Gamey play

[rroberson]

Just to be clear, since you wanted one more shot, it was you I was referring to when I spoke about posters calling him a cheater. That was despicable.

I'm going to give you a green-button vacation.
[/quote]


Call it what you like. He is cheating...made worse if he doesn't bother to tell his opponents what he is doing prior to doing it. You don't mind and I think that's great. Others certainly do.

There are many ways to cheat in online games. One of this scope certainly has a lot of flaws. I tend to avoid those sorts of players especially the type that exploit game designs looking for unique ways to win at any cost.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


It gives me a strange sense of pride that I'm the baseline for all the nefarious tricks Japan can pull off

Well, yeah, but there's still 1945 . . . [8D]

Loka will win in our game, no question of it. It's the when and how that's still to be decided.

Hopefully, my AAR will be a nice example of how, even with the Japanese pulling out every trick they can, the Allies (when properly led) can still win.

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Just to be clear, since you wanted one more shot, it was you I was referring to when I spoke about posters calling him a cheater. That was despicable.

I'm going to give you a green-button vacation.

Call it what you like. He is cheating...made worse if he doesn't bother to tell his opponents what he is doing prior to doing it. You don't mind and I think that's great. Others certainly do.

There are many ways to cheat in online games. One of this scope certainly has a lot of flaws. I tend to avoid those sorts of players especially the type that exploit game designs looking for unique ways to win at any cost.


[/quote]

What rule says that full PP costs have to be paid for anything?

Where is it written in the manual?

If what we have discussed in the HQ/PP system was an exploit, it would have been fixed by now. Many more issues have.

Lokasenna does not cheat. His attitude to the game differs from your own. This does not make him a cheater.

The sooner you realize this, the better. It does not sit well with me (and others) to call people out as cheaters.

[pontiouspilot]

my goodness...this threatens to be a gossip column. Don't forget the old adage: "When people quit bitchin about you....you know you are dead".

[rroberson]

[/quote]

What rule says that full PP costs have to be paid for anything?

Where is it written in the manual?

If what we have discussed in the HQ/PP system was an exploit, it would have been fixed by now. Many more issues have.

Lokasenna does not cheat. His attitude to the game differs from your own. This does not make him a cheater.

The sooner you realize this, the better. It does not sit well with me (and others) to call people out as cheaters.

lol...his attitude is rules, he don't need no stinking rules. [8|]

It has been pointed out by others that the way that Lok has admitted to using the PP rules was not the intent of the designers. When they did the refresh of the game they wanted to fix it, but they simply ran out of time to correct it...(given the laundry list of issues with the game that's easy to see). But in multiple threads they have said no, we don't want the players using the HQs this way. I mean, that's straight from the horse's mouth, I don't know what more evidence you need.

Lok has admitted he dislikes house rules...of course he does...it means he can't use the various exploits he has discovered in the game design. It's great that he has found like-minded players. It doesn't change my opinion of him or others who would use the game breaking exploits so they can win an online game. How he plays is up to him and that's great...I'm happy for you. But don't pretend like you or he aren't exploiting the game system with your style of play. Happily, you guys have revealed yourselves so players like me can be sure not to invest time in a game with you.

If you feel I am calling him a cheater, that's how you feel. I don't think I have openly said anyone was cheating. I simply didn't understand where the fun of exploiting the game design comes from. I have given him the benefit of the doubt as long as he is letting his opponents know in advance he intends to flout the design of the game. But having played enough of these games in the 11 plus years I have been going at it...not all players inform their opponents they plan to take advantage of the exploits. By their intent they are cheating...if Lok or you are feeling guilty...perhaps a strong look in the mirror is in order.

If not, by all means continue to play as you feel within your circle of fellow gamers.

[wdolson]

WitP can be seen in two ways, is it a simulation or a game. If you see it as a simulation, doing anything that couldn't happen historically is a problem. If you see it as a game, you do anything within the rules that allows you to get an advantage.

Whether taking advantage of loopholes in the rules is cheating or not is up to the people playing a particular game. It may not be what you would tolerate, but that's what house rules are for.

In any case, please chill with the finger pointing. It isn't needed and it doesn't help anything.

Bill

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

WitP can be seen in two ways, is it a simulation or a game. If you see it as a simulation, doing anything that couldn't happen historically is a problem. If you see it as a game, you do anything within the rules that allows you to get an advantage.

Whether taking advantage of loopholes in the rules is cheating or not is up to the people playing a particular game. It may not be what you would tolerate, but that's what house rules are for.

