Japan in Somalia

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Japan in Somalia

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] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> Japan in Somalia

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 2:30:11 AM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

Dec 40 and a Japanese SF appears in Italian East Africa by amphib landing. No DoW by my opponent that I saw, yet he was able to do this, unless he declared war on South Africa and somehow this doesn't trigger war with Britain or raise U.S. readiness. Is this a rule flaw?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by havoc1371 -- 11/7/2021 2:31:08 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 3:46:08 AM

SittingDuck

Posts: 1166
Joined: 9/1/2002
Status: offline

Looks quite smelly.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 2

RE: Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 5:26:44 AM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

Yeah smelly alright...smelly cheesy eXploit. Obviously this guy knows what he's doing here placing an invulnerable unit in front of Mogadishu (Useless Redrum86 wardec's Japan.)
Can't stand folks that do this kind of stuff.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to SittingDuck)

Post #: 3

RE: Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 5:57:14 AM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

Its not my game (not sure why you thought so?) but I agree if Japan isn't at war with UK then definitely pretty cheesy.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 4

RE: Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 6:17:29 AM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: redrum68

Its not my game (not sure why you thought so?) but I agree if Japan isn't at war with UK then definitely pretty cheesy.

Whoops...was reading your other thread and got cross-wired somehow.

But yes...your right...this fumunda unda Somalia is a stinka.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 5

RE: Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 8:34:03 AM

Fafnir

Posts: 166
Joined: 11/20/2016
From: Heidelberg
Status: offline

The Japanese unit can be attacked and has a maximum supply of 3.
Italy can also land units in Japanese controlled land.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 6

RE: Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 1:43:10 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fafnir

The Japanese unit can be attacked and has a maximum supply of 3.
Italy can also land units in Japanese controlled land.

Not the point. It's gamey and ahistorical. It's manipulating the game system for an advantage. Can't stand "anything goes as long has the game allows it" play. He invaded Thailand the next turn by DoW by Italy and used Japanese forces to conquer it. Apparently that doesn't effect America's readiness. I ended the game; I am a military history buff and this just makes the game not worth playing.

To me it's like stealing money from a wallet you found, just because you can.

(in reply to Fafnir)

Post #: 7

RE: Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 2:55:21 PM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371

Not the point. It's gamey and ahistorical. It's manipulating the game system for an advantage. Can't stand "anything goes as long has the game allows it" play. He invaded Thailand the next turn by DoW by Italy and used Japanese forces to conquer it. Apparently that doesn't effect America's readiness. I ended the game; I am a military history buff and this just makes the game not worth playing.

To me it's like stealing money from a wallet you found, just because you can.

Right on....good you quit that match. There are plenty of good players out there that don't have to resort to bull$#/+ moves like what you described.
Those aren't strategic options that differ from historical...they are exploits pure and simple. Also..in my book...these kind of moves are disrespectful and unsportsmanlike.

There..done with my tirade..unless someone defends this kind of gameplay as legit.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 8

Playing "historically" - 11/7/2021 3:38:20 PM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

I prefer to play "historically" and keep gamey moves to a minimum. House rules help, such as:

1) No attacking countries that are currently pro your side (i.e. +1% or more pro Axis or Allied); exception see reference to Vichy in rule #4 below.
2) Air and ground units cannot position swap with each other.
3) Do not take any action that manipulates the AI to give you an advantage; i.e. harassing Italian ports to drive Italy to war early, using Italy to declare war for Japan to prevent reactions from Allies, etc.
4) Be able to provide a historical reference to justify an action if challenged, i.e. Germany not invading Norway with the event option (any event is legitimate as it is a choice by the game), or a country invading an enemy aligned country that wasn't invaded historically (as it doesn't violate house rule #1), or Germany invading Vichy (the Germans eventually did, so despite being "pro-Axis", invading it, or it's colonies has actual historical president). British fleet sailing to Asia to surprise attack the Japanese fleet in July 1941 is not and is ridiculous on a historical and political level.
5) Any other rule both players agree to.

