Gamey Question

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: CV2

Can't say that I do. Most of the people I know from this board aren't here anymore or not often. Like Andy Brown for example.

I am curious, obviously you have been playing for longer than one week, what was your first forum ID ?

[CV2]

Yamato hugger. I was banned for posting things from the dev board about behind the scenes things in the development of AE and just now coming back.

[Sredni]

zomg, I was just thinking a while back that I kinda miss Yamato Hugger lol

[hunchback77]

Welcome back Yamato hugger.

ORIGINAL: CV2

Yamato hugger. I was banned for posting things from the dev board about behind the scenes things in the development of AE and just now coming back.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: CV2

Yamato hugger. I was banned for posting things from the dev board about behind the scenes things in the development of AE and just now coming back.

Was just curious. I thought either you were the worlds quickest learner , or you had obviously played before. [:)]

[CV2]

Heh, thanks [:D]

[TheElf]

hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

[Smeulders]

Thanks for the heads up Elf.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

Thank you for clearing this up. [:)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

I remember seeing what you wrote, but not exactly what you wrote. It did not have to do with land units, only air groups.

Enough has been added to this subject since then (not just this thread) that it's obsolete anyway, so I've never bothered going back and trying to find it.

[Shark7]

Seems to me that all this is easily settled with a house rule:

All attached units must be bought out individually BEFORE a lower HQ can change its command HQ.

Problem solved.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Seems to me that all this is easily settled with a house rule:

All attached units must be bought out individually BEFORE a lower HQ can change its command HQ.

Problem solved.

That is too easy and logical. It is better to just argue about it.

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: TheElf

hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

I remember seeing what you wrote, but not exactly what you wrote. It did not have to do with land units, only air groups.

Enough has been added to this subject since then (not just this thread) that it's obsolete anyway, so I've never bothered going back and trying to find it.

I may have said something. But given the facts in this thread I would have to assume that I was commenting on the feature as a whole WAD. Meaning that the intent was for restricted commands to be convertible to unrestricted etc. but I was likely unaware that all subordinate attached Ground units (gamey) would be freed up from manchuria. This seems a bit extreme and against the intent of the feature.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Seems to me that all this is easily settled with a house rule:

All attached units must be bought out individually BEFORE a lower HQ can change its command HQ.

Problem solved.

That is too easy and logical. It is better to just argue about it.

Judging from the 'discussion' on this matter it is quite possibly an 'Angry Mob' topic. Shall I get the pitchforks and torches? [:D]

Honestly, I think each player is going to have to work it out with his/her opponant.

[RUDOLF]

If he does not move out  significant force from Manchuria then it is going to be a easy win for the Allies during 43 or  44. Maybe some of you like that, but I don't so I give my Japanese opponent free hands to do what he likes, my games end arround mid 1945 that way.   Allies still win, but it gets more challenging (and to me that means more enjoyable). 

When taking into consideration the extreme unbalance this game has (its a game) - then I think that it is reasonable for the Japanese player to do what he likes, he will lose in the end anyway.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: stuman

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Seems to me that all this is easily settled with a house rule:

All attached units must be bought out individually BEFORE a lower HQ can change its command HQ.

Problem solved.

That is too easy and logical. It is better to just argue about it.

Judging from the 'discussion' on this matter it is quite possibly an 'Angry Mob' topic. Shall I get the pitchforks and torches? [:D]

Honestly, I think each player is going to have to work it out with his/her opponant.

Pitchforks and torches at 20 paces then !

Actually I agree with you.

[RUDOLF]

I need to say no more!

This is why you let Japan run its econnomy like it wants OR you will have US bases 250 miles from Hiroshima by mid 1944!!! And this Jap player try to defend himself with Zeros!!

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2248886&mpage=19&key=&#2622873

[Yakface]

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

I need to say no more!

This is why you let Japan run its econnomy like it wants OR you will have US bases 250 miles from Hiroshima by mid 1944!!! And this Jap player try to defend himself with Zeros!!

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2248886&mpage=19&key=?

I see your 'Why the Allies Capitulated' AAR and raise you Back In Business - PzB's AAR and cap_and_gowns AAR. Both of which are fine IJN performances (sans gameyness)

Seriously Rudolf, picking one AAR and saying this is the way all games are going to go if I can't have what I want is a first class, A1, Anne Coulter of a polemic.

[RUDOLF]

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

I need to say no more!

This is why you let Japan run its econnomy like it wants OR you will have US bases 250 miles from Hiroshima by mid 1944!!! And this Jap player try to defend himself with Zeros!!

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2248886&mpage=19&key=?

I see your 'Why the Allies Capitulated' AAR and raise you Back In Business - PzB's AAR and cap_and_gowns AAR. Both of which are fine IJN performances (sans gameyness)

Seriously Rudolf, picking one AAR and saying this is the way all games are going to go if I can't have what I want is a first class, A1, Anne Coulter of a polemic.

Yes I agree.

Of cource my intention however was to just show one of the very many good examples.