Another use for PP's

[Black Mamba 1942]

Whenever the code gets released to modders.[:D]

I'd like to see PP's expended to put ships into a TF.

Also a PP expenditure to change an aircraft groups location to a new base.

For LCU's, PP's expended when prep point destination is changed.

This would give more meaning and usage for PP's.
Simulating a kind of operational PP expenditure for future operations.

Opinions?

[Feinder]

Fundamentlly, and ecellent idea. Reminds me of the "activation cost" in the old Pacific War board game. Would definately slow the pace of things. Would take a bit balancing the PP costs of various units, and how many points were available per month. But it's a good idea.

-F-

[Black Mamba 1942]

Point costs would definitely have to be explored.
I figured that I would just lay the basic idea out for future thought.


Matrix, are you listening?[:D]
This would really help to turn this into a "more" strategic game, instead of a game of massed combat.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Point costs would definitely have to be explored.
I figured that I would just lay the basic idea out for future thought.


Matrix, are you listening?[:D]
This would really help to turn this into a "more" strategic game, instead of a game of massed combat.

I think the idea has merrit. Yet it would require a serious reprogramming effort and not just a little modification. But don't get your hopes up too soon about the code being released anytime soon. I can't see THAT happening anytime soon (maybe not even in our lifetimes).

Flipper

[rogueusmc]

Mike already said that there is a surprise coming with the 1.8 patch...[8D]

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Mike already said that there is a surprise coming with the 1.8 patch...[8D]

A surprise yes, but I am expecting something like leaders being removed or free WITP cats (I heard Mr. Frag has THOUSANDs).

Flipper

[anarchyintheuk]

The idea for spending pps to add/remove ships from tfs would have worked well w/ Ron's idea for divs and squadrons.

[niceguy2005]

Honestly, it sounds cumbersome. I think I see where you're going with the idea and it has merit, but would really reduce the playability I think. I often create a TF at a port get all the ships assembled and then change my mind. To me this just reflects a planning process that the command would go through. The ships aren't actually setting sail and then redocking.

[DeepSix]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Honestly, it sounds cumbersome. I think I see where you're going with the idea and it has merit, but would really reduce the playability I think. I often create a TF at a port get all the ships assembled and then change my mind. To me this just reflects a planning process that the command would go through. The ships aren't actually setting sail and then redocking.

That's pretty close to my thoughts, too. I genuinely like the idea of moving away from massive numbers in favor of strategy, but when I read that about spending PP to change a/c bases, it makes me head spin. I often change my mind, too -- chalk it up to perennial newbiness rather than strategic brilliance. But if something could be done that would have the same effect without limiting the playability, I'm all for it.

[Black Mamba 1942]

I call it operational planning.[:D]

It would stop the "throwing units in the way" practice.[;)]

It could be modified to a basic PP cost for a certain type TF being created, and such.
There are a few alternatives to it's implementation.

I'm hoping this might get "inquiring minds" inquiring.[:D]

Are you saying WITP isn't cumbersome already?[:D]

[DeepSix]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Are you saying WITP isn't cumbersome already?[:D]

I congratulate you, sir. You have me there.[:D] It would certainly make me think twice before "taking my hand off the chess piece." I do like the idea, but I don't know if I'm man enough.[:)]

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: DeepSix

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Are you saying WITP isn't cumbersome already?[:D]

I congratulate you, sir. You have me there.[:D] It would certainly make me think twice before "taking my hand off the chess piece." I do like the idea, but I don't know if I'm man enough.[:)]

Well said![:D]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Whenever the code gets released to modders.[:D]

I'd like to see PP's expended to put ships into a TF.

Also a PP expenditure to change an aircraft groups location to a new base.

For LCU's, PP's expended when prep point destination is changed.

This would give more meaning and usage for PP's.
Simulating a kind of operational PP expenditure for future operations.

Opinions?

This was suggested almost almost to the letter wayback and got nowhere. Perhaps it will this time.

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Mike already said that there is a surprise coming with the 1.8 patch...[8D]

I don't want surprises I just would like the missing leader and missing unit bugs fixed.

