Political point cost per device

[Yaab]

I have been checking the PP cost of HQ change for different units and noticed something strange - devices have different PP cost attached to them.

10 points per device - field arty (70mm-150mm), mortar (81mm),
2 points per device - inf squads, MMG squads
1 point per device - AA gun (37mm-120mm), AT gun (37mm), AFV (tank, armored car, tankette), motorised support.

What is the logic behind AFV and field arty PP cost discrepancy? I can buy out a tank regiment of 40 tanks for 40PPs thus getting 40 assault value on a cheap or pay 200 points for a mortar regiment with 20 x 81mm with 0 assault value.

Why are arty pieces and mortars so dear, and tanks so cheap? Is this a bug?

[Feltan]

Yaab,

This is one of my few gripes with the game. The PP system makes a lot of sense for things like restricted units, and to model the early intertia of getting commands organized.

However, after about the first year, it ceases to make sense. For example, it is PP cost prohibitive to switch HQ's for US divisions to properly task organize the inbound Corps HQ's. So, what I see happening most frequently, is that a stack of Allied units in, say, 1943 or 1944 will have components from various commands all mixed together in an a-historical fashion. There is probably some penalty for this, or perhaps a less well maximized use of the HQ's, but there just isn't enough PPs to switch a division from one Corps to another as the situation changes on the map.

I can fully understand why sacking a high level commander costs PP -- that makes sense. However, actions like changing Corps affiliation for the 7th infantry division from I Corps to VI Army to V Amphib over time happened frequently as routine planning for operations. For a game that rightly prides itself on historical accuracy, this is a minor mechanism that just doesn't work as well as it should. It doesn't model how things really worked well at all.

I have come to the practice of simply considering a unit restricted or unrestricted, and beyond that any affiliation with a specific HQ is happenstance rather than part of a properly task organized force -- the PP systems doesn't support how things actually worked from a Command and Control perspective.

Regards,
Feltan

[Yaab]

Oh yeah, the command structure.

Part of the problem with reassiging units may be the 10 points paid per each field gun.

Consider, if you count the points per device it seems that divisions with lots of artillery pieces are the most handicapped under this system. There is this IJA 38th Division which is on its way to Hong Kong on December 7, 1941. It costs 1868 political points to change its HQ. It is packed with 70mm - 100mm artillery. Its arty is worth probably 800 political points alone.

Actually, a late-war US armored divisions with plenty of powerful tanks and self-propelled artillery should be a lot cheaper to reassign than an early-war infantry division with some mortars, becuase the self-proppeled artillery will be counted as AFVs! The cost for its devices should be about 650 PPs plus 450 PPs for the motorized support. The US armored TOE I am talking about is TOE 2353 in DaBigBabes.

Seems like WITP:AE politicans have a crush on field arty and mortars, and would not let them go under the current system. Infantrymen, big tanks, huge flak guns - nah, you can have them - they are not worth a continetal.

[Alfred]

Yaab,

I'd like to see the actual evidence you are basing your conclusion on. There is a significant discount if reattaching to a new HQ within the same hierarchy. Doing so costs only 25% of the PPs which it normally would cost.

Also whether the devices are ready or disabled might be a factor.

Alfred

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Yaab,

I'd like to see the actual evidence you are basing your conclusion on. There is a significant discount if reattaching to a new HQ within the same hierarchy. Doing so costs only 25% of the PPs which it normally would cost.

Also whether the devices are ready or disabled might be a factor.

Alfred

Alfred,

I don't have Yaab's data, but in a non-quantitative sense I completely agree with his general conclusion that PP's for non-restricted units switching HQ's is exorbitant.

In fact, I don't think PP's is the correct penalty to apply to such a situation. Would it not make more sense to dock a unit's planned location level back to zero, and/or to cause a disruption hit for the unit to model the affects of being assigned to a new HQ?

Outside of a restricted unit leaving its area and command (for example DEI, US Mainland, or the PI), I am trying to come up with an example or rationale of how switching an HQ would cause political/national upset. As I mentioned above, it was (and is) routine planning to task organize for a mission.

Regards,
Feltan

[Yaab]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Yaab,

I'd like to see the actual evidence you are basing your conclusion on. There is a significant discount if reattaching to a new HQ within the same hierarchy. Doing so costs only 25% of the PPs which it normally would cost.

Also whether the devices are ready or disabled might be a factor.

Alfred

Alfred, I am talking about "full" price which you pay for a unit moving OUTSIDE its current HQ hierarchy. So, 1868 PPs for IJA 38th Div going outside the current hierarchy and about 465 PPs if the new HQ is within the current HQ hierarchy ( 25 % of the full price, as you duly noted)..

