Birtish Withdrawal

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Birtish Withdrawal

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Birtish Withdrawal

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 7:35:37 AM

teck

Posts: 43
Joined: 6/4/2002
Status: offline

Ok so does one do the birtish ship withdrawal. I see where I can send them to San Fran but not to London?

Post #: 1

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 7:42:16 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

I believe you must send them to Karachi and "disband TF".Then,go to the individual ships and (as long as it's really Brit equipment),a new order will appear on the bottom of the ship screen saying to withdraw..Hit "withdraw ship" and it will "leave"..
(It is NOT enough to just disband the TF,I tried that with a BC and 2 DD's and it cost me at least 4 months of political points!!!!!)..

_____________________________

(in reply to teck)

Post #: 2

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 7:42:45 AM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WitP Manual
6.2 BRITISH WITHDRAWAL
...
To withdraw a ship, the ship must be in Karachi, Bombay, or San Francisco and must have less
than 50 system damage. It must be a British Nationality ship. If these conditions are met there
should be an option on the ship detail screen that allows for Withdraw Ship From. The ship will be
given a delay of between 1 and 1.5 years before they return.

This what you're after?

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to teck)

Post #: 3

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 7:44:33 AM

Bodhi

Posts: 1267
Joined: 8/26/2003
From: Japan
Status: offline

Looks like I was 29secs too late: must learn to type quicker.

_____________________________

Bodhi

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 4

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 8:52:33 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

I think withdrawl of units could and should be expanded to include units other than simply naval, and other than strictly British. Why should only British naval forces adhere to the demands made upon them by a global war? Sure would take some of the heat off Japan. I suspect the British withdrawl requirements owe their existence to an old Avalon Hill game "Victory inthe Pacific". Great idea but never taken to a universally more realistic level.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Bodhi)

Post #: 5

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 10:09:53 AM

Hipper

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline

If you look at what actually happened the Royal navy built up its forces in the Indian ocean untill after midway, when seeing the japanese threat lifted sent fleet units to the Mediteranian, if not for midway further reinforcements would have been sent Nelson and Rodney for example (and malta abandoned)

To be realistic IMHO RN Reinforcements should be tied say to Japanese carrier strength

having said that I rather liked the commitment % in Uncommon valour

of course The japanese should get extra victory points for forcing the commitment of excess forces against them !
cheers

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 6

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 3:27:15 PM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

Actually RN commitment was much more complex then that. Early on a major withdrawal by example took place due to the presence of Japanese carriers in the Indian Ocean. While the RN stayed within the Indian Ocean, it was outside the game area (Aden, Madagaskar etc.). Later withdrawals were for other reasons.

Personally I'd like to see RN withdrawals affect and count Dutch and ANZAC ships as well. That means you will probably see slightly higher withdrawal requirements but also be able to withdraw non British ships serving with the RN (forgot to incldue French who should also count).

All of which brings me back to the question why ANZAC and Dutch ships are rated differently from RN ships whom they served with? In many cases those ships had as much or more experience then their RN counterparts.

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: Bombay and SF were news to me for withdrawal. Maybe I can put that pair of damaged (they got hit after I separated them from their raiding TF) destroyers steaming to Karachi into Bombay to withdraw them on time after all;-)

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 7

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 3:45:54 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

I would like to see withdrawls for LCUs, too - 7th Armoured Brigade, and the USMC Raider and Parachute Battalions come to mind....

(in reply to teck)

Post #: 8

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 4:13:32 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

I have no problem with withdrawing units that actually left. But dont make it a random event that might suck up assets that were never withdrawn and make a list and provide it with month of departure so the allied player doesnt end up with some asset he needs to remove to far from a removal source cause he didnt know about it.

The raider and Para units were used to make the incoming 5th and 6th Marine Divisions I believe, and I think they are modeled with appropriate experience to reflect that? I wont see them for some time, I am still in March of 42.

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 9

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 4:52:44 PM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

Agreed - only historical withdrawls of LCUs, or a "disband" function....

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 10

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/6/2004 9:31:47 PM

Hipper

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline

caranorn

can't agree that Somerville withdrew in from the IO in the face of the Japanese during the Ceylon Raid They did base themselves at a new base .. cant remember the name of the island group, but they were at sea and on the map during the Raid.

