Reorganisation and PPs

[Rainer]

Why is it so expensive to reattach unrestricted units to unrestricted HQs?

Example: It is mid 44 in my current game and I want to re-assign certain US Army Infantery Divisions. Basically I want to have some US Divs report to the recently arrived Corps HQs (which come with no units assigned except some Artillery Units) and US Army HQs.
I then realized that in order to do this I would have to spend up to and for some units even more than 2,000 PPs per Divsion, not counting the auxilliary units like Artillery, Tanks and Engineers.
Again, all the units in question are un-restricted.
To create the report structure of, say the Tenth US Army (including Corps) , I would have to spend several ten thousend PPs (I currently have some 11,000).

Please note: It is clear to me that assignments of units to HQs have no direct effect in the game (any HQ will do, no matter of the assignment).
However, to make handling a bit easier - for instance target planning - I'd like to have a neat organisation.
But can't because of the prohibitive PP costs.

Please note also that I fully understand the PP costs for any restricted units in order to prevent unrealistic assignments/movements of units especially in the early war phases.

But the high costs for unrestricted units I do not understand, especially because those re-assignments will not influence the game and are basically only chrome.

Any ideas?
Or better asked: Michael?

[Capt Cliff]

Yes, I have found that true too. Moving Japanese units within the Southern Army, say 14th Army to 25th Army, should not pay full price. A division costs are enormous.

[Crackaces]

Divisions moved from Corps to Corps depending on theater requirements.

But I also question the design from a game standpoint. Really you have an "activation" charge and then some pacing of objectives inter-theater and intratheater. But the pacing of intratheater is outragious compared to activation and worse it takes away a planning aspect of the game and promotes "death stars" ...

[Justus2]

Agreed. I like the concept, in terms of limiting activations, but for already unrestricted units, there should not be a cost (or at best a minimal cost) to realign between unrestricted commands.

[Rainer]

Agreed. I like the concept, in terms of limiting activations, but for already unrestricted units, there should not be a cost (or at best a minimal cost) to realign between unrestricted commands.

So lets hope Michael (michaelm) reads this, and, if no other objections crop up, finds a way to adjust this a bit.

[LargeSlowTarget]

+1

[Halsey]

I agree also...

[Halsey]

I agree also...

[Chris21wen]

Me to.
 

[DRF99]

I'ld like to see this as well.

Perhaps with an amount of PP similar to switching commanders. It would help to organize things.

(Of course, switching any unit out of MacArthur's command would require a lot more PP to account for the fuss he would kick up! [:D])

DRF

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: DRF99

I'ld like to see this as well.

Perhaps with an amount of PP similar to switching commanders. It would help to organize things.

(Of course, switching any unit out of MacArthur's command would require a lot more PP to account for the fuss he would kick up! [:D])

DRF

I'm not sure if anything will change .. but this is a great suggestion. It would seem about the same thing moving the command of a unit or moving its leader.

The big problem I see is using early units that do not have command yet in the game and then moving them to commanders as they arrive - reallocating forces. It costs just about as much as to activate them so I don't bother and attribute it to another part of the game that is borked ..[:'(]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Agreed. I like the concept, in terms of limiting activations, but for already unrestricted units, there should not be a cost (or at best a minimal cost) to realign between unrestricted commands.

So lets hope Michael (michaelm) reads this, and, if no other objections crop up, finds a way to adjust this a bit.

You can change the number of PPs awarded per turn in about thirty seconds in the editor. No need for universal changes or messing with the EXE. I played a GC with 70 per turn for the Allies and found I didn't need them in the long run. In the short run PPs are supposed to be scarce. Their function is to make decisions required. But if you want to award them lavishly you can and then the numbers imposed to do any single task fall out of the equation. You can essentially remove PPs from the game if you want to. It's easy in the editor.

[Justus2]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Agreed. I like the concept, in terms of limiting activations, but for already unrestricted units, there should not be a cost (or at best a minimal cost) to realign between unrestricted commands.

So lets hope Michael (michaelm) reads this, and, if no other objections crop up, finds a way to adjust this a bit.

You can change the number of PPs awarded per turn in about thirty seconds in the editor. No need for universal changes or messing with the EXE. I played a GC with 70 per turn for the Allies and found I didn't need them in the long run. In the short run PPs are supposed to be scarce. Their function is to make decisions required. But if you want to award them lavishly you can and then the numbers imposed to do any single task fall out of the equation. You can essentially remove PPs from the game if you want to. It's easy in the editor.

I think the issue, though, is we like the effect of PPs in limiting activations of new units, changing commanders, etc. It's the (IMHO) extremely high cost of reallocating already activated (unrestricted) units between different unrestricted commands - it costs as much as the initial activation (sometimes only 25%, but sometimes the activation is only 25% as well, depending on the command structure), when it is really mostly a convenience/player organizational tool. If you just increase the amount of PPs available, you potentially could (as the allies) buy out many more units, much earlier than the game is balanced for - I don't think thats what we are asking for (at least I am not). Just a way to make it cheaper to re-align all of the units in Port Moresby under I Corps, for example, rather than some SWPac, some Eastern Command, etc.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Justus2

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Rainer



So lets hope Michael (michaelm) reads this, and, if no other objections crop up, finds a way to adjust this a bit.

