B24's oh my

[DrewMatrix]

This actually doesn't bother me. Maybe because I play vs the AI.

I am currently using the option, and enjoying it seeing what I can do. Just fiddling with the "might have beens" is something I enjoy.

This is an option, remember. So if you like it you can use it and if you don't you needn't flip the switch for that particular option.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I can already imagine scores of B-24 and P-38 groups.[:D]

Go ahead and let the Japanese upgrade to Frank's and George's.
They're gonna need them![:D]

It's like Japanese players who inisist there's nothing wrong at all with the naval bombardment model . . . as they rampage from one island to the next in the opening months of the war . . . but then these same Japanese players are likely to scream bloody murder the minute Allied bombers begin to take their grisly toll. And there's apparently no way to get through to these people. I've tried. [:(]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Don't forget about Corsairs on US (and British) CV's and CVE's. That's probably the worst example I can think of. Corsairs being traded out for F6F's (or F4F's in early 43). And forget about the F4F subtypes operating on CVE's. They'll go to F6F's in no time (or even Corsairs).

I remember when they said that we'd be able to change aircraft willy nilly. Most of the japan fan boys just loved it. When you see Corsairs on the Big E in 3/43 you'll wish the rule wasn't in effect.

Yup. [:D]

It's kind of sad when you think about it, though. The game keeps sliding further away from reality. We all lose.

[Feinder]

The fundamental problem tho is that, the vocal minority doesn't want reality. They are the product of too many episodes on the History Channel of "Japanese wonder-weapons of WW2" and "How Japan could have won WW2".

It's simple. They couldn't. After that first bomb fell on 12-07-41, they never stood a chance.

-F-

[Grotius]

It's an option. If you don't like it, don't use it. I'm enjoying playing around with it against the AI, but that doesn't mean I'm going to use it in a PBEM game.

Sure, the game has its flaws. IMHO, it's still the best computer wargame ever made.

[Banquet]

As has been pointed out.. it's an optional feature. If you don't like it, turn it off. So in this case it's not really that hard to stop the game sliding further away from reality if you feel that's what it's doing [:)]

Personally I like having the option. I'm neither a Japanese or a Allied fanboy and look forward to using it playing as both sides.

Edit.. Grotius beat me to it [:D]

[sprior]

ORIGINAL: hithere

Hey wiffle bats are no joke, my 45 lb daughter totally incapacitated her 6'1" 210 pound dad for about 15 min

Not.......that...............ball.................

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

It's an option. If you don't like it, don't use it. I'm enjoying playing around with it against the AI, but that doesn't mean I'm going to use it in a PBEM game.

Sure, the game has its flaws. IMHO, it's still the best computer wargame ever made.

I keep hearing "it's still the best computer wargame ever made" but that doesn't help it hurts. Worshipping at the feet of game designers will never get us better wargames. Basically, WitP doesn't strike me as much of an improvement over what we had with PacWar, except there is a lot more "detail." But as it plays about the same I just don't see any real improvement in the art and science of wargames.

I like this game, too. But I like it not for what it is so much but for the fact that no one else is offering anything better and I want to play something on the period.

As for open-ended aircraft upgrades being offered as an option: sure, but you ought to know as well as I know that players will use it, which only further reinforces the fantasy mindset out there in the community, which will undoubtedly then be catered to when the next "historical simulation" title hits the street. I see no good coming from these kinds of "features." It takes everyone in the wrong direction.

[juliet7bravo]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Don't forget about Corsairs on US (and British) CV's and CVE's. That's probably the worst example I can think of. Corsairs being traded out for F6F's (or F4F's in early 43). And forget about the F4F subtypes operating on CVE's. They'll go to F6F's in no time (or even Corsairs).

I remember when they said that we'd be able to change aircraft willy nilly. Most of the japan fan boys just loved it. When you see Corsairs on the Big E in 3/43 you'll wish the rule wasn't in effect.

Yup. [:D]

It's kind of sad when you think about it, though. The game keeps sliding further away from reality. We all lose.

