PP's (political points) a discussion

[rustysi]

As with so many other aspects of this game I've come to appreciate and manage the impact this abstraction has on game play. IMHO it definitely restricts a players' 'freedom of movement/operations', and I for one feel this is its intention. More than that I agree with its purpose, as I see it. I'm not saying its perfect or even a good thing, but it seems to accomplish its objective. Even though its not very elegant. TBH within the framework of things I don't really see an alternative. At least not one that the Dev's could have used given the scope of time, resources, and coding.

For those of us who've been around the hobby for a long time I go back to use an analogy of old U.S. Civil War games. Had the North been turned loose from the start its overwhelming strength would have overrun the South rather early. The game implement to prevent this was to roll a die. All your forces on a hex ending in that number were unable to move that turn. Horrible mechanism and one that keep me from playing Grand Campaign games of that war. That is until Victory Games came out with their version, a variable length game turn. Nice little innovation, that added a degree of excitement/stress to each turn.

That being said in AE if Japan were able to move her forces where she wanted, form day one, she'd have little trouble overrunning the Allies and winning most games. On the flip side, if for some reason Japan couldn't win, the Allies would crush Japan that much sooner once her immense forces started to come to bear. In comes the PP system to restrict this from happening.

It seems to me that there's a lot of resistance to this system. I can understand that as most of us are used to being the Omnipotent being in our gaming. Just as when a player doesn't know why his/her units don't carry out his/her orders to a tee. The simple answer is the game is not designed to allow it. I too feel that frustration. Until I remind myself, I'm playing AE.

With all that said (and I could say more) I'll come to my point. It seems to me players are always trying to get by 'on the cheap' when it comes to paying these points. Most if not all of us seem to agree that reassigning an HQ to another HQ to then by units out at reduced rate is a 'no go'. OTOH its seems perfectly all right to 'buy' a unit which is mauled out at its 'reduced rate'. There's a dichotomy here, no?

Anyway, in my AI games as Japan I imposed upon myself a 'house rule' that I'd buy no unit out at anything less than 90/90 (usually that means 90/100, there's no 'charge' for disabled devices if you've noticed) when it comes to unit strength. So each unit is at 90% strength. See where I'm going here... (I can hear the howls now [:D] ).

Now I'm considering some such in a PBEM game. Maybe not that level, but something. My intention is to 'slow the tempo' of the game somewhat. There would be some exceptions, though the few would be on the Allied side. These would involve the Chinese units that could be bought out. The intention here being they were moved to India to train, refit, and receive supply anyway. The other unit being the U.S. 41st division. This unit was the first U.S. unit sent to the Pacific and was unrestricted in the original release. In the thread I saw on this the Dev's stated they gave the PP's back in other ways, although I don't know how.

The thing I really don't know about is how restrictive this may be to the Allied OOB. My intention is not to tie the Allies' hands behind their backs. From my cursory looks at the Allies, I really don't see that many ground units that require buy outs. I could be wrong though. Also keep in mind. I really don't care if you can't have the perfect commander in every sub, air unit, or ground ponder in the world. I know that as a Japanese player I haven't even looked at my sub commanders. They are what they are, and if I can ever accumulate enough PP's I may take a look someday. Also I could care less if you wouldn't now be able to buy out Dutch units. TBH who cares. I know that may sound a bit harsh to some, but it's not really my intention.

So, if you've read all that $#^&* above, I'd like to have an objective (objective as possible) discussion as to the pros and cons, if we can. Should buyouts be at a certain strength level or not?

[jwolf]

I confess that I don't see the objection to buying a unit for cheap after it has been badly crushed in combat. Sure, the player saves PP that way, but pays a price in other ways that are IMHO just as significant. Is there really a systematic, deliberate strategy to lose units in suicide attacks just to buy them out more cheaply? [&:]

[spence]

As an Allied Player I will say that almost any time a CO or TF commander or Squadron CO is picked by the AI it picks the "dullest tool in the shed" by default. This extends at least through 1942 (I only have one PBEM that extended beyond 1942 and that was quite some time ago). To top that off getting rid of 2nd Lt Moron as a squadron commander costs 10 or more PPs. I realize that ranks have no part to play in the game but it seems that Col. Smart Guy ought to be able to relieve 2nd Lt Moron for considerably less of a political cost than the game would have us believe. (Seemingly, all of the 2nd Lts/Ensigns in the world were the sons of Presidents/Prime Ministers/Congressmen/MPs)

[Canoerebel]

The PP system is rather elegant and effective. It takes thought, creativity and management. It doesn't make things impossible, but instead challenging. I like it 100%.

