Page 5 of 5
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 4:33 pm
by stuman
ORIGINAL: CV2
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.
I am curious, obviously you have been playing for longer than one week, what was your first forum ID ?
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:10 pm
by CV2
Yamato hugger. I was banned for posting things from the dev board about behind the scenes things in the development of AE and just now coming back.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 5:45 pm
by Sredni
zomg, I was just thinking a while back that I kinda miss Yamato Hugger lol
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:16 pm
by hunchback77
Welcome back Yamato hugger.
ORIGINAL: CV2
Yamato hugger. I was banned for posting things from the dev board about behind the scenes things in the development of AE and just now coming back.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 8:35 pm
by stuman
ORIGINAL: CV2
Yamato hugger. I was banned for posting things from the dev board about behind the scenes things in the development of AE and just now coming back.
Was just curious. I thought either you were the worlds quickest learner , or you had obviously played before. [:)]
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sat Nov 13, 2010 9:15 pm
by CV2
Heh, thanks [:D]
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:25 am
by TheElf
hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:
1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 8:29 am
by Smeulders
Thanks for the heads up Elf.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:51 am
by VSWG
ORIGINAL: TheElf
hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:
1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.
Thank you for clearing this up. [:)]
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 12:53 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: TheElf
hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:
1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.
I remember seeing what you wrote, but not exactly what you wrote. It did
not have to do with land units, only air groups.
Enough has been added to this subject since then (not just this thread) that it's obsolete anyway, so I've never bothered going back and trying to find it.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:06 pm
by Shark7
Seems to me that all this is easily settled with a house rule:
All attached units must be bought out individually BEFORE a lower HQ can change its command HQ.
Problem solved.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:05 pm
by stuman
ORIGINAL: Shark7
Seems to me that all this is easily settled with a house rule:
All attached units must be bought out individually BEFORE a lower HQ can change its command HQ.
Problem solved.
That is too easy and logical. It is better to just argue about it.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 5:55 pm
by TheElf
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: TheElf
hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:
1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.
I remember seeing what you wrote, but not exactly what you wrote. It did
not have to do with land units, only air groups.
Enough has been added to this subject since then (not just this thread) that it's obsolete anyway, so I've never bothered going back and trying to find it.
I may have said something. But given the facts in this thread I would have to assume that I was commenting on the feature as a whole WAD. Meaning that the intent was for restricted commands to be convertible to unrestricted etc. but I was likely unaware that all subordinate attached Ground units (gamey) would be freed up from manchuria. This seems a bit extreme and against the intent of the feature.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:03 pm
by Shark7
ORIGINAL: stuman
ORIGINAL: Shark7
Seems to me that all this is easily settled with a house rule:
All attached units must be bought out individually BEFORE a lower HQ can change its command HQ.
Problem solved.
That is too easy and logical. It is better to just argue about it.
Judging from the 'discussion' on this matter it is quite possibly an 'Angry Mob' topic. Shall I get the pitchforks and torches? [:D]
Honestly, I think each player is going to have to work it out with his/her opponant.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:43 am
by RUDOLF
If he does not move out significant force from Manchuria then it is going to be a easy win for the Allies during 43 or 44. Maybe some of you like that, but I don't so I give my Japanese opponent free hands to do what he likes, my games end arround mid 1945 that way. Allies still win, but it gets more challenging (and to me that means more enjoyable).
When taking into consideration the extreme unbalance this game has (its a game) - then I think that it is reasonable for the Japanese player to do what he likes, he will lose in the end anyway.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 2:50 am
by stuman
ORIGINAL: Shark7
ORIGINAL: stuman
ORIGINAL: Shark7
Seems to me that all this is easily settled with a house rule:
All attached units must be bought out individually BEFORE a lower HQ can change its command HQ.
Problem solved.
That is too easy and logical. It is better to just argue about it.
Judging from the 'discussion' on this matter it is quite possibly an 'Angry Mob' topic. Shall I get the pitchforks and torches? [:D]
Honestly, I think each player is going to have to work it out with his/her opponant.
Pitchforks and torches at 20 paces then !
Actually I agree with you.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:58 pm
by RUDOLF
I need to say no more!
This is why you let Japan run its econnomy like it wants OR you will have US bases 250 miles from Hiroshima by mid 1944!!! And this Jap player try to defend himself with Zeros!!
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2248886&mpage=19&key=�
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 10:02 am
by Yakface
I see your 'Why the Allies Capitulated' AAR and raise you Back In Business - PzB's AAR and cap_and_gowns AAR. Both of which are fine IJN performances (sans gameyness)
Seriously Rudolf, picking one AAR and saying this is the way all games are going to go if I can't have what I want is a first class, A1, Anne Coulter of a polemic.
RE: Gamey Question
Posted: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:17 pm
by RUDOLF
ORIGINAL: Yakface
I see your 'Why the Allies Capitulated' AAR and raise you Back In Business - PzB's AAR and cap_and_gowns AAR. Both of which are fine IJN performances (sans gameyness)
Seriously Rudolf, picking one AAR and saying this is the way all games are going to go if I can't have what I want is a first class, A1, Anne Coulter of a polemic.
Yes I agree.
Of cource my intention however was to just show one of the very many good examples.