Coming soon to theatre near YOU!!!

[jwilkerson]

Tris - what was I saying about "space ships annd Orcs" !?

[:D]

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn
I like this game, too.

Hold the front page.. Need this is me sig!! [:D]

I can't speak for anyone else, Tristanjohn, but I only enjoy playing wargames in a historical manner. Therefore I trust myself to use it and not abuse the system.

Also, I don't see why a historical wargame can't cater for player production and deployment of their assets.. but that was all debated in another thread.. and I ain't going there again.

[freeboy]

omg lmao!!! just love this forum.. star wars meets witp!

Don't forget about Corsairs on US (and British) CV's and CVE's. That's probably the worst example I can think of. Corsairs being traded out for F6F's (or F4F's in early 43). And forget about the F4F subtypes operating on CVE's. They'll go to F6F's in no time (or even Corsairs).

and on another note. I do not play games to be either silly or historical and allow for uses none historical but realistic... on I had to due in last pbem was put marine fightersand bombers on CVE/CVL due to lack of naval pilots

[Mr.Frag]

I find it enormously humorous that support can righteously tell us on the one hand that in v1.6 the Allies will no longer be allowed to pull a few miserable support cadres out of the PI or DEI, even after paying the PPs for this action, which was, after all, the design intent for PPs,

TJ, quit inventing things and misquoting what was stated.

No one has ever said that you can't move whole units out. The problem is specifically with people picking up a single grunt on a sub to have the unit completely regrow when the real unit is lost in combat. I have absolutely no problem with people risking ships to load troops and try and get them out.

Sneaking in underwater in a sub and pulling a grunt is a different story.

Separate to that is the handling of base units ... a mechanic with no tools is not going to be servicing an aircraft. Pretending that you picked up the machinery shop with your sub is being rediculious.

[Hornblower]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I find it enormously humorous that support can righteously tell us on the one hand that in v1.6 the Allies will no longer be allowed to pull a few miserable support cadres out of the PI or DEI, even after paying the PPs for this action, which was, after all, the design intent for PPs,

TJ, quit inventing things and misquoting what was stated.

No one has ever said that you can't move whole units out. The problem is specifically with people picking up a single grunt on a sub to have the unit completely regrow when the real unit is lost in combat. I have absolutely no problem with people risking ships to load troops and try and get them out.

Sneaking in underwater in a sub and pulling a grunt is a different story.

Separate to that is the handling of base units ... a mechanic with no tools is not going to be servicing an aircraft. Pretending that you picked up the machinery shop with your sub is being rediculious.

I agree. Pulling a whole unit out is one story. Pulling a company out to reconstitute a regiment or a division is completely another

[freeboy]

Why cannot I pull out all the officer ? noncoms and form a new unit?.. I guess the moral would go down some forthose left behind??? I think the in ability to remove pilots is another related oopsi.. why not be able to pull pilots only from a group with damaged planes and no hope of getting out??

[Knavey]

Methinks Frag will call foul when someone figures out how to put B-25s on a CV...oh wait, nevermind, that was done already. Oh wait, nevermind again, it was done by Doolittle in the REAL war.

Pshaw! Thats sort of gaming the system don't you think? Those pilots weren't CV trained, they weren't flying planes that were supposed to be used on CVs.

I still maintain that the replacements pulled into the units evaced from the PI just aren't going to go into units elsewhere therefore pull what you want, and from where you want. You are limited by the number of replacements in your pools. If you don't like the fact that I can staff an evaced HQ unit, then drop the number of support squads in my pool.

[freeboy]

Some things are in need of ho rules.. like moving troops in MAnchuria.. others are between the players involved.. non of my pbem oponents ever asked for this as a rule, but if they did I probably would be ok with it.. that is restricting sub withdrawls..

[DrewMatrix]

Pulling a company out to reconstitute a regiment or a division is completely another

I must say this doesn't bother me at all.

