Allied Garrison in SRA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

loricas -> Allied Garrison in SRA (8/29/2009 2:17:08 PM)

with AE the allied must keep same LCU in specifical place to prevent partisan: ok but the question is WHY?

if i leave Batavia for exemple, empty, the Resource center here are all destroyed in few days..leaving Japan to pay for repair.

I think that a BIG mistake as made here



Mistmatz -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/29/2009 2:24:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loricas

with AE the allied must keep same LCU in specifical place to prevent partisan: ok but the question is WHY?

if i leave Batavia for exemple, empty, the Resource center here are all destroyed in few days..leaving Japan to pay for repair.

I think that a BIG mistake as made here



Did you actually do this? How much damage was inflicted over those few days?




loricas -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/29/2009 2:29:34 PM)

yes i made it as a test( the first time i made it in Rangoon do a mistake) around 10% in three days..

i put out combat unit leaving here only support...



sfbaytf -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/29/2009 3:20:48 PM)

This is a rather interesting conundrum. I think it could be considered realistic. Look at what happened in Iraq when there was a power vacuum. The people when wild and looted everything that wasn't nailed down. People will do whatever they can to survive and without military or police forces to keep order I could see how things could get out of control.

In game terms this brings up an potentially interesting allied strategy-scorched earth.

Ship off as much resources before capture and then abandon the resource centers and let them self destruct.



EwingNJ -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/29/2009 4:30:58 PM)

This was mentioned in a very early thread after AE first came out.  Sounds like house rule territory for PBEM games. 



stuman -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/29/2009 5:26:05 PM)

Seems logical to me, especially in certain locales. I bet that in just about every place in the world there would be vandalism of some sort if any kind of facility was left completely abandoned. I have some small amount of working knowledge of oil fields and refinerys. Neither one, but especially refinerys, can really be left untended, untouched, without something going wrong (well,except maybe a run-of- the-mill pump jack ).



herwin -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/29/2009 9:05:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loricas

with AE the allied must keep same LCU in specifical place to prevent partisan: ok but the question is WHY?

if i leave Batavia for exemple, empty, the Resource center here are all destroyed in few days..leaving Japan to pay for repair.

I think that a BIG mistake as made here


Now you begin to understand why those parts of the world had such large garrisons. Neither the Burmese nor the Indonesians were happy under colonial rule.



DSwain -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/29/2009 9:10:39 PM)

The British kept a small force - 500 men or so - under arms after the surrender was signed at the Ford factory in Singapore, specifically to keep order before (and, indeed, during) the Japanese entry to the city.



loricas -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 1:26:43 PM)

my trouble is not to have same place to garrison: the point is that in same places the penality to not have garrison is in fact a bonus...



Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 1:39:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Now you begin to understand why those parts of the world had such large garrisons. Neither the Burmese nor the Indonesians were happy under colonial rule.



At least until they had an opportunity to experiance "Japanese Liberation"! I to have a problem with the "partisan destruction" routine. It's not what happened. People just don't destroy their own livelyhoods as soon as the opportunity arises. What they do do is steal everything they can sell on the "black market". I think having undergarrisoned locations turn into "black holes" sucking up every supply point that comes through would be a better representation.



castor troy -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 1:45:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loricas

my trouble is not to have same place to garrison: the point is that in same places the penality to not have garrison is in fact a bonus...



for the Allied itīs ALWAYS a bonus now... move out your troops until all oil/resources/HI is destroyed, then move in again if you have a reason to defend that place... in PBEM, I see huge problem coming up when it comes down to all those places the Allied have to garrison where also oil or resources are present. Makes it easy for the Allied...

wonder what the devs were thinking in that case... [&:]



Shark7 -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 3:10:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: loricas

with AE the allied must keep same LCU in specifical place to prevent partisan: ok but the question is WHY?

if i leave Batavia for exemple, empty, the Resource center here are all destroyed in few days..leaving Japan to pay for repair.

I think that a BIG mistake as made here


It's really simple. The Netherlands had been under German occupation for nearly 2 years at this point, the natives were restless, and TBH, the Dutch never had a peacefull hold over Indonesia to begin with....they'd been putting down uprisings since the 1600s, and the quellings were usually very brutal.



spence -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 3:21:14 PM)

In these cases the partisan damage "rule" does exactly what the Allied Player would do since he doesn't have to answer to any "constituents" for his actions and has almost certainly no ability whatever to otherwise deny the resources to the other Player.



