Gamey play

[WriterNotViking]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I have a question, though. "flipped all the dutch units to ABDA and moved them to Australia". I do this with several of the Dutch base units, as those are always nice to have. I never thought of this as gamey. Did I miss a memo?

Since the restricted KNIL command is subordinate to ABDA, which is NOT an Air HQ, I see absolutely no reason to consider this gamey. Without this, the only way to move Dutch LCUs around the DEI is by air transport, which means for the most part, your only defensive strategy in that area becomes "die where you stand." Of course, that's what actually happened, but most people that play this game already have a fairly good idea of how the war progressed historically. What's the point of playing the game if we artificially limit the extent to which our operations can deviate from history? The longer this game exists, and the more AARs are posted, the harder it becomes to surprise your opponent with a strategy they haven't seen before. What's not to like about the potential for being surprised where your enemy appears, and what forces he brings?

I see the point regarding assigning land units to Air HQ's, but even that should be negotiated for each game, since (as someone else said) this option is available to both sides. When it comes to unrestricted army subcommands of larger restricted ones, I see zero problems. It wouldn't have been included, or at the least would have been fixed in a patch, if it wasn't meant to be a valid option. Ultimately, this is a subject that should be covered between opponents before the start of a game to ensure both are on the same page about the issue, and no one has grounds for complaints later on.

[Amoral]

It doesn't bother me if people want to play using the PP system as it was intended. It does not bother me if people want to play the system as it is enforced. Where I think trouble will come up is people who have creative tricks to pay less than full price to transfer a restricted unit, and justify that to themselves. But still say that they are playing the PP system as intended, and not in a gamey fashion.

Disbanding units to change command and then re-buying them is the very definition of gamey. It is a course of action you taken not because it has a real world explanation, but because it is a way to defeat the game engine. Doing something like that is fine, if your opponent knows that defeating the game engine is something he should be trying to do as well.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

I see the point in the OP. I would never think of assigning land to an Air HQ. I just try to keep things within my mind of what 'feels right'.

I have a question, though. "flipped all the dutch units to ABDA and moved them to Australia". I do this with several of the Dutch base units, as those are always nice to have. I never thought of this as gamey. Did I miss a memo?

You know, I think I would be okay with it if it was one or two base units. The game I took over the other guy was flipping dutch units en masse. When I get home I will post a screen shot of what Australia currently looks like...it's entertaining to say the least.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Too complicated to argue. The only solution is to find a player with similar philosophy about the game and have a frank discussion about what you expect before starting. HRs become too vague and although I use them, my opponent and I have as few as possible. In the end, they cause more arguments than they solve and can end friendships.

I have my own rules as far as the Allies go. I never reassign ground units to Air HQ. But, I do find as many ways to economize PPs as I can. I assign Australian division to the 1 Corps. In India (assuming you are not allowing restricted units to move into Burma) I disband divisions and brigades and reform them 180 days later and buy them out at a minimal cost before rebuilding. I have no qualms about this because you lose the unit for 180 days and have to retrain it as well. A fair trade in my book. As for my opponent, I do not ask what he is doing but know he is a fair player. We have agreed that if one of us has an issue then we just talk it out (sometimes with heat) until we find a solution. We have had about ten major disputes in our 8 years of campaigning. But if you do not have a HR and have not discussed things with your opponent before starting. Then they can do what they want. Like a famous supreme court justice once said " I can not accurately define gamey "but I know it when I see it."

I agree with this. I don't mind a loose game. I have often said if I wanted to repeat history I would crack open a book. The problem I have found is there are simply too many little exploits that some players are happy to take advantage of to not have a few house rules on the books. I do have a minimal set of rules now and I do screen players and feel them out. No amount of screen will catch everything though so at the end of the day you have to hope you are playing like-minded players. I don't think in 10 years I have ever "won" a game. I still play for the simply blowing things up part of the game. SO I guess that paints my play style and why I don't understand the win at any cost mentality.

[Bullwinkle58]

I don't do "gamey." Hate the word, find the concept undefinable.

I have played or am playing three PBEM games as the Allies. All were no-HR games. In most I have not reassigned land LCUs to Air HQs to save PPs. It's an internal edit. In some cases I have. When I did, why I did is my business.

There are four points on this issue I think are worth mentioning:

1. The PP daily budget is a scenario variable decided by the designer. In the case of stock, the devs. It was not handed down from on high to Moses. For the Allies it's usually 50/day. This number was set about seven years ago when the late game had minimal play-testing and JFBs had not learned to hyper-optimize the early game. But it's not a holy number.

2. Similarly, which HQ arriving LCUs plop into is a scenario designer decision. I disagree with many of them in stock. For example, I don't believe any USMC unit should be WC restricted. For sure not the shooters. They were and are an expeditionary force. They were intended to be assault troops. Why make them administratively stop on the WC and be bought out? Same with the beginning US Army independent regiments.

