Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Real men pay retail.

No discounts here...[:'(] the only for sure issue is to discuss this w/ your game partner.


tm.asp?m=2607644&mpage=2&#2620658
ref post 37.

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

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 .

Frankly I don't remember if it was in the air thread or elsewhere. Was within the first 6 months of the game coming out. Like I have said repeatedly, if you don't believe me, ASK HIM. It was posted on at least 2 different occasions.

ORIGINAL: CV2

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?

Where exactly does anyone say that the intention is that no HQ can change command ? Please, do tell me where anyone is arguing that. HQs should be able to change command, but using that ability as a vehicle to get discounts on unrestricting units is what is gamey. The rules show, as I said earlier, what the mechanics do, they do not mean that using the mechanics any way you want is not gamey.

ORIGINAL: CV2
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.

So you are saying that a) Kereguelen does not in fact know what he intended to do with the HQ system or b)He is lying about what he intended to do with the HQ system ?

ORIGINAL: CV2
(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?)

Shall I send you screenshots of the ground units attached to either of these two HQs ? I do not use air HQs for ground units. Not even WC air units go to 11th air force unless they are destined for Alaska, the historical location of that HQ. I do admit that I have used the Australian I Corps to unrestrict Australian forces so I did get a discount there, though none of the discounted units have left Oz so far and I fully intend to switch them back and forth to get them up to full PP by the time they leave. Earlier I though this was legitimate enough as there simply are no other unrestricted Australian HQs and I wanted to keep Australian units in an Australian corps, my opinion on how gamey this is has changed a bit since then.

ORIGINAL: CV2
And I already said PM The Elf and ask him.

You fail to grasp a very simple rule of proper debating. The person making a claim provides the proof. 'You look it up yourself' is pretty poor form.

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

Where exactly does anyone say that the intention is that no HQ can change command ? Please, do tell me where anyone is arguing that. HQs should be able to change command, but using that ability as a vehicle to get discounts on unrestricting units is what is gamey.

What other reason would you change the command of a HQ? For historical accuracy? All HQs are already under their historical control. So please tell me mister master of the pointless argument, what OTHER purpose is there?

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

ORIGINAL: CV2
And I already said PM The Elf and ask him.

You fail to grasp a very simple rule of proper debating. The person making a claim provides the proof. 'You look it up yourself' is pretty poor form.

This is a pretty good point....

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

So you are saying that a) Kereguelen does not in fact know what he intended to do with the HQ system or b)He is lying about what he intended to do with the HQ system ?

Nope, never said he lied. His purpose is lost on me and point in fact on him too apparently, since it was never fully implemented.

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

ORIGINAL: CV2
And I already said PM The Elf and ask him.

You fail to grasp a very simple rule of proper debating. The person making a claim provides the proof. 'You look it up yourself' is pretty poor form.

This is a pretty good point....

Lol what point? I said ask Elf. He is on the boards. All you have to do is click the "PM" button. Like I said, master of the pointless argument. What logic, "well if you can't find the link then you don't know what you are talking about never mind the person that wrote the link is a "PM" away, you can't find it then it doesn't exist". Lol, whatever dude.

And witpqs saw it also. So I guess I just made it up, right? Course you could ASK ELF and find out for sure, but pointless argument is much better. Good point he says - heh.

ORIGINAL: CV2

All you have to do is click the "PM" button.

No worries, I just did that. [:)] Lets hope he has the time to reply.

Thank you. The search function on this board is useless. I search for "air" for author "TheElf" and find no references at all (yeah, right). If I search for "wad" for "TheElf" I get 2 hits (again, yeah right). But since I have time waiting for michael to get my turn back, I'll do some digging while I wait.

I cant help thinking that you are upset by something, CV2 (lack of sleep, indigestion, etc).

You may very well be right in your points, but I can't imagine that making them with your tone and blatant lack of respect for anyone who disagrees with you would make it a very satisfying experience.

What other reason would you change the command of a HQ? For historical accuracy? All HQs are already under their historical control. So please tell me mister master of the pointless argument, what OTHER purpose is there?