In any case, please chill with the finger pointing. It isn't needed and it doesn't help anything.

Bill

Aye aye sir. Things indeed have gotten testy and off my original post of exploring where the fun was in bending the rules.

I will return to my silent sam self.

[8D]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

What rule says that full PP costs have to be paid for anything?

Where is it written in the manual?

If what we have discussed in the HQ/PP system was an exploit, it would have been fixed by now. Many more issues have.

Lokasenna does not cheat. His attitude to the game differs from your own. This does not make him a cheater.

The sooner you realize this, the better. It does not sit well with me (and others) to call people out as cheaters.

lol...his attitude is rules, he don't need no stinking rules. [8|]

[/quote]

I ask again, what rules do you speak of? Where are they written?

It has been pointed out by others that the way that Lok has admitted to using the PP rules was not the intent of the designers. When they did the refresh of the game they wanted to fix it, but they simply ran out of time to correct it...(given the laundry list of issues with the game that's easy to see).

If the design team disliked how the HQ system works, they've had plenty of time to change it. A wide range of issues and changes have been made to aspects of the game that weren't performing as they should (eg, air intercept model for large scale combat) and yet nobody has changed the HQ system.

Is it perhaps because it's WAD?

But in multiple threads they have said no, we don't want the players using the HQs this way. I mean, that's straight from the horse's mouth, I don't know what more evidence you need.

Do you have a link to the source for that?

Lok has admitted he dislikes house rules...of course he does...it means he can't use the various exploits he has discovered in the game design. It's great that he has found like-minded players. It doesn't change my opinion of him or others who would use the game breaking exploits so they can win an online game. How he plays is up to him and that's great...I'm happy for you. But don't pretend like you or he aren't exploiting the game system with your style of play. Happily, you guys have revealed yourselves so players like me can be sure not to invest time in a game with you.

Then your opinion is misinformed and wrong.

You'd be surprised just how many "exploits" within the game are actually just players without the flexibility to respond to novel circumstances and rely on house rules as a crutch.

The best example is stratosweeps. I'm sure you'd rather just house rule it up so that you don't have to do any hard thinking; for me, I enjoy trying to set up my fighter groups so as to beat the stratosweep. It can be done

If you feel I am calling him a cheater, that's how you feel. I don't think I have openly said anyone was cheating.

Post #81, you say "Call it what you like. He [Loka] is cheating..."

By their intent they are cheating...if Lok or you are feeling guilty...perhaps a strong look in the mirror is in order.

Hardly.

After playing with HR's and switching to no HR's, the latter is the future. You should perhaps try it before you judge, but that might be asking a bit much.

[btd64]

An old Generals 2 cents. The only LCU's I assign to an air HQ are units that are at the base to "defend the base as a permanent part of that base" such as a Marine def bat. Other units would be EAB's, BF's or Eng reg's/bat's. NEVER COMBAT UNITS. If I need to move a division early on I do one of two things;
1. Save the PP's thru good management.
2. Break down the unit and move it piece by piece as I can afford it, also thru PP's management.

I also LEAVE REPLACEMENTS AND UPGRADES OFF.

As far as moving units from one area to another, say India to Burma or China to Malaya, the LCU's should be "under" the "HQ" in "COMMAND" in that area. It simply helps to keep some "Historical Balance" to a game that is hard to keep historical after December 7th no matter how hard you try.

The more I think about "house rules" the more I think that the above 2 should be it. If you have 4E bombers that can attack ships on Dec 10th, so be it. If your intellegents says the USN CV's are SE of PH on Dec 8th, well I better move my carrier's the h**l out of there. This coming from a AFB. If you have the ability to statigic bomb in 1941 or 42. so be it. So on and so forth. Move the Dutch to OZ. Go ahead.

GP's 2 cents....GP

[crsutton]

Air HQs don't give you a bonus in combat, I don't think that has ever been said...it fives you a bonus of being able to buy your combat divisions out at a 75 percent discount. That is a HUGE advantage in game particularly early when Japan is scraping around for PPs to release all those unused Manchurian units facing the soviets. And that is the center of my argument.

By 43/44, it doesn't matter because and competent player should be kicking Japan's ass...but who wants to spend a year playing someone who is exploiting the game design and patiently wait for the game to finally be on even terms?