The system only counts ready devices. You pay 0 points for a disabled 305mm howitzer or disabled ISU-152.

My only gripe right now is that a single 81mm mortar is worth 10 Shermans, Pershings, T-34/85s. You pay 10 points for one mortar and 10 points for 10 Shermans (and you get 10 assault value with the Shermans, and none for the mortar).

Try switching arty and tank units and compare the PP prices - it is a real eye-opener.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Yaab,

This is one of my few gripes with the game. The PP system makes a lot of sense for things like restricted units, and to model the early intertia of getting commands organized.

However, after about the first year, it ceases to make sense. For example, it is PP cost prohibitive to switch HQ's for US divisions to properly task organize the inbound Corps HQ's. So, what I see happening most frequently, is that a stack of Allied units in, say, 1943 or 1944 will have components from various commands all mixed together in an a-historical fashion. There is probably some penalty for this, or perhaps a less well maximized use of the HQ's, but there just isn't enough PPs to switch a division from one Corps to another as the situation changes on the map.

I can fully understand why sacking a high level commander costs PP -- that makes sense. However, actions like changing Corps affiliation for the 7th infantry division from I Corps to VI Army to V Amphib over time happened frequently as routine planning for operations. For a game that rightly prides itself on historical accuracy, this is a minor mechanism that just doesn't work as well as it should. It doesn't model how things really worked well at all.

I have come to the practice of simply considering a unit restricted or unrestricted, and beyond that any affiliation with a specific HQ is happenstance rather than part of a properly task organized force -- the PP systems doesn't support how things actually worked from a Command and Control perspective.

Regards,
Feltan

There is actually no penalty for this. Units in range of a HQ get the benefit of the HQ regardless of the HQ they are actually assigned to. So once I buy a unit out and it is unrestricted, I never look at it's parent HQ again as is does not matter. The only thing you really have to be careful about is breaking down a unit and then assigning it to different HQs. They cannot recombine until they are all under the same HQ. I have done this little boo boo a few times and it can be expensive.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Yaab,

This is one of my few gripes with the game. The PP system makes a lot of sense for things like restricted units, and to model the early intertia of getting commands organized.

However, after about the first year, it ceases to make sense. For example, it is PP cost prohibitive to switch HQ's for US divisions to properly task organize the inbound Corps HQ's. So, what I see happening most frequently, is that a stack of Allied units in, say, 1943 or 1944 will have components from various commands all mixed together in an a-historical fashion. There is probably some penalty for this, or perhaps a less well maximized use of the HQ's, but there just isn't enough PPs to switch a division from one Corps to another as the situation changes on the map.

I can fully understand why sacking a high level commander costs PP -- that makes sense. However, actions like changing Corps affiliation for the 7th infantry division from I Corps to VI Army to V Amphib over time happened frequently as routine planning for operations. For a game that rightly prides itself on historical accuracy, this is a minor mechanism that just doesn't work as well as it should. It doesn't model how things really worked well at all.

I have come to the practice of simply considering a unit restricted or unrestricted, and beyond that any affiliation with a specific HQ is happenstance rather than part of a properly task organized force -- the PP systems doesn't support how things actually worked from a Command and Control perspective.

Regards,
Feltan

There is actually no penalty for this. Units in range of a HQ get the benefit of the HQ regardless of the HQ they are actually assigned to. So once I buy a unit out and it is unrestricted, I never look at it's parent HQ again as is does not matter. The only thing you really have to be careful about is breaking down a unit and then assigning it to different HQs. They cannot recombine until they are all under the same HQ. I have done this little boo boo a few times and it can be expensive.

Yeah. I am aware of that. Like I stated above, I end up treating units as "restricted" or "unrestricted" and treat them like you have outlined above. The problem is that doing so offends my sense of Teutonic Order. I hate it when the British/Indian Corps structure or the Pacific/South Pacific/Southwest Pacific units are all muddled together. There is no operational penalty for doing so, but it reinforces the oddness of having to pay a bundle of PP just to switch between unrestricted HQs.

Regards,
Feltan

[Yaab]

Biggest US mortar regts (those with 144 mortars) cost 1500 points to change, but you pay only 225 points for 70 US tanks (and 70 AV) from 710th Tank Batallion.

By the way, Soviet Guard Mechanised Corps costs 3900 points and a Breakthrough Artillery Division (stuffed with arty tubes to the eyeballs) costs 4800 points to change.

