Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Having done some testing, it seems that restricting these two commands can be done easily by moving them to other HQ slots. However doing so means that a) units can't be assigned to them in-game b) they reform upon destruction.

Except the following four slots doesn't reform:

107 (ABDA, slot restricted)
108 (USAFFE, slot restricted)
109 (Malaya HQ, slot unrestricted)
142 (Asiatic Fleet, slot unrestricted)

Thus by putting ABDA and USAFFE into slots 109 & 142 they can be both unrestricted and non-reforming. Malaya HQ could be put into either slot 107 or 108, thereby restricting it - not necesarily a bad thing, IMO.(I LIKE THIS AS WELL---UNITS IN MALAYA CAN MOVE BY LAND WITHOUT USING PP'S. PROBLEM MIGHT ARISE WITH MOVING THE AIR UNITS AROUND..., YOU'LL WANT TO CHECK THAT) Asiatic Fleet could go into the remaining slot (restricting it), moved to an altogether alternative slot (making it reform), or done away with altogether. Was Asiatic Fleet so significant as to justify it being one of only four US naval HQ's in the game? GIVEN IT'S SEMI-AUTONOMOUS NATURE/LOCATION, IT PROBABLY DOES.

Of course sucha scheme should probably come with a house-rule to requiring the Allied player to pay PP's if moving USAFFE/ABDA outside their command areas. OR AT LEAST KEEP THE UNITS THERE UNTIL MANILLA/A CITY ON JAVA FALLS TO THE JAPANESE. ONCE THE SITUATION BECOMES "HOPELESS" TRYING TO GET THEM OUT BECOMES MORE RATIONAL. OF COURSE, WITH THE JAPS THAT CLOSE, IT BECOMES A LOT MORE DIFFICULT AS WELL.
Se also: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1063362

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I wanted to make all commands unrestricted for RHS - and ran into a firestorm of opposition. Veteran WITP players said players would just run - and not defend the PI - Malaya- name it. The ferry systems were put in as a way to help movement in restricted commands as well as to be more correct in general for all units. I personally STILL favor ALL units being unrestricted - but the compromise was PPO and EOS - with political points so you can "buy" your ability to move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
PROBLEM MIGHT ARISE WITH MOVING THE AIR UNITS AROUND..., YOU'LL WANT TO CHECK THAT

Where's the Any key?

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

It's conceptualised to come with a house-rule requiring players to pay PP's to deploy USAFFE, ABDA (and Malaya units for that matter) to a base not controlled by the relevant HQ. A fairly straight forward HR I would think.

Without the HR the scheme is obviously wide open for abuse.

I just don't see why the Allied player should pay PP's for making dispositions with his forces within the AoR of the respective commands. It's bad enough that the Japanese player knowns the USAFFE/ABDA OOB down to the last bullet.

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Just a thought but why would anyone want to do away with these restricted HQs and units when most players abuse the situation and evac Malaya early. I'd go the other way making Malaya based forces ABDA. The "Sir Robin" strategy is no longer an option if this was done. That, and the only thing which makes Political Points and HQs assignments worth anything is restricted commands. Doing away with this just weakens an already very shaky aspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

By the way, an easy fix exists already (though it's not 'The perfect fix').

Simply increase the starting pool of political points using the Scenario Editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

By the way, an easy fix exists already (though it's not 'The perfect fix').

Simply increase the starting pool of political points using the Scenario Editor.

That's more or less what we were discussing. Is it better to increase the PP's or eliminate the restrictions? Unfortunately, neither solution deals with the "A--Hole" problem. The perfect solution would allow the Allied Player freedom to manuever withing the various commands, but without giving him freedom to ignore the political restraints that kept him there. If you have an idea on that score, please share it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Just a thought but why would anyone want to do away with these restricted HQs and units when most players abuse the situation and evac Malaya early. I'd go the other way making Malaya based forces ABDA. The "Sir Robin" strategy is no longer an option if this was done. That, and the only thing which makes Political Points and HQs assignments worth anything is restricted commands. Doing away with this just weakens an already very shaky aspect.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

It's conceptualised to come with a house-rule requiring players to pay PP's to deploy USAFFE, ABDA (and Malaya units for that matter) to a base not controlled by the relevant HQ. A fairly straight forward HR I would think.

Without the HR the scheme is obviously wide open for abuse.

I just don't see why the Allied player should pay PP's for making dispositions with his forces within the AoR of the respective commands. It's bad enough that the Japanese player knowns the USAFFE/ABDA OOB down to the last bullet.