Obviously there will be muddy waters to overcome, but honest players know what is, or might be "gamey". Rule of thumb: "If you think it might be a gamey, ahistorical move, then it probably is. Playing historical war games to me means playing within the bounds of what was historically and politically possible at that time.

I am not saying that anyone who doesn't agree is "wrong", I just saying that is not the way I prefer to play historical war games and will end any game where I find my opponent using a "no holds barred" gamey approach and won't play them anymore. Post a challenge with your house rules and come to an agreement. Don't use someone's challenge post with house rules as an excuse to attack them and troll their post. If you don't agree with this way of playing, then move on and play folks who also don't care to play historically. If you choose to play historically, and someone who agreed to play that way does something you think is "gamey", then send them a PM and discuss it like two adults and have a thick skin. I've done things myself that I didn't think was gamey until it was pointed out to me.

< Message edited by havoc1371 -- 11/7/2021 3:40:56 PM >

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 9

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/7/2021 6:30:13 PM

Elessar2

Posts: 883
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

A script can be made where if any Japanese unit crosses a given line of hexes it can have nasty consequences (increased US entry say).

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 10

RE: Japan in Somalia - 11/7/2021 6:56:12 PM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fafnir

The Japanese unit can be attacked and has a maximum supply of 3.
Italy can also land units in Japanese controlled land.

Not the point. It's gamey and ahistorical. It's manipulating the game system for an advantage. Can't stand "anything goes as long has the game allows it" play. He invaded Thailand the next turn by DoW by Italy and used Japanese forces to conquer it. Apparently that doesn't effect America's readiness. I ended the game; I am a military history buff and this just makes the game not worth playing.

To me it's like stealing money from a wallet you found, just because you can.

The engine doesn't actually check for which Axis power declares war on Thailand, so there's no benefit to them from using Italy in that respect.

That said, the effect it has on Allied mobilization is as follows:

USA swings 3-5% towards the Allies
India, Malaya, Burma all swing 40-50% towards the Allies
Brunei, Sarawak, Solomons, Dutch East Indies all swing 10-15% towards the Allies

So the fundamental issue here might really be that the impact on the US is too low. I think there must be a reason we set it that low, so changing it will require some prior thought and consideration.

_____________________________

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 11

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/7/2021 6:57:24 PM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

A script can be made where if any Japanese unit crosses a given line of hexes it can have nasty consequences (increased US entry say).

Yes, that can be done. Perhaps if any Japanese units land anywhere in Africa?

_____________________________

(in reply to Elessar2)

Post #: 12

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/7/2021 7:10:47 PM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillRunacre

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

A script can be made where if any Japanese unit crosses a given line of hexes it can have nasty consequences (increased US entry say).

Yes, that can be done. Perhaps if any Japanese units land anywhere in Africa?

This would solve the problem.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 13

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/7/2021 7:25:41 PM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371

I prefer to play "historically" and keep gamey moves to a minimum. House rules help, such as:

2) Air and ground units cannot position swap with each other.

This one I have been guilty of in the past..but it feels more of a manipulation of a movement mechanic than an out right eXploit. Still..I think I will restrain myself in the future.

Here's a few house rules if you really want to get in the weeds:

a)No Bulgarian units in the Soviet Union (unless Moscow falls)

b)No Hungarian units can enter Romania..No Romanian units can enter Hungary. *As long as both are Axis.
This would also require the Vienna Award DEC like in WiE that allows Hungary to annex Transylvania if the Germans desire. (I posted this request a year ago with a map on this forum.)

Anyways yeah looks like Bill is looking at this issue. The suggestion box in his office must be full no doubt.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 14

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/8/2021 8:52:41 AM

firsteds

Posts: 52
Joined: 3/24/2021
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

A script can be made where if any Japanese unit crosses a given line of hexes it can have nasty consequences (increased US entry say).