The US had a period of shock and paralysis after Pearl Harbor that lasted weeks and at most maybe four months. After that we were on a war footing and the risk of WC invasion steadily decreased. But in the first months PPs should be precious and require real trade-offs. The problem is the PP system doesn't ramp. The scenario number is the number for the duration. And LCUs continue to arrive restricted even though a dog could figure out they're going forward into combat as soon as possible. It's why at Christmas 1943 I'm still trying to buy out an ID in thirds I've been trying to buy out for a year.

3. The devs had the option of not co-mingling WC Land HQs with WC Air HQs. They didn't. If they had separated them into peer-level groups the WC issue wouldn't be an issue. And the WC HQs to me as an Allied player represent most of the question. The Dutch stuff and the Aussie stuff are molehills. The Dutch have no replacements to speak of and fairly primitive devices. Their air force is a joke. A lot of the Aussie army in stock is restricted, but you can buy it into the I Corps pretty cheaply. Having to do that, however, does lead to starvation for the Americans for a lot of 1943. Same with the Kiwis.

4. The common HR to pay to cross borders was not, so far as I know, foreseen when the 50/day budget was set in the stock scenarios. The border system was not finished, true, but the PP system was not jacked up to allow for this common HR. Having it makes the starvation in CONUS even worse. I've never played with it, but given how low my PPs have always run I don't see how anyone could play a good Japan player in Burma and still have a US army to use before mid-1944. Perhaps a lot of Allied players who don't have trouble ought to play better Japan players.

[WriterNotViking]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Their air force is a joke.

Hey, no need to be harsh... [:D]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Their air force is a joke.

Hey, no need to be harsh... [:D]

Not trying to be. But a lot of AFBs play 1942 over and over and over. So it might seem to be at least average. It's not in span of the entire war.

[nate25]

I'm not quite wrapping my head round this.

So my switching the I Aus Corps to the Southwest Pacific is gamey?

I routinely link Allied base forces to whatever Air HQ they are serving.

Not sure why this is "Cheating".

Someone want to put a little finer point on it?

Thanks, Nate

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: nate25

I'm not quite wrapping my head round this.

So my switching the I Aus Corps to the Southwest Pacific is gamey?

I routinely link Allied base forces to whatever Air HQ they are serving.

Not sure why this is "Cheating".

Someone want to put a little finer point on it?

Thanks, Nate

No. You switch I Aus Corps from Australia Command to itself for 87 PPs and after that it's unrestricted and can accept most Aussie LCUs under its umbrella.

[WriterNotViking]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Their air force is a joke.

Hey, no need to be harsh... [:D]

Not trying to be. But a lot of AFBs play 1942 over and over and over. So it might seem to be at least average. It's not in span of the entire war.

I'm just joking. Being Dutch, I'm legally required by my country's laws to glorify our achievements in the war. [:'(] I've played 1942 way too often, and a big part of my fun is making the most of those undermanned, under-equipped units.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Amoral


Disbanding units to change command and then re-buying them is the very definition of gamey. It is a course of action you taken not because it has a real world explanation, but because it is a way to defeat the game engine. Doing something like that is fine, if your opponent knows that defeating the game engine is something he should be trying to do as well.

You seem to be the definitive source for gamey or not. There are many reasons for disbanding units. Such as the need for squads to fill out other units or devices such as the scarce 25 pounder gun. As I said before disbanded units are off the map for six months and come back with no squads or devices and very low experience or morale. I consider this to be a fair trade for the PPs gained. However, if you and I began a game and you made it clear that this is not allowed and I accepted it then we are good to go. No problem with that. I do it to compensate for the fact that I cannot move restricted Indian units out of India due to agreeing to another commonly accepted HR that widely defies a real world explanation.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: WriterNotViking




Hey, no need to be harsh... [:D]

Not trying to be. But a lot of AFBs play 1942 over and over and over. So it might seem to be at least average. It's not in span of the entire war.

I'm just joking. Being Dutch, I'm legally required by my country's laws to glorify our achievements in the war. [:'(] I've played 1942 way too often, and a big part of my fun is making the most of those undermanned, under-equipped units.

Funny, you don't sound Dutch. [:)]

I'm going through early 1942 once again in one game now, and I just want a way to give the Dutch units to my opponent and save the middleman.

[Amoral]

There are many reasons for disbanding units. Such as the need for squads to fill out other units or devices such as the scarce 25 pounder gun.

If this is why you were disbanding them, that would be a valid reason. But you stated you were disbanding them to circumvent the PP cost. It is the motivation, not the clicks, that serve to define something as gamey to me.

[dr.hal]

Bullwinkle,

I simply don't understand, I've always found the Dutch units to be very useful... I'm not so sure why you don't see their value, but I would never forego them given the limited assets the Allies have in early '42... Plus my father (born in the Netherlands) would never sanction giving them up and my ohma would agree!.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

Bullwinkle,

I simply don't understand, I've always found the Dutch units to be very useful... I'm not so sure why you don't see their value, but I would never forego them given the limited assets the Allies have in early '42... Plus my father (born in the Netherlands) would never sanction giving them up and my ohma would agree!.

