One last time

[bo]

Why is it that there are hundreds maybe thousands of names in the members section and of these hundreds read the forums here but only a handful post here, it is the same people all the time, maybe ten or twelve, I find that strange, a lot of people read but they for some reason dont reply. So I pose this question for the last time to those ten or twelve knowlegeable people such as Michael,Pirulo,Gw,Uxbridge,AH,Akmatov, Willgamer etc. Please answer this question is it right to build units outside of the home country and put them around distant occupied cities in one week? Yes No Maybe. Many games have a two month period for the next game turn but here we have one week I believe that changes builds deployment whatever. Please answer this question positive or negative and give me your reason because if you people think the way it is is right, then how could I convince Wastelands to change it. After this I will leave it alone and eagerly await the Pacific game MAYBE.

[SeaMonkey]

Not professing to be "knowledgeable", but IMO, GG WaW had the best model for a build Q and placement feature I have ever played.

And....I'll await with you.

[willgamer]

Please answer this question is it right to build units outside of the home country and put them around distant occupied cities in one week?

Of course it's not right in the historical sense.

OTOH, I've played many games, like GG's WaW, and discovered I'm a reasonably good planner. Since the core of the ToW gameplay is the units and the map, I can dispense with that particular micromanagement.

I feel your pain though. We all just have different suspension of belief points. So I wouldn't object at all to this feature being added, especially if it was optional and for the human player only, so that the AI was not impacted.

I failed completely with my best shot at convincing Wastelands of anything; but you have my best wishes for success in that regard. [;)]

[Berkut]

The problem with the insta-build thing isn't one of abstraction, it is that it gives the player the ability to react on a turn by turn basis to what has happened, which in turn takes away the ability to use presumably superior planning to impose restrictions on the opponents ability to do what he wants to do, based on the difficulty in reacting to what just happened while limited by the constraints of construction/organization time.

Careful (or at least *some*) planning should be rewarded - allowing the players to insta-build whatever is needed wherever it is needed whenever it is needed removes that from the mix, but doesn't really add anything.

[gwgardner]

I agree with you, Bo, et al.

trouble is, I think the developers have a schedule of changes and new games that is pretty full, so will they include this? will they agree? Who knows.

In my next PBEM game (and I'll do this solo also) I'm going to advocate a house rule (some people don't like house rules, but they work just fine, no bugs, with honest players) that

1) all new builds are at division, level 1
2) all deployments take place in original home cities.

In my current PBEM I've now started using 1) above, but not 2. Of course in that game most of the action is taking place in Russia, so deployment has been in the home cities. Both players in this PBEM are also doing only 1 level of repair for ships per turn.

One could even go farther, to make it a bit more 'realistic' and require that all deployments be spread evenly among home cities.

[vonRocko]

ORIGINAL: bo

Please answer this question is it right to build units outside of the home country and put them around distant occupied cities in one week?

IMO No. Not on a one week turn. But maybe it should just impact the human player and not the AI. Let the AI have that advantage, but not the human player.

[cpdeyoung]

In a game at this level there will always be facets that do not reflect reality. Facets that in themselves have a gritty feel, but that work within the scale of the game. This game has a scale and scope where aspects of the naval game, aspects of production, aspects of air warfare must be a bit more abstract than would be necessary in a game at a different scale. This can be very hard for some players to accept, and they leave a game at this scale for a more detailed one. This departure is not necessarily because Wastelands did it wrong, it simply may not be the preferred scale for that player.

Your concern with placement of units in captured cities rather than home cities may seem all wrong, but it certainly can be thought of as an abstraction of the build, and deploy process without the micro-management of doing all that moving. In my current AAR I have been moving the entire Hungarian, Bulgarian, Slovakian, and Romanian armies a hex per week in most cases. This is gritty and certainly does not reflect even winter movement. I patiently move the units because I know that changing this is a fix that must be done within the system, and because I know the small allies are denied SMP because of the abuse of the feature by the AI. I want to play the game the Wastelands developers are building. I know, know, that there are aspects of this game I could improve. Things that would make it better for me, and maybe for you, but it is their game, and they have been very good about making the changes they can.