For game purposes, there are very few reasons why you would change HQs between commands. In my game I changed I Australian Corps to an unrestricted command (SWPac) to be able to deploy them outside of Oz though. Another reason would be that some players simply like to have a proper chain of command, so if they're using a particular HQ in a particular area they like to change the command to an appropriate one. You are making a mistake in assuming that it HAS to have a reason. Some parts of the game just didn't get finished, and some of the stuff that never got finished might just have been left in because it wasn't worth the trouble to get out again.

Nope, never said he lied. His purpose is lost on me and point in fact on him too apparently, since it was never fully implemented.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

Lol what point? I said ask Elf. He is on the boards. All you have to do is click the "PM" button. Like I said, master of the pointless argument. What logic, "well if you can't find the link then you don't know what you are talking about never mind the person that wrote the link is a "PM" away, you can't find it then it doesn't exist". Lol, whatever dude.

And witpqs saw it also. So I guess I just made it up, right? Course you could ASK ELF and find out for sure, but pointless argument is much better. Good point he says - heh.

The same could be said for your side of the debate. You could very easily have stopped this debate a lot earlier if you had just give me that elusive post or PMed TheElf yourself. Seeing as you had seen this post yourself earlier, I'd think it would be a good deal easier for you to find it again.

I also never accused you of making up this post, I don't even doubt that a post on this topic by TheElf exists, I do think that you might be mistaken as to it's contents and may be confusing a statement of it working as designed with one of it working as intended.

I do have to admit that this might be a rather pointless argument in some ways. I'm quite sure I won't be able to change your mind on this topic. Seeing as developer, more specifically one of the two who worked on this particular part of the game, has flat-out stated that using a HQ command change to save political points was not the intent of the system, you will not be able to bring me to accept that "THE" devs have stated this is as intended. You might still convince me that some developers think that this is the intent though. Other than that, I simply like a good debate. As long as we can keep it civil the worst that could happen is that we had some practice crafting good arguments.

ORIGINAL: CV2

Thank you. The search function on this board is useless. I search for "air" for author "TheElf" and find no references at all (yeah, right). If I search for "wad" for "TheElf" I get 2 hits (again, yeah right). But since I have time waiting for michael to get my turn back, I'll do some digging while I wait.

Try using google with "site:matrixgames.com " at teh beginning of the search and then add what you are searching for. It will search only matrixgames.com and it is far better than using the built in search.

This one is getting in the ballpark: It is a thread between patch 2 and 3 where someone asks specifically about this unit. Andy says its a bug and will fix it. Sometime AFTER this thread is when Elf said it is WAD (and proof of that is this WASN'T changed in patch 3). Will keep digging. I know I'm getting close.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2302764

(Note thanks witpqs, that helped a lot)

The mother of all gamey questions.....from a gamey( drunk)point of view....If u are a newbie then you will need to use the HQ work around to equilize the game against your veteran opponent as you should request in your beginning house rule. Two newbies might also play w/ the HQ work around so as to add more flexability to your game.

If you are a veteran player then you and your opponent will decide how you want to play this extremely important game killing issue.

My limited experience w/AE indicates that as an allied player you had better be very aware of your reinforcemnt schedule so as to be most efficient w/ you pp s.

People seem to forget that devs have said several times about different things following: when something is "working as designed" a.k.a. it has been programmed to work that way, it doesn't mean it's not exploit/or cannot be exploited. Just like in Book of Genesis in Bible, it's up to player if he wants to bite the apple or not. [:D] Game was made with certain flexibility and it's the player's choice how much he wants to abuse the system, there is always ways and loopholes.  

I myself would always play with house-rule where all units have to be "purchased" with full cost of Political Points.

Never said you can't or shouldn't make house rules on anything. However. As I have already pointed out if the designers of the game hadn't intended to use these "loopholes", they wouldn't be there because they are easy enough to "fix" if that's what they had wanted. Now personally I think the 2nd air division (and all its subordinate air units) should be a permanent restricted unit. But when the air team lead comes out and states point blank that is the way it was intended to work, who am I to argue with him?

