Op points?

[pad152]

Did I read some where there are op points in Witp ? I hope not, I hated this in PacWar.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by pad152
Did I read some where there are op points in Witp ? I hope not, I hated this in PacWar.

Can I ask why?

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by pad152
Did I read some where there are op points in Witp ? I hope not, I hated this in PacWar.

Probably not. There shouldn't be at any rate. "Ops Points"
represent a commitment of "abstracted resources" and serve
as a rational limit to what can be attempted based on the amount
of support NOT represented in a game that existed to be used.
WITP is pretty a detailed representation of the War, and most
of these "abstracted resources" should actually be present to
serve as a "reality" brake---so "Ops Points shouldn't be neces-
sary.

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
................---so "Ops Points shouldn't be neces-
sary.

????

Do you really think there are going to be little virtual guys hooking up the lines for refueling and waiting for the bunkers to be full? Or do you think it will be abstracted by the use of op points to represent the time taken by this refueling? Are you gonna sit there at your pc and wait while the troops load onto a ship? Or will you just click and a number of op points will be used and the ships will be loaded?

[Drongo]

Is there some confusion going on here between PacWar's Preparation Points, UV/WITPs Operation Points and WITPs Political Points?

Or am I the one getting confused???

[Sonny]

Originally posted by Drongo
Is there some confusion going on here between PacWar's Preparation Points, UV/WITPs Operation Points and WITPs Political Points?

Or am I the one getting confused???

Ah, o.k. - I was taking the op points literally - as in UV op points. Now I understand Mike's post - and he is correct - those abstractions won't be necessary in WitP.

(Hadn't played PACWAR in such a long time...)

[pad152]

Op points , prep points why do we need them?

If you have the supply and units you should be able to run operations as you see fit.

May we should start a new thread features we don't want, or need!

[mogami]

Originally posted by pad152
Op points , prep points why do we need them?

If you have the supply and units you should be able to run operations as you see fit.

May we should start a new thread features we don't want, or need!

Hi, OP points measure how much you can do in 24 hours (movement, loading, unloading, refueling all use OP points)

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by pad152
Op points , prep points why do we need them?

If you have the supply and units you should be able to run operations as you see fit.

May we should start a new thread features we don't want, or need!

There should be less need for OP points, than in PACWAR. I am not certain about not needing some form of them, without distorting capabilty. Not every HQ in the Pacific had the resources or skills to run major operations. I do not mean the ships, or divisions. I mean the planning staff, and the maps, and the telephones etc, to actually make it happen. I'll give an example. What would happen if Malaya command had been given 11Group fighter command as air defence, the Mediterrean Fleet for naval, and the 8th Army for ground? An immediate offensive into Siam? I rather think that they would have not done much, even if they didn't descend into a chaos of disorder and lack of supply. OK Replace Percival, and Palliser with say Wavell and Cunningham, and give Parks, or Leigh Mallory as AOCinC. Now would that help? I still think not, because they need their staff as well. The good leaders were good partly because they knew how to attract, and use talented staff, as well as their personal brilliance. There are only so many 'good' HQs around, and unless the player is in some way constrained, you end up with 'week 1, operation XYZ in Solomons launched. Succeeds after 1 month. Swap Leaders to Alaska, and one week later launch the next operation'.

Play is way too fast generally, and I think we need something to offset the giant eye in the sky, totally coordinated, logical single brain we have running the war, instead of the thousands of people all inadvertantly getting in the way.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
There should be less need for OP points, than in PACWAR. I am not certain about not needing some form of them, without distorting capabilty. Not every HQ in the Pacific had the resources or skills to run major operations. I do not mean the ships, or divisions. I mean the planning staff, and the maps, and the telephones etc, to actually make it happen. I'll give an example. What would happen if Malaya command had been given 11Group fighter command as air defence, the Mediterrean Fleet for naval, and the 8th Army for ground? An immediate offensive into Siam? I rather think that they would have not done much, even if they didn't descend into a chaos of disorder and lack of supply. OK Replace Percival, and Palliser with say Wavell and Cunningham, and give Parks, or Leigh Mallory as AOCinC. Now would that help? I still think not, because they need their staff as well. The good leaders were good partly because they knew how to attract, and use talented staff, as well as their personal brilliance. There are only so many 'good' HQs around, and unless the player is in some way constrained, you end up with 'week 1, operation XYZ in Solomons launched. Succeeds after 1 month. Swap Leaders to Alaska, and one week later launch the next operation'.

Play is way too fast generally, and I think we need something to offset the giant eye in the sky, totally coordinated, logical single brain we have running the war, instead of the thousands of people all inadvertantly getting in the way.

Indeed.

[pad152]

If the game has Op points, do I have the ability to allocate Op points where I see fit? And if so why the hell do I need them they become just another type of supply.

The game models supply, troops, ships aircraft, and you are limited by amount of supply, fuel, transport capacity, base size, base force units, HQ's and engineer units. Even in UV if you build too many bases it's tuff to keep them all supplied in the later stages of the game. Keeping forward bases supplied in Witp is going to be 100 times more difficult.