The only tweak I'd make is to allow units to increase prep time while aboard ship sailing for some distant shore. If not at the usual rate, some dampened rate. And possibility the rate would be more dampened for an xAK than for an APA.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: spence

As an Allied Player I will say that almost any time a CO or TF commander or Squadron CO is picked by the AI it picks the "dullest tool in the shed" by default. This extends at least through 1942 (I only have one PBEM that extended beyond 1942 and that was quite some time ago). To top that off getting rid of 2nd Lt Moron as a squadron commander costs 10 or more PPs. I realize that ranks have no part to play in the game but it seems that Col. Smart Guy ought to be able to relieve 2nd Lt Moron for considerably less of a political cost than the game would have us believe. (Seemingly, all of the 2nd Lts/Ensigns in the world were the sons of Presidents/Prime Ministers/Congressmen/MPs)

+1.
I see this most often when combining three regiments or brigades into a division - whereupon the AI chooses the least competent commander of the three regiment COs to be Divisional Commander. And then there are all the ones who have some bizarre number like 30 or 50 or even 250 as their PP value, making replacement impossible or unrealistically expensive.

I would have liked to see some adjustment of PP for victories or defeats, perhaps calculated from the VP gained on the turn. No adjustment for 0-50 difference in VPs by each side in a turn but beyond that an escalating scale of PP bonuses or penalties. The civil authorities controlling political good will love victories! Similarly they will quickly throw a loser under the bus (or deuce and a half)!

[geofflambert]

I consider replacing sub commanders the first, most urgent use for PPs. Next are squadron commanders, even for training squadrons. I hate the idea of "flying" commanders and replace those as quick as I can. After that it's mostly buying units out of Manchukuo. I don't pay much attention to TF commanders, just try and make sure the senior ship commander is decent. I leave Nagumo at the head of something because he's not bad. I have no idea where Yamamoto is and don't care.

[geofflambert]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The PP system is rather elegant and effective. It takes thought, creativity and management. It doesn't make things impossible, but instead challenging. I like it 100%.

The only tweak I'd make is to allow units to increase prep time while aboard ship sailing for some distant shore. If not at the usual rate, some dampened rate. And possibility the rate would be more dampened for an xAK than for an APA.

I was unaware of that, are you sure? When I played Allied I thought they did prep in route. Now that I play Axis I mostly don't prep since half the time it becomes intelligence for the allied player, what the target is, what the targeting unit is and a rough idea of when.

And by in route I meant shipboard. They definitely prep on the march. I turned 60 recently and you can't trust my memory but it seems to me that I could check their progress shipboard and it did advance.

[spence]

I don't pay much attention to TF commanders, just try and make sure the senior ship commander is decent.

In a recent PBEM I made an effort to change the CO's of my cruisers to one's with high Naval Skill and the CO's of my DDs to ones having high Aggression and/or Naval skills or a good mix on both. This as my search planes had sighted a force containing BBs approaching my base. Since no other action was available to prevent bombardment it was something of a desperate ploy but it seemed to work to prevent much of a bombardment of the base.

(I didn't change all the COs but I did get rid of the dullards.)

[HansBolter]

After submarine commanders I give priority to replacing incompetent surface combatant commanders and important LCU commanders.

I've never really found a hardship in finding enough PPs to meet my needs and find some of the mods with inflated PP rates per day over the top.

In those kinds of games I would be squandering PPs simply for the aesthetics of moving units into proper commands for their deployment.

[crsutton]

I can only speak from the Allied perspective. I think the way PPs work is spot on and needs no tweaking. I have become very sophisticated at saving points but I avoid the very gamey aspects. (assigning units to air HQs for example) My game is in mid 44 and I do not have enough points to buy out an American division sitting in the US, I will have to wait a few months. That sounds just about right to me. I have no idea of my opponent's PP situation.

I frequently disband Australian and Indian divisions for the immediate squads needed to fill out other divisions, and then purchase some of them on the cheap when they return in 120 days. However, I see nothing wrong with this practice as I am removing the units from combat for four months and then have to spend the time rebuilding them once they return. I got no problem with how that mechanic works. I save on points but lose combat effectiveness. It is a trade off. Some units just never get bought out, but I eventually get the bulk of them.

