Matrix Games Forums

Pasternanski, If you hard code mandatory historic unit withdrawls, How would you account for non-historic moves in the game? Example; If your opponent is marching on Bombay and sailing toward Karachi. Is it an unreasonable possibility that Torch is delayed in order to meet the crisis. For sure there should be a price to pay (ie;PPs) but one should not have to be bound by historical hancuffs unless your opponent is as well. IMO PPs seem to be a good compromise.

Regards

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

How much damage may a ship have to be sent away ?

That's a very good question. If someone sends back a BB that is 80% damaged it should only fulfill 1/5 of the BB requirement. Some allowance should be made for the first 10% of damage or so since that can occur just from running around even without combat.

Maybe take the % damage and charge the player that same percentage of PP that he would have had to pay to keep the ship.

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

How much damage may a ship have to be sent away ?

That's a very good question. If someone sends back a BB that is 80% damaged it should only fulfill 1/5 of the BB requirement. Some allowance should be made for the first 10% of damage or so since that can occur just from running around even without combat.

Maybe take the % damage and charge the player that same percentage of PP that he would have had to pay to keep the ship.

These are valid points and I will look into them.

This kinda gets back to my damage post I made. This would mean that I would not even want to send any of my ships out to sea, for I know that if it takes damage ( of which I am sure it will just from sailing a few hexes). This would be a horrible situation. You can't even risk losing anything cuz of the VPs, and it would make you not want to even move your ships due to the fear of accumulating incidental system damage. Even if it's a few points, I feel its kinda dumb.

If anything, it should be implemented ONLY IF THE SHIP IS HEAVILY DAMAGED.

I think the system as described (ship withdrawls by type, pay PP to override) is a very good system, and simulates that options and constraints on a historical commander. Remember, PP are effectively a hybrid. They represent a mix of straight 'politicing' (to persuade the Powers That Be that your reorganisation/need to keep a ship, or whatever is great enough to revise their plans), and also the staff effort in organising a move etc. The great weakness with the historical withdrawls system is the lack of any account of what is happening, and the players plans. What admiral in history ever planned along the lines of 'HMS Impossible gets withdrawn in 2 weeks, so I will use her on a death ride', or worse 'HMS Impossible, please teleport from the South China sea to the Med soonest'? The reality is something much more like

Admiraly to CinC Far East. HMS Impossible to detatch you command 25/12/43 to CinC Med.

CiC Far East to Admiralty. HMS Impossible currently deployed and essential to operation Chariot, suggest HMS Improbable substitutes

or

Strategic situation critical, cannot release ships until .... (etc)

The latter option may lose you credibilty with the boss, and make them less likely to grant your next wish (i.e.lose PP). As a game mechanic, it penalises you by limiting other options. Thus, if you are not despirate you wont pay, and if you are, you have an option (at the expense of paying!)

I have pre-ordained withdrawl, or random teleport. I guess you could do non-negotiable random warning of withdrawl, but you could then get in to the ludricous
situation of the only BB (say) in theatre being withdrawn, when there is no way it would have been historically. Having a say is in no way beyond the scope of CinC Far East (which is what the British post is effectively)

Look, I hate to get serious, but you people have not been listening. So let me spell it out in simple terms (and, before I start, let me acknowledge that PPs are part and parcel of WitP and nothing I say here will have any effect):

1. I am merely saying that VPs, not some artificial system of another kind of points, ought to govern this game mechanic.
2. I do not believe that "political points" are the answer.
3. My idea is that a basic system of RN ship withdrawals ought to be built in that notifies the player of impending ship withdrawals. It is then the Allied player's responsibility to get those ships to their departure port or ports. This system should randomize, to some extent, the need for ship withdrawals, both by type and by number, in order to account for changing needs of other theaters for RN support of combat operations.
4. If the situation in theater is such that the ships ought to be retained in order to stave off defeat, the notification of withdrawal should not appear in the first place (capture of _______ causes cancellation of withdrawal orders for ships ____, ____, ____, and ____; VP deficiency of X points causes cancellation of withdrawal orders for ships ____, ____, ____, and ____. And so on).
5. Deliberate loss of ships ordered to be withdrawn or failure to move them to the port or ports of withdrawal should result in loss of VPs and immediate removal of the ships in question.

I hate to see artificial constructs like PPs conjured up to govern game play. I guess I can live with it for transfer of units from command to command (but I still dislike the term "political points," as such transfer is not a "political" matter, but rather, a "military" or "command" matter).

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

Look, I hate to get serious, but you people have not been listening. So let me spell it out in simple terms (and, before I start, let me acknowledge that PPs are part and parcel of WitP and nothing I say here will have any effect):

1. I am merely saying that VPs, not some artificial system of another kind of points, ought to govern this game mechanic.
2. I do not believe that "political points" are the answer.
3. My idea is that a basic system of RN ship withdrawals ought to be built in that notifies the player of impending ship withdrawals. It is then the Allied player's responsibility to get those ships to their departure port or ports. This system should randomize, to some extent, the need for ship withdrawals, both by type and by number, in order to account for changing needs of other theaters for RN support of combat operations.
4. If the situation in theater is such that the ships ought to be retained in order to stave off defeat, the notification of withdrawal should not appear in the first place (capture of _______ causes cancellation of withdrawal orders for ships ____, ____, ____, and ____; VP deficiency of X points causes cancellation of withdrawal orders for ships ____, ____, ____, and ____. And so on).
5. Deliberate loss of ships ordered to be withdrawn or failure to move them to the port or ports of withdrawal should result in loss of VPs and immediate removal of the ships in question.

I hate to see artificial constructs like PPs conjured up to govern game play. I guess I can live with it for transfer of units from command to command (but I still dislike the term "political points," as such transfer is not a "political" matter, but rather, a "military" or "command" matter).

So a complicated, hard coded system that is as much an "artificial construct" is somehow better than "political points" or "command points"? Without linkage of the current military situation to the withdrawls (Programming the hardcoding and getting it right would be a nightmare and a time sink), these "arbitrary" removals make little sense.

I think there may be more important matters that generate a better return for the programmers than going too deeply beyond PPs. This is a good abstraction for addressing the issue.

Like Marshal Zukhov once said "perfect is the enemy of good enough."

.

I don't see what I suggest as being anywhere near as complicated as the PP system, but enough on the subject, because my ideas are going nowhere.

The manual says next to NOTHING about PP...where can I find information please?