Admiral's Edition General Thread

[Flying Tiger]

another comment re. the PP system....
 
under the current system (which i realise is used in many wargames, and is reasonably succesful...) the players 'focus' is somewhat pre-determined by the game. For example, as the allied player, in early/mid '42 a lot of units (air and ground) come pre-assigned to SWPAC. But, what if the player wants to do something totally un-historical and NOT focus on SWPAC at this stage?  What if he wants to focus on SthPAC? Or launch an offensive in CentPAC? Or even NthPAC? Either he must jumble his units (and suffer the consequences) or spend all his PPs re-assigning units veeeeerrry slowly from one command to another. Why not have almost all units come pre-assigned to 'home' commands (eg. WestCoast, Aust, etc) but have far more PPs on hand to choose where he (whoops, sorry, OR she!!) chooses to assign them? I guess to reduce abuse of this sytem certain home commands, or certain units (eg. Canada, and some of the other Commonwealth forces) could have higher PP costs to account for the political issues involved.
 
Just a thought, but i like to be allowed to have creativity in the 'grand strategy', and do find the current system a bit restrictive.
 
Cheers
 
 

[Andy Mac]

You have hit the nub of the debate we are having internally guys I am in the 'other' camp I would prefer to have units not restricted and allocated to historic commands when they arrive and have more limited PP's after the first 6 months - so I am not going to have the debate here until we have resolved it on our side !!! 
 
Apart from anything else the AI is still poor at PP management
 
As the cost of changing a units HQ if it is unrestricted is far less than a full buy out from a resticted command I am in favour of historical deployments for both sides and if the player wants to change em thats what PP's are for. To set a level of PP's that will allow the buy out and change of every West Coast US units would mean the allies are swimming in P's - remember units are c 50% larger in device terms that menas 50% more expensive in PP terms
 
 

[witpqs]

'Swimming in points' is OK if those points are required to use your units because they would all be stuck on the West Coast otherwise. It's not like the Allied player would be getting a bonus, which is how you make it sound. The only usefulness of PP's is to move units.

[rockmedic109]

250 PPs to change Percival?????
 
OUCH!  This will make holding Singapore past February difficult even against the AI.  While this hurts {I only play the allies}, I have to say it is brilliant.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

250 PPs to change Percival?????

OUCH! This will make holding Singapore past February difficult even against the AI. While this hurts {I only play the allies}, I have to say it is brilliant.

"And if you guys complain any more it'll be 350!!"

[:D][:D]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

250 PPs to change Percival?????

OUCH!  This will make holding Singapore past February difficult even against the AI.  While this hurts {I only play the allies}, I have to say it is brilliant.

Sounds like a problem Lincoln would have recognised.

[Lameduck]

Thanks Andy Mac, your answer clears up a lot me.

[pad152]

When playing allies I always mod the campaign to give the allies -200  or - 300 PP's, so the allies are very limited in the begining of the war, beyond this and the British Recall of ships,  pp's don't have much effect and never limit the Japanese player. By 1943 the allies have so much of everything including PP's, what's the point?  What's the goal here to limit what the allied player can do in 1942, slow the game down, or limit the player to history? Does the number of PP's change for the allies over time 1942, 1943, etc?

I would realy hate to see AD limit the player to just history or limit the AI even more.

[Flying Tiger]

Thanks for your reply Andy. And thanks for the other comments. Personally i always mod the campaign to give the Allies MORE PPs at the start because i hate being 'bound' by history. Obviously this means i need a whole stack of house rules to avoid abusing the system, but seeing as i only play the AI it doesnt really make any difference anyway!!!!
 
Anyway, my vote is for unrestricted units, but with the editor as it is it really doesn't make any difference in the end - we will all just do as we prefer!
 
Any more screen shots coming??

[Andy Mac]

Thats the issue there are as many different views of PP's as their are players we will have one version to change to another will take all of 2 minutes and the editor.

