did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

did this change? land mvmnt rule???

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 >> did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 9:13:19 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

OK, Enemy pinned in Canton, I hold allthe other hex save opne disputed to the west, Then out of nowhere as I juggle troops around in the two hexes of road between Cantoon, jap help but contested, and Swatow, JAp held but contested.. he moves 58 units out of Canton on top of my unit in the road hex.. WTF.. My understanding is the units cannot move from a disputed hex to a hex in eitheer the ownership.. troops , or the control.. w key reveals this.. I definately had control!!! WTF

Post #: 1

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 9:37:01 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

Any of the mods taking note of this? Mr. Frag? Mogami?

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 2

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 9:38:54 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

It is possible that I had a unit move into the hex at the same time the Japs did.. but I still "owned" having moved in and out several units.... ok 83 to be exact.. see the aar there is even a recent pix showing the hex ownership

< Message edited by freeboy -- 5/4/2005 10:02:09 PM >

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 3

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 10:05:25 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

Don't see a recent pic with enough detail to matter. You trying to imply that a empty hex will block unit movement just because you moved through it and got your letter there?

Don't confuse supply movement with unit movement.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 4

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 10:11:43 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Don't see a recent pic with enough detail to matter. You trying to imply that a empty hex will block unit movement just because you moved through it and got your letter there?

Don't confuse supply movement with unit movement.

Wait a sec - i have not been able to move troops from one enemy ZOC to another, even if is empty or disputed (of course, not both at the same time). THis was is 1.4. I had guys trapped in Rangoon (enemy unit in hex) that couldn't leave until i brought someone down from Mandalay to "unblock" the empty hex (that had an enemy ZOC, but no unit). And if movement is NOT blocked by a enemy ZOC, what happened to the retreat rules where the units surrender because the empty hex is blocked by a ZOC ("the rumor of enemy troops...")

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 5

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 10:11:47 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

ok, so I was wrong in my understanding.. I bet alot of players thought of these hexes as controlled as I did.. thanks Frag! ZS's troops are going to be pretty upset about all those guys they meet on the road tomorrow!

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 6

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 10:13:39 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, so I was wrong in my understanding.. I bet alot of players thought of these hexes as controlled as I did.. thanks Frag! ZS's troops are going to be pretty upset about all those guys they meet on the road tomorrow!

Um - i agree with your original interpretation.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 7

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 10:34:07 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

It's not that simple ... you can't issue orders to a unit to move into a zone where a supply path can not be traced.

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 8

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 10:47:12 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It's not that simple ... you can't issue orders to a unit to move into a zone where a supply path can not be traced.

OK maybe i am confused. However, i iirc, the game keeps giving me messages to the effect "can't move directly from one enemy ZOC control to another" if i try ordering a unit to do so. Freeboy stated "My understanding is the units cannot move from a disputed hex to a hex in eitheer the ownership.. troops , or the control.. w key reveals this.. I definately had control!!! " which makes it at least SOUND like this is going on (one disputed ZOC hex to a hex exclusively under his control). I can't tell exactly what is happening from his picture...

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 9

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/4/2005 11:01:52 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

OK, Enemy pinned in Canton, I hold allthe other hex save opne disputed to the west, Then out of nowhere as I juggle troops around in the two hexes of road between Cantoon, jap help but contested, and Swatow, JAp held but contested.. he moves 58 units out of Canton on top of my unit in the road hex.. WTF.. My understanding is the units cannot move from a disputed hex to a hex in eitheer the ownership.. troops , or the control.. w key reveals this.. I definately had control!!! WTF

So - again - maybe i am confused.

Did the Japanese move directly from one Allied ZOC (disputed or not) not another Allied ZOC (disputed or not)?

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 10

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 12:18:48 AM

airtrooper

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline

From what I understand (I cant think of any hex based game I have played that has NOT worked like this) if a hex is under the infulance of an enemy ZOC ( in this games case has the other sides letter in the hex when you press w) you can not issue orders or get supplies into or thru that hex but if attacked and forced to retreat your units will be able to retreat into it unless enemy units are actually present.

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 11

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 12:23:56 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

From what I understand (I cant think of any hex based game I have played that has NOT worked like this) if a hex is under the infulance of an enemy ZOC ( in this games case has the other sides letter in the hex when you press w) you can not issue orders or get supplies into or thru that hex but if attacked and forced to retreat your units will be able to retreat into it unless enemy units are actually present.

Wow - if so this really contradicts stuff i thought i knew. I'll try finding a thread/post concerning this.

_____________________________

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 12

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 12:36:30 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

From what I understand (I cant think of any hex based game I have played that has NOT worked like this) if a hex is under the infulance of an enemy ZOC ( in this games case has the other sides letter in the hex when you press w) you can not issue orders or get supplies into or thru that hex but if attacked and forced to retreat your units will be able to retreat into it unless enemy units are actually present.

Did a search.

