Gamey Question

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I follow a simple rule in these cases: If you have to ask yourself if something is gamey, it probably is.

I think this says it all [;)]

[Djordje]

Gamey, with potential to be super gamey if you transfer restricted ground units to it before buying it.
Both sides can do that and it is best to talk about it with your opponent before the game starts.
I also have HR that each unit and squadron has to be paid with PP separately.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

Designers sayed at one point that it was WAD.

Personally, I don't care. That's one house rule I won't budge on. I won't play anyone who feels you can pull a whole army out for the cost of the HQ.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

People can form their own views about whether they should avail themselves of this exploit, but they misrepresent the devs every time they repeat the WAD claim.

I think a good compromise would be to allow sub-units to go with the parent, since that is how militaries work in RL, but to use the editor to boost the PP cost of major HQs to the low thousands.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I follow a simple rule in these cases: If you have to ask yourself if something is gamey, it probably is.

I think this says it all [;)]

One man's gamey is another man's logical work-around. POV matters. Spend a few days watching civil court trials. Better yet, divorce trials.

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I follow a simple rule in these cases: If you have to ask yourself if something is gamey, it probably is.

Good rule of thumb. I was leaning this way anyway.

So, I'll just suck it up and pull the squadrons out individually. I'm probably only going to need the transport and recon units anyway, so it shouldn't be all that expensive in PP's.

[Yakface]

Aye - very gamey

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

Designers sayed at one point that it was WAD.

Do you have a link?

Pages 178 - 179 in the manual.

HQ’s can be categorized as restricted, temporarily restricted, static restricted and unrestricted
(i.e., normal). The effects of each category are as follows:

»» Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless the
HQ is changed. Even when HQ’s are changed subordinate
units need to be individually acquired via PP’s.

»» Temporarily Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless
the HQ is changed. When the HQ’s are changed subordinate
units change to the classification of the parent.

»» Static Restricted - HQ’s (and on some occasions units) are
restricted and may never have their HQ changed – they
remain and always shall be permanently restricted.

»» Unrestricted – None of the above restrictions apply.

I understand the opinions that it is gamey. However, as developers have posted it was put in the game on purpose. I think it is like some other things in that you and your opponent must simply agree on it one way or the other. It is not inherently gamey, because it is inherently designed and intended by the developers (as evidenced by it being explicitly included in the manual). Most of all, when commenting on other people's PBM's, I think it's a stretch to say they are being gamey if they use this. I recommend players discuss it and come to agreement.

In my PBM we did not discuss it (IIRC we did not know of it), so I have not used it.

Having seen the number of units that an Allied player must pay PP's for more than once (that's right - a significant number of USMC & USN air units that require PP's to leave west coast, later withdraw temporarily, and then require PP all over again to leave west coast when they re-enter the game), I am not totally convinced that this feature is out of whack. It might simply be one of the PP 'balancing mechanisms'.

Personally, I would rather do without the 'change only the HQ to get all the units' thingy and also do without the need to pay PP multiple times for the same air units.

[Alfred]

This is the thread which should make anyone who still makes the claim that the PP discount is WAD by the devs, reconsider their position.

tm.asp?m=2556829

See the posts by JWE and Andy Mac, in particular the latter's post #12.

I defy anyone to read this thread and still say with a straight face that it is WAD for the very simple reason that the devs never finished the HQ project. The 75% discount was merely a single component in the overall project. By not finishing the project, the effect of the discount was placed out of context but in their judgement, retaining the discount was the lesser evil.

Quoting the manual does not assist the WAD advocates. Manuals are always written in advance of all components in a game being finalised. For example, when exactly was the manual sent to the printers and did it predate the decision to deprioritise the HQ project. We all know of other matters in the game which were changed after the manual was sent to the printers.

If both sides in a PBEM are comfortable with taking advantage of the discount, then that is the end of the matter for that game. But let's not continue verballing the devs by claiming that it is WAD as it is very obvious that given sufficient time and resources they intended the entire HQ component to be a quite different beast.

Alfred

[AirGriff]

If it works for both sides, then it works for both sides. Even Steven. House rules and a thoruough understanding of each other's sense of fair play can be used to enhance effects of the PP system. Ultimately, I think you have to consider what the player is going to use the conversions for. If a player was using the PP system to throw history grossly out of whack, then I'd say the other guy would probably be a bit disappointed unless he was fully aware of his oppontent's view on what was feasibly possible. If both guys had a good understanding on what the other thought remotely possible and at the same time fair, then they can prepare properly within that scope of reality. If one player was expecting a somewhat historical war at a historical speed within the realm of what was actually thought possible at the time, and then ended up desperately defending Hawaii or the Bonin Islands in early '42, then it's probably not going to be a very fun game for someone.

