Posts: 578
Joined: 7/19/2006 From: Hiawassee, GA Status: offline
"Sending disbanding units into territory with no risk of loss because they just go poof, sounds pretty gamey"
Yep... of course it is not possible to design a complex game in such a way that cunning gamers cannot find exploits. I'm sure this is one of the areas where opponents will sort out their preferences. Some will not worry about it at all, noting that each side can "play that game". Some will hate it and forbid it through HRs or a gentlemen's understanding. Some might even take great delight in seeing what can happen with a full effort to "win the game" rather than "recreate history". (Remember the "Lunacy game AAR"?)
"Sending disbanding units into territory with no risk of loss because they just go poof, sounds pretty gamey"
Yep... of course it is not possible to design a complex game in such a way that cunning gamers cannot find exploits. I'm sure this is one of the areas where opponents will sort out their preferences. Some will not worry about it at all, noting that each side can "play that game". Some will hate it and forbid it through HRs or a gentlemen's understanding. Some might even take great delight in seeing what can happen with a full effort to "win the game" rather than "recreate history". (Remember the "Lunacy game AAR"?)
Things that just go poof is gamey all by itself. Ship withdraw doesn't work like this!
Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002 From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece Status: offline
Sounds like the unit should be sent to a withdrawl base prior to withdrawl date or PP penalty is paid (like ships). Poof goes the unit sounds like a bad idea given the AE team is working hard to eliminate other gamey design features.
_____________________________
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Most of the units that WITHDRAW are restricted and cannot be loaded on ships anyway so while they can march overland they are restricted
DISBANDED units are different the devices from those units return to pool and are needed especially some of the key Infantry Squads - so you can use them in gamey nasty attacks but if you do and lose them don't compalin when you cannot keep other units up to strength.....
The Disband/Withdraw system for LCU's is not something you can stop other than via the global ignore withdrawal/disband toggle
There are less than a dozen Japanese units and the allied ones are now quite specific e.g. 5th British Div - you could technically march it into Burma (it cannot be loaded on ships) but that leaves India more vulnerable
Unfortunately there are differences between the air withdrawal system, the naval one and the land one. This is my fault as I did not require all the teams to handle in the same way. However, the scenario designer has total control over how the various features as used. It is not required to use withdrawals at all.
Originally the IJA Land team wanted withdrawls to help model the upgrades of many Independent Mixed Brigades to full divisions. In stock this is modeled just by having both units - the brigades and the divisions. The AE team did not think this solution was very elegant. We wanted to be able to set the withdrawal date for the brigades and then bring in the divisions. Later, we asked for and got a TOE upgrade feature and also a unit rename feature. Used in combination these allowed us to switch the modeling of the upgrades of the brigdes to divisions from using the withdrawal feature to using the upgrade/rename features together. So the system has evolved and the use of the features with it.
At this point I suspect the vast bulk of land unit withdrawals are on the Allied side. But there were IJA and IJN land units that were disbanded during the real war. These situations were examined on a case by case basis and decisions made within what the AE team felt were the best balance between historical accuracy and the limitations of the game system.
Unfortunately there are differences between the air withdrawal system, the naval one and the land one. This is my fault as I did not require all the teams to handle in the same way. However, the scenario designer has total control over how the various features as used. It is not required to use withdrawals at all.
Originally the IJA Land team wanted withdrawls to help model the upgrades of many Independent Mixed Brigades to full divisions. In stock this is modeled just by having both units - the brigades and the divisions. The AE team did not think this solution was very elegant. We wanted to be able to set the withdrawal date for the brigades and then bring in the divisions. Later, we asked for and got a TOE upgrade feature and also a unit rename feature. Used in combination these allowed us to switch the modeling of the upgrades of the brigdes to divisions from using the withdrawal feature to using the upgrade/rename features together. So the system has evolved and the use of the features with it.
At this point I suspect the vast bulk of land unit withdrawals are on the Allied side. But there were IJA and IJN land units that were disbanded during the real war. These situations were examined on a case by case basis and decisions made within what the AE team felt were the best balance between historical accuracy and the limitations of the game system.
So AE has three different withdraw methods (Land, Air, Sea), PP's can't be used for land unit withdraws, what about AIR and/or Sea units?
quote:
global OFF switch for withdrawals
Does the OFF switch for withdrawals, effect the upgrade of some units?
Does the OFF switch for withdrawals, effect the upgrade of some units?
No. It only turns off all units that have to withdraw. If you use this switch it will be like stock WitP. In other words, you will have a LOT of duplicate units. Air units that were withdrawn to form other units (like the AVG for example) will have both pieces there. The withdrawls is one of the nicer features in AE IMHO. There are a lot of inconsistencies between the way the 3 teams do things. PPs to change command for air is based on TO&E strength while ground units are current (undamaged) strength for example.
As Joe said we have different systems but the usage has evolved over the time of the build
Probably the unit that is most ripe for exploit is the British 7th Armoured Bde
It withdraws rather than disband so there are limited consequences to 'wasting it' as you dont get the devices back.
On the other hand its a significant chunk of the Battle ready fighting force that India can use in its defence.
You really don't want the waste it as it helps shield the undertrained raw Indian forces while they train up.
Most of the units have consequences.
You end up with two ways to go a system that requires micro management but gives control or a system that requires almost no micro management but the player has limited control
LCU Disband system is weighted towards managment easy at the expense of control Naval and Air are more tilted to player control but with consequential micromanagment
It is determined by the priority of the team lead to some extent which is why its slightly inconsistent - I wanted it to be easy for players and didnt feel that even PP's reflect the true cost of keeping high profile units like the US West Coast Divs and 5th British Div - 15,000 - 20,000 men are a lot for a few PP's to control etc etc - they are just to significant to other unrepresented theatres and therefore the land system is weighted towards simplicity and automatic removal.
Air groups are slightly more fungible so PP's and player control is more reasonable in the context of the wider war (they are not as significant a chunk of war fighting capability as a Division of troops)
Each team had a slightly different concept of this area but it sorta works for me.
So what I am seeing here leads me to believe that we can manually disband units, say the PI units? Especially as they become rundown and combat ineffective? I like the fact that the air groups will auto withdraw. By 44 there are so many allied air groups that there is barely space to hold them all...
And since I have been reading some of the really whiny sounding posts, let me say that waiting for several months/a few years really isn't that big of a deal. Thank you to all of you who are working this miracle of time suck. I can't wait to spend a few months eating poorly and not sleeping well. Oh wait, done that one already, only I was also getting shot at too...this one promises to be much more civilized, as it were.
borjesson (ex 1sg, now waiting for what comes next...)
Eating poorly and not sleeping well (or enough).... I do that now and nobody is shooting at me. I think it is called work, deadlines, saying "I'll do it", then saying "Why did I say that I'll do it?". Ah...life.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Disband/Withdraw System 
Disband/Withdraw System - 
RE: Disband/Withdraw System - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread