Movement Questions (Rationale, not How-To)

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Movement Questions (Rationale, not How-To)

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided >> Movement Questions (Rationale, not How-To)

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Movement Questions (Rationale, not How-To) - 7/30/2008 3:35:56 PM

MarkWayneClark

Posts: 146
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline

I have some questions about movement rules that seem counter-intuitive to me, and I wanted to ask some veterans why you think they make sense (assuming you do think so).

1) Why can't allied unites from different nations/players occupy the same region at the same time? This is allowed in A&A, where it comes in handy quite a bit. I realize this is a different game, but in this respect it would seem pretty similar. Allied units can go through, so why shouldn't they be allowed to stop? As a practical matter, through-but-not-in makes moving land units through allied territory impossible, except in the rare cases where you might be able to move armor through a single allied region and into one of your own, but when does that need ever arise in an actual game? The real limitation is that you can't base air units on allied territory. Why not? You also can't mount sea or other amphibious operations if there is one lousy allied sub or transport loitering where you want to go.

2) Transports. In A&A, transports and units are "married." The unit boards the ship, and the ship takes the unit to its destination. Just like in real life. Here, transports are like rail lines. I suppose this is meant to abstract the nature of convoys, etc., but it sure does make island hopping more of a PitA. Also, is it really realistic to have to have a string of transports in virtually every sea zone in order to move your men and/or conduct amphibious ops? In the case of merchant convoys, I can see the point of abstracting things this way, but for military transports taking men to the fight, my initial reaction is that the A&A way makes more sense.

3) Transports #2. Using the link feature, the same one that allows you to put airborne units in heavy bombers, you CAN link units to individual transport fleets. But you can't MOVE those fleets while they are carrying the units. So ... what is the point of allowing the link? I do not get this at all. Why would you ever want to link a unit to a transport if you can't move the transport while it is occupied?

Thanks to all who read this.

< Message edited by Mark Clark -- 7/30/2008 3:39:04 PM >

Post #: 1

RE: Movement Questions (Rationale, not How-To) - 7/30/2008 4:10:22 PM

WanderingHead

Posts: 2134
Joined: 9/22/2004
From: GMT-8
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Clark
1) Why can't allied unites from different nations/players occupy the same region at the same time?

I think that occupying the same region opens a diplomatic modelling can of worms. The freedom of A&A is not realistic. You'd end up with all sorts of unit mixing which just didn't really happen. The game applies a simple solution which feels very right after you get used to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Clark
2) Here, transports are like rail lines.

The main motivation for this is to force transports to be at sea so they are vulnerable in an IGOUGO system. Otherwise they'd always be in port.

If you think about then it actually makes sense if the transports are fully utilized (all cargo points get used). It just represents a bunch of ships going back and forth a few times over a 3 month period. If the transports are not fully utilized, that is where there is a bit of a problem. To have to leave a whole transport chain intact to move 1 unit (5 cargo points) is frustrating. No simple solution to this has come up, and on the whole the system works reasonably well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Clark
3) you CAN link units to individual transport fleets. But you can't MOVE those fleets

You shouldn't be able to link them. I would characterize this as a minor glitch in the system that you won't worry about as time goes on (maybe there is some historical reason, like the capability was toyed with in the very early days of development, I don't know).

(in reply to MarkWayneClark)

Post #: 2

RE: Movement Questions (Rationale, not How-To) - 7/30/2008 4:54:32 PM

MarkWayneClark

Posts: 146
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline

Thanks. That all makes sense, I guess.

What got me thinking about this was really #1. I played a game as the USSR, and got to Berlin. Germany surrendered. I wheeled East and kicked Japan off the mainland. But the WA refused to close the deal. They left one militia in Hokkaido, and scattered Japanese units in the South Pacific. They just would not finish off Japan. Meanwhile I was researching, building units, and stockpiling supplies lilke crazy, itching to take on the WA in an east-meets-west action, but it would not trigger unless Japan was defeated. So I figured, OK, I will do it myself. I built a small navy in Vladi and got ready to invade Hokkaido. No dice. One lousy WA sub in the adjacent sea zone meant that I could not use my transports. I could take them THROUGH the zone, but not loaded with troops. And since I could not leave one tranny in the SZ adjacent to Vladi, I could not string the transports to use them as a conduit for a landing force.

Hence I just quit the game.

< Message edited by Mark Clark -- 7/30/2008 5:01:03 PM >

(in reply to WanderingHead)

Post #: 3