I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (Full Version)

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



Message

ADB123 -> I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 11:21:36 AM)

I'm unhappy with Victory Point losses for bases that don't meet their garrison requirements.

Right at the start of the Campaign scenario there is a base in India that only has 19 combat points in it and a requirement for 20 for garrison, so it immediately causes a loss of a victory point. Therefore, I have to set the two units there to allow reinforcements in order to get the combat point level up to at least 20. The issue for me with this is that this particular base is in the middle of India, far from the Burmese front, and I have no good reason otherwise to give any reinforcements to the troops there - I'd rather save those reinforcements for the troops at the Burmese front.

Okay, that's a minor irritation, but what is worse is the situation in China and Burma. Rangoon and the Chinese coastal bases have garrison requirements for the Allies. This means that when I pull out my troops from those totally undefendable positions I lose victory points. My alternative is to leave troops in place to be surrounded and destroyed with ease by the Japanese.

If the objective of this is to force a player to keep troops in place, then the answer should be to make the troops static, not to punish the player by taking away victory points for making a tactical decision.

Sure, the "nuclear riot" approach that caused massive destruction of facilities wasn't good either, but this is an equally poor approach. The Devs ought to consider looking at alternatives for the next patch.



GB68 -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 11:49:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

I'm unhappy with Victory Point losses for bases that don't meet their garrison requirements.

Right at the start of the Campaign scenario there is a base in India that only has 19 combat points in it and a requirement for 20 for garrison, so it immediately causes a loss of a victory point. Therefore, I have to set the two units there to allow reinforcements in order to get the combat point level up to at least 20. The issue for me with this is that this particular base is in the middle of India, far from the Burmese front, and I have no good reason otherwise to give any reinforcements to the troops there - I'd rather save those reinforcements for the troops at the Burmese front.

Okay, that's a minor irritation, but what is worse is the situation in China and Burma. Rangoon and the Chinese coastal bases have garrison requirements for the Allies. This means that when I pull out my troops from those totally undefendable positions I lose victory points. My alternative is to leave troops in place to be surrounded and destroyed with ease by the Japanese.

If the objective of this is to force a player to keep troops in place, then the answer should be to make the troops static, not to punish the player by taking away victory points for making a tactical decision.

Sure, the "nuclear riot" approach that caused massive destruction of facilities wasn't good either, but this is an equally poor approach. The Devs ought to consider looking at alternatives for the next patch.



I have to say, that I'm beginning to agree. Although I generally play from the japanese side. Whilst I find the Japanese garrison requirements in China historic, the VP penalty is counter-productive. I thought China was unbalanced in favour of the Japanese, but this method used to counter that is severly punishing the aggressive player. Basically making it not worthwhile to go on the offensive as VP lost will be greater than VP gained.

Frankly , I preferred the previous base infrastructure damage. I think that should be applied on a random sliding scale. Which is what I beleive was the case before.



Andrew Brown -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 11:54:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68
Frankly , I preferred the previous base infrastructure damage. I think that should be applied on a random sliding scale. Which is what I beleive was the case before.


Unfortunately the old system was far too easy to take advantage of, by making it easy to apply a scorched earth policy by abandoning bases with factories present. After that was removed, there needed to be a penalty applied otherwise there would be little incentive to garrison bases at all.

I will have to check the India garrisons though, as it would be better to not have any undergarrisoned bases at game start.

Andrew



castor troy -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 11:59:01 AM)

I like the VP hit, especially as the IMO not so good idea of destroying factories more worked for the one that should have been hit by it, than for the enemy.



Mistmatz -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 12:43:26 PM)

I second that. VP penalty is the smarter way to deal with garrison requirements.

And yes, it might place a burden on the aggressive player as well, but thats just realistic. If you want something you have to think about the investment beforehand and cannot leave vast majorities of occupied land unguarded. Additionally its already possibly to play in a hyperaggressive way which is far from historical realities. If this system helps to limit this a bit more - all the better.



GB68 -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 12:58:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68

Basically making it not worthwhile to go on the offensive as VP lost will be greater than VP gained.




I think this is the key sentence in what I was trying to say. I did some rough calculations in my head upon starting my new PBEM(s) and basically discovered VP-wise it is beneficial for the Japanese to maintain the status quo for at least the first 4 to 6 months of the war.

Anyway, maybe that is just me, I know new stratagies are needed in China and I'm happy to play very conservatively there. I just felt the approach is wrong.

My suggestion, is to change it back to the previous base damage system with also the potential of a "coup d'etat" situation if the garrison is low or non-existent. So, basically the player has the chance of partisans occupying the base for the opposing side if they leave the base unoccupied or with a very low garrison. Any thoughts from the Developers? Just a thought, be interested to hear others thoughts too.