OK - try looking at this thread (bunch of stuff here, but ZOC retreats discussed by Mods/Developers): Is Land Combat Broken?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=854164

On the inability of troops to retreat into UNOCCUPIED ZOC, but surrendering instead (for Allies).

quote:

Hello...

The troops are not surrendering to 100 IJA. They are surrendering to the substantial force that just defeated them and caused the need for retreat, in the belief they are surrounded and have no retreat path.

There does not have to be even 1 IJA troop in the retreat hex, to block retreat. Just an enemy or contested or zone of control. If an enemy unit passed through an empty hex, establishing a zone of control and continued moving, and the retreat path indicated movement into that hex, the retreating unit would still surrender. Not to zero enemy troops, but to the troops that just defeated them. They would surrender in the BELIEF that they were surrounded.

Need to get back to work...

Michael Wood

Meanwhile - i still can't figure out if the Japanese in Freeboy's game moved directly from one ZOC to another.

_____________________________

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 13

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 12:47:26 AM

airtrooper

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline

ok I guess it does not work that way for this game...at least not supposed to work that way according to what these guys said.... but when I said I have never played a game that does this I just assumed that this one was the same because all the others I played had that rule.
I have not actually played this game that long but have always tried to make sure the units i wonted to surrender had at least one of my units in every hex around it and when I was unable to do so these units have retreated rather than been destroyed.

< Message edited by airtrooper -- 5/5/2005 12:48:29 AM >

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 14

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 1:17:56 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

ok I guess it does not work that way for this game...at least not supposed to work that way according to what these guys said.... but when I said I have never played a game that does this I just assumed that this one was the same because all the others I played had that rule.
I have not actually played this game that long but have always tried to make sure the units i wonted to surrender had at least one of my units in every hex around it and when I was unable to do so these units have retreated rather than been destroyed.

Yes - i do the same. I just know that if i don't, somehow the system will break down and they'll retreat into or move from one of my ZOCs to another.

_____________________________

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 15

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 2:21:08 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

ok, they not only got out into ahex that was maybe empty but definately a former owned and thus and "a" hew usingthe w key.. Now in three days they have marched 120 miles through one enemy unitand into enemy territory.. not on roads I cannot enven get my armor to move like this on a road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I would have known this it would have been easy to take one of the about 100 oer so units .. thas right.. into that hex.. I feel so violated.. need a shower

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 16

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 5:18:02 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, they not only got out into ahex that was maybe empty but definately a former owned and thus and "a" hew usingthe w key.. Now in three days they have marched 120 miles through one enemy unitand into enemy territory.. not on roads I cannot enven get my armor to move like this on a road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I would have known this it would have been easy to take one of the about 100 oer so units .. thas right.. into that hex.. I feel so violated.. need a shower

Sounds like the old RR "slingshot" feature/bug - sometimes you can move 90 miles in any direction if your unit is sitting on a rail hex.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 17

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 1:23:58 PM

kaiser73

Posts: 394
Joined: 7/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, they not only got out into ahex that was maybe empty but definately a former owned and thus and "a" hew usingthe w key.. Now in three days they have marched 120 miles through one enemy unitand into enemy territory.. not on roads I cannot enven get my armor to move like this on a road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I would have known this it would have been easy to take one of the about 100 oer so units .. thas right.. into that hex.. I feel so violated.. need a shower

don't understand. you mean that Zeta was able to move units out of a contested hex (JA ZOC) to an empty hex?
or that he was able to move from a contested hex to an enemy hex (controlled by you)?

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 18

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 3:58:14 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

don't understand. you mean that Zeta was able to move units out of a contested hex (JA ZOC) to an empty hex?
or that he was able to move from a contested hex to an enemy hex (controlled by you)?

I asked the same question. From his original post in this thread, it *appears* like it was from one contested hex to another. Looking at the MAP posted in his AAR (in a thread in the AAR forum) makes me think the original hex was NOT contested - so did not have an Allied ZOC. That's the only thing that makes sense to me - aside from a serious bug/redesign/feature. However, i don't think it is a bug/redesign/feature right now until definitely shown otherwise.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 5/5/2005 3:59:17 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to kaiser73)

Post #: 19

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 11:28:40 PM

Zeta16

Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline

Here is what happened on my end. I had my troops in Canton and they were on the move to one of the other bases down the coast when at 45 miles they were stop by one small unit from going into the the next hex. I tried to attack that hex but he land troops in the hex from the PI, about 80 divisions. So we had a battle there and I withdrawed my troops there to the base in the next hex. He followed me there and on my screen the hex became empty so I ordered my troops to march to another Japanese held city so they moved out.

_____________________________

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 20

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 11:33:04 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

Here is what happened on my end. I had my troops in Canton and they were on the move to one of the other bases down the coast when at 45 miles they were stop by one small unit from going into the the next hex. I tried to attack that hex but he land troops in the hex from the PI, about 80 divisions. So we had a battle there and I withdrawed my troops there to the base in the next hex. He followed me there and on my screen the hex became empty so I ordered my troops to march to another Japanese held city so they moved out.

