Page 2 of 2
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not?
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:41 pm
by crsutton
Real men pay retail. Nuff said.
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not?
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:49 pm
by Dili
As long as both sides are doing the same it is not a problem, it is when one side does and the other does not that there is a problem
Nopes . It is still gamey, the only difference is that it is equally gamey. Both cheat against the game engine [:'(]
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not?
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:02 pm
by aphrochine
ORIGINAL: crsutton
Real men pay retail. Nuff said.
Haha!! Next time you buy a car...
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not?
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:31 pm
by mike scholl 1
ORIGINAL: CV 2
Personally, I think its fine to put base forces under an air HQ. I think (and have always said) that its a hole in the game (IMHO) to allow ground combat units to be under the command of air or naval HQs. And truth be told, you are actually better off putting your combat forces under a ground HQ and have that HQ close. Unfortunately its hard to accumulate enough PPs to do it in the game.
You've summed up the reason why it isn't "gamey" in a nutshell. If the game gave you enough PP's to correctly organize your forces it might be..., but as it stands now "any ol' HQ in a storm" is perfectly reasonable.
RE: Divisions under Air HQ, Gamey or not?
Posted: Sat Feb 25, 2012 10:07 am
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: USS America
Don't you ever get tired of replaying that same old, tired recording, yamato? [8|]
(Yes, the entire world is out to get you. We already know that. [:D])
+1
There is quite a history in this, regarding "CV2" aka "Yamato Hugger".