More useful than empty bases? Sure. Destined to die within the amphib bonus period? Yep. Do what you like, they die. They can't be bought back. They have no replacements. A lot of clicks to get to where they're dead. A few variables such as how trashed is Soerbaja, etc. but by spring they're dead and Japan is sitting on the real estate.

Going through it for the third time now. I just skip the animations.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

This all gets back to the basic principle on how you want to play the game. When I was living in Plymouth England, I was in a 5mm figure Napoleonic gaming contest. Each contestant could acquire 1200 points of figures from what ever country he (no women in the contest) wanted (some countries had unique characteristics) and play each other. In one set up, a friend of mine was being beaten badly, his troops being routed all over. While standing there watching, I noticed things were not right. I asked my friend's opponent what level of troops each of his units were ("A" being expert trained, while down at "D" was conscripts and scrubs!). The higher the rating, the more points it cost to acquire the unit, thus with a 1200 point limit, the fewer the troops you could field. It quickly became apparent that his troops added up to WAY more than the 1200 limit (over 1400 points in fact). It was a clear case of him wanting to win no matter what.... so he cheated and was caught. The truth is winning, for some players is what the whole game is about. That's why screening your opponent is a vital first step to get a game that is "good" for both sides.

It's important to clarify that gamey play is not cheating.

The clue's in the word itself: you're "gaming" the system.

Your example is outright cheating. A better example would be if the cheating opponent obtained an advantage by maniluapting his units. For example, if he drew troops from various nations that led to him having more/better troops (or something like that).

My outlook on all this: the developers created this game (or system, if you will) with a great deal of thought and effort. The fun for me is in finding the optimium way to play within the system that's in place.

About the only thing I stop short of is excessive single ship TF's to soak up OPS points, as that's more engine manipulation.

At the end of the day, you play this game as a game, or as a simulation, or as something in between. The best thing to do is find someone who play's the game the same way you do.

[Lokasenna]

If you want to put forth that "what was intended" for people to do with respect to buying units out to unrestricted commands... why did the developers, and later scenario designers, put unrestricted HQs within the umbrella that you can put units into? If they wanted to stop you from putting units into the unrestricted air HQs (except for the I and II Aus Corps under Australia Command), then why didn't they make those commands either restricted or put them elsewhere such that you had to pay full value?

Hoisting yourself up on your horse and berating others for playing the game fully, which you don't deign to do, is distasteful at best. I posted with the tone that I did because I found the prior language to be angry and offensive, similar to "Pfah! Can you BELIEVE what this peasant did? Look at how he assigned some LCUs to one of the valid options within the game but...it is an "air" HQ within the entire command umbrella! Us proper men would NEVER do something like this, and anyone who is not with us is scum! Pfah!"

I mean really. Play the game how you want, that's fine. But don't be ridiculous.

Edit: Ahem -

[Bullwinkle58]

I was informed by Lokasenna that my previously described plan to buy I Aus Corps out to itself is indeed stupid and wasteful. Instead, buy the Aussie Army, which is almost all under Australia Command (restricted) into I Corps while I Corps still works for Australia Command. Get them for cheap. Then buy I Corps out to itself.

Bad Moose, bad!

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I was informed by Lokasenna that my previously described plan to buy I Aus Corps out to itself is indeed stupid and wasteful. Instead, buy the Aussie Army, which is almost all under Australia Command (restricted) into I Corps while I Corps still works for Australia Command. Get them for cheap. Then buy I Corps out to itself.

Bad Moose, bad!

Yeah, I'm going to have to call off our game. You're too gamey...like duck or pheasant. I require meat with more flavor.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: nate25

I'm not quite wrapping my head round this.

So my switching the I Aus Corps to the Southwest Pacific is gamey?

I routinely link Allied base forces to whatever Air HQ they are serving.

Not sure why this is "Cheating".

Someone want to put a little finer point on it?

Thanks, Nate

No. You switch I Aus Corps from Australia Command to itself for 87 PPs and after that it's unrestricted and can accept most Aussie LCUs under its umbrella.

Again...that sort of thing is not gamey persay...your miles might vary.

The thing I was pointing out in the OP was when you purposely move your Land units (divisions of combat troops) under Air HQs because you can beat the PP costs (I think its like 25 percent of the land HQ) it allows you to free up all kinds of land units (divisions) which you turn around and employ freely. Meanwhile, your opponent is playing the game normally and not understanding why you have so many divisions landing during the open months of the game.

If the two players agree to run wild at the beginning of the game ...sure...that is cool...play the game how you want...but watching players game the system so they can get an unfair and unintended advantage (I doubt seriously that gary and the gang intended to have Japanese divisions serving under japanese air HQs...they were attempting to limit freeing all those manchurian/chinese divisions and keeping in China.

Sadly, this isn't the only example...just the one I keep running into regularly.