Each of us knows, knows that aspect A would be better done thus. However if you look back at the discussion of changes in the RtV and ToW forums you will find proponents on both sides. The air and naval changes had vociferous opponents as well as supporters. The developers are going to have to listen, and choose, and maintain the integrity of their game.

And, in my opinion. there is no way does the theory you mention about RtV being so poor that ToW had to be given away hold water. RtV was a very fun, and fine, game. Many of the players active here had a ball playing with it, and it exists as a parallel game for me, one that I would play with pleasure. The developers gave all RtV owners a free copy of ToW in a generous spirit, and deserve much gratitude.

I do not know of a better bunch of guys to work with, and they do very good work.

All the above is my opinion, for what one player's thoughts are worth.

Chuck

[bo]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

I agree with you, Bo, et al.

trouble is, I think the developers have a schedule of changes and new games that is pretty full, so will they include this? will they agree? Who knows.

In my next PBEM game (and I'll do this solo also) I'm going to advocate a house rule (some people don't like house rules, but they work just fine, no bugs, with honest players) that

1) all new builds are at division, level 1
2) all deployments take place in original home cities.

In my current PBEM I've now started using 1) above, but not 2. Of course in that game most of the action is taking place in Russia, so deployment has been in the home cities. Both players in this PBEM are also doing only 1 level of repair for ships per turn.

One could even go farther, to make it a bit more 'realistic' and require that all deployments be spread evenly among home cities.

Damn GW this is why I need you guys never thought about what you said in the pbem game about house rules that you can only build in your own cities, I can do it in my game against the AI but will the AI recipricate [:)] I sorta doubt it but then the AI needs and edge right, great idea GW.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: vonRocko

ORIGINAL: bo

Please answer this question is it right to build units outside of the home country and put them around distant occupied cities in one week?

IMO No. Not on a one week turn. But maybe it should just impact the human player and not the AI. Let the AI have that advantage, but not the human player.

Agreed Von I will pretend that I thought this one up, Didn't Adolf think it was his idea after a while to attack with tank columns through the Ardennes.

Bo

[AH4Ever]

ORIGINAL: bo

So I pose this question for the last time to those ten or twelve knowlegeable people such as Michael,Pirulo,Gw,Uxbridge,AH,Akmatov, Willgamer etc. Please answer this question is it right to build units outside of the home country and put them around distant occupied cities in one week?

I hope I'm the AH you refer to, if so I'm honored. I agree, placement of newly purchased units should be restricted to ones HOMELAND. Allowing placement in or around any controlled city circumvents the games aspect of Strategic Movement which is rightfully limited and expensive to expand. I also find UPGRADING from Division to Corps troubling. For example you send a division from the USA to England which takes 2 weeks (turns), now that it is there with the click of your mouse it becomes a Corps. Which is like adding what 2 or 3 divisions instantly.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

In a game at this level there will always be facets that do not reflect reality. Facets that in themselves have a gritty feel, but that work within the scale of the game. This game has a scale and scope where aspects of the naval game, aspects of production, aspects of air warfare must be a bit more abstract than would be necessary in a game at a different scale. This can be very hard for some players to accept, and they leave a game at this scale for a more detailed one. This departure is not necessarily because Wastelands did it wrong, it simply may not be the preferred scale for that player.

Your concern with placement of units in captured cities rather than home cities may seem all wrong, but it certainly can be thought of as an abstraction of the build, and deploy process without the micro-management of doing all that moving. In my current AAR I have been moving the entire Hungarian, Bulgarian, Slovakian, and Romanian armies a hex per week in most cases. This is gritty and certainly does not reflect even winter movement. I patiently move the units because I know that changing this is a fix that must be done within the system, and because I know the small allies are denied SMP because of the abuse of the feature by the AI. I want to play the game the Wastelands developers are building. I know, know, that there are aspects of this game I could improve. Things that would make it better for me, and maybe for you, but it is their game, and they have been very good about making the changes they can.

Each of us knows, knows that aspect A would be better done thus. However if you look back at the discussion of changes in the RtV and ToW forums you will find proponents on both sides. The air and naval changes had vociferous opponents as well as supporters. The developers are going to have to listen, and choose, and maintain the integrity of their game.

