Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: CV 2


Yeah, I read that part when it wasnt big. Anything Elf has ever said is pretty much BS (proven), so I give that as much credence as, well say I have zero respect for him and leave it at that. I guess I typed too many words for you to have read this part though:

If it wasnt working as intended, then an easy fix is to make the HQs not changeable. I said the same thing YEARS ago, before Michaels tinkering. And yet it remains. Michael is the final word on it. Not Elf, not Joe, not Kereguelen, not Blackhorse, not Don, not JWE .....

And I havent heard Michael say it is not working as intended. Have you?

You seem very intent on your own interpretation of this possibility. One simple question. If it was intended for the player to be able to purchase units more cheaply then why didn't the 'price' just get lowered? Why the extra work-around with changing multiple HQs as you advocate?

Another question; why is this so necessary for you to argue for when it doesn't seem to be something any other players are arguing for? It is not integral to a Japanese or an Allied game to have units cheaper than their stated value. Plenty of players have played without this luxury. In my game PPs are valuable because I can't buy what I want all of the time. I'm in 9/43 and still haven't bought out all of the stuff over the AV limit in Manchuria. I trust the integrity of my opponent that he is also buying units at full price and thus has a similar set of tough decisions in front of him. This seems to simulate at least in a small way the types of decisions and negotiations behind the scenes about where these troops went in reality.

Obviously if you want to use the game even farther outside of this semi-realistic framework that's great, just make sure your opponent is on the same page early on. Then its no problem. Just don't assume everyone does or should accept this in the same way that you do and we're all okay.

Same thing for the allies in India. That is assuming they dont want to attach their ground units to air HQs.

What I personally do, since everyone thinks Im just abusing the system (never mind the fact that as I already pointed out I havent released units to combat before their full price release dates) is the fact that after I release the units I intend to release, I move the HQs again, and start placing these units into other army HQs.

For example: I put 16th army into General Defense (Japan) early on. Somewhere along the line in late 42 when I have the PPs available, I transfer 52nd, 53rd, and 54th divs into it. Later when 19th army HQ is available (Jan 43) I transfer 16th army to 2nd area army. Then transfer the 3 divs to 19th army for 25% (meaning their total is now 50%).

I shift units into army commands that operate together. In order to do this at full price, the game would have to get into 1948.

I dont happen to think this is too realistic. Frankly I dont care if anyone else happens to think that it is. The simple truth is, you can NOT organize your forces the way they were historically organized paying full price for them. One of the reasons my attacks were so successful in China, and failed at places like Kodiak was simply because I had the unit operating as a unit in China, where as in Kodiak the 1st div is under 25th army, and 2nd div is under 16th army and the army HQs are in Java and Burma. I had to bring up the 5th div to help them out. It took 3 divs to kill 1 regiment because of army organization. Whereas in China I killed a dozen enemy corps with 4 divs and 2 bdes. Why? Because they were all in the same army, with their army HQ present, and their upper command HQ within command range. This affects combat A LOT whether people believe it or not.

I use the 25% to get my forces aligned in a historical manner. They fight better if they operate as a unit. And as I said, you simply can NOT do it paying full price to shift a unit through 2 or 3 commands.

This means moving divs to the HQs you want them in and HQs into the HQs you want them in. Example 16th army and 19th army under 2nd area army, under Southern Army. And not only divisions. Artillery is EXPENSIVE relative to its effect. AA is cheap (thank God), and base forces arent too outrageous. You cant make all the moves you need to make paying full price if you want a semblance of a historical deployment. Simple as that.

......................................

You using the system only to use forces in an historical manner??


I officially give up/

Later.

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

......................................

You using the system only to use forces in an historical manner??

I officially give up/

Later.

Probably a good idea. Again, the units and the dates I sent into battle:

Paying "full price" for a division means you can get about 1 a month. Look again at when I sent released units into battle:
14th div in Feb 42 (2 months in).
8th and 9th divs in Apr 42 (4 months in).
1st div in Jul 42 (7 months in).
20th in Aug 42 (8 months in).
24th in Oct 42 (10 months in).

Meanwhile in the background I was organizing my defenses and shifting armys. Could using this be abused? Sure, it COULD be. Did I? Absolutely not. Japs can release a division every 9-10 days and toss them into the fray if they wanted to abuse the system. I didnt abuse the system. Why? Because as I have already said, I use it for a historical reorganization of my troops.

And OH MY GOD shame on me for tying to be historical in my deployments!!!!!!!

And may I point out that time and time again, I have asked what units allied players release THEIR units to, if they pay "full price" and not one of you has been man enough to admit you do not pay "full price". I know you do not pay full price. You'd be stupid to when you dont have to.

