Matrix Games Forums

Is this 'getting LCUs the cheap way by reattaching' thingy wad or is this a cheesy exploitation? To me it appears to be the latter...

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Is this 'getting LCUs the cheap way by reattaching' thingy wad or is this a cheesy exploitation? To me it appears to be the latter...

your point of view assumes that the devs couldn't foresee the consequences of their choice to begin with, and that it was never kicked around by anyone during the process that led to release of the game or its subsequent patches.

This topic has been kicked around for a while, and I haven't seen any devs step in, so. . . what do you think they intended by including this feature?

Or is it a bug? [:D]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz
Is this 'getting LCUs the cheap way by reattaching' thingy wad or is this a cheesy exploitation? To me it appears to be the latter...

your point of view assumes that the devs couldn't foresee the consequences of their choice to begin with, and that it was never kicked around by anyone during the process that led to release of the game or its subsequent patches.

This topic has been kicked around for a while, and I haven't seen any devs step in, so. . . what do you think they intended by including this feature?

Or is it a bug? [:D]

It's both wad and cheesy. 98% of the time it works just how it's supposed to. In order to have the desired flexibility, there will always be an open window for the last 2%. People who enjoy being oh so clever will always find that cheesy 2%. There is no desire to ruin the game's flexibility in order to toast a few pieces of mouldy cheese. This is a game for grognards who should know the smell of a rancid Stilton when they come across it.

Being cheesy against the AI is not so bad because the AI gets pretty cheesy itself. Being cheesy against a human opponent may well result in a dumped game and a reputation. Not having HRs is no excuse, because the game can be played very adequately without any HRs at all - except for the one and only HR that truly matters, and which I have never seen in any HR list, and that is:

Don't Cheat. One can wiggle and jiggle, on occasion, because armys did that, on occasion. But Don't Cheat.

The solution to the Kwantung issue is simple; it's not in code, it's in how the HQ dependencies are structured and how the restriction switches (for both HQs and units) are set in the scenario data. If there's ever a full data update that includes this tweak, then Katy bar the door. It's coming in the next Babes update, btw, if ya want a preview.[;)]

realize some of the text is rather harsh - no reflection at all on Central Blue. He's one of our a-list people and knows how it works. He just happened to be the last poster. [8D]

What he said

(and what happened to the smiley face holding the sign that says that?)

As a practical matter, unlike air units, the command structure of land units means nothing for ground combat. (This was discussed some months ago, and please correct me if I my memory is wrong on this point) For example you could have a Corps HQ from Pacific Fleet aiding SWPAC ground units and suffer no penalty. You can mix and match, an infantry division for SWPAC, one from Pacific Fleet and artillery units from South Pacific could be attacking, or defending, the same hex with no command penalties. The would fight just the same as if all units were with the same command. (I would perfer cleaner ground chain of commands, but it is just not necessary.)

The real necessity is changing to an unrestricted command so you can move units from the continental US or Australia. One of the devs detail their rational some months ago, but offhand I cannot find the thread.

In my Allied v Japanese AI, I ran the game until January 1945. I had somewhere around 20,000 points still available. Where I spend them freely:
Land/Air units to unrestricted;
Air group leaders;
Task force leaders;
Ground unit leaders.

The best bang for the buck is with air group and task force leaders. I change air units command to Air HQ's in range on a regular basis. Makes big difference for coordination.

I hadn't thought of attaching 10 Kwantung Army Divisions to an AIR HQ, then buying it out, but I'm glad I hadn't. I might have been tempted, but that smells to me.

I would rather just play it straight-up and do "retail" buys the "old fashioned" way, which IMO frees up units fast enough as it is.

ORIGINAL: Cad908

As a practical matter, unlike air units, the command structure of land units means nothing for ground combat.

I've seen posts where players talk about it, but I have never seen the developers confirm that air units assigned to certain HQ's perform better (because that HQ has the right target set, etc.). It would be great if the developers could confirm or deny the point, because PP's in AE are way more precious than in WITP.

ORIGINAL: pompack

What he said

(and what happened to the smiley face holding the sign that says that?)

How about this one?

[;)] [:D]

Air units perform better when flying from a BASE that has an AIR HQ, and maybe within the Command Radius of the AIR HQ, but I don't think it helps to be ATTACHED to the Air HQ

Could be wrong though

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Air units perform better when flying from a BASE that has an AIR HQ, and maybe within the Command Radius of the AIR HQ, but I don't think it helps to be ATTACHED to the Air HQ

Could be wrong though

Thanks - that's what I thought was the case.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz
Is this 'getting LCUs the cheap way by reattaching' thingy wad or is this a cheesy exploitation? To me it appears to be the latter...

your point of view assumes that the devs couldn't foresee the consequences of their choice to begin with, and that it was never kicked around by anyone during the process that led to release of the game or its subsequent patches.