And, in my opinion. there is no way does the theory you mention about RtV being so poor that ToW had to be given away hold water. RtV was a very fun, and fine, game. Many of the players active here had a ball playing with it, and it exists as a parallel game for me, one that I would play with pleasure. The developers gave all RtV owners a free copy of ToW in a generous spirit, and deserve much gratitude.

I do not know of a better bunch of guys to work with, and they do very good work.

All the above is my opinion, for what one player's thoughts are worth.

Chuck

Chuck maybe that was unfair of me but I read a post somewhere stating just that about trying to make up for RTV, of course it was one posters opinion and beings I never played the game and I probably should have researched it better but thats not my nature, I am a little like the White House when it comes to vetting. I stand corrected Chuck.

Bo

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

In a game at this level there will always be facets that do not reflect reality. Facets that in themselves have a gritty feel, but that work within the scale of the game. This game has a scale and scope where aspects of the naval game, aspects of production, aspects of air warfare must be a bit more abstract than would be necessary in a game at a different scale. This can be very hard for some players to accept, and they leave a game at this scale for a more detailed one. This departure is not necessarily because Wastelands did it wrong, it simply may not be the preferred scale for that player.

Your concern with placement of units in captured cities rather than home cities may seem all wrong, but it certainly can be thought of as an abstraction of the build, and deploy process without the micro-management of doing all that moving. In my current AAR I have been moving the entire Hungarian, Bulgarian, Slovakian, and Romanian armies a hex per week in most cases. This is gritty and certainly does not reflect even winter movement. I patiently move the units because I know that changing this is a fix that must be done within the system, and because I know the small allies are denied SMP because of the abuse of the feature by the AI. I want to play the game the Wastelands developers are building. I know, know, that there are aspects of this game I could improve. Things that would make it better for me, and maybe for you, but it is their game, and they have been very good about making the changes they can.

Each of us knows, knows that aspect A would be better done thus. However if you look back at the discussion of changes in the RtV and ToW forums you will find proponents on both sides. The air and naval changes had vociferous opponents as well as supporters. The developers are going to have to listen, and choose, and maintain the integrity of their game.

And, in my opinion. there is no way does the theory you mention about RtV being so poor that ToW had to be given away hold water. RtV was a very fun, and fine, game. Many of the players active here had a ball playing with it, and it exists as a parallel game for me, one that I would play with pleasure. The developers gave all RtV owners a free copy of ToW in a generous spirit, and deserve much gratitude.

I do not know of a better bunch of guys to work with, and they do very good work.

All the above is my opinion, for what one player's thoughts are worth.

Chuck

Fully agree with you. To even suggest that Wasteland isn't responding to the community is beyond comprehension.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey


Not professing to be "knowledgeable", but IMO, GG WaW had the best model for a build Q and placement feature I have ever played.

And....I'll await with you.

Thank you SeaMonkey I apoligize for not putting your name on my list.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: AH4Ever

ORIGINAL: bo

So I pose this question for the last time to those ten or twelve knowlegeable people such as Michael,Pirulo,Gw,Uxbridge,AH,Akmatov, Willgamer etc. Please answer this question is it right to build units outside of the home country and put them around distant occupied cities in one week?

I hope I'm the AH you refer to, if so I'm honored. I agree, placement of newly purchased units should be restricted to ones HOMELAND. Allowing placement in or around any controlled city circumvents the games aspect of Strategic Movement which is rightfully limited and expensive to expand. I also find UPGRADING from Division to Corps troubling. For example you send a division from the USA to England which takes 2 weeks (turns), now that it is there with the click of your mouse it becomes a Corps. Which is like adding what 2 or 3 divisions instantly.

Of course you are the AH I was referring to but be careful with that honor stuff you never know who might be reading these posts and you dont want to be exiled now do you? Thank you for stating what is without question the correct way to handle builds.

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The problem with the insta-build thing isn't one of abstraction, it is that it gives the player the ability to react on a turn by turn basis to what has happened, which in turn takes away the ability to use presumably superior planning to impose restrictions on the opponents ability to do what he wants to do, based on the difficulty in reacting to what just happened while limited by the constraints of construction/organization time.

