need some Engineers & Air Power, the counter offensive through wake might want some Marine Divs, Carriers & Amphibs.

If I decide to ship 9 Aus Div to join in the assault, quality manpower is at a premium, I either spend the PP or suffer a substantial penalty (This is one of my House rules, a reasonable allocation and area of operation of units)

The Japanese have the same abilities, if they want to commit all to the Drive on India so be it, if they ship in some SNLF from Truk they have the same options.

This would also stop mass rebasing of aircraft, still allowing flexibilty without going to extreme.

If we are not playing at this "Strategic" level, what are we. I prefer to be Marshall or King rather than the head of the Personnel Dept deciding who is driving the DE or leading the fighter Squadrons (I would also limit commaders to Division or Higher, DD & larger War Ships, how many slots are used up by the dross, is the 80/20 rule in place?)

[el cid again]

I disagree that this idea defeats the intent of the scenario's design. Rather, I think it's right in line with it - strategic choices to the player. The part about PP's is so that players are somewhat constrained after they make that initial assignment (from the home area to a front line command), as I believe they realistically would be.

For the record, I DISAGREE with the designer's intent. The basic idea for Scenario 15 is that the war MUST proceed as it did. Off the map - that is fair. On the map - why not give players control? I LIKE the idea of more PP and units not assigned to fronts. But it is a radically different scenario - not the same one at all. It should be a mod. What could we call it?

[treespider]

I actually like the idea of all of the incoming reinforcements being assigned to say West Coast or Home Islands etc and the player spending PP to determine to where the units should be sent.

Unless we are going to play the scenario according to a script, why should certain units be pre-ordained for the South Pacific or Central Pacific?

If the script of history is allowed to be broken by players shouldn't the reinforcement script also be altered?

On an aside I have an idea for Neverland - Variable reinforcement schedules based on victory point ratios...If the US is doing well in the Pacific FDR/Marshall decides to stay with Europe first...If things start to turn sour in the Pacific FDR/Marshall decides to increase US commitment there.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

For the record, I DISAGREE with the designer's intent. The basic idea for Scenario 15 is that the war MUST proceed as it did. Off the map - that is fair. On the map - why not give players control? I LIKE the idea of more PP and units not assigned to fronts. But it is a radically different scenario - not the same one at all. It should be a mod. What could we call it?

I thought you meant the intent of the scenario as you were intending it, not the original.

What could we call it? Dunno - marketing is my weak suit.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

And I agree with the reasoning. However although it is an interesting idea I would take a lot more convincing before changing CHS along these lines, as it is a major change. Perhaps a scenario variant using this setup can be prepared and tested to see how it works in-game? I would be interested on testing it myself if I get the chance.

Andrew

I realize it's too big for now - I was offering support to the idea presented above (& discussed earlier in other threads). It would probably work better in WITP II (well, theoretically everything would!), but I guess it could be modded.

I've not delved into the world of modding, but at some point I might be able to do some grunt work (on Excel files or the like).

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I disagree that this idea defeats the intent of the scenario's design. Rather, I think it's right in line with it - strategic choices to the player. The part about PP's is so that players are somewhat constrained after they make that initial assignment (from the home area to a front line command), as I believe they realistically would be.

For the record, I DISAGREE with the designer's intent. The basic idea for Scenario 15 is that the war MUST proceed as it did. Off the map - that is fair. On the map - why not give players control? I LIKE the idea of more PP and units not assigned to fronts. But it is a radically different scenario - not the same one at all. It should be a mod. What could we call it?

I agree whole heartedly. It dsoes open the game to some interesting possibilities, and gets rid of the historical construct the game is under now. Actually this need not be a mod per se, but intead publish a set of directions that explains how to change this if te players wanted this option.

[el cid again]

I agree whole heartedly. It dsoes open the game to some interesting possibilities, and gets rid of the historical construct the game is under now. Actually this need not be a mod per se, but intead publish a set of directions that explains how to change this if te players wanted this option.

Like all good ideas, it is simple to express. Like most good ideas, it is more complicated to execute. The time to do it right is significant - and even if players want to mod the mod - they probably will benefit from having a base done right. Sufficiently so that it might be the difference between doing it and not - otherwise everyone would have done it already. It requires understanding how many PP are involved for each unit, then calculating this for every period, then caclulating a reasonable average value (because we cannot program variable values) - and probably a starting value. If that is not enough, SOME units will be exceptions - as in those that are and must be tied to some point for some good reason. The sheer size of the database (location file and group file) makes this a daunting task. IF we do it - it is a man-month project in a quick and dirty form - what should we call it?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I agree whole heartedly. It dsoes open the game to some interesting possibilities, and gets rid of the historical construct the game is under now. Actually this need not be a mod per se, but intead publish a set of directions that explains how to change this if te players wanted this option.

Like all good ideas, it is simple to express. Like most good ideas, it is more complicated to execute. The time to do it right is significant - and even if players want to mod the mod - they probably will benefit from having a base done right. Sufficiently so that it might be the difference between doing it and not - otherwise everyone would have done it already. It requires understanding how many PP are involved for each unit, then calculating this for every period, then caclulating a reasonable average value (because we cannot program variable values) - and probably a starting value. If that is not enough, SOME units will be exceptions - as in those that are and must be tied to some point for some good reason. The sheer size of the database (location file and group file) makes this a daunting task. IF we do it - it is a man-month project in a quick and dirty form - what should we call it?

CHPDS-Combined Historical Player Determined Scenario

[treespider]

Supercalifragilisticexpealidocius.