Granted for the first time in 136 years they did not agressivley seek out the enemys main fleet but they were outnumbered 2 :1 in carriers and 3: 1 in aircraft

later on they did support the invasion of Madagascar granted off the map but major fleet unit withdrawals only took place after midway, and I suspect that if Ceylon had been invaded then, the build up in the Indain ocean would have been greater still.

granted the effects of that in europe and the atlantic would have been dramatic (convoys to russia abandoned) which is why the japanese player should get a VP bonus for increased allied ship commitment

this is pretty much a wish list item anyway dont see any changes being made in RN withdrawal .

cheers

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 11

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/7/2004 1:51:06 AM

watchtower

Posts: 867
Joined: 8/2/2004
From: Republic of Kilburn. London UK
Status: offline

Would be much easier if one could click on a BB or D and send it back out of a TF.

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 12

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/7/2004 5:14:54 PM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

Hipper, iirc the squadron was withdrawn to Aden after the carrier raid. It indeed stayed withing the map area during the raid. I'm not sure how long it remained at Aden, but it was definitelly a withdrawal (Admirality or the War Office ordered it, it was not Sommerville, Wavell or anyone in India).

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: Only thing that's annoyed me with this setup so far is that I have to withdraw relatively good British destroyers while relatively (very) crapy Australian ones could do the same job:-). (Or the short legged Dutch destroyers which would be of much better use in the Medditeranean).

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 13

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/7/2004 7:09:31 PM

Williamb

Posts: 594
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Dayton Ohio
Status: offline

So how much is the cost for not withdrawing the Brits and when does it start to take effect ?

_____________________________

(in reply to Caranorn)

Post #: 14

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 9/7/2004 7:22:51 PM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

It is expensive to not remove ships, I think DD are around 200 PP and a BB or CV is 2000. It is in the rule book with a chart.

(in reply to Williamb)

Post #: 15

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 7/21/2006 1:44:03 PM

Yava

Posts: 2129
Joined: 7/21/2006
From: Poland/Kolobrzeg
Status: offline

Hello There. Well I like decided to reanimate this long dead thread... I have a small problem with the withdrawal of British ships... could someone briefly explain how to do it properly? I'm playing the Rising Sun scenario and well I'm supposed to withdraw a CL and 2 DD's as usuall for escort but hmm as I form the TF in Singapore and order it to return to Karachi it doesn't move since it has no endurance to get there? Have I missed something in the manual?

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 16

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 7/21/2006 3:20:51 PM

saj42

Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline

Create the TF, set 'home base' to Karachi, 'refuel from port' and click 'return to Karachi' at bottom of TF screen.

You do not have to withdraw ships - you could pay the penalty instead. you would loose 300 PP (political Points) per DD and I think 600PP for the CL - check the 'Information' screen. Most players here do not withdraw the Brit DDs as there are not many of them and they have good ASW ratings for the early war

_____________________________

Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Yava)

Post #: 17

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 7/21/2006 3:33:32 PM

Yava

Posts: 2129
Joined: 7/21/2006
From: Poland/Kolobrzeg
Status: offline

Thank You very much, it does work

I've read the topics about the withdrawal and I'm going to leave the DD's where they are since they are really helpful. Thanks fot the hint anyway

< Message edited by Yava -- 7/21/2006 3:34:57 PM >

(in reply to saj42)

Post #: 18

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 7/21/2006 5:16:04 PM

Johnny Sheff

Posts: 13
Joined: 7/21/2006
From: United Kingdom
Status: offline

wasn't the base that Somerville withdrew too called Addu atoll? if i remember correctly the base was "secret", the japanese had no idea it existed and in fact had been created for just such an incursion into the IO by the IJN. The british knew they couldn't hope to defeat the KB in a stand up fight and so opted for discretion as being the better part of valour and managed to maintain the Eastern Fleet as a force in being rather than as a force at the bottom of the IO

(in reply to Yava)

Post #: 19

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 7/21/2006 5:34:49 PM

Big B

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

I agree with Hipper.

IMO, the RN withdrawal system is unrealistic. For one, ONLY the RN is affected, and secondly - it has no tie to the strategic and tactical situation - at any time - to either the current situation in the Pacific OR Europe.

I would like to see it done away with completely, or modified so it is co-coordinated with events actually happening.

If the IJN is a current major threat to the Indian Ocean, there is no way the Admiralty will randomly require withdrawal of a CV for some supposed convoy to Russia - as far as I recall, there were no RN CVs withdrawn from India to participate in TORCH - so why have them randomly disappear through 1945?