Careful (or at least *some*) planning should be rewarded - allowing the players to insta-build whatever is needed wherever it is needed whenever it is needed removes that from the mix, but doesn't really add anything.

Hi Berkut sorry I did not go to college could you reexplain that in laymans terms.[&o]

Bo

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

In a game at this level there will always be facets that do not reflect reality. Facets that in themselves have a gritty feel, but that work within the scale of the game. This game has a scale and scope where aspects of the naval game, aspects of production, aspects of air warfare must be a bit more abstract than would be necessary in a game at a different scale. This can be very hard for some players to accept, and they leave a game at this scale for a more detailed one. This departure is not necessarily because Wastelands did it wrong, it simply may not be the preferred scale for that player.

Your concern with placement of units in captured cities rather than home cities may seem all wrong, but it certainly can be thought of as an abstraction of the build, and deploy process without the micro-management of doing all that moving. In my current AAR I have been moving the entire Hungarian, Bulgarian, Slovakian, and Romanian armies a hex per week in most cases. This is gritty and certainly does not reflect even winter movement. I patiently move the units because I know that changing this is a fix that must be done within the system, and because I know the small allies are denied SMP because of the abuse of the feature by the AI. I want to play the game the Wastelands developers are building. I know, know, that there are aspects of this game I could improve. Things that would make it better for me, and maybe for you, but it is their game, and they have been very good about making the changes they can.

Each of us knows, knows that aspect A would be better done thus. However if you look back at the discussion of changes in the RtV and ToW forums you will find proponents on both sides. The air and naval changes had vociferous opponents as well as supporters. The developers are going to have to listen, and choose, and maintain the integrity of their game.

And, in my opinion. there is no way does the theory you mention about RtV being so poor that ToW had to be given away hold water. RtV was a very fun, and fine, game. Many of the players active here had a ball playing with it, and it exists as a parallel game for me, one that I would play with pleasure. The developers gave all RtV owners a free copy of ToW in a generous spirit, and deserve much gratitude.

I do not know of a better bunch of guys to work with, and they do very good work.

All the above is my opinion, for what one player's thoughts are worth.

Chuck

Fully agree with you. To even suggest that Wasteland isn't responding to the community is beyond comprehension.

First Ux I never said that they werent responding but to tell you the truth I expected a little more insight from you about what I thought should be changed than what you just said above, your input and knowledge would be deeply appreciated even if you dont agree with me. Geez are all you people from Poland, is it possible that Wastelands got this wrong just maybe and remember they will want us to buy their Pacific game sight unseen and in this economy I gotta watch my Euro's.

Bo

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The problem with the insta-build thing isn't one of abstraction, it is that it gives the player the ability to react on a turn by turn basis to what has happened, which in turn takes away the ability to use presumably superior planning to impose restrictions on the opponents ability to do what he wants to do, based on the difficulty in reacting to what just happened while limited by the constraints of construction/organization time.

Careful (or at least *some*) planning should be rewarded - allowing the players to insta-build whatever is needed wherever it is needed whenever it is needed removes that from the mix, but doesn't really add anything.

This is exactly the point. Well put. With a a time-delayed production, the importance of where the units can be deployed is lessened dramatically. Of course you could always build up a reserve and keep it in limbo for the right occasion, and then deploy in an instant. But that will mean higher upkeep costs and comes at a price.

[bo]

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The problem with the insta-build thing isn't one of abstraction, it is that it gives the player the ability to react on a turn by turn basis to what has happened, which in turn takes away the ability to use presumably superior planning to impose restrictions on the opponents ability to do what he wants to do, based on the difficulty in reacting to what just happened while limited by the constraints of construction/organization time.

Careful (or at least *some*) planning should be rewarded - allowing the players to insta-build whatever is needed wherever it is needed whenever it is needed removes that from the mix, but doesn't really add anything.

This is exactly the point. Well put. With a a time-delayed production, the importance of where the units can be deployed is lessened dramatically. Of course you could always build up a reserve and keep it in limbo for the right occasion, and then deploy in an instant. But that will mean higher upkeep costs and comes at a price.

Geez Ux you went to college too huh! I really do need a reexplanation of what he said I am not being smart I just want to understand a good point or a poor one thats all.

