Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

How about rather than paying when they unload, the player pays PPs to load the restricted units, but gets a rebate when they unload at a same HQ base.

That way if they move the unit somewhere else or hold it on the ships, they have paid the PPs just as if they switched HQs. Otherwise they can make the short inter-island hop and get the points back relatively quickly, freeing up more transfers. This would limit the rate of transfer, but probably not too dramatically. If the transports are sunk, the player should probably get the PPs back, but not if the unit is unloaded somewhere else and dies in combat.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG


Also, assume you have assigned the 2nd Marines to SoPac in 1942. In 1944, you want to use the division for a CentPac invasion. With your method, I would have to spend PP to reassign the unit. IMO this reassignment should be for free.

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent. Let's try and solve the problem and eliminate the need for houserules. Ask yourself this question, that same 2nd Marine Division has just landed on Tarawa. How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation?

In most cases, the limitations should come from the availability of transport and logistics. How long a unit that's been in combat would require before being ready for another operation would depend on the level of casualties and the unit's fatigue and disruption. If these factors are not dealt with realistically, then that's where a change is needed, not some artificial limitation imposed by the HQ the unit's assigned to.

There are cases where political issues override the operational constraints. For the Japanese, any significant withdrawal from China would have been politically unacceptable, regardless of the military advantages or logistical feasibility. It would not have been politically feasible for the British to abandon Malaya, or the US to leave the Philippines, or the Dutch to run away from the East Indies. This, I think, is what the restricted commands are intended to reflect. But these cases are the exceptions.

Has anyone mentioned the politics of inter-service rivalry that affected both sides... IMO that is what the PP's also represent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

ORIGINAL: okami

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG


Also, assume you have assigned the 2nd Marines to SoPac in 1942. In 1944, you want to use the division for a CentPac invasion. With your method, I would have to spend PP to reassign the unit. IMO this reassignment should be for free.

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent. Let's try and solve the problem and eliminate the need for houserules. Ask yourself this question, that same 2nd Marine Division has just landed on Tarawa. How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation?

In most cases, the limitations should come from the availability of transport and logistics. How long a unit that's been in combat would require before being ready for another operation would depend on the level of casualties and the unit's fatigue and disruption. If these factors are not dealt with realistically, then that's where a change is needed, not some artificial limitation imposed by the HQ the unit's assigned to.

There are cases where political issues override the operational constraints. For the Japanese, any significant withdrawal from China would have been politically unacceptable, regardless of the military advantages or logistical feasibility. It would not have been politically feasible for the British to abandon Malaya, or the US to leave the Philippines, or the Dutch to run away from the East Indies. This, I think, is what the restricted commands are intended to reflect. But these cases are the exceptions.

Has anyone mentioned the politics of inter-service rivalry that affected both sides... IMO that is what the PP's also represent.

By mid-43 the original US interservice rivalry had morphed into a SWPAC/CENTPAC rivalry/grab-for-assets, which is already covered under jwilkerson's comments. Sounded like an interesting system tho.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Bottom line, this system sounded "promising" but met up with the "axe" of too much work, too little resources, too little time. Basically the work on the map took precedence. But this is not to say a different system could not be done one day. But the system we were bouncing around was not trival, it was not really a band-aid, it was a different system for handling reassignment and relocation of LCU between HQs and geographical units. I wish it was in, but it isn't. So, for the most part, in this area, we will be living with the stock system.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Joe,

I like the system you outline a whole lot. How about doing nothing now and looking at something like you outlined for a major patch?

quote:

...and he had to go serve his real masters!

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

How about rather than paying when they unload, the player pays PPs to load the restricted units, but gets a rebate when they unload at a same HQ base.

That way if they move the unit somewhere else or hold it on the ships, they have paid the PPs just as if they switched HQs. Otherwise they can make the short inter-island hop and get the points back relatively quickly, freeing up more transfers. This would limit the rate of transfer, but probably not too dramatically. If the transports are sunk, the player should probably get the PPs back, but not if the unit is unloaded somewhere else and dies in combat.

Sounds simple except for the fact that you now have to create a data slot for each and every unit to track the points which would require even greater system resources to process the turn.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

...and he had to go serve his real masters!

The nerve of them!

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

When the arrivals of reinforcements show up on map they are briefly dsiplayed on the screen, then no additional record of them can be found. Will there be a record made?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I proposed this during Alpha and I believe Erik Rutins liked the idea so I need to ask...Will merchant ships be required to be sent to offmap pools in order to facilitate the arrival of supply, oil, fuel etc at the major map edge bases? Also, will AKs/APs/CVEs etc be required in the same pools to allow for the arrival of LCUs and Air Units? Will warships be required in these pools as escorts? Given the fact that many Allied merchants and warships are included in the game for the duration despite only having served in the Pacific briefly I figured this would be an ideal way to both have them available in the game but keep their use along more historical lines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Nice to see we are consistant when our posts cross !!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

How about rather than paying when they unload, the player pays PPs to load the restricted units, but gets a rebate when they unload at a same HQ base.

