Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's not, actually... It's a LOGISTICS game...

I see this as a commercial for UPS is on TV, and that stupid song is now stuck in my head...only with my own words of course...

When you tear out your hair in a fit of despair... that's logistics...
When your offensive dies from a lack of supplies... that's logistics...

When idustry stands still from no oil to distill...that's logistics...
When there's no steel for your tank cause a transport just sank.... that's logistics....

When your tanker's on fire like a funeral pyre...that's log...is...tics!

Now see what you started. [:D]

Good stuff, Shark7. Good stuff. [:D][&o]

In Elvis-like voice...

Thank ya. Thank ya very much.

And now you guys got a pretty good look at my sense of humor. Just be glad you don't have to actually hear me sing it...every dog in the neighborhood would be howling....in pain. [:D]

Just let me know where "The Big Nowhere" is so I can avoid it. [;)]


Thanks for getting that song stuck in my head this early in the morning.... That was a great rewrite!!!

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Just let me know where "The Big Nowhere" is so I can avoid it. [;)]


Thanks for getting that song stuck in my head this early in the morning.... That was a great rewrite!!!

You should be safe, 'The Big Nowhere' is an actual area in Texas...so named because there is nothing out here but a few small towns and a lot of ranch land.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's not, actually... It's a LOGISTICS game...

I see this as a commercial for UPS is on TV, and that stupid song is now stuck in my head...only with my own words of course...

When you tear out your hair in a fit of despair... that's logistics...
When your offensive dies from a lack of supplies... that's logistics...

When idustry stands still from no oil to distill...that's logistics...
When there's no steel for your tank cause a transport just sank.... that's logistics....

When your tanker's on fire like a funeral pyre...that's log...is...tics!

Now see what you started. [:D]

[:D] [&o]

[Deleted by Admins]

The PP system is a very poor implementation of a good idea. It is overly abstract and is used to control several different sets of problems, all of which are seemingly unrelated. (Releasing large numbers of LCU's too early vs who's in command of ASW flotilla X.) The whole thing should be rethought.

Hmmm, political points is an aspect of the game that I really enjoy. The Allies never have enough and it requires real thought and strategy to prioritize. It's certainly very abstract, but I like it. My only complaint from the perspective of the Allies is that too many American infantry units may be restricted at or near the start of the war.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's not, actually... It's a LOGISTICS game...

I see this as a commercial for UPS is on TV, and that stupid song is now stuck in my head...only with my own words of course...

When you tear out your hair in a fit of despair... that's logistics...
When your offensive dies from a lack of supplies... that's logistics...

When idustry stands still from no oil to distill...that's logistics...
When there's no steel for your tank cause a transport just sank.... that's logistics....

When your tanker's on fire like a funeral pyre...that's log...is...tics!

Now see what you started. [:D]

OH NO!!! It's in my head! Make it stop, please make it stop!!

Until I came to this forum I used to think that 'gamey' was the flavour of that brace of pheasants I'd had hanging in my larder for just the right length of time...

I understand the potential for exploitation by assigning ground units to an air HQ so that all can become unrestricted on the cheap. However, I don't find the usual rejoinder 'If you think doing something may be gamey then you shouldn't do it' an adequate yardstick of acceptable conduct.

For example, suppose I decide that I have a pressing need of another air flotilla's capability to support torpedo attacks. In the Big Babes scenario, it's a need easily satisfied by purchase of either the 11th or 12th Air Flotilla from 5th Air Fleet - a restricted command. Cost: 36 pp's per unit, and I can ship them out to wherever they are needed, and that's full retail price paid to achieve what appears to me an entirely legitimate purpose. However, the byproduct is that with purchase of either HQ I have also freed about half a dozen subordinate JNAF aviation support units. So, am I to be hounded out of polite society because that incidental consequence has released some additional units without charge? Or, putting it another way, must I pay full retail PP cost for each of the subordinate units before purchase of their HQ in order to fulfil my original objective. That's the only way to do it if free release of the subordinates is treated as being gamey.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's not, actually... It's a LOGISTICS game...

I see this as a commercial for UPS is on TV, and that stupid song is now stuck in my head...only with my own words of course...

When you tear out your hair in a fit of despair... that's logistics...
When your offensive dies from a lack of supplies... that's logistics...

When idustry stands still from no oil to distill...that's logistics...
When there's no steel for your tank cause a transport just sank.... that's logistics....