It ONLY makes any sense if it is tied to the actual situation in the game, that is - when any reasonable naval threat is removed.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

caranorn

can't agree that Somerville withdrew in from the IO in the face of the Japanese during the Ceylon Raid They did base themselves at a new base .. cant remember the name of the island group, but they were at sea and on the map during the Raid.

Granted for the first time in 136 years they did not agressivley seek out the enemys main fleet but they were outnumbered 2 :1 in carriers and 3: 1 in aircraft

later on they did support the invasion of Madagascar granted off the map but major fleet unit withdrawals only took place after midway, and I suspect that if Ceylon had been invaded then, the build up in the Indain ocean would have been greater still.

granted the effects of that in europe and the atlantic would have been dramatic (convoys to russia abandoned) which is why the japanese player should get a VP bonus for increased allied ship commitment

this is pretty much a wish list item anyway dont see any changes being made in RN withdrawal .

cheers

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 20

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 7/21/2006 6:07:48 PM

niceguy2005

Posts: 12523
Joined: 7/4/2005
From: Super secret hidden base
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think withdrawl of units could and should be expanded to include units other than simply naval, and other than strictly British. Why should only British naval forces adhere to the demands made upon them by a global war? Sure would take some of the heat off Japan. I suspect the British withdrawl requirements owe their existence to an old Avalon Hill game "Victory inthe Pacific". Great idea but never taken to a universally more realistic level.

Interesting idea Ron, but why would it only work one way. IIRC the UK basically moved its forces around to counter the most immediate threats, thus forces flowed into and out of the Med.

In my PBEM India is under heavy attack, under such conditions not only would witdrawl of land units be unlikely, reinforcements should probably be accelerated.

Edit: Never mind Ron, I just realized you posted this in 2004.

< Message edited by niceguy2005 -- 7/21/2006 6:12:24 PM >

_____________________________

Artwork graciously provided by Dixie

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 21

RE: British Withdrawal - 7/21/2006 11:40:28 PM

Cap Mandrake

Posts: 23184
Joined: 11/15/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Interesting title for the thread. I was prepared to some discussion of British reproductive customs.

British Withdrawal:

"We don't need that thing. I'll pull out in time, Love,.... I promise"

(in reply to niceguy2005)

Post #: 22

RE: British Withdrawal - 7/22/2006 6:21:20 PM

Mark VII

Posts: 1838
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Brentwood,TN
Status: offline

Can't wait to see one of your nifty maps or drawings on this one Cap!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Interesting title for the thread. I was prepared to some discussion of British reproductive customs.

British Withdrawal:

"We don't need that thing. I'll pull out in time, Love,.... I promise"

_____________________________

(in reply to Cap Mandrake)

Post #: 23

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 7/22/2006 11:57:21 PM

saj42

Posts: 1125
Joined: 4/19/2005
From: Somerset, England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I agree with Hipper.

IMO, the RN withdrawal system is unrealistic. For one, ONLY the RN is affected, and secondly - it has no tie to the strategic and tactical situation - at any time - to either the current situation in the Pacific OR Europe.

I would like to see it done away with completely, or modified so it is co-coordinated with events actually happening.

If the British withdrawal system is an attempt to mimic the RL requirement to bolster the Home and Mediterranean Fleets due to ETO situation, thern by 44 the withdrawal requirement should cease. The Uboat threat was contained and Italian Navy out of the war so from Jan 44 CEASE THE WITHDRAWAL CODE

_____________________________

Banner by rogueusmc

(in reply to Big B)

Post #: 24

RE: Birtish Withdrawal - 7/23/2006 1:46:41 AM

Yava

Posts: 2129
Joined: 7/21/2006
From: Poland/Kolobrzeg
Status: offline

The fact is that it's kinda funny... the RN needed destroyers on the Atlantic not BB's... well at least not later in the war... I mean something like 1943.

(in reply to saj42)

Post #: 25

RE: British Withdrawal - 7/23/2006 1:50:51 AM

dtravel

Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Interesting title for the thread. I was prepared to some discussion of British reproductive customs.

British Withdrawal:

"We don't need that thing. I'll pull out in time, Love,.... I promise"

Why am I reminded of the Sex Education segment from "The Meaning of Life"?

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.