Political Points System

[Pascal_slith]

Another one for the developers.

The unofficial description says each player receives political points every day. Does the amount vary according to the military successes or failures of each side? Does it vary according to other factors?

[mogami]

Hi, No 100 per day

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No 100 per day

Doesn't make sense that it would not vary....

[rogueusmc]

What will 100 points buy though?

[Nikademus]

2/3 to 3/4 of a Fighter Group

[ADavidB]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, No 100 per day

Is that per headquater, as in Pacwar, or per side?

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

2/3 to 3/4 of a Fighter Group

Does this mean that the Japanese player gets to build air units? They're not just reinforcements?

[DoomedMantis]

no thats just the political point cost of moving a unit from one HQ to another

[Drongo]

ORIGINAL: ADavidB
Is that per headquater, as in Pacwar, or per side?

Thanks -

Dave Baranyi

Per side, per day. Actually, I think it's only 50 per day per side + any starting amount for a scenario.

[Pascal_slith]

My question to the developers again: why don't the PP's received vary according to successful or unsuccessful operations?

[j campbell]

probably because as the war goes on the likelihood of successful allied operations vs. japanese operations increases-therefore they would have a larger supply of PP's.

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

My question to the developers again: why don't the PP's received vary according to successful or unsuccessful operations?

Pascal

I think you are taking the term "Political Points" too literally; they have absolutely nothing to do with the political will or moral type effects of failed or successful operations or campaigns.

They are more akin to Operations Points in that they allow the player to make changes to a units HQ status and change leaders, think of it as your operational currency.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Pascal

My question to the developers again: why don't the PP's received vary according to successful or unsuccessful operations?

Pascal

I think you are taking the term "Political Points" too literally; they have absolutely nothing to do with the political will or moral type effects of failed or successful operations or campaigns.

They are more akin to Operations Points in that they allow the player to make changes to a units HQ status and change leaders, think of it as your operational currency.

OK. Then why not call them 'operational points'?

[Damien Thorn]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

OK. Then why not call them 'operational points'?

That term is already used for task force operations.

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

ORIGINAL: Pascal

OK. Then why not call them 'operational points'?

That term is already used for task force operations.

Good one Damien [;)]

One of the toughest things a developer faces is coming up with names for stuff.

As they allow you to change leaders and base ownership, the term political points stuck and here we are. Think of it from the standpoint that politics *slow down* choices that can be made. Then you will see how well the name fits.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Pascal


OK. Then why not call them 'operational points'?

because the actions they "curb" are in effect, "political" in nature, but the politics are not a simple matter of the ebb and flow of the war. They also have to encompass and represent the framework that was present during the beginning of the war.

For the Allies....examples would be the SRA....the Dutch would never have simply abandoned their posessions.

For the Japanese...there is the politics of removing units from Manchuria or China, beyond the military questions.

The PP's as has been mentioned, are a simple but effective system to prevent players from conducting unrestricted ahistorical deployments, mostly based on "hindsight" (i.e. I know i cant win in the SRA so i do a M*A*S*H style bugout on turn 2)

they were never meant to try to simulate advanced geo-political tides during wartime

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The PP's as has been mentioned, are a simple but effective system to prevent players from conducting unrestricted ahistorical deployments, mostly based on "hindsight" (i.e. I know i cant win in the SRA so i do a M*A*S*H style bugout on turn 2)

they were never meant to try to simulate advanced geo-political tides during wartime

You mean none of us are playing this game with "hindsight"? [:D]

[Mr.Frag]

You mean none of us are playing this game with "hindsight"?

I can honestly tell you that Hindsight goes out the window as soon as you click end turn the first time. All the hindsight in the world does not help you outguess what the other guy is going to do.

Hindsight works on BOTH sides of the game and pretty effectively negates it. [X(]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Pascal


You mean none of us are playing this game with "hindsight"? [:D]

not if your playing Mogami [:'(]

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


The PP's as has been mentioned, are a simple but effective system to prevent players from conducting unrestricted ahistorical deployments, mostly based on "hindsight" (i.e. I know i cant win in the SRA so i do a M*A*S*H style bugout on turn 2)

they were never meant to try to simulate advanced geo-political tides during wartime

In any case this begs the question. Why can't I try ahistorical moves? About the only real chance the Japanese player has in lengthening the war is to try ahistorical moves. This goes back also to my earlier suggestion of either more ON/OFF switches for these kinds of ahistorical moves or varying the daily receipt of PP's.