Grrrrrr..........

[bradfordkay]

" I'd rather not know what the rule is. By knowing the rule, I'm gaming the system."


[&o]

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: byron13

I'd rather not know what the rule is. By knowing the rule, I'm gaming the system.

While I can understand the sentiment, in order for that philosophy to work you have to be able to trust that the game/system is working correctly down to every last detail. As much as I enjoy WiTP, it has not proven to be worth that trust. Too many things have already proven to not be right for me personally to ever feel entirely comfortable with all that is hidden in this game.

I'm not advocating the release of the exact formulas used in every part of the game, but we do need to know what is possible and the probabilities since we are effectively testers for Matrix and 2by3. As an example, note the thread about LCUs set to follow arriving over multiple days. Mr.Frag's response was "well, why didn't you report this earlier?" when no one but him knew it wasn't supposed to work that way.

[Mr.Frag]

Mr.Frag's response was "well, why didn't you report this earlier?" when no one but him knew it wasn't supposed to work that way.

Not true, this has been working until 1.4. It would appear that the rework of the ZoC stuff broke it. The follow command has been around forever, including UV.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Mr.Frag's response was "well, why didn't you report this earlier?" when no one but him knew it wasn't supposed to work that way.

Not true, this has been working until 1.4. It would appear that the rework of the ZoC stuff broke it. The follow command has been around forever, including UV.

Hmm, I thought I saw a report of this problem prior to the release of 1.4. <shrug> I may be mis-remembering. At any rate, the inability of the players to tell if the program is working correctly still stands. Not intended as a rant or trying to start a fight, just my opinion.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" I'd rather not know what the rule is. By knowing the rule, I'm gaming the system."


[&o]

I glad I finally know the rule as I couldn't understand why bases fell. I don't think your gaming the system as now everyone knows the rule (as it should be). I think it is a nice touch because empty bases are not really a threat anyway and why do you lose troops/disruption to take it.

I don't necessarily agree with being able to occupy a empty base with an enemy force adjacent to it though.

[siRkid]

I like this feature and think it is justifiable. First, it keeps players from sending everything to the front. In the real world every place of importance has garrison troops. Second, troops sitting in at a base will be patrolling and exerting their control in the surrounding area.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Kid

I like this feature and think it is justifiable. First, it keeps players from sending everything to the front. In the real world every place of importance has garrison troops. Second, troops sitting in at a base will be patrolling and exerting their control in the surrounding area.

Umm, Let me clarify my previous. I also like this feature what I mean is that if both sides have units adjacent to an empty base then it should not change hands.

[:)]

[forranger]

ORIGINAL: Kid

I like this feature and think it is justifiable. First, it keeps players from sending everything to the front. In the real world every place of importance has garrison troops. Second, troops sitting in at a base will be patrolling and exerting their control in the surrounding area.

I agree, BUT: If both opponents have substantial forces near by, automatic conquest should NOT be allowed. I just fell victim of a bad case:

Opponent has conquered most of Luzon from NE, no previous landing at SE. Clark has fallen, allied troops retreated to Manila. At the beginning of the last turn Lamon Bay automacially changed ownership to japs (see pic below for the current situation). I have about 900 attack points at Manila, he advanced with about 1400 until now. Seems to me not only jap patrols reach out to Lamon bay in this case. [:-]

I don't know if my further retreat path is cut with current programming of zones of control, and if Manila falls quickly and all troops surrender I won't be able to save some core elements of major combat units for rebuilding as I had planned (still had to accumulate pp's to do that with several units I want to see again).

My suggestion: Hexes change ownership only when only 1 side has troops adjacent to it. I support not having to occupy each and every totally unguarded hex, but a unit in a neighboring hex should prevent automatic conquest.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Kid

I like this feature and think it is justifiable. First, it keeps players from sending everything to the front. In the real world every place of importance has garrison troops. Second, troops sitting in at a base will be patrolling and exerting their control in the surrounding area.

Captain to 1st Lt: I want you to patrol aggressively! Take a squad 60 miles down the coast, and return tonight with your report!

1st Lt: Yes, Sir!!

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Kid

I like this feature and think it is justifiable. First, it keeps players from sending everything to the front. In the real world every place of importance has garrison troops. Second, troops sitting in at a base will be patrolling and exerting their control in the surrounding area.

Captain to 1st Lt: I want you to patrol aggressively! Take a squad 60 miles down the coast, and return tonight with your report!

1st Lt: Yes, Sir!!

<snicker> It doesn't happen quite that fast. It usually takes a week or two for the adjacent hexes to change ownership. (Ya, I know, "usually" isn't "always".)

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: medicff

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" I'd rather not know what the rule is. By knowing the rule, I'm gaming the system."


[&o]

I glad I finally know the rule as I couldn't understand why bases fell. I don't think your gaming the system as now everyone knows the rule (as it should be). I think it is a nice touch because empty bases are not really a threat anyway and why do you lose troops/disruption to take it.

I don't necessarily agree with being able to occupy a empty base with an enemy force adjacent to it though.

I was actually referring to the algorithm for determining when a base changes hands. I don't know if the automatic base change is in the rules, but I remember this feature being discussed when one of the first AARs with a map was posted during testing. I'm just saying I don't want to know that an occupied island base can only convert unoccupied bases that are within 3, 5, or 8 hexes or that an unoccupied adjacent base will change if the other side as a 2:1 superiority in surrounding hexes. Knowing that they can convert is enough for me without knowing under exactly what circumstances. It just seems dumb to know that, without a doubt, you have to garrison Makin to keep it from converting, but that Tarawa absolutely will not convert if not garrisoned. Or I need to find another five squads or the adjacent 3600 square miles will suddenly become enemy-controlled. Makes for too many gamey decisions.