That way if they move the unit somewhere else or hold it on the ships, they have paid the PPs just as if they switched HQs. Otherwise they can make the short inter-island hop and get the points back relatively quickly, freeing up more transfers. This would limit the rate of transfer, but probably not too dramatically. If the transports are sunk, the player should probably get the PPs back, but not if the unit is unloaded somewhere else and dies in combat.

Sounds simple except for the fact that you now have to create a data slot for each and every unit to track the points which would require even greater system resources to process the turn.

Drat! Guess I had to know that anything that seemed like such an "elegant solution" would trip over reality....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

How about rather than paying when they unload, the player pays PPs to load the restricted units, but gets a rebate when they unload at a same HQ base.

That way if they move the unit somewhere else or hold it on the ships, they have paid the PPs just as if they switched HQs. Otherwise they can make the short inter-island hop and get the points back relatively quickly, freeing up more transfers. This would limit the rate of transfer, but probably not too dramatically. If the transports are sunk, the player should probably get the PPs back, but not if the unit is unloaded somewhere else and dies in combat.

Sounds simple except for the fact that you now have to create a data slot for each and every unit to track the points which would require even greater system resources to process the turn.

Drat! Guess I had to know that anything that seemed like such an "elegant solution" would trip over reality....

Actually you wouldn't necessarily have to track the PP costs in the data. You might be able to provide the correct PP "refund", when the unit lands, by reusing the same formula that is used to calculate the initial PP cost. Assuming that this could be made to work it is actually an elegant solution as you say. Too bad we didn't think of it earlier!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

No is the short answer although modders will be able to add them.

The issue is that they would need to change over time the real pressure point in India for example was late 42 after that internal dissent to a large extent died away and the forces committed to internal security were released for other duties.

i.e. most of the Indian filed army is tied down partially in keeping order partially in external securtiy (i.e. 19th Div at madras)

reflecting this type of thing in a sensible set of garrison requirements when we dont have the ability to change them over time is difficult.

For CW nations we went with a different approach (similar to stock with all the compromises that encompases) which is a restricted India command for which PP's need to be paid to release field force formations reflecting over time the reduction in 'home front' pressure

Pretty much all Indian army forces at start belong to India command and will need to be bought out.

Other forces which should be on map we decided not to include i.e. in India 2 full Divisions of frontier troops are ignored (broadly Waziristan Div is on map static at Karachi, Peshawar and Punjab Frontier Divs only appear if certain conditions are met other paramilitary or internal security forces that are included are either static as part of fort type units in major cities or disband later int he war when these forces were used to round out Indian Field Divs.

The one advantage we have over stock is that in certain circumstances (a Japanese invasion of North India) these forces can and do apear to contest

Canada I took a diffetent approach all LCU's in Canada are static and even if PP's are paid cannot be moved unless the Candaian Reserve squad is upgraded (this is to reflect the fact that Canandian Militia were not intended to serve overseas)

In case of an invasion a one off injection of mobile squads makes all Canandian Inf Units mobile but in the abscence of that at most Canada will have 2 Bde Groups released and mobile by the end of the war (only one if an allied player decides to play funny buggers with the HK garrison)
NZ Different again as its more on the front line more of the NZ Militia is on map than other nations  some still only arrives after an invasion  but the seperation of NZ and Aus Squads means that NZ replacements are a lot thinner on the ground than in stock (reflecting lower manpower and need to keep 2nd Div up to strength broadly its hard to see NZ units being a major offensive force they can just about keep 3rd Div in the field without cannibalisation but heavy or even moderate losses would make the Bde Groups of that force combat inneffective.)

In the US a lot of forces are set to West Coast at start finding forces to garrison SLOC is going to be a real challenge for the allies now - PP's are going to be thin on the ground and wholesale rescue of forces in SEA is going to have consequences for ability to secure SWPAC.

As for garrison requirements on Japan in conquered areas no there will not as currently defined be any requirements

Andy

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Canada I took a diffetent approach all LCU's in Canada are static and even if PP's are paid cannot be moved unless the Candaian Reserve squad is upgraded (this is to reflect the fact that Canandian Militia were not intended to serve overseas)

Hey Andy! I'm a wee bit concerned about making all the CDN units static. Canadian units garrisoned many Aleutian islands in 42/43 and were involved in the amphibious landing at Kiska in Aug 43. As well, an entire division, the 6th I believe, was formed and earmarked for the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands in 45.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Canada I took a diffetent approach all LCU's in Canada are static and even if PP's are paid cannot be moved unless the Candaian Reserve squad is upgraded (this is to reflect the fact that Canandian Militia were not intended to serve overseas)

Hey Andy! I'm a wee bit concerned about making all the CDN units static. Canadian units garrisoned many Aleutian islands in 42/43 and were involved in the amphibious landing at Kiska in Aug 43. As well, an entire division, the 6th I believe, was formed and earmarked for the invasion of the Japanese Home Islands in 45.