Kaletsch2007 -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 3:25:14 PM)

After starting my PBEM, i thought about that issue too. Should have requested a house rule, that forces my opponent to garrison up to the minimum requiered.

Easy solution would be, to make some units static.



Shark7 -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 3:51:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaletsch2007

After starting my PBEM, i thought about that issue too. Should have requested a house rule, that forces my opponent to garrison up to the minimum requiered.

Easy solution would be, to make some units static.


While it would be more realistic to let the resources be damaged, it also makes for a very boring end game when the Japanese player has no production. As AFBs you need to ask yourself which you want more, realism or a fun and challenging end game.



herwin -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 3:55:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: loricas

with AE the allied must keep same LCU in specifical place to prevent partisan: ok but the question is WHY?

if i leave Batavia for exemple, empty, the Resource center here are all destroyed in few days..leaving Japan to pay for repair.

I think that a BIG mistake as made here


It's really simple. The Netherlands had been under German occupation for nearly 2 years at this point, the natives were restless, and TBH, the Dutch never had a peacefull hold over Indonesia to begin with....they'd been putting down uprisings since the 1600s, and the quellings were usually very brutal.


Of the three colonial powers in South East Asia, the Dutch were the most brutal. The British--despite the policies shown in Rabbit-Proof Fence and A Passage to India--were the most civilised, and the French were somewhere in between. The natives had good reason to be restless.



Tiger_Rat -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 4:04:46 PM)

I can see that Rangoon is going to be destroyed before I can get to it against a Pbem apponent, as he will pull out of the City as soon as I take Pegu. I need the supply generated in Rangoon, because very little flows up from Thailand, and I don't want to run convoys till I have Singapore.



herwin -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 4:13:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiger_Rat

I can see that Rangoon is going to be destroyed before I can get to it against a Pbem apponent, as he will pull out of the City as soon as I take Pegu. I need the supply generated in Rangoon, because very little flows up from Thailand, and I don't want to run convoys till I have Singapore.


Plan for it. If he's declaring an open city, get your troops into it!



Shark7 -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (8/31/2009 4:15:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tiger_Rat

I can see that Rangoon is going to be destroyed before I can get to it against a Pbem apponent, as he will pull out of the City as soon as I take Pegu. I need the supply generated in Rangoon, because very little flows up from Thailand, and I don't want to run convoys till I have Singapore.


The good news is that the garrisons in Burma are very weak and can be relatively easily over-run by a moderate Japanese push. The bad news is that marching overland will take time to accomplish due to the poor infrastructure.

One note on Rangoon. It is a surrender trap, it is also little more than a bombing practice field for the Allied 4Es starting in around 6-42. I would not waste supply repairing it, or waste effort trying to take it intact.

I tend to run supplies into Bangkok by convoy, then fly them up to Moulmein by transport aircraft until I secure the route (by taking Singapore) to Moulmein. I do know the road network is better in AE, so Tavoy might be an option for convoy unload as well.



erstad -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/1/2009 4:26:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kaletsch2007

After starting my PBEM, i thought about that issue too. Should have requested a house rule, that forces my opponent to garrison up to the minimum requiered..


You can always ask your opponent if he would entertain a new restriction. A lot of folks are open to ongoing discussions, particularly with something new like AE, and particularly where the request makes sense. (And he might need to ask you for something sometime!)

In my game with aztez, I requested that he garrison the DEI sites, and he agreed. The burma sites are trashed, but I'm OK with that. (if I were to start a new game, I might ask for something different).



Mynok -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/1/2009 4:59:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Now you begin to understand why those parts of the world had such large garrisons. Neither the Burmese nor the Indonesians were happy under colonial rule.



At least until they had an opportunity to experiance "Japanese Liberation"! I to have a problem with the "partisan destruction" routine. It's not what happened. People just don't destroy their own livelyhoods as soon as the opportunity arises. What they do do is steal everything they can sell on the "black market". I think having undergarrisoned locations turn into "black holes" sucking up every supply point that comes through would be a better representation.