[Bill:] Yes, that can be done. Perhaps if any Japanese units land anywhere in Africa?

YES PLEASE! I have just been burned by Japanese land units in Africa in 1940, saving key Italian colonial ports and even a capital from imminent fall. They are in low supply but still extremely difficult to remove because everyone is in low supply in Africa and Japanese Special Forces are way more powerful than anything the Allies have in the region. They also kept the ports open for a year to Axis naval units and chewed up Allied time and resources. And of course Italian NM was saved.

Obviously it is a glitch or an exploit in the game. In Real Life the US would have gone nuts if the Japanese sailed to Africa in 1940 and started slaughtering local British and Indian troops. (Yes, they can kill Allied units without a DoW for some reason). In the game there were no consequences at all. It did ruin the game for me and I complained and even thought about quitting, but the Allies decided to soldier on. I am glad to see there is a thread about it here. My sympathies to the other victims.

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 15

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/8/2021 9:57:27 AM

havoc1371

Posts: 212
Joined: 12/5/2017
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371

I prefer to play "historically" and keep gamey moves to a minimum. House rules help, such as:

2) Air and ground units cannot position swap with each other.

This one I have been guilty of in the past..but it feels more of a manipulation of a movement mechanic than an out right eXploit. Still..I think I will restrain myself in the future.

Here's a few house rules if you really want to get in the weeds:

a)No Bulgarian units in the Soviet Union (unless Moscow falls)

b)No Hungarian units can enter Romania..No Romanian units can enter Hungary. *As long as both are Axis.
This would also require the Vienna Award DEC like in WiE that allows Hungary to annex Transylvania if the Germans desire. (I posted this request a year ago with a map on this forum.)

Anyways yeah looks like Bill is looking at this issue. The suggestion box in his office must be full no doubt.

I've done it too, swapping air and ground, but it should not be possible as it makes no logistical sense that a fighter command can exchange position in line with a corps/army. Deciding which country would participate in Barbarossa may be going down the rabbit hole trying to capture every historical/political nuance. You'd have to add Finland to that list. Like I said, house rules that both players agree to abide by.

I actually just created a FB page for computer wargamers who want to find other players who prefer to keep it historical and realistic to the period represented. PM me if you want to join it.

< Message edited by havoc1371 -- 11/8/2021 9:59:36 AM >

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 16

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/8/2021 10:30:36 AM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: OldCrowBalthazor

Anyways yeah looks like Bill is looking at this issue. The suggestion box in his office must be full no doubt.

Full to overflowing!

_____________________________

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 17

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/8/2021 7:41:40 PM

Chernobyl

Posts: 444
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371
2) Air and ground units cannot position swap with each other.

Whoa, this is an exploit? I do this all the time and would expect an opponent to do the same.

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 18

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/8/2021 10:22:00 PM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chernobyl

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371
2) Air and ground units cannot position swap with each other.

Whoa, this is an exploit? I do this all the time and would expect an opponent to do the same.

I find it necessary to do it...and don't consider it an eXploit per say (unlike the Montenegro Gambit

), but if a new opponent wanted it in a houserule in order to go forward..I would agree to it probably. May also ask a few of my own house rules as a bargaining chip also.

Basically..most everyone I have played for the last 2 years does it...and its not that egregious imo.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to Chernobyl)

Post #: 19

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/9/2021 4:32:23 PM

Elessar2

Posts: 883
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

Of most use trying to get a stubborn ground unit to move into terrain with a high move cost that it otherwise couldn't get into that turn.

(in reply to OldCrowBalthazor)

Post #: 20

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/10/2021 3:19:06 AM

OldCrowBalthazor

Posts: 1108
Joined: 7/2/2020
From: Republic of Cascadia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elessar2

Of most use trying to get a stubborn ground unit to move into terrain with a high move cost that it otherwise couldn't get into that turn.