[spence]

One complaint I have about the PP expense of LCUs is that the full PP cost of a unit (something over 2000 PPs) needs to be paid for changing Corps within an Army (in the US Army) when Corps assignments were tactical assignments within that Army and flexible in the extreme at the discretion of the Army commander.

A reduced PP cost system such as is used for assignments within a particular Air Force (like changing from Fifth Air Force to Fifth Bomber Command) seems appropriate since the two systems were in fact part of the same TO&E (in WW2 anyways).

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: spence

One complaint I have about the PP expense of LCUs is that the full PP cost of a unit (something over 2000 PPs) needs to be paid for changing Corps within an Army (in the US Army) when Corps assignments were tactical assignments within that Army and flexible in the extreme at the discretion of the Army commander.

A reduced PP cost system such as is used for assignments within a particular Air Force (like changing from Fifth Air Force to Fifth Bomber Command) seems appropriate since the two systems were in fact part of the same TO&E (in WW2 anyways).

True, but there is no penalty for not changing the HQ so why fret about it. Ideally, the game would have been better if this was required but it is not. But it also would have made for a lot more clicking so I am OK with it as is. I never change HQs once a unit is bought out. I should add is my biggest headache is when I have bought out regiments to only discover that one part of a division is assigned to a different HQ. There is 700 PP down the toilet...[:D]

[Lokasenna]

The only thing I think is wrong with the PP system, in broad strokes (I've got quibbles beyond this Big Quibble), is that Japan starts with a bank of them while the Allies do not. The Allies should start with at least 200 PPs, IMHO.

[Kull]

To me the only thing that seems problematic is being able to assign units to HQs which aren't on the map yet.

[Big B]

I like and intensely dislike the PP system.
I like the concept of slowing a player down from some political decisions, ie... invading a new country, (which by the way - PP's really have no effect here), but on the other hand I dislike the the system from keeping YOU the combined High Commands of many nations - from attaching and organizing existing forces under proper Commands...Corps, Armies, etc. It keeps a player from making basic force decisions.


B

[spence]

The thing I really don't know about is how restrictive this may be the the Allied OOB.

Back to the original question about the restrictiveness of PPs re the Allied OOB.

The following early reinforcement divisions are assigned to the West Coast Command:
27th, 32nd, 40th and 41st...IIRC one can buy them out at reduced cost at less than TO&E saving 500 PPs or so on the first one (but they will have poor experience and morale).

The Americal Division starts out needing to have the 164th Regt bought out - the other regiments are already in a non-restricted command (forget which one).

Each of the Divisions in Hawaii at start are assigned to the restricted Hawaii Command but each contains only 2 regts. The third for each is assigned to a non-restricted command (forget which one).

The 2nd Marine Division has one Regt assigned to the West Coast at start and lacks the 6th Regt which enters at reduced strength some months after the start.

Thus the US has no major combat formations that may be immediately assigned to a non restricted command except for 1 Marine Regt and two Army Regts.

[MakeeLearn]

I would spend all my Political Points for the entire game to have Jody drafted, in uniform and sent overseas.[;)]

[Big B]

Oh man, Jody got my girl too! SOB!

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

I would spend all my Political Points for the entire game to have Jody drafted, in uniform and sent overseas.[;)]

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: MakeeLearn

I would spend all my Political Points for the entire game to have Jody drafted, in uniform and sent overseas.[;)]

Is that a US thing? Who the h%^% is Jody.

[Blackhorse]

Now I'm considering some such in a PBEM game. Maybe not that level, but something. My intention is to 'slow the tempo' of the game somewhat. There would be some exceptions, though the few would be on the Allied side. These would involve the Chinese units that could be bought out. The intention here being they were moved to India to train, refit, and receive supply anyway. The other unit being the U.S. 41st division. This unit was the first U.S. unit sent to the Pacific and was unrestricted in the original release. In the thread I saw on this the Dev's stated they gave the PP's back in other ways, although I don't know how.

Rustysi,

In WWII, the regiments of the 41st Division embarked to deploy from the United States between 1 March and 22 April, 1942. The Allied player accumulates enough PPs to purchase the 41st in January, but at the cost of buying out other units at a slower rate than they were deployed historically. IMHO, that's the trade-off that the Devs referred to.

The deployable Chinese forces were meant to be purchased 'on the cheap'. The intent was to attach them to the NCAC HQ once it arrived, which could then be attached to an unrestricted command HQ. However, NCAC does not arrive in game until 1 April. In the game, an aggressive Japanese player can advance much more quickly into Burma than Japan could have in the war. This severs overland communications with China before NCAC arrives.