Neutrality?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Neutrality?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> Neutrality?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Neutrality? - 12/27/2005 3:31:03 PM

dicedtomato

Posts: 17
Joined: 7/8/2004
Status: offline

I'm playing Japan in a Scenario 7 PBEM game with neutrality rules (only the U.S. starts at war with Japan). My opponent's Philippine fleet raided the Pescadores, took some damage, and retreated to Chinese-held Amoy. Now his ships have disbanded in Amoy port.

If this was genuine neutrality, the ships would have 24 (?) hours to make repairs and leave, or be interned. If neutrality house rules aren't that strict, does this mean that U.S. ships should be able to raid Japanese convoy lanes and then retire to Singapore and Batavia for fuel and repairs? This opens up a lot of gamey tactics, not to mention the prospect of Japan having to disperse its fleet on blockade duty from China to Australia.

Also, what about the four U.S. destroyers that start in Chinese (yellow) colors on the map? My opponent also used them to raid the Pescadores. But their commander is Chinese, they start in Chinese colors and in a Chinese port - should they be considered neutral?

I know it's much harder to use house rules with a computer game than with paper games, because so many rules are embedded into the programming. But I'm tempted to have Japan declare war on everyone just so I know who my enemies are.

DT

Post #: 1

RE: Neutrality? - 12/27/2005 4:07:10 PM

Miller

Posts: 2226
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: offline

Technically you are right in what you say, but as the US and UK enjoyed good relations at this time it is not unlikely they would have been more than happy to refuel/repair each others ships, just as the US was happy to do for the UK from 39-41.

Likewise China were hostile to Japan at this time so I doubt they would have been bothered by neutrality laws.

(in reply to dicedtomato)

Post #: 2

RE: Neutrality? - 12/27/2005 4:10:30 PM

bwheatley

Posts: 3650
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

Well the fleet that was in shanhai had a US commander i know that because i set him to be a aggressive commander. If there is only 1 day in port then thats fine i'll just make sure of that. We had not discussed it before and not trying to be a cheater. So if 1 day in neutral port is the rule then i'll just jump in for 1 day refuel and rearm and be back out convoy raiding again. Also if japan declared war on everyone you might be in for something more then japan can handle. Alot of those big ships of japans are crap compared to the first line us ships. I know because i've had most of mine sunk :)

Or if you want to restrict it to attacks from only us ports thats fine too. Whatever we decide i can stick to. I cna put them back out to sea though or if you want to consider them interned thats fine too.

(in reply to dicedtomato)

Post #: 3

RE: Neutrality? - 12/27/2005 4:11:40 PM

bwheatley

Posts: 3650
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

I was also considering it in that sense that the US/UK were friends and China & Japan were not friends so i was considering that the govt would officially stay NEUTRAL but unofficially they would help out. I should have taken more care in putting into a port that was not 30 miles from pescadores though :)

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 4

RE: Neutrality? - 12/27/2005 4:46:28 PM

dicedtomato

Posts: 17
Joined: 7/8/2004
Status: offline

The problem with alternate history is that it tends to be very selective. I'm a paper wargamer at heart, and I used to encounter this all the time, especially with the Wehrmacht worshippers. They'd say, "Hitler could have taken Moscow in 1941, so we need to add house rules to make Germany more powerful." And I'd say, "If Hitler had done Plan A, then Stalin would have countered with Plan B." They never liked hearing that.

If it's okay to assume that China would have covertly supported U.S. warships, is it equally okay to assume that Indian nationalists would have revolted against the British, so no British troops can leave India?

DT

(in reply to dicedtomato)

Post #: 5

RE: Neutrality? - 12/27/2005 5:26:01 PM

bwheatley

Posts: 3650
Joined: 12/13/2004
Status: offline

Sounds fair and after the patch there are hardly any indian troops to go around.

But to me it doesnt matter much it just changes my strategy. If there is no ability to use neutral/allied ports for more then 1 turn (no drydocking) then i'd just commerce raid duck into port to rearm and then go out again next turn. But any ships that are too damagedt o make the ship will be scuttled. If they are too damaged to goto sea but not damaged enough to be scuttled they will be left in the port until war is declared on the hosting country.

Maybe thats a workable idea. but i'm up for no indian troops leaving india until war is declared.

(in reply to dicedtomato)

Post #: 6