Yeah that's about it. So in some old school war board games..a unit was always allowed to move one hex except where proscribed. Example MT Inf can only go into Mountain Hexes etc. I don't think the game editor can simulate this or at least not allow air units to swap maneuver with land units. Some times when in close proximity..it should be allowed. Maybe the issue here is swapping a land unit into a rough terrain hex that couldn't be entered otherwise because of supply considerations and AP.

House Ruling this may be the best solution..but that can get even murky if for example you just wanted to redeploy close proximity units that are in good supply..have enough action points..and just want to reposition. Its the 'airlifting-shifting through rough hexes that's the issue here I guess.

_____________________________

Balthazor's Strategic Arcana

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwnsBUHYdk7tcejmU5k9cOw

(in reply to Elessar2)

Post #: 21

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/10/2021 7:57:01 AM

KlasE

Posts: 33
Joined: 3/13/2021
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: havoc1371

I prefer to play "historically" and keep gamey moves to a minimum. House rules help, such as:

2) Air and ground units cannot position swap with each other.

I've done it too, swapping air and ground, but it should not be possible as it makes no logistical sense that a fighter command can exchange position in line with a corps/army.

If it's ok to swap if you do the ordinary moves; move fighter 1 hex aside, move army to the original fighter hex, and then move the fighter to the original army hex. Then I can't see why swapping should not be allowed between air and ground units.

In real life they would have 2 weeks (one turn) to do the swapping ...

(in reply to havoc1371)

Post #: 22

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/13/2021 9:10:46 AM

boudi

Posts: 346
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: France
Status: offline

The game is too permissive for the Axis. It allows the Japanese player to do anything. In March 1940 a player already invaded Singapore and Borneo, and then landed in Aden, May 1940. The US should have entered the war 3 times already, but nothing: just a few percent of belligerence. I closed the game because it was so nonsense.

(in reply to KlasE)

Post #: 23

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/13/2021 3:35:53 PM

redrum68

Posts: 1202
Joined: 11/26/2017
Status: offline

quote:

If it's ok to swap if you do the ordinary moves; move fighter 1 hex aside, move army to the original fighter hex, and then move the fighter to the original army hex. Then I can't see why swapping should not be allowed between air and ground units.

In real life they would have 2 weeks (one turn) to do the swapping ...

The issue is that players use air units to swap ground units into places they don't have enough MP to move into. This IMO is very gamey so probably house ruling to make that swap illegal would be best. In my experience, this is mostly abused by Japan to advance faster in China which really isn't needed given how fast Japan already advances.

(in reply to KlasE)

Post #: 24

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/13/2021 4:13:53 PM

Unfortunate Son

Posts: 60
Joined: 11/30/2016
Status: offline

I might look at this situation regarding the IJA SF unit in Africa in two ways. A bit gamey and where there is chaos there is opportunity.
Historically the British were worried that the Japanese would expand in the Indian Ocean possible Africa/ Madagascar so the they actually invaded Madagascar to deny IJN from its ports.

So where there is chaos there is opportunity: The IJA SF unit is not holding an island in the pacific nor is it in China or defending Japan. So to me its one less IJA SF unit the US has to deal with in its island hoping campaign. So get hopping USA!

I would also deny that unit safe passage back to home waters. It will be needed back home at some point in the game.

Just my 2cents

(in reply to redrum68)

Post #: 25

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/14/2021 7:04:55 PM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: boudi

The game is too permissive for the Axis. It allows the Japanese player to do anything. In March 1940 a player already invaded Singapore and Borneo, and then landed in Aden, May 1940. The US should have entered the war 3 times already, but nothing: just a few percent of belligerence. I closed the game because it was so nonsense.

Hi Boudi

I've just checked the scripts and an Axis declaration of war on Brunei, Malaya and Sarawak would move the USA by 10-15% for each, i.e. 30-45% in total.