After that I can stop worrying about patching and what happens with this game and just have a stable game.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: dereck

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Mike already said that there is a surprise coming with the 1.8 patch...[8D]

I don't want surprises I just would like the missing leader and missing unit bugs fixed.

After that I can stop worrying about patching and what happens with this game and just have a stable game.

And then I will start playing again. I don't see the point in starting a game I know is broken.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Whenever the code gets released to modders.[:D]

I'd like to see PP's expended to put ships into a TF.
Also a PP expenditure to change an aircraft groups location to a new base.
For LCU's, PP's expended when prep point destination is changed.
This would give more meaning and usage for PP's.
Simulating a kind of operational PP expenditure for future operations.

Opinions?

Based on what justification? PP's are supposed to represent getting "political permission" to move troops and equipment to another political area. Assigning ships and escorts to a TF isn't a political decision. Sending troops from Northern Luzon to Central Luzon isn't a political decision. We are already hamstrung with having to use PP's to move things from one part of the DEI to another because the East Indies is composed of islands and the stupid PP system thinks any time you get on a boat you must be switching theatres. I like the "idea" of PP's, but in practice they are already too restrictive. Adding more "artificial" restraints would be fixing one mistake with another.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

Whenever the code gets released to modders.[:D]

I'd like to see PP's expended to put ships into a TF.
Also a PP expenditure to change an aircraft groups location to a new base.
For LCU's, PP's expended when prep point destination is changed.
This would give more meaning and usage for PP's.
Simulating a kind of operational PP expenditure for future operations.

Opinions?

Based on what justification? PP's are supposed to represent getting "political permission" to move troops and equipment to another political area. Assigning ships and escorts to a TF isn't a political decision. Sending troops from Northern Luzon to Central Luzon isn't a political decision. We are already hamstrung with having to use PP's to move things from one part of the DEI to another because the East Indies is composed of islands and the stupid PP system thinks any time you get on a boat you must be switching theatres. I like the "idea" of PP's, but in practice they are already too restrictive. Adding more "artificial" restraints would be fixing one mistake with another.

One could argue the use of ships to support McArthur's ops vs Nimitz's ops were "political"....the same for Japanese operations.

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: niceguy2005

Honestly, it sounds cumbersome. I think I see where you're going with the idea and it has merit, but would really reduce the playability I think. I often create a TF at a port get all the ships assembled and then change my mind. To me this just reflects a planning process that the command would go through. The ships aren't actually setting sail and then redocking.

I also agree that the idea has merit. To keep it playable, I'd say make the PP cost automatic (instead of several mouse clicks as it takes to change a unit's HQ now) and also include an undo function, up to 10-12 actions. Without an undo function, it would all be done on paper or you would need to make a new save after every move.

While none of us have seen the code, I'd suspect the first (making the cost automatic) would be relatively easy to implement but the second (undo function) would be a b----. Maybe we'll see this in WITP II or III.

[Mike Scholl]

[[/quote]

One could argue the use of ships to support McArthur's ops vs Nimitz's ops were "political"....the same for Japanese operations.

[/quote]


One could argue that the sun rises in the West..., that doesn't make it true. You SHOULD have to pay PP's to assign a West Coast Air Unit to the SW Pacific, or a Manchurian Infantry Division to Malaya---but to have to spend more to move them from Sydney to Brisbane or Kuala Lumpur to Singapore is idiotic. If a unit is assigned to a theatre, it should be free to move WITHIN that Theatre.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

One could argue the use of ships to support McArthur's ops vs Nimitz's ops were "political"....the same for Japanese operations.

One could argue that the sun rises in the West..., that doesn't make it true. You SHOULD have to pay PP's to assign a West Coast Air Unit to the SW Pacific, or a Manchurian Infantry Division to Malaya---but to have to spend more to move them from Sydney to Brisbane or Kuala Lumpur to Singapore is idiotic. If a unit is assigned to a theatre, it should be free to move WITHIN that Theatre.

So is it idiotic to suggest that a ship based in Pearl Harbor that is reassigned to to be based in Brisbane shouldn't have PP paid to change the base?