I wonder if having had the ability to place ones land units within various command areas and parameters would have alleviated some of the games FOW shortcomings based on hard opening deployments. Thing is, the Japanese knew of the basic deployments in real life so I think the hard OOB is fine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Just a thought but why would anyone want to do away with these restricted HQs and units when most players abuse the situation and evac Malaya early. I'd go the other way making Malaya based forces ABDA. The "Sir Robin" strategy is no longer an option if this was done. That, and the only thing which makes Political Points and HQs assignments worth anything is restricted commands. Doing away with this just weakens an already very shaky aspect.

No doubt that it is a problem. Running away IS the sensible military course given that the Allied Player KNOWS how potent the forces coming his way are. POLITICALLY though, he has to fight to maintain any "rights" to his Colonial possessions. Thus "PP's". Unfortunately, the way Matrix chose to implement them, they prevent sensible military movement WITHIN the Areas. Thus "House Rules".
Biggest problem is that SOME Players can't seem to resist bulldozing their way through any "loophole" the game leaves them...., and this game has a lot of them.

Solution? DON'T PLAY WITH THESE A--HOLES! Let them "screw" each other to their hearts content, and find womeone with some common sense for an opponant....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

By the way, an easy fix exists already (though it's not 'The perfect fix').

Simply increase the starting pool of political points using the Scenario Editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

By the way, an easy fix exists already (though it's not 'The perfect fix').

Simply increase the starting pool of political points using the Scenario Editor.

That's more or less what we were discussing. Is it better to increase the PP's or eliminate the restrictions? Unfortunately, neither solution deals with the "A--Hole" problem. The perfect solution would allow the Allied Player freedom to manuever withing the various commands, but without giving him freedom to ignore the political restraints that kept him there. If you have an idea on that score, please share it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

By the way, an easy fix exists already (though it's not 'The perfect fix').

Simply increase the starting pool of political points using the Scenario Editor.

That's more or less what we were discussing. Is it better to increase the PP's or eliminate the restrictions? Unfortunately, neither solution deals with the "A--Hole" problem. The perfect solution would allow the Allied Player freedom to manuever withing the various commands, but without giving him freedom to ignore the political restraints that kept him there. If you have an idea on that score, please share it.

Unfortunately Mike I agree, a patch is what is needed to satisfactorily fix it.

El Cid's Ferry Points on the RHS map helps - but unfortunately you still can't put them on a steamer.

All in all - I favor adding political points to the starting pool at this point - rather than move the Command HQs themselves in the data base (never know what is hard coded to a slot).

quote:

If you have problems with players abusing things - pick different players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

By the way, an easy fix exists already (though it's not 'The perfect fix').

Simply increase the starting pool of political points using the Scenario Editor.

So currently the only real solution to the problem remains what I said. DON'T PLAY A PBEM WITH AN A--HOLE WHO INSISTS ON MISUSING THE "FIXES". Find someone with whom you can play a more realistic and enjoyable game.


That's more or less what we were discussing. Is it better to increase the PP's or eliminate the restrictions? Unfortunately, neither solution deals with the "A--Hole" problem. The perfect solution would allow the Allied Player freedom to manuever withing the various commands, but without giving him freedom to ignore the political restraints that kept him there. If you have an idea on that score, please share it.

Unfortunately Mike I agree, a patch is what is needed to satisfactorily fix it.

El Cid's Ferry Points on the RHS map helps - but unfortunately you still can't put them on a steamer.

All in all - I favor adding political points to the starting pool at this point - rather than move the Command HQs themselves in the data base (never know what is hard coded to a slot).

It is indeed dangerous. I have moved some back to stock slots from their CHS positions - after a note from Andrew that CHS was going to move most things back to stock slots (after research had shown lots of issues in not). You can move a slot - and I do - but you need to think it through and test - test and test again. Then get someone else - a lot of them - to test doing things you cannot think of.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

If you have problems with players abusing things - pick different players.

Great advice except that I don't want to get several game weeks into it only to find that the other player has chosen to abuse the system, or unknowingly abused the system

I wonder if it would be possible to do something like what has been done with the Japanese in Manchuria... that is if they don't retain X amount of assualt points in a geographic area ( Malaya, Philippines, ABDA, etc... ) something bad happens. In this case maybe all units in that area would surrender or some other such drastic event.

The only down side to this I can think of is if the Japanese forces reduce the enemy forces below they required assault points, it might force an early surrender. Would certainly be an incentive though to keep the troops in their assigned area yet would still allow for the allied player to move them around within that area. A related alternative would be to have an increasing chance of surrender as the AV goes down regardless of reason.

Chez

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Amen. Except I would clean up the language.