It "all" depends on what Andy meant by "all" - does it mean "all" or simply "most".

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I proposed this during Alpha and I believe Erik Rutins liked the idea so I need to ask...Will merchant ships be required to be sent to offmap pools in order to facilitate the arrival of supply, oil, fuel etc at the major map edge bases? Also, will AKs/APs/CVEs etc be required in the same pools to allow for the arrival of LCUs and Air Units? Will warships be required in these pools as escorts? Given the fact that many Allied merchants and warships are included in the game for the duration despite only having served in the Pacific briefly I figured this would be an ideal way to both have them available in the game but keep their use along more historical lines.

Hi Ron!

Are you in Canada or Greece??

There is no requirement to have merchant ships in off-map boxes to facilitate supply generation there. The supplies just appear at the designated off-map bases. They are assumed to be shipped to the off-map bases by "other" (Atlantic) transports that are not in the game. These "other" transports are also what are assumed to be carrying LCUs and air units that are directly transferred between the off-map bases themselves (although you can also use regular TFs to do this if you want to).

But you will need to find some transports to ship supplies etc onto the main map. That is something that wasn't necessary in stock. For example, the main map edge supply points for the British are Capetown (for supplies) and Abadan (for fuel). Ships will have to be sent to these bases to get the supplies/fuel and ship it to where it is required (e.g. supplies and fuel to India, fuel to Australia). TFs will also have to be used to move LCUs and air units between off-map boxes and the main map.

Andrew

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

And Canada gets enough mobile squad replacements to free up a reinforced Bde Group per year (2 in 44 if they are willing to use obsolete 1941 Squads)

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

How about rather than paying when they unload, the player pays PPs to load the restricted units, but gets a rebate when they unload at a same HQ base.

That way if they move the unit somewhere else or hold it on the ships, they have paid the PPs just as if they switched HQs. Otherwise they can make the short inter-island hop and get the points back relatively quickly, freeing up more transfers. This would limit the rate of transfer, but probably not too dramatically. If the transports are sunk, the player should probably get the PPs back, but not if the unit is unloaded somewhere else and dies in combat.

Sounds simple except for the fact that you now have to create a data slot for each and every unit to track the points which would require even greater system resources to process the turn.

Drat! Guess I had to know that anything that seemed like such an "elegant solution" would trip over reality....

Actually you wouldn't necessarily have to track the PP costs in the data. You might be able to provide the correct PP "refund", when the unit lands, by reusing the same formula that is used to calculate the initial PP cost. Assuming that this could be made to work it is actually an elegant solution as you say. Too bad we didn't think of it earlier!

I believe you would still need a "bit" indicating that a unit had been changed. In addition how would this be monitored over time? In other words every time I land a unit at a base what determines whether I get the "rebate" or not? How will the code determine whether I am a purchased unit or not?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

How about rather than paying when they unload, the player pays PPs to load the restricted units, but gets a rebate when they unload at a same HQ base.

That way if they move the unit somewhere else or hold it on the ships, they have paid the PPs just as if they switched HQs. Otherwise they can make the short inter-island hop and get the points back relatively quickly, freeing up more transfers. This would limit the rate of transfer, but probably not too dramatically. If the transports are sunk, the player should probably get the PPs back, but not if the unit is unloaded somewhere else and dies in combat.

Sounds simple except for the fact that you now have to create a data slot for each and every unit to track the points which would require even greater system resources to process the turn.

Drat! Guess I had to know that anything that seemed like such an "elegant solution" would trip over reality....

Actually you wouldn't necessarily have to track the PP costs in the data. You might be able to provide the correct PP "refund", when the unit lands, by reusing the same formula that is used to calculate the initial PP cost. Assuming that this could be made to work it is actually an elegant solution as you say. Too bad we didn't think of it earlier!

I believe you would still need a "bit" indicating that a unit had been changed. In addition how would this be monitored over time? In other words every time I land a unit at a base what determines whether I get the "rebate" or not? How will the code determine whether I am a purchased unit or not?

You could use the HQ assignment of the embarked unit. If it is assigned to a restricted HQ then you need to check the hex it is landing on. If the LCU is landing in its designated "zone" then you get the refund. To make this work you would need to define "HQ zones" in the map data, or just do it if the LCU lands at a base and the base is also assigned to the HQ, as in the original suggestion.

Andrew