But some (many) would argue that this is the ultimate in gamey. These units historically were not available to Japan for any purpose because the Japanese army's fear refusal to release them. For them the Soviet threat was real. The end result hindered their reaction to the Guadalcanal threat. Yet, I have never heard of any Japanese player who does not pull units out of Manchuria to the near limit. If you follow this line of argument then a Japanese player would have a moral and ethical responsibility not to do it because it is gaming the system and the real Japanese never would have done it. To me it seems just as ridiculous as assigning Allied units to HQ.

I hope you see my point here. I don't think my opponents should be restricted in Manchuria and I don't believe in assigning Allied ground units to air HQ to save PP. However, in a game as complex as this for anyone to accuse another of being gamey is always a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I myself hate my opponents use of massed Japanese air attacks in the first year of the war. Basically, he can take any 1-1 attack in the open and turn it into a rout with a massed bombing attack the same turn. But by economizing my PPs have been able to buy out more restricted AA units as a counter. (and AA works very well now) Who is being gamey? Neither. There is just no way to play this game on a fully historical basis. I have a good opponent who listens to me when I complain. However, the choice is his regarding if he changes or not. If he disagrees, I adapt.

Someone who plays the engine to the max to gain an advantage is not a cheater. He is just a different type of gamer than me. That is fine. There are plenty of opponents out there for him.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

For the Allies side the PP costs work fine. By mid 43 arriving restricted units pretty much disappear and the Allies really do not have to worry about PP costs. The idea is to slow down the Allied capabilities in the first half of the war and it really seems to do that very well. I don't really care much what my opponent is doing or how much PP points he has accumulated. Quite frankly, if the Allied player is up to snuff, then virtually all Japanese players are going to be hating life come 1944-no matter their PP situation. Works fine for me.

I have to disagree, as I have before. Take a look at your queues. For the US Army alone you get WC restricted IDs in 1943 and 1944--7th and 98th (?) Those are each about 4 months of PPs to buy out. You get a lot of restricted AA. You get several restricted engineering units. And that's just the US Army.

You say in your post you haven't been able to use the Kiwis; you should be able to by 1943.

For me I still haven't got the 7th fully bought in December 1943 because I needed the Aussie divisions for NG and I didn't do the I Corps move. I paid full boat for the Aussies at about 550 PP per third. Ouch. A month per third.

I've got no PPs to get the 98th next spring unless I start saving now, and I can't as I need another 700+ to finish the 7th.

You've played the full game before, so you know how many TFs need new COs, how many subs come with pretty bad COs, etc. In the early game you spend replacing scores of air leaders in the 20s; in the late game you need PPs for TFs. Which is fine, but you're trying to buy IDs that should be fully trained when they arrive for deployment.

As you say Michael added new PP freight too. I don't mind, but it's another leak.

I don't know if I'll ever start another game. But I'd want at least 60/day. 70/day would be better. The Kiwis are useful.

Perhaps so. It is tight for me and some units have to wait. That does not mean that I don't think that I am getting enough forces to defeat Japan. Some air units are not converting, some leaders are not getting replaced. If you should have enough PP to do all that and also buy our every units then why bother with the PP system at all? To me that is the beauty of the PP system. You should never have everything you want. As for the Allied side, I like it and think it works just great. It is more expensive now with the patches but I have learned to economize so it comes out about even in that respect.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Perhaps so. It is tight for me and some units have to wait. That does not mean that I don't think that I am getting enough forces to defeat Japan. Some air units are not converting, some leaders are not getting replaced. If you should have enough PP to do all that and also buy our every units then why bother with the PP system at all? To me that is the beauty of the PP system. You should never have everything you want. As for the Allied side, I like it and think it works just great. It is more expensive now with the patches but I have learned to economize so it comes out about even in that respect.

It's never tight for Japan though. You might be OK with the Allies starvation decisions, but Japan is fat from the beginning. Even the 500 pool versus the 100 gives Japan a head start. It hasn't been mentioned either, but the withdrawal system is also on the Allies. Mess that up a few times, forget a ship or have one damaged, and you can lose a month's PPs pretty quickly.

I never had a lot of trouble playing the AI and going through the DEI. There was more LBA to soften up and naval bombardment cycle times were lower than in CentPac. Loka's game is a CentPac game, and he has division-plus defenses on a lot of islands I can't leave in the rear due to the torpedo magic he described in his posts. My landings need to be 2-3 IDs to not be thrown back on the beach. I need infantry. Combined with 90-day preps it makes a CentPac campaign probably the hardest route there is. I chose it, but I didn't know what I was in for. The AI doesn't put divisions on atolls.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Perhaps so. It is tight for me and some units have to wait. That does not mean that I don't think that I am getting enough forces to defeat Japan. Some air units are not converting, some leaders are not getting replaced. If you should have enough PP to do all that and also buy our every units then why bother with the PP system at all? To me that is the beauty of the PP system. You should never have everything you want. As for the Allied side, I like it and think it works just great. It is more expensive now with the patches but I have learned to economize so it comes out about even in that respect.