Bo

[Uxbridge]

ORIGINAL: bo

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

ORIGINAL: cpdeyoung

In a game at this level there will always be facets that do not reflect reality. Facets that in themselves have a gritty feel, but that work within the scale of the game. This game has a scale and scope where aspects of the naval game, aspects of production, aspects of air warfare must be a bit more abstract than would be necessary in a game at a different scale. This can be very hard for some players to accept, and they leave a game at this scale for a more detailed one. This departure is not necessarily because Wastelands did it wrong, it simply may not be the preferred scale for that player.

Your concern with placement of units in captured cities rather than home cities may seem all wrong, but it certainly can be thought of as an abstraction of the build, and deploy process without the micro-management of doing all that moving. In my current AAR I have been moving the entire Hungarian, Bulgarian, Slovakian, and Romanian armies a hex per week in most cases. This is gritty and certainly does not reflect even winter movement. I patiently move the units because I know that changing this is a fix that must be done within the system, and because I know the small allies are denied SMP because of the abuse of the feature by the AI. I want to play the game the Wastelands developers are building. I know, know, that there are aspects of this game I could improve. Things that would make it better for me, and maybe for you, but it is their game, and they have been very good about making the changes they can.

Each of us knows, knows that aspect A would be better done thus. However if you look back at the discussion of changes in the RtV and ToW forums you will find proponents on both sides. The air and naval changes had vociferous opponents as well as supporters. The developers are going to have to listen, and choose, and maintain the integrity of their game.

And, in my opinion. there is no way does the theory you mention about RtV being so poor that ToW had to be given away hold water. RtV was a very fun, and fine, game. Many of the players active here had a ball playing with it, and it exists as a parallel game for me, one that I would play with pleasure. The developers gave all RtV owners a free copy of ToW in a generous spirit, and deserve much gratitude.

I do not know of a better bunch of guys to work with, and they do very good work.

All the above is my opinion, for what one player's thoughts are worth.

Chuck

Fully agree with you. To even suggest that Wasteland isn't responding to the community is beyond comprehension.

First Ux I never said that they werent responding but to tell you the truth I expected a little more insight from you about what I thought should be changed than what you just said above, your input and knowledge would be deeply appreciated even if you dont agree with me. Geez are all you people from Poland, is it possible that Wastelands got this wrong just maybe and remember they will want us to buy their Pacific game sight unseen and in this economy I gotta watch my Euro's.

Bo

I wasn't refering to something you said, but to what CPD said. You just assumed the former.

There have been several occasions lately where members of the community have not only started to demand certain things from the developers, which they are in no way obligated to comply to, it has also been done in such an unfriendly way, that it has caused a dramatic deterioration of this once very pleasant forum. The only reason why it has come to this, regretably, is because the guys at Wasteland have been so responsive to our wishes in the first place. If I'm not participating in the discussions enough, it isn't because I don't agree or disagree with the views; it is because I don't agree with the way those views are delivered.

[axisandallies]

ORIGINAL: bo

Why is it that there are hundreds maybe thousands of names in the members section and of these hundreds read the forums here but only a handful post here, it is the same people all the time, maybe ten or twelve, I find that strange, a lot of people read but they for some reason dont reply. So I pose this question for the last time to those ten or twelve knowlegeable people such as Michael,Pirulo,Gw,Uxbridge,AH,Akmatov, Willgamer etc. Please answer this question is it right to build units outside of the home country and put them around distant occupied cities in one week? Yes No Maybe. Many games have a two month period for the next game turn but here we have one week I believe that changes builds deployment whatever. Please answer this question positive or negative and give me your reason because if you people think the way it is is right, then how could I convince Wastelands to change it. After this I will leave it alone and eagerly await the Pacific game MAYBE.

Hey Bo, I think you are right about the way units are produced in this game. Under the 1.60 beta patch, you can now change the time naval units are built. You want change, as do I but how many weeks would you say it would take to build, and put together a infantry division? Would it be the same for each country? On paper the French army was thought to be the best in the world, idk I think you would have to start from scratch for this game. I do like this game, how much you say? I spent 72 hours modding all the counters. I have never played a game that was perfect, heck even in A&A we changed so many rules that it's not even the same game. I hope you enjoy this game.