Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/21/2010 6:54:02 PM

toselli

Posts: 13
Joined: 5/30/2010
Status: offline

Hi everyone,
I know that the vast majority of people use the rule that the Japanese player must pay PPs to move restricted units from Manchuria to China, and I do also agree with this.
My question is slightly different though: If the Japanese player, using only the units originally supposed to operate in China, manages to achieve a free and unobstructed path from North China to Vietnam by clearing all Central China railroads, do you think he can move units by land from China to Indochina and Thailand wiyhout paying PPs, or do you think he should still buy them out to unrestricted commands? Bear in mind that I am not talking about units in Manchuria but only those originally intended to operate in China.

Thanks a lot.

Jeffrey

Post #: 1

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/21/2010 7:18:45 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

These units usually fall under the house rule as well.

(in reply to toselli)

Post #: 2

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/21/2010 8:57:13 PM

RUDOLF

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

You can move out 10 Divisions for very cheap cost, just assign them to 2nd Air Divsion then after that assign the 2nd air Division to Southern Army.
All div out, no relevant cost.

Every full Div, all Eng, all Aviation and all aviation support + all artillery I moved out for the fraction of the cost that way. AND it is WAD!!! according to the designers.

So, once that is done just move in a small force from China to maintain the Garrison Requirements.

_____________________________

http://wikileaks.org/

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 3

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/21/2010 9:24:09 PM

Smeulders

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

You can move out 10 Divisions for very cheap cost, just assign them to 2nd Air Divsion then after that assign the 2nd air Division to Southern Army.
All div out, no relevant cost.

Every full Div, all Eng, all Aviation and all aviation support + all artillery I moved out for the fraction of the cost that way. AND it is WAD!!! according to the designers.

So, once that is done just move in a small force from China to maintain the Garrison Requirements.

Know that almost every PBEM opponent will quit if you do this though. It is WAD in the sense that it does exactly what it was programmed to do, not in the sense that the devs wanted to give you way to unrestrict an obscene amount of units at a very low cost.

(in reply to RUDOLF)

Post #: 4

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/21/2010 10:05:11 PM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: toselli

Hi everyone,
I know that the vast majority of people use the rule that the Japanese player must pay PPs to move restricted units from Manchuria to China, and I do also agree with this.
My question is slightly different though: If the Japanese player, using only the units originally supposed to operate in China, manages to achieve a free and unobstructed path from North China to Vietnam by clearing all Central China railroads, do you think he can move units by land from China to Indochina and Thailand wiyhout paying PPs, or do you think he should still buy them out to unrestricted commands? Bear in mind that I am not talking about units in Manchuria but only those originally intended to operate in China.

Thanks a lot.

Jeffrey

The house rule was meant to stop units from walking across borders, period. A restricted unit cannot board a ship, so the only meaning for such a rule would be to prevent people from walking out of their restricted area.

(in reply to toselli)

Post #: 5

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/21/2010 11:49:57 PM

RUDOLF

Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

The house rule was meant to stop units from walking across borders, period. A restricted unit cannot board a ship, so the only meaning for such a rule would be to prevent people from walking out of their restricted area.

I agree.
So, Pay the 25% of the PP and assign it to 2nd Air Div, do it with all the units you intend to ever move out - and then eventually transferr the 2nd Air Div out to Southern Area HQ.

_____________________________

http://wikileaks.org/

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 6

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 12:54:58 AM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

You can move out 10 Divisions for very cheap cost, just assign them to 2nd Air Divsion then after that assign the 2nd air Division to Southern Army.
All div out, no relevant cost.

Every full Div, all Eng, all Aviation and all aviation support + all artillery I moved out for the fraction of the cost that way. AND it is WAD!!! according to the designers.

So, once that is done just move in a small force from China to maintain the Garrison Requirements.

Know that almost every PBEM opponent will quit if you do this though. It is WAD in the sense that it does exactly what it was programmed to do, not in the sense that the devs wanted to give you way to unrestrict an obscene amount of units at a very low cost.

I agree Smeulders. This should be a topic of discussion with another PBEM partner, lest the Allied player be hoodwinked with this gamey work-around.

_____________________________

(in reply to Smeulders)

Post #: 7

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 1:00:47 AM

Dobey455

Posts: 445
Joined: 12/28/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

quote:

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown

The house rule was meant to stop units from walking across borders, period. A restricted unit cannot board a ship, so the only meaning for such a rule would be to prevent people from walking out of their restricted area.

I agree.
So, Pay the 25% of the PP and assign it to 2nd Air Div, do it with all the units you intend to ever move out - and then eventually transferr the 2nd Air Div out to Southern Area HQ.

So I assume you would be happy for the allied player to use a similar method to free up a dozen or so US divisions?