Now we could potentially increase these, and I'm happy for that discussion to be held, but even with just these boosts, US income would have increased very significantly.

Additionally other mobilizations would have occurred, e.g. an Axis declaration of war against Brunei would bring India, Burma and Malaya immediately into the Allied camp, as well as swinging lots of other countries towards the Allies. This would likely have also cut off the convoy to Japan from the Dutch East Indies, thus economically penalising Japan more than it could potentially gain from Brunei.

I'll include a check for Japanese units in Aden when I include something for them being in Africa, good catch.

If there's anywhere else they are being used in an exploitative way then please let me know.

< Message edited by BillRunacre -- 11/15/2021 9:17:20 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to boudi)

Post #: 26

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/15/2021 2:13:30 AM

ElvisJJonesRambo

Posts: 1345
Joined: 2/6/2019
Status: offline

The USA is all about Pearl Harbor.
Americans in 1941 didn't care about Africa, or some Island.
The American People didn't care about Poland or France either.
Pearl Harbor was a setup, to springboard the events of the 20th Century.

_____________________________

Without Him, I could do nothing
Without Him, I'd surely fail
Without Him, I would be drifting
Like a ship without a sail

(in reply to BillRunacre)

Post #: 27

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/15/2021 10:56:32 AM

firsteds

Posts: 52
Joined: 3/24/2021
Status: offline

quote:

I might look at this situation regarding the IJA SF unit in Africa in two ways. A bit gamey and where there is chaos there is opportunity. Historically the British were worried that the Japanese would expand in the Indian Ocean possible Africa/ Madagascar so the they actually invaded Madagascar to deny IJN from its ports. So where there is chaos there is opportunity: The IJA SF unit is not holding an island in the pacific nor is it in China or defending Japan. So to me its one less IJA SF unit the US has to deal with in its island hoping campaign. So get hopping USA! I would also deny that unit safe passage back to home waters. It will be needed back home at some point in the game. Just my 2cents

Be careful with encouraging this. The Japanese units were in Africa in early 1940 in my MP game. They stayed there for over a year and were a massive distraction. They chew up resources and hold ports open for the Axis. they save Italian units and NM. The Allies can't declare war on Japan early (US isn't allowed and the UK will be hit with a massive penalty re US mobilisation if they do it). These Japanese units can kill local Allied units without any penalty. US island hopping doesn't start until 1942. We are not talking about Japanese units heading to Africa / Madagascar in 1941 or 1942. There needs to be a very clear penalty for an Axis player sending Japanese troops to Africa in 1940.

To be fair, I think the main MP player who started this trend has himself seen the light and messaged me to say that it is not worth the hassle. Maybe he has been getting grief from opponents and will stop now voluntarily. Most people play for fun.

(in reply to Unfortunate Son)

Post #: 28

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/15/2021 11:58:15 AM

boudi

Posts: 346
Joined: 1/7/2007
From: France
Status: offline

Hi Bill,
Thank you for the answer.
I believe that after the declaration of war on Malaya, Japan did not need to declare war on Brunei and Sarawak. The 2 countries automatically entered the war on the side of Great Britain after the invasion of Malaya. As a consequence Japan could occupy the 2 oil ports without increasing the American war entry, but this is to be verified.
When I left the game after the invasion of Malaya, Borneo and Aden in the spring of 1940, I believe that the US war entry was at 45%, far from a war entry. But this has to be verified.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

(in reply to ElvisJJonesRambo)

Post #: 29

RE: Playing "historically" - 11/16/2021 8:53:20 AM

BillRunacre

Posts: 4945
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks boudi, I've made some changes that will penalize Japanese landings in Africa and the Middle East, so judging by your game where they landed in Aden it would have put the US up to 55-60% mobilization, which would have given them a better income with which to prepare for war.

< Message edited by BillRunacre -- 11/16/2021 8:54:04 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to boudi)

Post #: 30