Seems to me the cost for the artillery is for the old, un-nerfed artillery from the first iterations of WITP-AE and served as a barrier from forming artillery Deathstars. Right now, when artillery's lethality has been toned down, the cost could be reduced to i.e 5 points per gun.

[Feltan]

Yaab,

If the command and control or the logistics models were more complex -- this would be a show stopper. However, no one seems to really care all that much since the work-around is just to ignore command affiliation once a unit is unrestricted. As I started off: this topic is one of my few gripes with the game. However, I can live with it.

Sort of.

I gripe to myself about this a lot.

Regards,
Feltan

[derhexer]

I have another question about Political points. I'm playing the Allies against the Japanese AI in PC Ellsworth 5/1/42 campaign game. I managed to lose both carriers in the South pacific trying to stop the invasion of Port Moresby and Noumea. My Political Points dropped to zero and I haven't gotten any new ones. Is that normal?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Yaab,

This is one of my few gripes with the game. The PP system makes a lot of sense for things like restricted units, and to model the early intertia of getting commands organized.

However, after about the first year, it ceases to make sense. For example, it is PP cost prohibitive to switch HQ's for US divisions to properly task organize the inbound Corps HQ's. So, what I see happening most frequently, is that a stack of Allied units in, say, 1943 or 1944 will have components from various commands all mixed together in an a-historical fashion. There is probably some penalty for this, or perhaps a less well maximized use of the HQ's, but there just isn't enough PPs to switch a division from one Corps to another as the situation changes on the map.

I can fully understand why sacking a high level commander costs PP -- that makes sense. However, actions like changing Corps affiliation for the 7th infantry division from I Corps to VI Army to V Amphib over time happened frequently as routine planning for operations. For a game that rightly prides itself on historical accuracy, this is a minor mechanism that just doesn't work as well as it should. It doesn't model how things really worked well at all.

I have come to the practice of simply considering a unit restricted or unrestricted, and beyond that any affiliation with a specific HQ is happenstance rather than part of a properly task organized force -- the PP systems doesn't support how things actually worked from a Command and Control perspective.

Regards,
Feltan

There is actually no penalty for this. Units in range of a HQ get the benefit of the HQ regardless of the HQ they are actually assigned to. So once I buy a unit out and it is unrestricted, I never look at it's parent HQ again as is does not matter. The only thing you really have to be careful about is breaking down a unit and then assigning it to different HQs. They cannot recombine until they are all under the same HQ. I have done this little boo boo a few times and it can be expensive.

Lots of room to quibble over PP prices. Two of my poet peeves are the cost to division-ize the Hawaiian regiments in the first month (should be nearly free), and the cost to relieve an incompetent O-5 squadron leader. Should be a point, or free. Fixing the air leadership costs months of PPs at a time you're trying like crazy to buy out just one ID for the front. You can say "leave the planes for later" but limited pools make you pay twice for crap leaders--once when they lose planes on missions, and again in PPs to make them go away.

Currently in discussions with Loka about a perhaps next game with a slight hike in Allied PP rates in the editor. And maybe a matching starting pool to the Japanese one in stock.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: crsutton

ORIGINAL: Feltan

Yaab,

This is one of my few gripes with the game. The PP system makes a lot of sense for things like restricted units, and to model the early intertia of getting commands organized.

However, after about the first year, it ceases to make sense. For example, it is PP cost prohibitive to switch HQ's for US divisions to properly task organize the inbound Corps HQ's. So, what I see happening most frequently, is that a stack of Allied units in, say, 1943 or 1944 will have components from various commands all mixed together in an a-historical fashion. There is probably some penalty for this, or perhaps a less well maximized use of the HQ's, but there just isn't enough PPs to switch a division from one Corps to another as the situation changes on the map.

I can fully understand why sacking a high level commander costs PP -- that makes sense. However, actions like changing Corps affiliation for the 7th infantry division from I Corps to VI Army to V Amphib over time happened frequently as routine planning for operations. For a game that rightly prides itself on historical accuracy, this is a minor mechanism that just doesn't work as well as it should. It doesn't model how things really worked well at all.

I have come to the practice of simply considering a unit restricted or unrestricted, and beyond that any affiliation with a specific HQ is happenstance rather than part of a properly task organized force -- the PP systems doesn't support how things actually worked from a Command and Control perspective.

Regards,
Feltan

There is actually no penalty for this. Units in range of a HQ get the benefit of the HQ regardless of the HQ they are actually assigned to. So once I buy a unit out and it is unrestricted, I never look at it's parent HQ again as is does not matter. The only thing you really have to be careful about is breaking down a unit and then assigning it to different HQs. They cannot recombine until they are all under the same HQ. I have done this little boo boo a few times and it can be expensive.