[Shark7]

There are no gamey questions, just gamey players. [:D]

IMO, the PPs and restrictions (while I understand WHY they are there) are gamey in themselves. The decisions to move about units came at the high command level, and moving any unit from 1 command to another were made at the strategic level. In real life terms, the Joint Cheifs or Theatre commander or equivalent decides which units go where...in game terms, you the player are all 3.

Notwithstanding, I do see the need for PPs and restrictions to keep players from moving the entire Manchuko Garrison or the entire West Coast defense units into play. Players have the one thing that commanders at the time did not...hindsight. We all know good and well that a Japanese invasion of San Francisco is all but impossible...in 1941 and 1942 there was a very real fear of just such an event happening.

So I see the restricted HQs and PPs as a necessary evil.

As far as chaning the units for 1 low price...If the HQ is changed from one theatre command to another then the subordinates should also be changed...you are moving the entire command. However, the costs should reflect this...IE the cost of every unit should be figured into the PP costs...with perhaps a small (10%) discount for moving the entire command as opposed to peicemeal.

[witpqs]

Apples and bananas, Alfred.

I am not "verballing the devs". I am not putting words into their mouths. The fact that there are unfinished pieces and the devs are unhappy with a particular outcome doesn't change that they put it in there. Players have to decide for themselves. When you focus only on the HQ command changes with respect to the unfinished matters, you ignore the other impacts that the unfinished matters have, such as the overall balance of PP (an example of which I cited). The entire PP structure is interrelated and most likely is not tuned due both to the unfinished feature you mention and due to the limited amount of play-testing that went into the late game stages.

My point was and is that pointing at someone else's PBM and calling it gamey is going too far with the uncertainty that is at play in this issue. I also pointed out that I personally have not used this feature.

[Central Blue]

seems to me that many of the concerns could be addressed by the way scenario designers enforce restrictions. I can't transfer the West Coast HQ, I have to transfer each transferable unit individually. Fourth Air Force HQ's can't be transferred, so I have to transfer each unit individually. I don't understand why people are talking about freeing all of the troops on the west coast for the price of moving one HQ.

If the scenario designer left the Kwantung unit out there to be transfered as an entire entity . . . Maybe he forgot about the bug, or maybe he had a reason to exploit the feature as it currently exists.

With all of the hullablaoo about house rules, some people might just be better off starting the game on December 8, and some people might enjoy more tightly enforced tranfer restrictions wired in to start with.

[crsutton]

Real men pay retail.

[invernomuto]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I simply don't think an entire restricted command should be able to be made non-restricted just for the cost of the HQ, regardless of the cost of that HQ.  I think all of the units should be purchased separately.

+1

[Q-Ball]

Indispensible House Rules:

1. Paying Retail for all PP buys; no "HQ" short-cuts

2. Restricted Units may not cross national borders

Without either rules, both sides could release hordes of troops

This is a NAVAL game after all

[DuckofTindalos]

It's not, actually... It's a LOGISTICS game...

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's not, actually... It's a LOGISTICS game...

I see this as a commercial for UPS is on TV, and that stupid song is now stuck in my head...only with my own words of course...

When you tear out your hair in a fit of despair... that's logistics...
When your offensive dies from a lack of supplies... that's logistics...

When idustry stands still from no oil to distill...that's logistics...
When there's no steel for your tank cause a transport just sank.... that's logistics....

When your tanker's on fire like a funeral pyre...that's log...is...tics!

Now see what you started. [:D]

[Mike Solli]

That's out-freakin-standing! Gotta print that off and stick it on my computer! [:D]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's not, actually... It's a LOGISTICS game...

I see this as a commercial for UPS is on TV, and that stupid song is now stuck in my head...only with my own words of course...

When you tear out your hair in a fit of despair... that's logistics...
When your offensive dies from a lack of supplies... that's logistics...

When idustry stands still from no oil to distill...that's logistics...
When there's no steel for your tank cause a transport just sank.... that's logistics....

When your tanker's on fire like a funeral pyre...that's log...is...tics!

Now see what you started. [:D]