HQ Things

[JWE]

Central Blue and Walloc have both asked about HQ issues. This seems a good opportunity to discuss these things, and a good place to do it in. CBs post is up in the War Room, Walloc's pm is (after the <snippy>

ORIGINAL: Walloc
The 2% vs 98% and the wiggle comments left me wondering if my understand has been off and i would like ur views on it. It has been my understanding that for example move for example I Amph corps HQ to for example west coast HQ, move the west coast restricted divs into the corps at 25% and then move the Corps HQ back to for example pacific command as "cheesy behavior" tho allowed by engine.

All really good stuff. So .. here's the opening serve.
HQ units and how LCUs are assigned to HQs and the different Restricted switches work for both HQs and LCUs is the most (ok, let’s be kind) unintuitive part of the whole game engine. These things run a huge gamut of functions that are, frankly a grab-bag, and have very little to do with the classic operational functionality of a HQ unit. Therefore, assigning LCUs to different HQs is nothing more than an exercise in “restriction management”. One way or another, one can buy out just about anything and the game flexibility supports that.

I hate the term ‘political points’. Should maybe just call them ‘make it harder points’, because that’s all they really are. One must wait to amass enuf PPs to do something, and if you got the PPs, then do it. It’s just a tempo reduction thing. A player can do almost anything, except where an LCU is itself restricted. The bitch that I see is the cheapness of ‘internal’ reassignment. Don’t like that. Think everything should pay the same PPs no matter where they go. Since HQs don’t really matter squat, I wonder what the heck this ‘cheapness’ is trying to accomplish. It’s rather pointless.

So to my simple mind, the flexibility is there and it is good. As to cheese, well .. one man’s cheese is another’s chicken divan. I don’t like it that players can suck all the good stuff from Kwantung Army ‘on the cheap’ on opening day. Get rid of the stupid 75 % bonus for ‘internal’ reassignment and things might just move in the right direction. That way, cost is the same no matter what kind of HQ they are assigned to. Since assignment has absolutely no effect whatever, in any way, shape, or form, except for ‘restrictions’, this makes sense to me.

[topeverest]

Understand the tempo modulator in restriction. I struggle with PP's and restriction at all times, but I have accepted it in the stock scenarios. In our own little world wars, we have taken advantage of the bountiful editor and adapted this aspect of the war to our own likings. It is a game after all. Besides, I am not sure how easy it would be to gain agreement on where to draw the line..the freestyle fanboys - the historical hardliners...try to get agreement the sky is blue!

I say to the editor with the lot of us!

[Walloc]

Thx for responding John,

I agree in what u say and understand the need tempo reduction side of things. I hafta say im not liking the all over system that much tho. Its not a knock on the AE team u hafta work with what is there and only so much is possible. Its just overall i feel that the system too little taken into account is the consideration of contingency. The tempo reduction side of things seem a little sided. Hoping not turn it into a AFB vs JFB thing tho, but let me explain. Programming and setting up good triggers is hard so i understand why that path wasnt chosen. It too be just leaves some very odd possibilites.

Its a game and i have no problem with the japanease side trying stuff lets say trying to take PH.
If you follow a pretty historic course of action as allied, sending chinease forces into Burma swicthing the historic leaders, Nimitz and so on u wouldnt really by 1 feb have had any points saven. Now intel indicates 4 divs preping for PH/surroundings. Ok we got 2 divs designated on the west coast for PTO. 41th and 40th buying those out would cost around 4k points or nearly 3 months of PPs.
Yes I could have saved points i cant argue that. Non the less would the historic US high command have thot 2 sec about sending those forces to PH in that case. Even if they had "used" their PPs. IMHO, no. No way by paying full point, which i agree in, that u can make it happen in time.
Thats what i mean by contingency. Things dont happen in a vacuum. Rather they most times happens for a reason and have an reaction.

Seen from my games and reading AARs, in most games it seems that is possible for the an experienced jap player with out having to use PPs to advance in more or less any direction all at once, especially into the pacific as well as south pacific with out being "constrained" by the tempo reduction that PPs are.
Its not that i argue that all the US divs should have been "free'ed" from restrictions.

I would have liked a system that toke contingencies a bit more into consideration, not that i have a brilliant idea for it, or both sides would initially been more constrained by PPs/tempo reduction. Both sides having to have to make choices with tradeoffs.

Why i dont think the feel of the overall system is all that good, but i live with it and live well if only i could find a opponent for the long haul [:'(]
One day i hope to play Dabigbabes and see how the scn work in regard to limiting players more.