When someone from the ground team comes out and says it's abusing the system, well all I can say is that is pure laziness on his part. It really can't be that hard to check and not allow ground units to be attached to air or naval HQs and if ground HQs aren't supposed to be attached to a restricted command to "cheapen" the cost of activating these units, well as I said, this can be done in the editor (like all the army HQs in Kwantung HQ for example). When I have to shell out $$$ for a game and something this simple is left unfinished and the designer says it's "gamey" to do, that is pure laziness. You designed it. The play testers surely talked about it. If YOU didn't fix it, YOU have nothing to say on the subject IMO.

ORIGINAL: CV2

Never said you can't or shouldn't make house rules on anything. However. As I have already pointed out if the designers of the game hadn't intended to use these "loopholes", they wouldn't be there because they are easy enough to "fix" if that's what they had wanted.

Except they have said several times contrary. You don't seem to understand that things can be same time WAD and exploit. They left game with lot of flexibility, which means that game mechanics are "working as designed" but can be exploited. They have said same about this and for example "strato-sweeps" several times. It's not the fault of game if player cannot have self-control of resisting the urge to use all loopholes. Consider it like refusing to use cheat codes in console game...[:'(]

And exactly how you propose to fix that HQ thing? It is SOOO easy to say that something is easy to fix, so why don't you volunteer to code it? [8D] It is there for those people who choose to use it. It was implemented, because they were going to do lot more work with HQ structure. It was their decision not to remove this ability when they were not able to finish the HQ system fully, to leave more flexibility to player.

I'd not personally play against player who'd insist using every loophole like this to "game" the game instead of playing it. But as long as person has paid for the game, he can play it whichever way he chooses to. Just that it'll be difficult to find PBEM opponent without some house rules about issue, unless it's "no-holds-barred-game". [8D]

Actually don't knock it until you've tried it. I have a game right now (1 of 3) the only house rule we have is no crossing boarders without PPs (the other 2 games have an assortment of HRs). Its actually one of the best games I've played (we are in early 43). Only thing that would have made it better (in my opinion) would have been 2 day turns.

Give me the code and I will. How do I propose "fixing it"? Simple. At the point where you click on the HQ change field on the unit display you insert a few "if - then - else" statements:

If unit is an air unit then allow only air HQs as options
elseif unit is naval unit then do whatever it does for naval right now
elseif unit is a non-HQ ground unit then allow only land HQs as options
elseif unit is a HQ unit then allow only non-restricted HQs as options.
.
.
.

I figure it would take about 30 minutes to code and test (depending on how screwed up the existing code is that is. I worked in some software houses where the existing routines were so bad it was faster to toss that section and rewrite it). Figure 2 days for a rewrite of that section, either way they have had 4 YEARS to do something about it if they did indeed feel "it wasn't working right".

ORIGINAL: CV2

Actually don't knock it until you've tried it. I have a game right now (1 of 3) the only house rule we have is no crossing boarders without PPs (the other 2 games have an assortment of HRs). Its actually one of the best games I've played (we are in early 43). Only thing that would have made it better (in my opinion) would have been 2 day turns.

Give me the code and I will. How do I propose "fixing it"? Simple. At the point where you click on the HQ change field on the unit display you insert a few "if - then - else" statements:

If unit is an air unit then allow only air HQs as options
elseif unit is naval unit then do whatever it does for naval right now
elseif unit is a non-HQ ground unit then allow only land HQs as options
elseif unit is a HQ unit then allow only non-restricted HQs as options.
.
.
.

I figure it would take about 30 minutes to code and test (depending on how screwed up the existing code is that is. I worked in some software houses where the existing routines were so bad it was faster to toss that section and rewrite it). Figure 2 days for a rewrite of that section, either way they have had 4 YEARS to do something about it if they did indeed feel "it wasn't working right".

You don't by any chance know the OP that started this thread do you? The tone of your posts seem very similar.

Styer27

Can't say that I do. Most of the people I know from this board aren't here anymore or not often. Like Andy Brown for example.