It's never tight for Japan though. You might be OK with the Allies starvation decisions, but Japan is fat from the beginning. Even the 500 pool versus the 100 gives Japan a head start. It hasn't been mentioned either, but the withdrawal system is also on the Allies. Mess that up a few times, forget a ship or have one damaged, and you can lose a month's PPs pretty quickly.

I never had a lot of trouble playing the AI and going through the DEI. There was more LBA to soften up and naval bombardment cycle times were lower than in CentPac. Loka's game is a CentPac game, and he has division-plus defenses on a lot of islands I can't leave in the rear due to the torpedo magic he described in his posts. My landings need to be 2-3 IDs to not be thrown back on the beach. I need infantry. Combined with 90-day preps it makes a CentPac campaign probably the hardest route there is. I chose it, but I didn't know what I was in for. The AI doesn't put divisions on atolls.

Well, having never played Japan I just don't know the situation with their PPs. However, I will say that from my observations there are a hell of a lot of other ways in which the Japanese player can "screw the pooch." And playing Japan "well" is a very difficult thing to pull off. Just saying that I think I still have to upper hand as the Allies. 1942 is hell but for me the most exciting part of the game. Get to early 43 and I am beginning to call the shots. For that reason, I don't worry about Japanese PPs. And, of course, I avoid the Central Pacific Route...[;)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton


Well, having never played Japan I just don't know the situation with their PPs. However, I will say that from my observations there are a hell of a lot of other ways in which the Japanese player can "screw the pooch." And playing Japan "well" is a very difficult thing to pull off. Just saying that I think I still have to upper hand as the Allies. 1942 is hell but for me the most exciting part of the game. Get to early 43 and I am beginning to call the shots. For that reason, I don't worry about Japanese PPs. And, of course, I avoid the Central Pacific Route...[;)]

Loka plays both and plays them both at master levels. Playing a pure JFB you can at least rely on him not knowing the details of your upgrades or how many Shermans you get. Loka knows.

The fact he has 11,000 PP to spare at the end of 1943 is perhaps extreme, but he's said he's never been short. We also don't play with border-crossing HRs so he saved there with Manchuria. But so did I with India.

My other, DBB, game is against a player who only posts here infrequently, but he is a master JFB as well. March 1942 and we just went past 3:1 against me, with Bataan and most of China still to go. He came right across CentPac, so I'll have to go back the same way, at least part way.

CentPac is hard, but I still prefer it to the DEI. I like blue water.

[Skyros]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


If the design team disliked how the HQ system works, they've had plenty of time to change it. A wide range of issues and changes have been made to aspects of the game that weren't performing as they should (eg, air intercept model for large scale combat) and yet nobody has changed the HQ system.

Is it perhaps because it's WAD?

The HQ system is incomplete. It was one of the systems left that way to get the product out. Once released many of the devs moved on to other endeavors and most of the changes were bug fixes and UI enhancements. The HQ system would have been a significant endeavor to further enhance. ANd yes you can find many threads dating back to 09 stating that.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Skyros

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


If the design team disliked how the HQ system works, they've had plenty of time to change it. A wide range of issues and changes have been made to aspects of the game that weren't performing as they should (eg, air intercept model for large scale combat) and yet nobody has changed the HQ system.

Is it perhaps because it's WAD?

The HQ system is incomplete. It was one of the systems left that way to get the product out. Once released many of the devs moved on to other endeavors and most of the changes were bug fixes and UI enhancements. The HQ system would have been a significant endeavor to further enhance. ANd yes you can find many threads dating back to 09 stating that.

It would have been a significant endeavor to make HQ hierarchies matter in terms of C&C, logistics, order transmission, etc. It would not be significant to move the Air HQs out from under the WC Land HQs or just make the WC Air HQs restricted. That's editor stuff.