Yes, you need officers and trained specialists to fill out the unit, but those are the support and engineer etc items in the pool (that you use up).

All pulling out a cadre gives you is the ability to put those support, engineer and combat items in two hexes instead of one (one hex containing the unit you "rebuilt" from the cadre).

I guess that is what the cadre gives you: "Change" to divide your assets into more packets.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

I find it enormously humorous that support can righteously tell us on the one hand that in v1.6 the Allies will no longer be allowed to pull a few miserable support cadres out of the PI or DEI, even after paying the PPs for this action, which was, after all, the design intent for PPs,

TJ, quit inventing things and misquoting what was stated.

No one has ever said that you can't move whole units out. The problem is specifically with people picking up a single grunt on a sub to have the unit completely regrow when the real unit is lost in combat. I have absolutely no problem with people risking ships to load troops and try and get them out.

Sneaking in underwater in a sub and pulling a grunt is a different story.

Separate to that is the handling of base units ... a mechanic with no tools is not going to be servicing an aircraft. Pretending that you picked up the machinery shop with your sub is being rediculious.

Not trying to misquote you, Ray. Let me try again.

As I understand it, you don't want Allied players to pull a squad here and there of, say, base forces, only to see these one day grow into full-fledged base forces. Is that correct or incorrect? Same same with HQ units?

As I see it, this runs counter to the purpose of including PPs in the first place. (I don't argue here that PPs make good sense, mind you, just that that was their intended purpose.) I also don't see this as any great gain for the Allies in the long run as replacements must be drawn from their pools to affect these unit reconstitutions, which is, again, part of the normal (intended) course of play.

I see it like this. An Allied player uses a sub to extract, say, a couple of air support squads and a couple of general support squads from an air-base unit. Is that unrealistic? I don't know. Were I the Allies and saw valuable troops about to be killed I'd make an effort to extract as many as I could. Didn't the British do this at Dunkerque? Was that gamey? Should they instead have said, "Well, Heinie got the best of us this time, and after all we don't want to be called "gamey" players, so maybe it's best to let those men all die or walk into POW camps and just start over from scratch"?

If you want to know, if the submarine/ASW model worked about half right I doubt I'd assign any of my boats to do any such thing. I might assign one or two to grab some HQ cadres. That directly parallels history as I'm sure even you would agree, no? Or must we squabble over that obvious point, too?

It amazes me that on the one hand you can be part of a development team which came up with a system which allows the Japanese to run perfectly amok all the way across China and all way to India if they choose in the opening months of the war, yet you then balk at something as inconsequential as a submarine carrying a cadre out of harm's way, which must be paid for eventually in terms of real game cost in any event, but have no problem whatsoever with loading that same unit in its entirety on an AP and then lifting it somewhere more useful.

So, your objection is actually the use of submarines but not APs for this purpose? Or is your objection that the replacement rules make no sense? What?

The only rationale I've heard so far is that these sub lifts are ahistoric (which they categorically are not in terms of purpose) and "gamey," which I also don't agree with. At least not nearly as "gamey" as the incredibly-stuffed naval bombardment routine, just for example, which all Japanese players that I'm aware of use not only happily but energetically defend as something they "see no problem with" in the first place.

But like I said. Fix the submarine/ASW model so my boats have some good purpose other than to lift out cadres and sow mines and I'd be more thasn happy to instead sink Japanese shipping with them. I still wouldn't understand your willingness to allow APs to lift any units they please out of the PI and SRA, but that's another issue, I guess.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

Why cannot I pull out all the officer ? noncoms and form a new unit?.. I guess the moral would go down some forthose left behind??? I think the in ability to remove pilots is another related oopsi.. why not be able to pull pilots only from a group with damaged planes and no hope of getting out??

Just another oversight. Or, if anyone did bother with this glitch, it was decided not to do anything about it. This was brought up in the UV forums along with lots of other stuff a long time ago, and then forgotten or ignored to death. Pilots, by the way, would be an excellent sub cargo if this ability did exist. Very valuable assets, they.