Happy days too all of ya,

Rasmus

[Bullwinkle58]

The thing I struggle with (struggle being perhaps a bit much; more like a tussle) is the urge to try to align HQs for game world immersion purposes, even though it has no game effect, and saving PPs for things that Just Have to Get Done, like CO swapping. I don't do any of the "cheese" so, at 50/day, I found myself either having to do without the immersion factor, especially in India--Burma and the Solomons, or be constantly unable to free up WC LCUs and planes, and to swap in aggressive COs.

I too went to the editor, and am much happier. The editor is the key. With it, there shouldn't be any whining about PP budgets. If one wants it "harder" it can be done. Same with "easier."

I share your dislike of "Political Points" as a term.

[topeverest]

Walloc has made a stong point.

Unforeseen contingency of the type discussed above is a functional loss in this system. It is especially important early in the game for the allies and potentially any time in the game for the Empire depending on how the game plays out. The effect, imho, is an added early advantage to the Empire, and many effective Empire players know this well and can 'game' it. The slippery slope of a potential enhangement of 'this releases if that happens' and 'that is released if that happens' cant foresee the variations players execute. We hear these discussions frequently. As an example, was Oz fully mobilized for war prior to an early 42 hypothetical invasion by IJ? Would all restricted units release so things like flanking amphibious invasions could occur. Would that have released India, NZ, and Canada forces to aid Oz? What types of additional units or incremental replacements should be offered? What existing reinforcements from which nations might have been accelerated as a reaction. How would such an offensive move positively affect IJ? What other contingencies exist...and the slippery slope slides on...

In any event, these issues are related to restriction which is related PP / HQ which is related to pace of play. Tough nuts no matter how you cut them. Award bonuses for particular actions of your opponent are a very difficult thing to justify. Alternately, a very different system of garrison requirements by nation but not specific base might be envisioned. in this world, as long as a minimum national garrison is met, any particular unit can move where it wants. PP's presumably would be used to buy down garrison requirements of a particualr nation, gradually increasing the available forces and pace of play. Invasions in particalar areas would automatically reduce the defender's nation(s) garrison requirements a certain amount and potential activate contingency reinforcements (which cost victory points to defender).

Anyway. no easy solution, but this is an alternative that could work and maintain pace of play.

[Central Blue]

hi John,

I was sort of surprised when I discovered the 75% bonus. I don't remember it from WITP. Sort of wondered where it came from, what it was for, etc. And it has survived every patch despite what people like me use it for. So somebody must like it for some reason.

Aside from the nastiness of assigning infantry to air HQ's it's sort of hard to understand why it is there at all unless it is meant to facilitate some sort of organization of forces somehow somewhere more or less in the manner that I am using it. If there is a bug in the feature, it's that you can assign infantry to air hq's. I noticed right off that you can't assign much of anything to an amphibious hq [:D]

I understand your point about slowing the tempo, but that can also be done by design. Sure the 3rd MarDiv formed in September 1942, and if you want her early, you have to pay the PP's. But since she was still training before going into action, maybe another design decision is to have her arrive unrestricted at some later date closer to when she was actually deployed in combat.

The Kwantung Army is another design example. At least the HQ is perma-restricted so that you have to pay the price to move an HQ in. With the Dutch forces that aren't perma-restricted, all you have to do is transfer them to ABDA, which is not restricted, and they are on their way to where ever you want to send them.

Anyway, I gather you don't care for the feature, [:D]. The only way to beat it would seem to be stricter design choices like you made with the Cavite and Bataan naval bases. I missed the opportunity to move those units out of the Philippines, but I understood the design choice that made them unmovable, and it wasn't a game-breaker. Heck, if it's something you can just switch off for the scenario, I can live with that too.

If there's some sort of politically correct guide on how the feature is intended to be used -- source code comments anyone? -- I'ld like to see it. But as long as it's there, and as long as I have the option, I'll continue to use it as described.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
If there's some sort of politically correct guide on how the feature is intended to be used -- source code comments anyone? -- I'ld like to see it. But as long as it's there, and as long as I have the option, I'll continue to use it as described.

Hi CB. No, there isn't. And yes, that's a source code comment. And yes, so long as you have the option, go forth my son and boogie till ya puke.

As I said, my only hard on is with the 75% internal reassign gift. Have no idea where it came from and think it performs fellatio on large, very dead, bears. Will scream, shout, jump up and down, and make myself as objectionable as possible, in the design community, but likely to precious little effect.

