Originally posted by BrickReid:
Thank you Svar for responding in part to Ed's comment on my Mr. Ed's (refers to my use of the term "mules" and is taken from a 1960's comedy about a talking mule - just a joke, Ed. No offense meant - seems we need to lighten up around here, myself included).
Oh, no, I didn't take it as an attack, I wasn't thinking about "Mr. Ed". Using secondary HQs to boost combat units sounds like those secondary HQs are "mules" carrying extra OPs. Thats what I thought you meant.
I also need to respond a little about what an exploit is. Or rather repost my former comment: QUOTE: "I consider a fair game to be subjective rather than an objective concept. You can play the game as a strict historian and place non-game induced limits on play or you can consider anything that the game lets you do to be fair and the only way to cheat is to make edits of the files outside of the game. And anything in between. For myself, I use the game features that are in the rule book as an initial source and whatever I can figure out how to do as all being legitimate."
OK.
And MOST IMPORTANTLY: "I do this because game developers are notorious for leaving out features of a game so they can save a dollar."
They are also notorious for not doing comprehensive testing on their products, and for not adding code to make certain aspects more "historical" or "correct" or "realistic". Gary left a lot of holes unplugged. Mostly I suspect because he either didn't have the time because of the looming deadline, or didn't see it himself. WiR is one of those games that takes forever to thoroughly test, so that there are bugs and realism issues with it is no surprise to me.
(I also mentioned that I don't go looking for exploits.)
I don't either and I never meant to imply you did, but when someone offers up a "tactic" which is really an exploit, I call it what it is.
The availability of HQs for the Soviets at the beginning of the game and other so called exploits may well be nothing more than an effort by Grigsby and company to balance an imperfect game.
I never called the number of HQs to the Soviets an exploit. The issue with the Mobile Corps had to do with the fact they are only in the '44 campaign, so my idea was to activate them for '44 and on. Both sides have roughly the same number of HQs, 25. The German player is perceived to have less because of the 2 Front HQs, and 5 minor ally HQs they can't use to the fullest.
The fact that it is not in the game book is irrelevent when you consider the shoddy job SSI has historically done on game books for all of their games
Agreed.
If you ONLY play a computer GAME exactly as described in the rule book you are doing yourself a serious injustice.
First I disagree about this being in the rule book. A player can play the game differently by changing his strategy to something that is non-historical but not in the manual either. Besides, WiR's rulebook doesn't tell you much at all anyway.
Second, what is the injustice? If you know the tactic you are using is "wrong" or "unrealistic" or "grossly ahistorical", why use that tactic? It makes victory meaningless.
Suffice to say this discussion has made it so that I would lay out all ground rules in advance for any player that I'm not accustomed to playing a game with before the first turn is executed.
Well, thats what a lot of people are doing now anyway, given all the exploits currently known.
Ed, I do respect your loyalty to trying to play a strictly historical game.
Why does everyone keep saying that? I'm not interested in "strictly" historical games, any more than I am interested in using air supply to send a panzer corps for a romp in the Soviet backfield for a couple of months. There are many things we can do differently that change the direction of the game, without resorting to using exploits.
It lends a great deal of value to the results of games played. I would just say that strict adherence to the game guide is not necessarily the best way to achieve that end.
As I said above, the victory becomes meaningless.
Oh, and OP points are Supply points in my opinion.
Not in my opinion I'm afraid. Calling them supply points just hides the dilemma you have if you recognize them for they historically *REPRESENT*, because if you do so you realize that HQ mules is an exploit.
If they had anything to do with Leadership then the leadership rating would be used to figure out OP points available, which is not the case at all.
Gary's PAC used leaders much more in the determination of points allocated to combat units, but the determination of how many total points were given for each turn are not based on any leader's rating in either game. I don't know why Gary did chose not to use leaders to determine how many points units got, but he did it in PAC. However, the absence of a leadership check does not change the fundamental problem, that being using 2 HQ's infrastructure for one combat unit doesn't make sense.
I used leadership as an example, there is more to those points than just leaders. Ignoring individual leaders, how does having 2 separate but identical command structures help? Does having 2 logistical systems gaurantee double supplies? Does 2 separate but indentical replacements systems gaurantee double replacements? Why would the army use both systems if they are only providing support to 1 combat unit? I mean this whole thing is crazy, the obvious question we inevitably come back to is what does 2 HQs supporting one unit gain you? Nothing, its illogical, and so is HQ mules.