This topic has been kicked around for a while, and I haven't seen any devs step in, so. . . what do you think they intended by including this feature?

Or is it a bug? [:D]

It's both wad and cheesy. 98% of the time it works just how it's supposed to. In order to have the desired flexibility, there will always be an open window for the last 2%. People who enjoy being oh so clever will always find that cheesy 2%. There is no desire to ruin the game's flexibility in order to toast a few pieces of mouldy cheese. This is a game for grognards who should know the smell of a rancid Stilton when they come across it.

Being cheesy against the AI is not so bad because the AI gets pretty cheesy itself. Being cheesy against a human opponent may well result in a dumped game and a reputation. Not having HRs is no excuse, because the game can be played very adequately without any HRs at all - except for the one and only HR that truly matters, and which I have never seen in any HR list, and that is:

Don't Cheat. One can wiggle and jiggle, on occasion, because armys did that, on occasion. But Don't Cheat.

The solution to the Kwantung issue is simple; it's not in code, it's in how the HQ dependencies are structured and how the restriction switches (for both HQs and units) are set in the scenario data. If there's ever a full data update that includes this tweak, then Katy bar the door. It's coming in the next Babes update, btw, if ya want a preview.[;)]

realize some of the text is rather harsh - no reflection at all on Central Blue. He's one of our a-list people and knows how it works. He just happened to be the last poster. [8D]

No sweat. I'm from Missouri. Heat. Kitchens. Buck. Mules. Corn. Cockleburrs. Show-me. etc. Get things out in the open and talk about it. If I ever get to PBEM I won't hide my opinions on this.

I think it really is up to scenario designers to fix any "problems" with this sort of "feature." So I'm curious to see what you throw at us in the next iteration of the Babes to fix people like me. [:D]

Let me cover a few points:

Is it cheating to assign maneuver combat units to air HQ's? I don't do it against the AI.

If I want to move some British base forces or the odd AA unit out of Burma and into China, I pay the PP's for crossing the Chinese border, and I don't have much choice but to pay the full freight to attach them to NCAC or CATF as suits my druthers.

If I want to gather up some base forces lingering on the West Coast, I might move an Air HQ and gather the flock of restricted base forces. And I see that the Babes frequently attaches the base forces to the Air HQ's. So I don't feel too terribly bad about this. On the other hand, the I Amphib Corps was fixed so I couldn't use it to gather up the odd Raiders and Marine paratroopers, so I just moved on to other things till I really need those units.

An HQ is an administrative entity. As the game exists, there are very few reasons to pay attention to organizing land and air forces as in real life because 99 per cent of the bennies seem to derive from the nearest HQ regardless of who is assigned to what. On the other hand, that latest beta iteration of TOAW seeks to strengthen rules on cooperation -- making it important to pay attention to who is attached to what.

So the only actual feature to this HQ mess is the ability to move them from one command to another and get the administrative bonus. And because there is little reason to organize OOB's by HQ, I am tempted to act out -- as they say in Nor Cal, where I live now. [:'(]

Let's take a big administrative cockup from the early war known as ABDA. This was, after all, a multi-national HQ; and if the scenario designer doesn't restrict my options on how to move ABDA forces out of the DEI, then he has left it up to me to move maneuver units to combat HQs and other forces to air or naval or corps hq's as seems to fit their base profile and my druthers at the time -- nothing unusual about Corp HQ's having their own AA units for example.

Yeah, we can argue that in real life the Dutch seemed to pass up any opportunity to bug out, but none of the scenarios really enforce that situation except for a very few units.

Do I feel bad using the existing command structure to move Dutch units out of the DEI? Not if the scenario designer leaves me the option. If the option isn't there, then I do something else with the PP's.

You gots some good takes, and Walloc sent a pm asking/talking about the same thing.

Should probably move my response to the Scen forum, 'cause that's a better home for it.

Ciao. J

AFAIK your base and air HQ need to be under the same theater command to get the stacking bonus (i.e. airfield size + HQ command radius = max. number of air units with full functionality) regardless of the squadrons' HQs.

Cheers,
CC

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: pompack

What he said

(and what happened to the smiley face holding the sign that says that?)

How about this one?

[;)] [:D]

Not quite the same flavor somehow[:)]

ORIGINAL: pompack

Not quite the same flavor somehow[:)]

No. I'm surprised they pulled it. Must have been making room for another one.