But, hey, I'm just the Navy puke. I can bitch, whine, and moan, all I want, but all the Land guys have to say is - well .. yeah .. ok .. but the way it is now makes the AI better. In which case, I'm back to trying make time with the hairy, ninja, neanderthal girl from the circus fun-house.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: JWE
all the Land guys have to say is - well .. yeah .. ok .. but the way it is now makes the AI better.

That's it?

Seems like it should be possible for the option to be turned off for human players when you spin the game-style knob.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
That's it?

yep.

Seems like it should be possible for the option to be turned off for human players when you spin the game-style knob.

nope.

The code for this is very obstruse, and scattered throughout every single callable routine in every single file. Trust me, it would take at least a year to get a handle on it, and then another year to rewrite it, and then another six months to test it out, and then another six months to deal with the main forum whiners.

No, my friend. What you see is what you get.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: JWE



The code for this is very obstruse, and scattered throughout every single callable routine in every single file. Trust me, it would take at least a year to get a handle on it, and then another year to rewrite it, and then another six months to test it out, and then another six months to deal with the main forum whiners.

No, my friend. What you see is what you get.

Which, unfortunately, is often the case when you have recycled code as much and as long as WitP. Not complaining here, just an observation.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
That's it?

yep.

Seems like it should be possible for the option to be turned off for human players when you spin the game-style knob.

nope.

The code for this is very obstruse, and scattered throughout every single callable routine in every single file. Trust me, it would take at least a year to get a handle on it, and then another year to rewrite it, and then another six months to test it out, and then another six months to deal with the main forum whiners.

No, my friend. What you see is what you get.

Well, that is useful information. First thing I've seen that makes me rethink the "feature."

[Andy Mac]

The 75% reduction came out of th edevelopment process John and we never looked at it after that when we were forced to de priorities the HQ changes

At various points we were trying to make chain of command for Armies and Command HQ's more relevant.

i.e. Transfer of LCU's between a Corps HQ of same Army = free
Transfer of LCU's between an Army HQ or already unrestricted Command HQ inside th same root HQ = 5%
Transfer of LCU's between an Army HQ or already unrestricted Command HQ not inside th same root HQ = 25%
Transfer of LCU's between restricted HQ (any type) and unrestricted HQ of any type = 100%

Then make the bonuses for being close to the right HQ more powerfull than just genenric HQ's

i.e. re work and re align all the bonuses that HQ's so that the max bonus was from Command/Army/Corps HQ all being present and in range with more of the bonus weighted to Army/Corps HQ and reducing the impact on combat of the Command HQ but for replacements etc the command HQ still being powerfull

This would make command HQ's vital for rear area functins like disablements, training, logistics and reinforcements and Army/Corps HQ more important for combat

But this was de prioritiesd as to high risk of impementing and testing with the Spaghetti code we looked at the changes long and hard but it would have meant re testing pretty much everything for PBEM and Human v AI so we had to ditch it but we had calibrated the Allied restricted HQ and PP availability so the 75% had to stay or again re write either the OOB or increase the PP's acros the board. I have a spreadsheet where we did the calcs somewhere in one of my archives.

Basically what we have now is a compromise that was not the originial vision but its was the best balance between risk of thegame falling over and hitting the release date.

p.s. this was not an AI issue ironically the AI could cope either way because we could just tell the AI to ignore it - the issue was Human players and the retesting that would have been required

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac


The 75% reduction came out of th edevelopment process John and we never looked at it after that when we were forced to de priorities the HQ changes

At various points we were trying to make chain of command for Armies and Command HQ's more relevant.

i.e. Transfer of LCU's between a Corps HQ of same Army = free
Transfer of LCU's between an Army HQ or already unrestricted Command HQ inside th same root HQ = 5%
Transfer of LCU's between an Army HQ or already unrestricted Command HQ not inside th same root HQ = 25%
Transfer of LCU's between restricted HQ (any type) and unrestricted HQ of any type = 100%

Then make the bonuses for being close to the right HQ more powerfull than just genenric HQ's

i.e. re work and re align all the bonuses that HQ's so that the max bonus was from Command/Army/Corps HQ all being present and in range with more of the bonus weighted to Army/Corps HQ and reducing the impact on combat of the Command HQ but for replacements etc the command HQ still being powerfull

This would make command HQ's vital for rear area functins like disablements, training, logistics and reinforcements and Army/Corps HQ more important for combat

But this was de prioritiesd as to high risk of impementing and testing with the Spaghetti code we looked at the changes long and hard but it would have meant re testing pretty much everything for PBEM and Human v AI so we had to ditch it but we had calibrated the Allied restricted HQ and PP availability so the 75% had to stay or again re write either the OOB or increase the PP's acros the board. I have a spreadsheet where we did the calcs somewhere in one of my archives.