That's an intriguing idea, but I wonder if the natives really thought of western technology and industry as pertinent to their livelihoods? Seems just as reasonable they would have considered them artifacts of colonialism and destroyed them gleefully.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/1/2009 5:11:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok
That's an intriguing idea, but I wonder if the natives really thought of western technology and industry as pertinent to their livelihoods? Seems just as reasonable they would have considered them artifacts of colonialism and destroyed them gleefully.



The great majority of the people working on the docks and oilfields and factories and mines and such in colonial East Asia were locals. Europeans owned them, but native labor operated the plants. Labor often goes on strike, but they seldom burn down the factory. No factory, no job..., and they need the jobs to feed their families.

On the other hand, civilians stealing from anybodies military is a fine old tradition..., and was brought to near perfection by the citizens of Naples during the Second World War (when almost 40% of the supplies the Allies landed dissappeared into the black market).



Fishbed -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/1/2009 5:23:24 AM)

Maybe, but they wouldn't start to burn their own crops down, as it is nearly the case right now.... code wise I don't know what's possible, but looks to me that tuning down the initial rate of destruction or putting a delay (destructions wouldn't start before, say, 1 week) would kill part of the gamyness (An allied player wouldn't abandon a city too early, because any Japanese push would be able to take it under one week with minimalist destructions)



crsutton -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/1/2009 5:24:49 AM)

It is an interesting idea. Frankly, I was not aware I could do it. Now that I am aware, I don't think I will. Like said before. I have a great opponent and just want a fair game.




Chickenboy -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/1/2009 1:51:41 PM)

Since there is no 'wiring for destruction' abilities for the allies, I would not accept any HR that restricted my ability to destroy valuable IJ war booty. Anything that mimics planned 'scorched earth' is necessary to make up for the very unrealistic lack of ability to destroy refineries, oil storage facilities and major production plants.

If the code were changed to permit this intentional activity by engineers, I'd happily allow for cessation of partisan destructive activities.



Fishbed -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/2/2009 4:56:26 AM)

Yes I understand there's some scortched earth legitimate concern, but again, although I understand that right now
- there's already some system in place that is supposed to harm the installation when the Japanese take a DEI base (tell me if I am wrong)
- again destroying oil wells is fine, but for the moment it looks like everything standing is getting mercilessly trashed, which may be a little too much... Dutch soldiers didn't throw oil waste in the rice fields and set fire to it, or burnt down local shops and manufactures AFAIK.



Mynok -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/2/2009 5:02:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The great majority of the people working on the docks and oilfields and factories and mines and such in colonial East Asia were locals. Europeans owned them, but native labor operated the plants. Labor often goes on strike, but they seldom burn down the factory. No factory, no job..., and they need the jobs to feed their families.


Did they really? Or were they looking to snag some currency to better their lives? Thing is, we know nothing of the motivations of the natives, only the results. It's not a foregone conclusion they were dependent upon the Euros for survival.



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/2/2009 5:33:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
If the code were changed to permit this intentional activity by engineers, I'd happily allow for cessation of partisan destructive activities.

I think there already is code to permit destruction by engineers, but they destroy only if they are forced to retreat from the hex or are destroyed in combat. And the amount of destruction is random, supposedly influenced by the number of engineers (don't know if it was construction or combat engineers or both). At least that's the way it worked in stock WITP.



jomni -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/2/2009 6:20:33 AM)

Whoops!  This is a wakeup call for me.  I'm playing Japanese and in securing the Chinese front, I let the partisans party in the interior. Better watch the important cities.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Allied Garrison in SRA (9/2/2009 7:44:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Since there is no 'wiring for destruction' abilities for the allies, I would not accept any HR that restricted my ability to destroy valuable IJ war booty. Anything that mimics planned 'scorched earth' is necessary to make up for the very unrealistic lack of ability to destroy refineries, oil storage facilities and major production plants.

If the code were changed to permit this intentional activity by engineers, I'd happily allow for cessation of partisan destructive activities.


I'd go for this too. The Dutch engineers did a pretty good job of messing up the oil facilities in the NEI and they didn't have to wait until the Japs attacked or a 'retreat' from a hex.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7792969