I am still unclear. Were there enemy troops in your hex when you ordered the move to the "clear" hex? Were troops there when the move actually took place (ie - maybe this is a timing thing - enemy troops showed up after the move was ordered, but before the move took place?)

_____________________________

(in reply to Zeta16)

Post #: 21

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/5/2005 11:57:07 PM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

OK, MY COMPLETE BAD FOR LACK OF MAKINGHTIS CLEAR>>>

I surronded Canton wiht units, he is in Canto, I also have units in Canton I am nmoving units from the hex just to the right of canton into canton.. the hex becomes empty, at which time z's forces slinshot out of canton.. I at the same time get a new unit into this hex.. he then moves to cultivated hex next to Swatow, but now may be stuck there as I again am surrounding him.. this time he dies!!!!!

Swatow fell during this time frame

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 22

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/6/2005 12:09:45 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

If one of your units guarding a ZOC hex is very small or bunch of construction engineers, then I don't have a problem with retreating units move into their hex without surrendering. I like a little randomness in combat results and would hate to go back to board game type rules where X always beats Y with a dice roll greater then 2.

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 23

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/6/2005 12:26:13 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

OK, MY COMPLETE BAD FOR LACK OF MAKINGHTIS CLEAR>>>

I surronded Canton wiht units, he is in Canto, I also have units in Canton I am nmoving units from the hex just to the right of canton into canton.. the hex becomes empty, at which time z's forces slinshot out of canton.. I at the same time get a new unit into this hex.. he then moves to cultivated hex next to Swatow, but now may be stuck there as I again am surrounding him.. this time he dies!!!!!

Swatow fell during this time frame

OK - Japanese unit surrounded in Canton. Allied units also in Canton. Allied units surround Canton including hex directly to the east of Canton (call this hex A).

I *assume* there are no Japanese in hex A with the Allied unit as when the Allies vacate it, it becomes empty. (Let me know if this is wrong).

Japanese move from Canton to east (into hex A), at the same time Allied units move from hex A west into Canton and other Allied units move (from elsewhere) into hex A.

If i understand this, then he should be moving from one allied ZOC to another (not supposed to matter if the ZOC is disputed. This is NOT supposed to happen.

Of course, if i am mistinterpreting what you said let me know.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 24

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/6/2005 12:36:14 AM

Zeta16

Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline

I saw the hex open with nothing in it for a turn so I set my troops to move to another base and they moved out 2 turns later. They never should have got stuck there in the first place as I was one turn away from moving down the road with 400000 troops when 1 unit blocked it as his units from the North entered Canton the samr turn. So I could not move out and my troops from Swatow got to the block hex right when he started to land troops there from the sea. So maybe I should not have been able to move out of the hex, but there is no way 400000 troops should be blocked by one unit.

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 25

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/6/2005 12:43:05 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zeta16

I saw the hex open with nothing in it for a turn so I set my troops to move to another base and they moved out 2 turns later. They never should have got stuck there in the first place as I was one turn away from moving down the road with 400000 troops when 1 unit blocked it as his units from the North entered Canton the samr turn. So I could not move out and my troops from Swatow got to the block hex right when he started to land troops there from the sea. So maybe I should not have been able to move out of the hex, but there is no way 400000 troops should be blocked by one unit.

Except by the rules, of course. See the thread i referenced. 400,000 troops can be blocked by NO units at all - just the ZOC.

edit - i did not like this rule when it came out, but it was the rule. If they changed the rule, it would be nice to know.

< Message edited by rtrapasso -- 5/6/2005 12:44:36 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Zeta16)

Post #: 26

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/6/2005 12:46:59 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

According to the patch notes - they did fiddle with the ZOC movement, but it was supposed to prevent this sort of thing (but with AI).

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 27

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/6/2005 1:01:57 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

which patch? I didn't see that in 1.5??

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 28

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/6/2005 1:06:15 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

Yeah - its in there:

quote:

29) Under some circumstances, zones of control were not inhibiting computer controlled land unit movement. Fixed.

Not sure what they were referring to - but it sounds like the ZOC were not stopping AI from moving troops by the rules.

_____________________________

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 29

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule??? - 5/6/2005 1:27:03 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

ok, I guess you do not controll a hex per movement iunless a unit actually is in the hex, and units my leap over one another.. if passing in oppisate directions.. that is my all time wow...

quote:

there is no way 400000 troops should be blocked by one unit.

from Zeta16

I guess we know Z's favorite land movement/combat issue.. I agree that 400k to ? next to nothing is silly.. there should be a total number check to "violate" the rule in WITP2

< Message edited by freeboy -- 5/6/2005 1:31:25 AM >

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Page: [1] 2 next > >>