If I have a base with troops, supplies, aircraft, ships and I can't do anything with them because of Op Points we are going to have a major problem, and ton of posts of why can't I use them!

Point is Op Points are to abstract, and only make the game more difficult then it needs to be, give me something more tangible.

Remodel resources all ready in the game or add some new type of HQ unit, something like a base support unit or have different types of HQ's where not all HQ's can conduct every type of operation.

Please let's not add abstractions like Op Points.

[denisonh]

Originally posted by pad152
If the game has Op points, do I have the ability to allocate Op points where I see fit? And if so why the hell do I need them they become just another type of supply.

The game models supply, troops, ships aircraft, and you are limited by amount of supply, fuel, transport capacity, base size, base force units, HQ's and engineer units. Even in UV if you build too many bases it's tuff to keep them all supplied in the later stages of the game. Keeping forward bases supplied in Witp is going to be 100 times more difficult.

If I have a base with troops, supplies, aircraft, ships and I can't do anything with them because of Op Points we are going to have a major problem, and ton of posts of why can't I use them!

Point is Op Points are to abstract, and only make the game more difficult then it needs to be, give me something more tangible.

Remodel resources all ready in the game or add some new type of HQ unit, something like a base support unit or have different types of HQ's where not all HQ's can conduct every type of operation.

Please let's not add abstractions like Op Points.

You have highlighted one of the reasons for the abstraction:

getting all the units, planes, ships, supplies and fuel into the theater of combat was difficult, and a major reason for slowing down the tempo of operations: they couldn't manage getting everything they had where they needed it in a timely fashion.

As a theater commander, your are limited by the capacity of your staff(s) in planning and managing operations. Nimitz couldn't micromanage the war in the Pacific, why should I be able to do so and achieve superior results in terms of losgistics? There has to be a limiter representing the command and control limitiations that historically affected the tempo of operations.

[HMSWarspite]

Originally posted by pad152
If the game has Op points, do I have the ability to allocate Op points where I see fit? And if so why the hell do I need them they become just another type of supply.

The game models supply, troops, ships aircraft, and you are limited by amount of supply, fuel, transport capacity, base size, base force units, HQ's and engineer units. Even in UV if you build too many bases it's tuff to keep them all supplied in the later stages of the game. Keeping forward bases supplied in Witp is going to be 100 times more difficult.

If I have a base with troops, supplies, aircraft, ships and I can't do anything with them because of Op Points we are going to have a major problem, and ton of posts of why can't I use them!

Point is Op Points are to abstract, and only make the game more difficult then it needs to be, give me something more tangible.

Remodel resources all ready in the game or add some new type of HQ unit, something like a base support unit or have different types of HQ's where not all HQ's can conduct every type of operation.

Please let's not add abstractions like Op Points.

I think Op points are a perfectly valid way of modelling HQ staffs, 'will', organisation or whatever. My view is that supply and OP points are completely different, and cover different things. Supply is physical, needs shipping, convoys, escorts, etc, and without it, combat units are doomed. Now, who oganises that lot? Without constraint, the player has a totally monolithic allocation and control system that is way too effective, flexible and coordinated. In RL, if you want to increase supply to say SWPAC, someone has to allocate ships, prioritise cargo, schedule sailings, rotate escorts...all the things we do in UV. But you cannot just go from a standing start to that sort of organisation, and a constraint on that would be op points. Raising a TF...OP points, changing an a/c type...you guessed it.

I think that the player should have a pool of op points, rather like PW, but pretty much complete freedom where they go...well maybe some constraint like you cab only say change bu 10% per turn. So this prevents the sudden shifts in focus, the total coordination across 10000miles of ocean. Want to build up a HQ and do a major offensive, first start to build up the staff (op points), then start shipping in the goodies (supply, infrasturcture, engineers etc), more staff, as you get ready for the combat troops, and ships, more op points for the detailed assault planning, and away you go. Finish the offensive, and reverse.

Don't get me wrong, I do not intend the US to be limited to 1 major theatre/active HQ, but you should not be able to switch major activity at will, or sustain 5 or 6 major offensives. How you split the ops should be free, but they should be there, and would help set the correct tempo.

Finally, I believe it is difficult to simulate the early war without them...I mean, the troops/airforce in Malaya/DEI was not THAT bad...just caught totally unprepared!

[pad152]

Look I not saying there shouldn't be constraints in the game, only that they should be based on something more tangible than abstractions like op points.

Look at China, you have lots of troops but can't do much with them because they don't have supplies.

In UV supply, fuel are unlimited, the only constraint is transport capacity. Transports are more important in the game than carriers (too bad the computer can't handle them better ).

Just base the constraints on assets in the game not abstractions.

