Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Amoral


For me the difference between playing it as a simulation or a game is if you keep in mind what might have happened when you are picking goals or your operations. And as Bullwinkle has said there is a lot of grey area if you are trying to second guess what commanders 70 years ago might have done. For me it is what you as a player were thinking when you set up the dominoes.

I go one step deeper.

My opponent, up-thread after our game ended in part over this issue, posits that this tactic goes against the developers' intent. I prefer to argue that the developers' intent is most fully on display in what the game actually DOES, how it operates. That's objective; it is observable. I argued that when I advertised for an opponent two years ago, I argued it during the game several times, and I repeat it now. You may not like how the game does things--I certainly grit my teeth on occasion--but how it operates is fixed and known by each side. In that sense it is an elegant solution to the debate.

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

It's no more 'gamey' than the Doolittle raid making Japan keep a large chunk of it's fighter capability flying circles for a few years over the home islands.

My .02

But that was Japan's DECISION to keep those fighters over the Home Islands in reaction to the raid. Here, the code creates 9 divisions of which only 2 can be disbanded. I play as Japan and I cannot decide whether to keep these divisions or not.

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

It's no more 'gamey' than the Doolittle raid making Japan keep a large chunk of it's fighter capability flying circles for a few years over the home islands.

My .02

But that was Japan's DECISION to keep those fighters over the Home Islands in reaction to the raid. Here, the code creates 9 divisions of which only 2 can be disbanded. I play as Japan and I cannot decide whether to keep these divisions or not.

And Japan can choose to keep them somewhere out of combat, only using up 100K supplies over 3 years, if they don't want to use them.

That's really not a lot of supply to budget for over the course of 75% of the war. Compare to the cost the US incurs to inflict this supply "strain"...

We'll see how it goes. I haven't disbanded either unit that are capable of disbanding, because one is the Guards Depot Division and it comes with decent devices - it actually has artillery, for example. And it seems silly to just disband 1 of them, so I kept the other one too.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

It's no more 'gamey' than the Doolittle raid making Japan keep a large chunk of it's fighter capability flying circles for a few years over the home islands.

My .02

But that was Japan's DECISION to keep those fighters over the Home Islands in reaction to the raid. Here, the code creates 9 divisions of which only 2 can be disbanded. I play as Japan and I cannot decide whether to keep these divisions or not.

And Japan can choose to keep them somewhere out of combat, only using up 100K supplies over 3 years, if they don't want to use them.

That's really not a lot of supply to budget for over the course of 75% of the war. Compare to the cost the US incurs to inflict this supply "strain"...

We'll see how it goes. I haven't disbanded either unit that are capable of disbanding, because one is the Guards Depot Division and it comes with decent devices - it actually has artillery, for example. And it seems silly to just disband 1 of them, so I kept the other one too.

At the very least, it's 18 engineer devices that you can use to dig size 9 airbases in hexes with static base forces in the HI.