(in reply to RUDOLF)

Post #: 8

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 4:20:52 AM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

A necessary House Rule is that Restricted Units should never cross National Borders. The developers looked into including this in the code, but it was too complicated to implement. But that should be followed.

So no movement from China to Vietnam, unless you pay the PPs (which you can if you like, almost all IJA units are not PERM restricted, just the Chinese collaborationist ones)

Oh, and don't do what RUDOLF says. Way gamey

_____________________________

(in reply to Dobey455)

Post #: 9

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 7:37:22 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

I have offended other players by asking on someone's AAR "did u pay the full price or use the work around technique". All I wanted to know is why is there an issue w/ this. So the best answer is the two players involved really need to discuss this issue before the game begins. The problem will occur when a veteran uses this on a newbie(not cool).

Sometimes a no rules game is refreshing. Kill or be Killed. The "restricted unit " issue seems to be a sword both sides can use. the japs early and the allies alittle later.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 10

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 7:45:16 AM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

I have offended other players by asking on someone's AAR "did u pay the full price or use the work around technique". All I wanted to know is why is there an issue w/ this. So the best answer is the two players involved really need to discuss this issue before the game begins. The problem will occur when a veteran uses this on a newbie(not cool).

Sometimes a no rules game is refreshing. Kill or be Killed. The "restricted unit " issue seems to be a sword both sides can use. the japs early and the allies alittle later.

That's the key.
In my PBEM, I have allowed my Jap opponent to use as many manchurian units as he wants - I won't attack before the collapse of Armygroup Center in 1944. I can hardly believe that there was any real chance of the russians attacking Japan while German artillery is in range of Moscow...

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 11

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 7:53:46 AM

DeriKuk

Posts: 359
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline

A simple data patch can solve the Manchurian abuse: Increase the garrison requirements for Manchurian bases.

(in reply to Historiker)

Post #: 12

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 10:13:19 AM

jomni

Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

A simple data patch can solve the Manchurian abuse: Increase the garrison requirements for Manchurian bases.

We had a proposal last time to make the probability of Soviet activation random. I think that's a better idea as opposed to increasing. A downright increase limits the flexibility of the game. With the random factor, the player can still take units out of Manchuria but must be careful about the increasing risk of Soviet activation. Adding uncertainty will make the player think twice instead of the current system where the player exaclty knows how much to keep in Manchuria.

< Message edited by jomni -- 10/22/2010 10:14:13 AM >

_____________________________

My Blog
Random Wargame Name Generator

(in reply to DeriKuk)

Post #: 13

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 10:25:05 AM

Wikingus

Posts: 167
Joined: 9/26/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

A simple data patch can solve the Manchurian abuse: Increase the garrison requirements for Manchurian bases.

We had a proposal last time to make the probability of Soviet activation random. I think that's a better idea as opposed to increasing. A downright increase limits the flexibility of the game. With the random factor, the player can still take units out of Manchuria but must be careful about the increasing risk of Soviet activation. Adding uncertainty will make the player think twice instead of the current system where the player exaclty knows how much to keep in Manchuria.

I would personally be against randomizing it. For me, a Soviet intervention in 1943 or something would kill all immersion. Maybe only if it activated late in the game, with the % chance of intervention increasing each month, until you'd be almost guaranteed to get a Soviet intervention in mid-1945. But anything else, no thanks.

(keep in mind that I'm fuzzy on the actual details on how it is now, and I don't know if the game takes into account anything besides the garrison values in Manchuria?)

< Message edited by Wikingus -- 10/22/2010 10:26:26 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to jomni)

Post #: 14

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement - 10/22/2010 11:32:47 AM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wikingus

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

A simple data patch can solve the Manchurian abuse: Increase the garrison requirements for Manchurian bases.

We had a proposal last time to make the probability of Soviet activation random. I think that's a better idea as opposed to increasing. A downright increase limits the flexibility of the game. With the random factor, the player can still take units out of Manchuria but must be careful about the increasing risk of Soviet activation. Adding uncertainty will make the player think twice instead of the current system where the player exaclty knows how much to keep in Manchuria.

I would personally be against randomizing it. For me, a Soviet intervention in 1943 or something would kill all immersion. Maybe only if it activated late in the game, with the % chance of intervention increasing each month, until you'd be almost guaranteed to get a Soviet intervention in mid-1945. But anything else, no thanks.

(keep in mind that I'm fuzzy on the actual details on how it is now, and I don't know if the game takes into account anything besides the garrison values in Manchuria?)

To make it random after a certain point is a perfect idea! IMHO, before Operation Bagration any Russian attack is total nonsense, no matter how few troops are in Manchuria. The Russians had enough to do themselves, too. After that, the percentage for likely activation should increase month my month, only to be slowered by the amount of forces inside Manchuria. So if you have 4000 AV there, its 5% the first month and 20% in 1/45. If you have 10.000 AV, it is 2% in 1/45 or so...
I think you get the point