ORIGINAL: CV 2
And may I point out that time and time again, I have asked what units allied players release THEIR units to, if they pay "full price" and not one of you has been man enough to admit you do not pay "full price". I know you do not pay full price. You'd be stupid to when you dont have to.

I prefer to play the Japanese side my friend and don't look for loopholes to bypass paying full price. [:D]



In the past when I've played the Allied side in PBEMs in scenario 1 I've always used self imposed house rules outside of the already negotiated ones..

No RN ships in the Pacific other than historical in their same time frame.
No RAF planes in China.
No Marines other than their historical area of operations.
No magical reinforcement of the Luzon forces by use of outside supply.

To name some that come to mind immediately. My game play would suffer a little but I always felt giving the other side a fair shake was more important than winning at all costs.

As do I -
No sac bombing of China by either side - If I wanted to "win at all costs" the best way is to bomb the Chinese factories and kill China.
No bombing of Chinese ground units by more than 1 squadron per hex (more of a movement interdiction than killing troops). Same notation.
No 4E bombers on naval attack. PERIOD.
My paras I use in a historical manner.
I dont use my PAs for torpedo attacks.

I tend to match my opponents "gamyness". If they play a "clean" game, so do I. If they abuse the system, I do as well. Note Robs running Chinese units well into my rear where they had no hope of doing anything. I matched this by sending my armor unit to cut the rails to western Oz.

Tit for tat. Again, look at when I committed my units to battle. Nothing "gamey" about that. But he was attempting to do "Watchtower" in Jan 42 moving marines into Guadalcanal. So I responded by moving some of my uncommitted released troops into the Solomons (Munda, Shortlands, ect) to prevent him from doing any gamey moves like that in this area. I didnt hit Alaska until he started improving Adak. I did it to secure my flank. Simple as that. Western Oz, same deal. Carrier raids by the Brits caused me to secure my southern flank by taking out Perth.

I play more of a historical game than ANYONE I have ever played, except Treespider...

There are more. So please, dont make the mistake of thinking that you are somehow Holier than Thou. Likewise, dont make the mistake of thinking I am a "win at all costs" type of person. Because you'd be wrong...

I pay full retail which clearly identifies me as a "stupid" player. To make my stupidity even more obvious, using hindsight, I did not realise that the call had gone out for "stupid" players to identify themselves as such.

I suppose if I really understood how the game operates and I were not stupid, I could pay the discount rate, keep the released units out of action until they could have been bought paying full retail, and in the interim, with all those saved PPs from not paying full retail, use them on subtle things which an opponent would not easily pick up on, such as changing leaders or base attachments.

If I could also plan for the future, I could use those extra PPs gained by not paying full retail, to resurrect destroyed units or change aircraft types. But nah I'm too "stupid" to think those things through.

I'm also "stupid" for having believed the devs (in a thread I quoted a few months back) when they said that sufficient PPs are received to unrestrict Allied units by their historical release dates to the frontlines. On reflection, perhaps not so much "stupid" as "naive" in believing the devs spoke truthfully, now that I am told they are untruthfull by an apparently authoritative source. Authoritative sources have no need to provide any primary source documents to back up their pronouncements, because let's face it, only a non-authoritative source needs to "prove" their credentials with primary sources.

Oh well, as us "stupid" players are few in number because apparently everbody does not do the stupid things I/we do, I will take solace in knowing that I belong to a very small, dare I say it, elite group of players.

Alfred

Seems like everyone has made all the points/claims and refutations that need to be made. Can we let this one die now?

Tit for tat. Again, look at when I committed my units to battle. Nothing "gamey" about that. But he was attempting to do "Watchtower" in Jan 42 moving marines into Guadalcanal. So I responded by moving some of my uncommitted released troops into the Solomons (Munda, Shortlands, ect) to prevent him from doing any gamey moves like that in this area. I didnt hit Alaska until he started improving Adak. I did it to secure my flank. Simple as that. Western Oz, same deal. Carrier raids by the Brits caused me to secure my southern flank by taking out Perth.

okay, i said i wouldnt say anything else because frankly this is beyond stupid. But now you are saying "I" am the gamey player.

That is beyond funny.

Seriously crawl back into your hole. You have been outed. No one believes you. You can continue to come here and justify your play style a thousand different ways. But no one believes you. You buy your units out early by bending the rules. You know it. I know it. And now everyone who plays this game knows it.

Good luck in your future endeavors, but drop it.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

I pay full retail which clearly identifies me as a "stupid" player. To make my stupidity even more obvious, using hindsight, I did not realise that the call had gone out for "stupid" players to identify themselves as such.

Alfred

LMAO!!! I dribbled coffee on my keyboard - and I really-really hate to waste good coffee.