Allied Resources

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

I think it just says it needs the 700, which it makes. Fuel in Ledo is only about 1400, so it's flowing somewhere, although I have no idea where.

Your talking fuel, I'm talking oil. There's a refinery as well as oil production in Ledo. The 14,000 oil is what the refinery will try to accumulate in the base and represents 10x the stated need (1400 oil) when you look at the base. What I was really driving at is that every production center will attempt to accumulate what will amount to a 20 day supply of inputs at its location. Its a quick and dirty way I use to make sure places have what they need to keep production up.

I saw you were talking about Oil. I don't see 1400 anything. It makes 700 Oil per day, and produces 630 Fuel and 70 supply according to the industry screen.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

What the Moose says is consistently being misrepresented in this and other threads.

In war, there are times when the correct course of action is a loss.  This is often captured by the phrase "tactical defeat, strategic victory".  In AE this is seen when a net loss of VPs is actually a victory.

When the Moose talks about VPs he is talking about the overall situation for in AE VPs represent how the player is doing compared the historical situation. In AE the winner is determined on one single criterion; did they perform better than the historical result.  There is no subjective justment.  If the Allied player is in a better position on VJ day than they were historically they achieve a decisive victory.  Anything else means Japan performed better than IRL and consequently the Allied performance is modified negatively.

It is a cheap trick to misrepresent what the Moose says.  When a game of gridiron is played every point including touchdown conversions is taken into account when determining who won the game.  A touchdown conversion has zero value unless playing to end the game with the most points.  Every single NFL side plays each game to score more points than their opponent.  It does not matter if one NFL side scored 4 to 2 touchdowns if the opponent scored sufficient field goals to accumulate more points at the end of the allocated time.

This game deviates from history on turn one.  The only objective way to measure the final outcome is by the VP score.  An Allied player can eschew returning to the Philippines in favour of capturing Formosa and other locations.  The VPs will show whether the alternative real estate is of equal or even of greater value than the historical real estate.

In Monty Pythons's film The Holy Grail the black knight refuse to accept defeat even when his hands and legs have been cut off.  AE players who state they disregard the VPs because they know when they have lost of won, are simply reprising the role of the black knight.  IRL, even after the Nagasaki A-bomb, there were still Japanese who acted like the black knight and refused to acknowledge their defeat.  The VPs of AE places those recalcitrant in the proper perspective.

So when the Moose talks about players merely pushing pieces and not playing the game he is directly alluding to two NFL sides who turn up to play a game without any intention of keeping score because they just want to run around the park and enjoy the athleticism of participating. Of course in real life no NFL side would waste their time in such an activity.

Alfred   

Misrepresentation [&:]

If I am not mistaken, the Moose says not playing for VPs is not playing the game as it has been designed, that VPs are the core of the game and that he wants that end screen telling him that he has won - or lost - on VPs. Or not?

The objection to this is that a player can choose not to play the game as it has been designed.

If you want to play the game as designed, with VPs and the playing style that comes with it and the use of any game mechanics the design offers and an end screen that tells you have won or lost - fine, do it.

But a player might as well ignore VPs and pursue a playing style with self-imposed restrictions on top of the game mechanics and alternative victory conditions, if he deems it makes AE more enjoyable to him.

Both playing styles are valid choices, and no choice is better or superior than the other.

The NFL comparison is quite remarkable in this regard - "AE players playing for VPs" equal "professional football players competing to score and win". Does that mean an AE player who is not playing for VPs is not "professional" - an amateur, a less capable AE player, not determined to do his best to fight his opponent, inferior to VP players? Charming...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Misrepresentation [&:]

If I am not mistaken, the Moose says not playing for VPs is not playing the game as it has been designed, that VPs are the core of the game and that he wants that end screen telling him that he has won - or lost - on VPs. Or not?

The objection to this is that a player can choose not to play the game as it has been designed.

If you want to play the game as designed, with VPs and the playing style that comes with it and the use of any game mechanics the design offers and an end screen that tells you have won or lost - fine, do it.

But a player might as well ignore VPs and pursue a playing style with self-imposed restrictions on top of the game mechanics and alternative victory conditions, if he deems it makes AE more enjoyable to him.

Both playing styles are valid choices, and no choice is better or superior than the other.

The NFL comparison is quite remarkable in this regard - "AE players playing for VPs" equal "professional football players competing to score and win". Does that mean an AE player who is not playing for VPs is not "professional" - an amateur, a less capable AE player, not determined to do his best to fight his opponent, inferior to VP players? Charming...

Alfred can speak for himself.

I AM saying that not playing for VPs is not playing the game as designed.

It's a tautology: "To play the game you must play the game." VPs are as ingrained in the game design as the scorecard in golf. If you visit a course, use clubs and a golf ball, hit the ball into the holes, and leave, you might have had fun, might have been challenged, might have added your own rules ("Players must tee off standing on one leg"), or any of a long list of other adjectives and adjective phrases, but you did not play golf. The design is the game. The game is the design.

Substitute chess, or the NFL, and it's the same point.

[Aurorus]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Alfred can speak for himself.

I AM saying that not playing for VPs is not playing the game as designed.

It's a tautology: "To play the game you must play the game." VPs are as ingrained in the game design as the scorecard in golf. If you visit a course, use clubs and a golf ball, hit the ball into the holes, and leave, you might have had fun, might have been challenged, might have added your own rules ("Players must tee off standing on one leg"), or any of a long list of other adjectives and adjective phrases, but you did not play golf. The design is the game. The game is the design.

Substitute chess, or the NFL, and it's the same point.

First, let me say that I agree with you and Alfred in general: VPS are an essential element of the game. However, I would not go so far as to say that people who disregard VPs are "just pushing pieces" or engaging in mental exercise that has no point.

Most players develop sets of house rules and/or have personal restraints on how they use the game engine based upon their conscience. The analogy to "teeing off on one leg" is not quite appropriate. The design of WiTP:AE has flaws that can be exploited: such as attaching ground combat units to Air HQs in order to unlock restrictions for a fraction of the actual PP cost. Indeed, playing any mod, including DBB, is certainly not "playing the game as designed." Would you claim that all DBB players are simply moving pieces and not "playing the game?" I do not mean to be snarky. I am simply asking you to consider other points of view with an open mind.

Many players do not like certain aspects of the game design, in some cases with good reason. This includes how VPs are awarded. For example, many players object to the idea of strat bombing for permanent VPs. Therefore, these players have their own set of "victory conditions" or strategic objectives that they would like to accomplish. I do not think that they are just pushing pieces randomly. They are doing so to achieve the objectives that they set out to achieve. Frankly, I do not care what objectives my opponent has or what he considers victory to be. I go by the VP system in the game. He can have another set of criteria. It does not make him a lesser opponent and his differing criteria in no way upsets my enjoyment of the game.

Let me be clear. I want to win, based upon the VP system as is. I do not need to convince my opponent that I won. If he has a different set of objectives than VPs in mind and he accomplishes his objectives, then he is entitled to think and claim that he has also won.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Aurorus


First, let me say that I agree with you and Alfred in general: VPS are an essential element of the game. However, I would not go so far as to say that people who disregard VPs are "just pushing pieces" or engaging in mental exercise that has no point.

Again, I'm saying they aren't playing the game. They might be having fun in a satisfying endeavor. They're different things. They're playing a different game.

Most players develop sets of house rules and/or have personal restraints on how they use the game engine based upon their conscience. The analogy to "teeing off on one leg" is not quite appropriate. The design of WiTP:AE has flaws that can be exploited: such as attaching ground combat units to Air HQs in order to unlock restrictions for a fraction of the actual PP cost. Indeed, playing any mod, including DBB, is certainly not "playing the game as designed." Would you claim that all DBB players are simply moving pieces and not "playing the game?" I do not mean to be snarky. I am simply asking you to consider other points of view with an open mind.

At this level of discussion you get into some weeds. The design does allow things. Some I do, some I don't. Some I don't until my opponent does. I have never played a PBEM with any announced house rules. It's very possible.

One issue with comparing AE to other games such as golf or chess, is that a PC is inherently different due to the EXE file. And to some extent the editor. If I want to make a house rule that tee-offs are mono-leg, or that pawns can move backwards, I can. The structure of the activity allows it. You still aren't playing golf or chess then, but you can do it. In AE, since the EXE is fixed and secret, un-editable, you can't.

However, the VP system in terms of observing it is outside the EXE. It's analogous to the scorecard, or the checkmate. Not to the make-up of the pieces, or stance at the tee. The editor allows players to modify data, and that was clearly intended to be OK. Every mod still plays with the same EXE. But it's also possible to deform the game design with the editor to the extent you're not playing a WWII PTO game any longer. That point would be subjective. But it's possible.

It's also possible to discuss activities that are possible with the EXE, and a stock game, that are also not playing the design. If, say, two players agreed that every third turn the Allied player would send the file back with no orders entered at all, that would be technically possible. But it would not be playing the game design. That's more equivalent to not playing with VPs than anything the editor can do or not do.

As for DBB, no, those mods are certainly playing the game. They were developed by the original devs, they use the same EXE, they are in a subjective sense "reasonable", and they assume use of the VP system.

Many players do not like certain aspects of the game design, in some cases with good reason. This includes how VPs are awarded. For example, many players object to the idea of strat bombing for permanent VPs. Therefore, these players have their own set of "victory conditions" or strategic objectives that they would like to accomplish. I do not think that they are just pushing pieces randomly. They are doing so to achieve the objectives that they set out to achieve. Frankly, I do not care what objectives my opponent has or what he considers victory to be. I go by the VP system in the game. He can have another set of criteria. It does not make him a lesser opponent and his differing criteria in no way upsets my enjoyment of the game.

I don't object to any of that, although I will say that if your opponent doesn't care about VP costs for losing, and you do, you might get a very unbalanced play outcome turn-by-turn. But for VP penalties the Allies can afford to throw away massive amounts of hardware in 1945 to batter the Japanese. My only comment is you're not playing the game as designed, which means you're not playing AE. You're playing another game. Fizzbin AE maybe.

Let me be clear. I want to win, based upon the VP system as is. I do not need to convince my opponent that I won. If he has a different set of objectives than VPs in mind and he accomplishes his objectives, then he is entitled to think and claim that he has also won.

I can't think of any game with a win-lose architecture where that works for me. Especially one that takes 4-5 years of lifespan to play.