You can change the number of PPs awarded per turn in about thirty seconds in the editor. No need for universal changes or messing with the EXE. I played a GC with 70 per turn for the Allies and found I didn't need them in the long run. In the short run PPs are supposed to be scarce. Their function is to make decisions required. But if you want to award them lavishly you can and then the numbers imposed to do any single task fall out of the equation. You can essentially remove PPs from the game if you want to. It's easy in the editor.

I think the issue, though, is we like the effect of PPs in limiting activations of new units, changing commanders, etc. It's the (IMHO) extremely high cost of reallocating already activated (unrestricted) units between different unrestricted commands - it costs as much as the initial activation (sometimes only 25%, but sometimes the activation is only 25% as well, depending on the command structure), when it is really mostly a convenience/player organizational tool. If you just increase the amount of PPs available, you potentially could (as the allies) buy out many more units, much earlier than the game is balanced for - I don't think thats what we are asking for (at least I am not). Just a way to make it cheaper to re-align all of the units in Port Moresby under I Corps, for example, rather than some SWPac, some Eastern Command, etc.

So it's a self-discipline problem?

Give yourself enough PPs to do what you want, don't use the new pile to do what you don't think you should. Simple.

[Dan Nichols]

Works fine for games against the AI. Probably not a viable option for PBEM.

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Why is it so expensive to reattach unrestricted units to unrestricted HQs?

The short-winded answer is because the AE design team had more things that it wanted to do, than time to do them.

The current PP discount for transfering units 'within the chain-of-command' was intended to be the system for low-cost transfers between HQs. But it was not fully implemented, and is riven with loopholes, because it was intended to be matched with a more robust and rigorous set of rules for HQs assignments and combat bonuses.

One of the envisioned coding improvements that fell through, for lack of time, was to make transfers between unrestricted HQs meaningful, by tieing HQ bonuses only to those land and air units assigned within the chain-of-command, and in HQs range.

We didn't get around to that, and when time ran out we had defaulted to making sure that PPs were roughly adequate to release all the restricted units in the game that were historically deployed in the early years of the war.

Given that, I would be pleased with a patch where any transfer from a restricted command paid full PP cost, and all transfers between unrestricted commands would pay only a fraction -- 10% or 25% of the nominal PP cost. But that's a game-play change, not a technical or player-aid fix, and I don't think that michaelm will make the decision on his own, even if he and we all agree it makes sense.

[Rainer]

Blackhorse, thanks a lot for a thoughtful answer which gives us mortals another insight view.
I think I fully understand the constraints and appreciate very much what the designer team had achieved under the given circumstances.

I very much hope nobody - especially those involved in design and implementation - takes my request as a complaint.

It seems to be clear to me that the developing cycle of WitP/AE has come to an end.
Nevertheless publisher (Matrix) and designers (3by2 and AE team) still see to it that the last remaining glitches are taken care of and ironed out if at all possible. That's a lot to say thank you for, especially to Michael Farland (michaelm).

And we all can start another Grand Campaign if we want to with the reassuring feeling that really disturbing issues - if there are any left at all - will be taken care of.

Thanks to the original creators (Gary Grigsby and team), to the Follow Up Team which created the wonderful AE extension (Joe Wilkerson, Don Bowen and a lot of others), and last not least to Michael.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Works fine for games against the AI. Probably not a viable option for PBEM.

Either HR it or live with it.

The problem with putting stuff like this in the Tech Section is:

A. It doesn't belong here. This is not a bug.
B. Active development of the game is over.
C. Not everyone thinks this is a problem that should be fixed even if the game were in active development. I'm fine with it as it is, so mark me down as a 'no'.
D. Even if everyone did think it was a problem there would never be agreement on what "proper" PP levels should be since they're a game mechanic made from whole cloth
E. The issue can be dealt with in the editor and by HRs if more control is required.

[Rainer]

Bullwinkle58, you know as well as I do that "The Moose" is a very respected member of the forum, not only because of the very good knowledge of the game but also because of the willingness to share this with others.
Please do not damage this well earned reputation by patronizing those who honestly try to participate in the forums discussion.
I will certainly continue to place my contributions where I see fit.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Rainer

Bullwinkle58, you know as well as I do that "The Moose" is a very respected member of the forum, not only because of the very good knowledge of the game but also because of the willingness to share this with others.
Please do not damage this well earned reputation by patronizing those who honestly try to participate in the forums discussion.
I will certainly continue to place my contributions where I see fit.

You got a problem take it up with Matrix. This sub-forum is for bug reports and fixes, not requests to re-write the game. You want to talk about that there's a sub-forum for it.