[HMSWarspite]

There are a few people getting hot under the collar here, but (as is often the case) this is because of different views of the world. My 10 cents:
1. Computer games don't have rules. They have design features, but anything they let you do is (by definition) within the game
2.Computer games have design flaws. Some are revealed deficiencies (i.e. were not thought of by the developer and only came to light once hundreds of highly intelligent gamers started playing. Some are bad design (i.e. not thought through properly). Some are due to limitations in the scope of the game, and these are usually simplifications that are necessary to keep the game in hand, and some are just bugs (miscoding of the design intent). Whether it is gamey to exploit these depends on the effect, whether you agree to allow it and the style of game you want.
3. The War in the... series are historical games, and I view gaming them to the max as the ultimate oddity. People who complain about mines and torpedoes (from a historical basis) but then use inconsistencies in HQ PP points to get round limitations are being illogical. IMHO if you want to play a pure game, play chess. A pure game. WITx are historical simulation games... I think you should play them with the limitations RL commanders have. However other views are valid:)
4. PP limits are to reflect chaos and unpreparedness (Allies), or (e.g.) Russian threats outside of the game (JPN). There is no logic or real life basis for certain HQ transfers to be much cheaper than others (Air vs Land). Thus I would never do it. Anyone who does it without declaring it is being gamey in a game that is basically historic. Anyone who doesn't do it in a 'pure game' game is stupid. However I would never do it, since WITx are notgood 'pure games'. Far to asymmetric and hard to balance.
5. Anyone who does it had better not come on the forum and complain about the inaccurate model of some obscure weapon on a ship (or something), since they are being very very inconsistent.
6. A game player (as opposed to History player) should be campaigning for a rationalisation of PP costs just as much as a History player, because the expensive option achieves nothing. A history player wants it rationalised to removed to eliminate an ahistorical inconsistency that can cause trouble...

Not sure it helps, but maybe we can agree that no one is 'right' but some views are more or less logical given different views of the game...

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Air HQs don't give you a bonus in combat, I don't think that has ever been said...it fives you a bonus of being able to buy your combat divisions out at a 75 percent discount. That is a HUGE advantage in game particularly early when Japan is scraping around for PPs to release all those unused Manchurian units facing the soviets. And that is the center of my argument.

By 43/44, it doesn't matter because and competent player should be kicking Japan's ass...but who wants to spend a year playing someone who is exploiting the game design and patiently wait for the game to finally be on even terms?


But some (many) would argue that this is the ultimate in gamey. These units historically were not available to Japan for any purpose because the Japanese army's fear refusal to release them. For them the Soviet threat was real. The end result hindered their reaction to the Guadalcanal threat. Yet, I have never heard of any Japanese player who does not pull units out of Manchuria to the near limit. If you follow this line of argument then a Japanese player would have a moral and ethical responsibility not to do it because it is gaming the system and the real Japanese never would have done it. To me it seems just as ridiculous as assigning Allied units to HQ.

I hope you see my point here. I don't think my opponents should be restricted in Manchuria and I don't believe in assigning Allied ground units to air HQ to save PP. However, in a game as complex as this for anyone to accuse another of being gamey is always a case of the pot calling the kettle black. I myself hate my opponents use of massed Japanese air attacks in the first year of the war. Basically, he can take any 1-1 attack in the open and turn it into a rout with a massed bombing attack the same turn. But by economizing my PPs have been able to buy out more restricted AA units as a counter. (and AA works very well now) Who is being gamey? Neither. There is just no way to play this game on a fully historical basis. I have a good opponent who listens to me when I complain. However, the choice is his regarding if he changes or not. If he disagrees, I adapt.

Someone who plays the engine to the max to gain an advantage is not a cheater. He is just a different type of gamer than me. That is fine. There are plenty of opponents out there for him.

I do see your point and largely agree with it...I personally hate seeing massed japanese bombing attacks 3 months into the war.

However, with the PP thing, it's really not a question of if your opponent is using them in a less then honorable manner that makes it cheating. As Steve said earlier, it's his intent. If you are playing an open game where anything goes (4Es hitting naval targets at 1K for the win!) and everyone is good with that. Fine.

However, if you are playing a game with house rules and you are aware of exploits such as the 75 percent PPs and your opponent isn't...so much so he can't even know to ask for the house rule. Yeah, you're cheating. In the previous example the players are playing an open game but the allied player had no idea his opponent was stock piling his PPs through the use of the air HQs. Now he was fine with it. I wouldn't have been and I would have called my opp out on it.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton


Well, having never played Japan I just don't know the situation with their PPs. However, I will say that from my observations there are a hell of a lot of other ways in which the Japanese player can "screw the pooch." And playing Japan "well" is a very difficult thing to pull off. Just saying that I think I still have to upper hand as the Allies. 1942 is hell but for me the most exciting part of the game. Get to early 43 and I am beginning to call the shots. For that reason, I don't worry about Japanese PPs. And, of course, I avoid the Central Pacific Route...[;)]

Loka plays both and plays them both at master levels. Playing a pure JFB you can at least rely on him not knowing the details of your upgrades or how many Shermans you get. Loka knows.

