Another use for PP's

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: treespider

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?

Yep. It would totally hamstring the Japanese initial assult. Is KB supposed to operate from Hiroshima the whole game? How about shipping resources home? Every forward move of an air unit during the expansion phase cost PP's? It's an interesting idea in theory..., but a "tar-baby" in practice. Given how screwed up PP's are already, expanding their use is just asking for trouble.

[AmiralLaurent]

Another system of PP would be to have areas defined on the map (for example PI, DEI, West Coast, Australia) with a minimum number of troops (in assault points), aircraft (in AC number, excluding transports) and warships (in durability points). Everytime the area is falling under the limit, the concerned side will lose PPs each turn depending of the difference between the current level and the minimum level. Points lost in defending an area will reduce the required level (maybe one point for each 3 points lost).

This will allow to move troops inside DEI or PI freely (that is if Japan doesn't sink them).

Total of points defined for a given area will be given by the base value and political modifiers. And by the proximity of the enemy.

If should be possible to dissolve a command area, if the "capital" is taken... that will set all requirements of the area to zero but will have a negative result on units. Units of the local area (PA Div for PI, Indonesian for DEI) will have a chance to surrender or dissolve immediatly. Those that pass the test may be shipped elsewhere.

I will also distinguish two types of units, "local ones" (PI Div, Dutch units made of mostly Indonesian troops, Canadian troops, Australian militia, most Chinese troops on Allied side, Thai and Vichy troops on the Japanese side) that should pay PP to be allowed to leave their area of command, and "overseas" one. Other units may move freely and be replaced by a new unit to keep the overall level respected.

You can use PPs to:
_ change a hex of command, if this hex is adjacent to the new command
_ reduce the requirements of a given command
_ pay the penalties for being under the requirements

Another advantage would be to allow to have the full Chinese OOB, but with Allied China divided into 3 areas (Communist, Nationalist and disputed), the main Chinese forces will be restricted to areas not one the frontline (as they kept their forces for the Civil War) but will stop the Japanese if they move too far.

This is needing another change for supplies and so on (or China will starve). A rule I thought also about would be that food, and other supplies like that to avoid units disablement or restore them should be provided for free in big cities having manpower points, for example 50 points for manpower. If not used these supplies will be lost (consumed by population) and they can't be used to create replacement, resplenish ships or in battles.

[Black Mamba 1942]

I don't consider PP's as political points.
That's just the name the designers decided give to them.[;)]

They SHOULD be called command points.
As there is probably no way to break up all the command theatres, it would be better to keep the expenditure on a basic level.

Points are to build a NEW TF.
This keeps the KB and all ther TF's intact for whatever ops are being considered.
Only the initial building of the TF would cost the points.

Airgroup transfer would be a SET cost.
Such as 1 point per plane.

For LCU's the prep point destination is more important than it's command HQ, after it has been changed to a non-restrictive command.
A player could still deploy LCU's without the prep bonus, but those that pay will be much more efficient in combat.

Just trying to think of this usage in simple terms.
I don't think this games code could handle too many severe changes.[:D]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I don't consider PP's as political points.
That's just the name the designers decided give to them.[;)]

They SHOULD be called command points.
As there is probably no way to break up all the command theatres, it would be better to keep the expenditure on a basic level.

Points are to build a NEW TF.
This keeps the KB and all ther TF's intact for whatever ops are being considered.
Only the initial building of the TF would cost the points.

Not really viable because TF need to disband in port for a variety of different reasons and not necessarily everyu time they reach port. Plus what are you going to do with the hundreds of mundane supply TF's all over the map. How about a PP cost to change the home base of a TF?

Airgroup transfer would be a SET cost.
Such as 1 point per plane.

For LCU's the prep point destination is more important than it's command HQ, after it has been changed to a non-restrictive command.
A player could still deploy LCU's without the prep bonus, but those that pay will be much more efficient in combat.

Are you talking about PREP points or POLTICAL points...two entirely different creatures.