[pad152]

Mogami
---------------------------------------------------
Hi, OP points measure how much you can do in 24 hours (movement, loading, unloading, refueling all use OP points
-------------------------------------------------

Movement, is this limited to troops? or do my ships stop movement if I run out of op points?

Does this effect air ops?

What generates Op Points? country, size of port, HQ's???

If the US uses up their Op Points does that prevent the British or Aus from movement, loading, etc???

[mogami]

Hi, Several differing systems are being tossed around here as the same. OP points are what ships use to regulate movement and activity. Every hex travel, every supply point loaded or unloaded, every aircraft launched or recovered uses OP points.
You get 1000 per day per ship. slow ships use more to move one hex then fast ships (but the fast ship might use more fuel requiring the TF to spend extra OP points refueling)

To study the effect of OP points, move a aircombat TF with escort ships low on fuel into enemy range. Then refuel the TF. Now observe how many aircraft fly dispite having them all set to 100 percent.
Take a surface combat TF intended to defend a friendly base.
Use the OP points up. Now watch it not react when enemy TF enters friendly base. (This one is very easy. After air attack all ships that fired AA will expend 1000 OP points reloading ammo.)(This applies to ships in port. Ships can only reload in a TF. So after every port attack you need to make a TF assign all ships that fired AA and reload them and then disband the TF)

OP have nothing to do with staffs or moving a division from China to Rabaul. They are what measures how much a ship can do, and how much it has done in a 24 hour period.

[Mike Scholl]

Originally posted by Mogami

Take a surface combat TF intended to defend a friendly base.
Use the OP points up. Now watch it not react when enemy TF enters friendly base. (This one is very easy. After air attack all ships that fired AA will expend 1000 OP points reloading ammo.)(This applies to ships in port. Ships can only reload in a TF. So after every port attack you need to make a TF assign all ships that fired AA and reload them and then disband the TF)

Thanks for clarifying the "ops points" issue. Your description
above (for dealing with AAA ammo) sounds extremely "gamey".
And "every ship that fired AAA will expend ALL it's ops points
re-loading" is kind of extreme as well. The size and duration of
the air raid has NO effect on this??

Not trying to blame you for anything---just seems from your
description that we "higher levels of command" are going to be
dealing with a lot of "low-level loopholes" in the system to keep
up with opponants. Could you clarify this a bit more?

[Drongo]

Posted by pad152

Movement, is this limited to troops? or do my ships stop movement if I run out of op points?

Does this effect air ops?

What generates Op Points? country, size of port, HQ's???

If the US uses up their Op Points does that prevent the British or Aus from movement, loading, etc???

You play UV, don't you???

In case Mogami's description wasn't clear enough, the Op points (operation points) are EXACTLY the same as in UV. They are not something that has been added for WITP. Check 9.17 in the UV manual and that's exactly how they currently work in WITP.

If you didn't notice them in UV, then you won't notice them in WITP.

[HMSWarspite]

Maybe those of us who are NOT talking about Op points as in UV should call them prep points or something. I have no issues with UV op points, however I do believe that there is a need for something else as well, to counter the unreasonable total control and flexibility the player would have in WitP.

Summary: Op points in UV represent a simple form of time accounting. Refuel a TF for half a day, you don't get to sail as far.

My view of prep points for WitP: a constraint on the player, representing HQ staff capacity, priority, and planning staff build up, to limit the otherwise total flexibilty. To illustrate what I mean. At present, if UV command flexibilty applied to WitP, you could load a division at PH, destination Midway as garrison (say). Half way there, you give a new destination of say New Guinea, where it becomes an assault force. The supply situation wouldn't stop you (refuel TF etc), but this is in no way possble in RL. Division has no maps, no briefing, is loaded wrong etc. Prep points don't prevent this, but do constrain sudden shifts like this.

[mogami]

Originally posted by HMSWarspite
Maybe those of us who are NOT talking about Op points as in UV should call them prep points or something. I have no issues with UV op points, however I do believe that there is a need for something else as well, to counter the unreasonable total control and flexibility the player would have in WitP.

Summary: Op points in UV represent a simple form of time accounting. Refuel a TF for half a day, you don't get to sail as far.

My view of prep points for WitP: a constraint on the player, representing HQ staff capacity, priority, and planning staff build up, to limit the otherwise total flexibilty. To illustrate what I mean. At present, if UV command flexibilty applied to WitP, you could load a division at PH, destination Midway as garrison (say). Half way there, you give a new destination of say New Guinea, where it becomes an assault force. The supply situation wouldn't stop you (refuel TF etc), but this is in no way possble in RL. Division has no maps, no briefing, is loaded wrong etc. Prep points don't prevent this, but do constrain sudden shifts like this.

Hi, IN WITP every land unit has an objective. Once selected the unit gains 1 readiness point per day. If you land a unit to assault the enemy it suffers breakdowns based on it's readiness level.
(It takes 3 months to be completly ready.) Units that have not prepared for the landing suffer considerable breakdown damage.
Units assigned to defend a hex need the same 3 month period to be completly ready.