When your tanker's on fire like a funeral pyre...that's log...is...tics!

Now see what you started. [:D]

Damn wont get rid of that all day. Thanks guys.

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Until I came to this forum I used to think that 'gamey' was the flavour of that brace of pheasants I'd had hanging in my larder for just the right length of time...

I understand the potential for exploitation by assigning ground units to an air HQ so that all can become unrestricted on the cheap. However, I don't find the usual rejoinder 'If you think doing something may be gamey then you shouldn't do it' an adequate yardstick of acceptable conduct.

For example, suppose I decide that I have a pressing need of another air flotilla's capability to support torpedo attacks. In the Big Babes scenario, it's a need easily satisfied by purchase of either the 11th or 12th Air Flotilla from 5th Air Fleet - a restricted command. Cost: 36 pp's per unit, and I can ship them out to wherever they are needed, and that's full retail price paid to achieve what appears to me an entirely legitimate purpose. However, the byproduct is that with purchase of either HQ I have also freed about half a dozen subordinate JNAF aviation support units. So, am I to be hounded out of polite society because that incidental consequence has released some additional units without charge? Or, putting it another way, must I pay full retail PP cost for each of the subordinate units before purchase of their HQ in order to fulfil my original objective. That's the only way to do it if free release of the subordinates is treated as being gamey.

Yokel makes a very important point. I endlessly see, after alist of HR's people saying 'and nothing else that is gamey, everyone knows what gamey is' or 'if you think it might be gamey, it probably is'. That sort of thing is just asking for trouble. Everyones idea of what is gamey is subjective in the extreme.

As an example, my current game, I loaded my carriers right up to the 115% line with extra fighter groups. There were no HR's, didn't even occur to me it might be considered by anyone as gamey and I didn't think about the practicalities of having aircraft on deck, rather than in the hangar during storms. My opponent was not terribly pleased so we went back a turn and introduced a new HR.

That would be my preference for a dealing with gamey - If it's not in the HR then you can do it, however neither of us are too wedded to winning that we won't go back and introduce a new HR if there is unforseen consequence. Of course, it does mean you have to have an opponent with the same outlook and someone you can trust not to cry redo just becuase he got whupped.

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It's not, actually... It's a LOGISTICS game...

I see this as a commercial for UPS is on TV, and that stupid song is now stuck in my head...only with my own words of course...

When you tear out your hair in a fit of despair... that's logistics...
When your offensive dies from a lack of supplies... that's logistics...

When idustry stands still from no oil to distill...that's logistics...
When there's no steel for your tank cause a transport just sank.... that's logistics....

When your tanker's on fire like a funeral pyre...that's log...is...tics!

Now see what you started. [:D]

Damn wont get rid of that all day. Thanks guys.

Pulling out your hair...your experiencing...LOGISTICS! [:D]

For the last word on this issue and for future research by NOOBs, see post #37 from this thread:

tm.asp?m=2607644&mpage=2&#2620654

It is even more emphatic, coming directly from THE dev, than the link I provided in post #29.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Alfred

For the last word on this issue and for future research by NOOBs, see post #37 from this thread:

tm.asp?m=2607644&mpage=2�

It is even more emphatic, coming directly from THE dev, than the link I provided in post #29.

Alfred

That refers to assigning LAND units to the air HQ to release it. NOT releasing the AIR units assigned to it. I was referring to AIR units (not GROUND units which is what Kereguelen is addressing) and THIS is what Elf said was working as designed.

Now as for assigning ground units to the air div and releasing it that way, frankly I have never heard anything so stupid. Assign 15th (or whatever) army to Korea and reassign the units that way. Serves the same effect, isn't "gamey" because you are assigning land units to a land HQ and you dont have to wait a year to assign all the ground units to the air HQ before releasing the air HQ.

ORIGINAL: CV2

ORIGINAL: Alfred

For the last word on this issue and for future research by NOOBs, see post #37 from this thread:

tm.asp?m=2607644&mpage=2�

It is even more emphatic, coming directly from THE dev, than the link I provided in post #29.

Alfred

That refers to assigning LAND units to the air HQ to release it. NOT releasing the AIR units assigned to it. I was referring to AIR units (not GROUND units which is what Kereguelen is addressing) and THIS is what Elf said was working as designed.

Now as for assigning ground units to the air div and releasing it that way, frankly I have never heard anything so stupid. Assign 15th (or whatever) army to Korea and reassign the units that way. Serves the same effect, isn't "gamey" because you are assigning land units to a land HQ and you dont have to wait a year to assign all the ground units to the air HQ before releasing the air HQ.