Just trying to think of this usage in simple terms.
I don't think this games code could handle too many severe changes.[:D]

[Zecke]

I dont agree with this idea of PPs for making Task force,,, whats the point for japan side,, you genltement want to make WITP just unplayable for japan side,, Japan needs those PPs for his LCUs to change operationaly,, and remenber that japan can only bombard in china,, to get some PPs

Allies can get PPs easily but not japan[:-]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Zecke

I dont agree with this idea of PPs for making Task force,,, whats the point for japan side,, you genltement want to make WITP just unplayable for japan side,, Japan needs those PPs for his LCUs to change operationaly,, and remenber that japan can only bombard in china,, to get some PPs

Allies can get PPs easily but not japan[:-]

To implement this obviously the PP would have to be adjusted.

[Black Mamba 1942]

I'm saying that PP's would be expended to change the prep target.
The HQ change is another matter.

As for TF's I'm looking at 1 point per ship.
So this is really not a GREAT number of PP's being spent.
I'm not thinking in 100's or 1000's of points per TF.[:D]

This is just a basic idea anyway.

Does KISS mean anything to ya?[:D]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I'm saying that PP's would be expended to change the prep target.
The HQ change is another matter.

As for TF's I'm looking at 1 point per ship.
So this is really not a GREAT number of PP's being spent.
I'm not thinking in 100's or 1000's of points per TF.[:D]

This is just a basic idea anyway.

Does KISS mean anything to ya?[:D]

Then why bother?[;)]


If we can change the captain of the lowliest freighter, or have to worry ourselves with Aichi engine production then why Keep It Simple, Stupid?

[BlackVoid]

Good idea, but remove restricted command. Prep change would cost PP instead.
It is crazy, that you cannot move units by sea just because they belong to a restricted command! You cannot even air transport troops within a restricted command and that is really weird.

[BlackVoid]

As for the ships - they should start with a more sensible setup at the start. Or give us a way to move around stuff prior to first turn (at least for Japan).

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Black Mamba 1942

I'm saying that PP's would be expended to change the prep target.
The HQ change is another matter.

As for TF's I'm looking at 1 point per ship.
So this is really not a GREAT number of PP's being spent.
I'm not thinking in 100's or 1000's of points per TF.[:D]

This is just a basic idea anyway.

Does KISS mean anything to ya?[:D]

Then why bother?[;)]


If we can change the captain of the lowliest freighter, or have to worry ourselves with Aichi engine production then why Keep It Simple, Stupid?

Because this games code probably can't handle too much complications in computations.[:D]

[Black Mamba 1942]

Why bother?

Because it would turn WITP into a grand startegic game, instead of an RTS game?
Campaigns would have to be planned and payed for.
Not just loaded, transfered and thrown at the enemy.[:D]

[Tanaka]

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?

Great idea! This would also help get rid of and prevent the huge massing of planes at single bases and over the top air battles with hundreds of planes and rediculous results that comes with that....

[Black Mamba 1942]

Very true Tanaka![8D]

It would help temper the air, land and sea masses across the front for both sides.

I'm sure this is just a dream, but who knows who might be listening.[;)]

[Ideologue]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Great idea! This would also help get rid of and prevent the huge massing of planes at single bases and over the top air battles with hundreds of planes and rediculous results that comes with that....

For this purpose, it'd be a lot easier just to remove the 250 avsupport cap, and require an avsupport point per engine, or if you wanted to be more complicated some number based on durability or bombload or a combination thereof, instead of per plane.

Requiring PP's to reorganize task forces, or to move aircraft within a theatre, is a bad idea. What if you're moving A6M2s(for example) to Rabaul from Rangoon, and you do it by air. Should you have to pay for the four different bases they have to hopscotch across to get there?

And Mike's point about supply and resource convoys stands. Even a regular resource convoy may require reorganization all the time, due to torpedo hits, the program's inability to not sail it into a war zone or player's inability to establish proper waypoints (maybe that's the 1.8 surprise[:'(], I'd dig it).

I could see some minor cost for committing capital ships to an air combat, surface combat or bombardment task force, but that's about it.

PPs for changing preparation target? You'd think there'd be more of a political price to throwing troops at a base with no prep at all.