[Flying Tiger]

'Swimming in points' is OK if those points are required to use your units because they would all be stuck on the West Coast otherwise. It's not like the Allied player would be getting a bonus, which is how you make it sound. The only usefulness of PP's is to move units.

 
 
This is still a good point though! And pre-game scenario mods do not get well recieved when playing a human (or at least non-computer!) opponent.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

'Swimming in points' is OK if those points are required to use your units because they would all be stuck on the West Coast otherwise. It's not like the Allied player would be getting a bonus, which is how you make it sound. The only usefulness of PP's is to move units.

This is still a good point though! And pre-game scenario mods do not get well recieved when playing a human (or at least non-computer!) opponent.

The AI never complains...just drools. [:D]

On a more serious note, I'm not for pre-game scenario mods either. The computer can't complain about it, its not been programmed to, and with a human opponant it can give one side or the other too great of an advantage over the other. When I play a historical first turn scenario, I really expect to see a historical first few turns, not having a 5 division invasion force show up at PH because my opponant had so many PPs that he took the whole Home Defense Force and loaded it onto transports.

And the truth of the matter is that most of the restricted HQs never moved the units stationed in them during the war, Home Defense Force, West Coast Command, Kuantung Area, etc. That's the reason they are resticted in the game, those units were there permanently for a reason. And if they did historically release, then that should be set in the game itself.

What the PPs give you is some flexibility by letting you change units HQs and move them about. What we don't need is so many PPs that you can move all of the restricted units in 1 turn.

[Andy Mac]

As I said this is an open debate but I siuspect if you asked each of the team members we would give you a different answer for example
 
To get the Full Historic Indian/Australian and Canadian ORBAT that deployed overseas will require about 15,000 - 22,000 PP's - I dont think we have a choice on this aspect becasue these forces are needed to garrison India and therfore need to be on map but retricted at start. e.g. 19th Indian Div garriosnong Madras while it trains.
 
Leaders will require more PP's
 
The ability to move units between Corps after they are unrestricted while at reduced PPs will still cost something.
 
So about 50% of the 1st 3 years PP's are sucked into the CW ORBAT - the debate is on the US side where units arrive from off map...
 
I will report back after we finish arm wrestling over it all

[witpqs]

A good way - if it could be done - would be that a new unit which is intended for overseas deployment arrives under a restricted HQ (such as west coast or home islands). Along with the unit's arrival, the player gets a one-time addition of PP's equal to the amount needed to reassign the full unit (I say full unit because some units arrive as partials).

In this way there are no extras - if the player uses the PP's for some other unit, the the newly arrived unit is stuck until much later when daily PP's catch up.

[Andy Mac]

Unfortuantely thats a major change so at this stage we are not going to go there.
 
Good idea though !!

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

As I said this is an open debate but I siuspect if you asked each of the team members we would give you a different answer for example

So about 50% of the 1st 3 years PP's are sucked into the CW ORBAT - the debate is on the US side where units arrive from off map...

I will report back after we finish arm wrestling over it all

Andy

In Witp is would say goal of PP's is:

1. Method to deal with British withdraw of ships.

2. Prevent the Allied play from stripping West Coast units.

3. Limit the Japanese player from striping units from China.


In AE it sounds like you need to spend PP's before you can move/use almost anything?
Example: It will cost PP's to move (ships, ground, & air units) from CenPac to SwPac, correct? Ships will be restricted just like land units?

So what is the goal of PP's in AE?

[Iron Duke]

Hi

I thought there was already a method of doing this in the editor - a once only change of HQ after a set number of turns - in stock at least one Australian Div changes from restricted command(Australian Command) to unresricted(SWPAC) is this function disabled in AE if not use it and if a player wants that unit earlier than historically then he needs to find the pp's to do it.

[Gem35]

Sorry if this has already been asked, but what will happen to our saved game files once we install AE?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Gem35

Sorry if this has already been asked, but what will happen to our saved game files once we install AE?

Well they won't be playable in AE for one.

[Gem35]

understood, but will they be wiped out? meaning can you still play vanilla witp even with AE installed?