The fact he has 11,000 PP to spare at the end of 1943 is perhaps extreme, but he's said he's never been short. We also don't play with border-crossing HRs so he saved there with Manchuria. But so did I with India.

My other, DBB, game is against a player who only posts here infrequently, but he is a master JFB as well. March 1942 and we just went past 3:1 against me, with Bataan and most of China still to go. He came right across CentPac, so I'll have to go back the same way, at least part way.

CentPac is hard, but I still prefer it to the DEI. I like blue water.

I haven't played the allies enough yet to have a good return strategy. I can see DEI being difficult with tons of supporting land based air. But cracking those well fortified islands cannot be much easier...giving the stacking limitations.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

There are a few people getting hot under the collar here, but (as is often the case) this is because of different views of the world. My 10 cents:
1. Computer games don't have rules. They have design features, but anything they let you do is (by definition) within the game
2.Computer games have design flaws. Some are revealed deficiencies (i.e. were not thought of by the developer and only came to light once hundreds of highly intelligent gamers started playing. Some are bad design (i.e. not thought through properly). Some are due to limitations in the scope of the game, and these are usually simplifications that are necessary to keep the game in hand, and some are just bugs (miscoding of the design intent). Whether it is gamey to exploit these depends on the effect, whether you agree to allow it and the style of game you want.
3. The War in the... series are historical games, and I view gaming them to the max as the ultimate oddity. People who complain about mines and torpedoes (from a historical basis) but then use inconsistencies in HQ PP points to get round limitations are being illogical. IMHO if you want to play a pure game, play chess. A pure game. WITx are historical simulation games... I think you should play them with the limitations RL commanders have. However other views are valid:)
4. PP limits are to reflect chaos and unpreparedness (Allies), or (e.g.) Russian threats outside of the game (JPN). There is no logic or real life basis for certain HQ transfers to be much cheaper than others (Air vs Land). Thus I would never do it. Anyone who does it without declaring it is being gamey in a game that is basically historic. Anyone who doesn't do it in a 'pure game' game is stupid. However I would never do it, since WITx are notgood 'pure games'. Far to asymmetric and hard to balance.
5. Anyone who does it had better not come on the forum and complain about the inaccurate model of some obscure weapon on a ship (or something), since they are being very very inconsistent.
6. A game player (as opposed to History player) should be campaigning for a rationalisation of PP costs just as much as a History player, because the expensive option achieves nothing. A history player wants it rationalised to removed to eliminate an ahistorical inconsistency that can cause trouble...

Not sure it helps, but maybe we can agree that no one is 'right' but some views are more or less logical given different views of the game...

I agree with everything you said here. Like I said, my only bump with all this is if my opponent the gamer doesn't let me the history nut know in advance he intends to game the hell out of the design. At that point his intentions are not honorable. And given the immense time investment that this monster requires, it is game breaking to realize six months in you are not playing against someone who views the game as you do. I got annoyed and started tossing out cheater yesterday...that was a bit much for sure....however if you do intend to be a gamer then you do need to let your prospective opponent know in advance.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


Then your opinion is misinformed and wrong.

You'd be surprised just how many "exploits" within the game are actually just players without the flexibility to respond to novel circumstances and rely on house rules as a crutch.

The best example is stratosweeps. I'm sure you'd rather just house rule it up so that you don't have to do any hard thinking; for me, I enjoy trying to set up my fighter groups so as to beat the stratosweep. It can be done

If you feel I am calling him a cheater, that's how you feel. I don't think I have openly said anyone was cheating.

Post #81, you say "Call it what you like. He [Loka] is cheating..."

By their intent they are cheating...if Lok or you are feeling guilty...perhaps a strong look in the mirror is in order.

Hardly.

After playing with HR's and switching to no HR's, the latter is the future. You should perhaps try it before you judge, but that might be asking a bit much.

No. Strato sweeps are the perfect example of broken game design being exploited. It is why people create house rules around them. Same with 4Es pounding naval targets below 10K. A lot of people have been playing this game now for a decade....there is a reason that there are some pretty standard house rules. Not having them breaks the game and then you find yourself playing an ahistorical mess. Now that might be fun for you and yours, but it certainly isn't fun for one hell of a lot of players who are seeking WITPAE game here.