Lots of room to quibble over PP prices. Two of my poet peeves are the cost to division-ize the Hawaiian regiments in the first month (should be nearly free), and the cost to relieve an incompetent O-5 squadron leader. Should be a point, or free. Fixing the air leadership costs months of PPs at a time you're trying like crazy to buy out just one ID for the front. You can say "leave the planes for later" but limited pools make you pay twice for crap leaders--once when they lose planes on missions, and again in PPs to make them go away.

Currently in discussions with Loka about a perhaps next game with a slight hike in Allied PP rates in the editor. And maybe a matching starting pool to the Japanese one in stock.

Agree that Allied PP totals, given the priorities that you need to spend them on at game start, are undesirable - beyond the point of "making hard choices." I'd try to fix the Hawaiian LCU issue also, although in my own games I've been looking at their TOEs and they don't appear to ever upgrade beyond starting squads.

I also want to "fix" the torpedo dud rates via upgrades [;)]. Can't believe that hasn't been done yet in, say, DBB and the like.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I also want to "fix" the torpedo dud rates via upgrades [;)]. Can't believe that hasn't been done yet in, say, DBB and the like.

I was going to mention that, but didn't want to mess up the thread. [:)]

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: Feltan


Yeah. I am aware of that. Like I stated above, I end up treating units as "restricted" or "unrestricted" and treat them like you have outlined above. The problem is that doing so offends my sense of Teutonic Order. I hate it when the British/Indian Corps structure or the Pacific/South Pacific/Southwest Pacific units are all muddled together. There is no operational penalty for doing so, but it reinforces the oddness of having to pay a bundle of PP just to switch between unrestricted HQs.

Regards,
Feltan

Likewise but it's my British sense of organisation but as crsutton said there is no penalty for mixing units other than range.

[Banzan]

I am not sure, but the quite high pp price for arty units may go back to the old "death star" arty.

[Trugrit]

You guys do realize that the political points can be adjusted very easy with the editor.
It is one of the easiest things to change, also to change back.

For new players:
Open the editor, Use the file tab to load the scenario.
Select the scenario tab on the top menu and down on the
right side you will see starting political points and
political points per turn. They are adjustable for both sides.

As long as you balance them side to side it should not unbalance your game.

I always felt that the game designers set them low because I did not see any historical reason that both sides would get the same per turn. It was Just a game decision not a historical one. Feel free to adjust them to what you think history requires.

It is also interesting that you can run the political points at start up to 10,000. That way you can put some political points in the bank at game start. Then you can draw on your savings account later in the game if required. Note, if you run it up to 100,000 the field turns red which I take to mean “Don’t do that”

If you open up some of the DaBabes scenarios you can see that they have been tampered with and nothing bad has happened.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Trugrit
Note, if you run it up to 100,000 the field turns red which I take to mean “Don’t do that”

This is a pretty good rule of thumb for anything in this game. If a change turns your numbers to red, maybe you shouldn't do that...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

You guys do realize that the political points can be adjusted very easy with the editor.
It is one of the easiest things to change, also to change back.

For new players:
Open the editor, Use the file tab to load the scenario.
Select the scenario tab on the top menu and down on the
right side you will see starting political points and
political points per turn. They are adjustable for both sides.

As long as you balance them side to side it should not unbalance your game.

I always felt that the game designers set them low because I did not see any historical reason that both sides would get the same per turn. It was Just a game decision not a historical one. Feel free to adjust them to what you think history requires.

It is also interesting that you can run the political points at start up to 10,000. That way you can put some political points in the bank at game start. Then you can draw on your savings account later in the game if required. Note, if you run it up to 100,000 the field turns red which I take to mean “Don’t do that”

If you open up some of the DaBabes scenarios you can see that they have been tampered with and nothing bad has happened.

This is a good point and something I will open for discussion in any next game.

I played one AI GC where I upped the Allied daily to 70 vice 50. IMO it was too much, too easy. In a Scen 2 PBEM it might be just right. I don't know. I just think that now, five years in, JFBs have learned so much about optimizing the first six months that the Allies at 50/day and no starting pool are somewhat beyond, as said up-thread, "it should be a series of hard choices" and into different territory.

[GreyJoy]

However what Yaab underlines in his first post is very true:

Artillery units have a PPs value that is pretty strange compared to infantry or tank units.
Also consider that, normally, smaller pieces of artillery cost much more than heavier pieces. An artillery battalion with 75mm guns cost much more than an artillery BN containing 30cm howitzers... go figure