You completely failed to read the linked post.

To end any speculations about our (the development team) intentions: We did not intend to allow players to save victory points by assigning LCU's to restricted Air HQ's (or other HQ's) and afterwards changing those HQ's to unrestricted commands.

No I didn't. I read it. They've had 4 years to make it work "the way they intended it to work". So it must work the way they intended since neither Wilkerson nor Kereguelen is even on the project anymore.

And who do you believe when 1 dev says its working as designed and another says it isn't? Seems someone from Matrix needs to step up and take responsibility since neither of the devs with the conflicting stories is a Matrix employee.

So what about it Matrix? Is it working as designed? And if not, why not? When it was discovered that the entire US force pool could be released by disbanding the West Coast HQ, that got fixed in the next patch. How hard would it be to not allow an unrestricted HQ to be reassigned to a restricted HQ? Not hard I would think. How hard would it be to prevent ground units from being assigned to air or naval HQs? Not hard I would think. So in 4 years, I have to figure Elf is correct and it is working as designed.

Now some things with house rules (like the no crossing borders thing) I can see where that would be very hard for them to impliment. But HQ assignment? Please...

ORIGINAL: CV2
No I didn't. I read it. They've had 4 years to make it work "the way they intended it to work". So it must work the way they intended since neither Wilkerson nor Kereguelen is even on the project anymore.

One of the persons who designed it tells you that using HQs to get LCUs out cheaper is not as intended. You insisting that they did intend it to work that way does not make it so. Sometimes work just doesn't get finished.

ORIGINAL: CV2
And who do you believe when 1 dev says its working as designed and another says it isn't? Seems someone from Matrix needs to step up and take responsibility since neither of the devs with the conflicting stories is a Matrix employee.

For one, you still have to show me that post by the Elf, I did a search for posts by him on political points and HQ and came up empty. A second reason is that this is one of the devs actually responsible for this part of the game. TheElf was air team lead, meaning he did the modelling for air combat, pilot training, etc. He may even have had a thing or two to say about how political points and air units relate, but he was not the main man for this command chain system, therefore I'd choose to believe Kereguelen over theElf on this subject, just like I would take theElf's word over Kereguelens when we're talking about air combat.

ORIGINAL: CV2
So what about it Matrix? Is it working as designed? And if not, why not? When it was discovered that the entire US force pool could be released by disbanding the West Coast HQ, that got fixed in the next patch. How hard would it be to not allow an unrestricted HQ to be reassigned to a restricted HQ? Not hard I would think. How hard would it be to prevent ground units from being assigned to air or naval HQs? Not hard I would think. So in 4 years, I have to figure Elf is correct and it is working as designed.

First off, you're making assumption about how much work it would be while you know nothing about the code. It might be a two second fix, it might also be days worth of work. Second, there is no reason for them to change it. There are obviously people like yourself who like the system the way it is. Everyone else simply finds a way around it by using a HR.

Don't get me wrong here CV, I have absolutely no problem with you playing the way you do. You reassign units any way you want, as long as your opponent agrees it's all good to me. I do have a problem with you continually insisting that your way is as intended and that the devs agree with you, while refusing to show that alleged post by the Elf.

Ok, how hard do YOU think it would be to make all HQs so they can't change command, wouldnt that do EXACTLY what Kereguelen "intended" according to him? You can actually do it in the editor, it's THAT easy to do. Sooooooo, if it WASN'T intended, why is there even an option for HQs to change HQs? I have shown you in the rules where it IS permitted (via witpqs's post). So now you are arguing just to argue?

They corrected an abuse by disabling the ability to disband HQs, but they wont set HQs to not be able to change their HQ. Unless you prove otherwise, Elf is correct and Kereguelen is wrong. Working as intended. Or if you prefer working as designed.

(But then taking away the ability to change HQs HQs doesn't keep the allies from changing India to 221 group or West coast to 11 airforce, but hey, you like the allies anyway, right?) And I already said PM The Elf and ask him.

Where did Elf say this?

I read this site religously and have never seen any developer advocate manupulating the PP system . I count many members on the site as my virtual friends (whether they know it or not)[:'(]  Elf included and have never seen any of it.

Changing code for the game isn't as easy as flicking a lightswitch .

I'll assume Elf has been taken out of context by you few until I see otherwise .