Basically what we have now is a compromise that was not the originial vision but its was the best balance between risk of thegame falling over and hitting the release date.

p.s. this was not an AI issue ironically the AI could cope either way because we could just tell the AI to ignore it - the issue was Human players and the retesting that would have been required

OK. That's interesting too. It's encouraging to know that you were going in that direction. Maybe someday you'll get to go back. Heaven knows I waited a long time for cooperation issues to be finally sorted out in TOAW, so no rush. Things happen on a project, and most people understand that.

I think most people would just like a little official guidance on the kosher way to use this feature that doesn't include Air HQ's having their own combat troops. Heck, even if we get different official guidance from those involved in the project it would be enlightening. Seems like a fair request under the circumstances.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: JWE


I hate the term ‘political points’. Should maybe just call them ‘make it harder points’, because that’s all they really are.

I view them as Admin Points. However, as the abbreviation PP is well known (and the term "Political Points" is insidiously found throughout the manual), we could view PP as standing for Priority Points (or if you like LOTR, "Precious Points").[;)]

Alfred

[Grfin Zeppelin]

Sorry for disrupting this interesting discussion but I was not able to be quiet here.

How about Power points ? [:D]

[erstad]

I think most people would just like a little official guidance on the kosher way to use this feature that doesn't include Air HQ's having their own combat troops.

I would second that. Particularly since Andy Mac suggests that there was some set of assumptions that went into balancing PP costs and PP availability.

My problem is that I want to use all the right "loopholes" but not abuse the engine. So, for example, I don't assign LCUs to air HQs (except for AA units). However, I realized a month or so back that I was reassigning "West Coast" Navy air units to the "11th USAAF". Hmm, navy units reporting to USAAF? So I don't do that any more, but instead pay more points to go to a different command. But I don't know if what I'm doing is properly avoiding a game engine exploit, or arbitrarily penalizing myself for irrelevant fluff.

[Central Blue]

ORIGINAL: erstad

I think most people would just like a little official guidance on the kosher way to use this feature that doesn't include Air HQ's having their own combat troops.

I would second that. Particularly since Andy Mac suggests that there was some set of assumptions that went into balancing PP costs and PP availability.

My problem is that I want to use all the right "loopholes" but not abuse the engine. So, for example, I don't assign LCUs to air HQs (except for AA units). However, I realized a month or so back that I was reassigning "West Coast" Navy air units to the "11th USAAF". Hmm, navy units reporting to USAAF? So I don't do that any more, but instead pay more points to go to a different command. But I don't know if what I'm doing is properly avoiding a game engine exploit, or arbitrarily penalizing myself for irrelevant fluff.

Right. This is the way I look at things when using this feature. I am a little more flexible regarding transfer of base forces to their respective branch of service like AAF or USN. For the Allies this is somewhat restricted by the slow arrival of HQ's.

And to add another example, is it kosher to transfer the Tarakan gun battalion to ABDA if it is to be transported to a DEI base like Palembang or Balikipan, but not right if it is to be transferred outside the DEI? The implication I get from Andy's comment is that I should pay full fare to transfer the unit to a different theater like Oz, even if Australia is part of ABDA to begin with.

PS -- just to expand on my last point and clarify -- would it be more kosher to transfer Aus I Corps to ABDA and then transfer Dutch units to I corps if I want them to go to Oz, or is it more better to pay full fare to transfer to SWPAC, Fifth Air Force, etc.?

[Andy Mac]

Sorry to be clear with what we have now and the OOB as is you should be using the 25% level where you can to move units from one unrestricted HQ to another.

(I do it for immersion purposes which is why I like the 25% level or lower)

I always (and the game was designed for) pay 100% PP's to tranfer units out of a restricted command.

So West Coast units going to SOPAC pay 100%
XV Corps units going to IV Corps both unrestricted I would try to take advantage of the 25% as its got no game impact and is just me being anal

Andy

[Alfred]

You're not being anal. It is the behaviour of a proper gentleman.

Alfred

[Andy Mac]

p.p.s Obviosly this a martter for discussion between players as long as you both agree it makes a more interesting game in some ways to allow the 25% to operate