Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not?

[crsutton]

Real men pay retail. Nuff said.

[Dili]

As long as both sides are doing the same it is not a problem, it is when one side does and the other does not that there is a problem

Nopes . It is still gamey, the only difference is that it is equally gamey. Both cheat against the game engine [:'(]

[aphrochine]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Real men pay retail. Nuff said.

Haha!! Next time you buy a car...

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: CV 2

Personally, I think its fine to put base forces under an air HQ. I think (and have always said) that its a hole in the game (IMHO) to allow ground combat units to be under the command of air or naval HQs. And truth be told, you are actually better off putting your combat forces under a ground HQ and have that HQ close. Unfortunately its hard to accumulate enough PPs to do it in the game.

You've summed up the reason why it isn't "gamey" in a nutshell. If the game gave you enough PP's to correctly organize your forces it might be..., but as it stands now "any ol' HQ in a storm" is perfectly reasonable.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: USS America

Don't you ever get tired of replaying that same old, tired recording, yamato? [8|]

(Yes, the entire world is out to get you. We already know that. [:D])

+1

There is quite a history in this, regarding "CV2" aka "Yamato Hugger".