Mike Scholl -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 1:00:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Unfortunately the old system was far too easy to take advantage of, by making it easy to apply a scorched earth policy by abandoning bases with factories present. After that was removed, there needed to be a penalty applied otherwise there would be little incentive to garrison bases at all.

I will have to check the India garrisons though, as it would be better to not have any under-garrisoned bases at game start.

Andrew


That's the KEY Andrew. Just make sure that all the bases requiring a garrison BEGIN the scenario with the garrison requirement met. If a player wants to spend the VP's to move units out, make it HIS choice.



Smeulders -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 1:33:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68

Basically making it not worthwhile to go on the offensive as VP lost will be greater than VP gained.




I think this is the key sentence in what I was trying to say. I did some rough calculations in my head upon starting my new PBEM(s) and basically discovered VP-wise it is beneficial for the Japanese to maintain the status quo for at least the first 4 to 6 months of the war.

Anyway, maybe that is just me, I know new stratagies are needed in China and I'm happy to play very conservatively there. I just felt the approach is wrong.

My suggestion, is to change it back to the previous base damage system with also the potential of a "coup d'etat" situation if the garrison is low or non-existent. So, basically the player has the chance of partisans occupying the base for the opposing side if they leave the base unoccupied or with a very low garrison. Any thoughts from the Developers? Just a thought, be interested to hear others thoughts too.



I'd be interested in those calculations, I'm not very familiar with the Japanese situation in China after the patch, but for this to be true it's impossible to find one or two divisions for a limited offensive without going over the garrison requirements.



carnifex -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 4:46:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

This means that when I pull out my troops from those totally undefendable positions I lose victory points. My alternative is to leave troops in place to be surrounded and destroyed with ease by the Japanese.


The people demand protection. They don't care about your tactical issues. They want to see soldiers patrolling the streets, not cravenly running away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

If the objective of this is to force a player to keep troops in place, then the answer should be to make the troops static, not to punish the player by taking away victory points for making a tactical decision.


If you don't move them then you won't lose victory points. It's the same as them being static. If you think you can make up those VPs later then you have an option to pull them out.



fbs -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 4:49:53 PM)


I'm happy with the VP/garrison system.

Whether the garrison requirements should be tuned up/down, that I don't know. Also, I don't know about keeping garrison tied to assault strength (you don't need tanks or artillery to fight partisans/riots). But tying low garrison to VP losses, that I'm quite happy and I think it is a good choice.

By the way, about going banzai on China... that is unhistorical. Japan was as stretched as they could in China, and no way they could achieve military victory (that's just my two cents).

Thanks,
fbs



Shark7 -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 5:02:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs


I'm happy with the VP/garrison system.

Whether the garrison requirements should be tuned up/down, that I don't know. Also, I don't know about keeping garrison tied to assault strength (you don't need tanks or artillery to fight partisans/riots). But tying low garrison to VP losses, that I'm quite happy and I think it is a good choice.

By the way, about going banzai on China... that is unhistorical. Japan was as stretched as they could in China, and no way they could achieve military victory (that's just my two cents).

Thanks,
fbs


Good point fbs. Support units would be effective in garrisoning a base, as its not high powered weapon systems you need but manpower.



findmeifyoucan -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 5:08:59 PM)

I also agree with the VP requirement but also agree that at game start you should at least have the garrison requirement to start rather than to be losing VP's right off the start. Yes, let the player make the decision whether to move those units and suffer the VP penalty.

I also agree that the old way did not work as the Japanese could go on a Scorched Earth policy vacating let us say Korea and Manchuria and wife out China/Burma/India in short fashion.



Jim D Burns -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 7:07:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs
Also, I don't know about keeping garrison tied to assault strength (you don't need tanks or artillery to fight partisans/riots).


China is/was a special case. It wasn't partisans they had to worry about (though there were plenty of those) so much as actual Chinese military formations. There were huge swaths of territory behind Japanese lines that were full of Chinese combat formations. That's why Japan had to leave such strong garrisons all along their transportation nets.

It wasn't a rail line being blown up they were worried about so much as it was an attack wiping out not just the trains but the stations and all the supply troops for hundreds of miles around. They needed strong combat troops to prevent this from happening.

And they launched many punishment campaigns into the surrounding rear areas to punish the Chinese whenever these combat formations did anything too mischievous. A good example would be the campaigns in eastern China that Japan launched after the Doolittle raids. Japan thought that the planes may have come from airfields in the unoccupied regions so they launched land campaigns to wipe out these bases.

Stillwell sent one of his guys on an inspection tour of the bases after the Japanese had left, and basically all they did was cut 40 foot trenches across all the airfields and then left. So the damage was quickly repaired and the status quo restored in those areas in no time.

Some damage had been done initially to the Chinese military units in the area, but soon they simply faded away into the local populace and waited. After Japan left they reformed.

Jim



oldman45 -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 7:19:01 PM)

As the allied player at first I didn't like the new garrison rules but I have gotten used to it and have adjusted accordingly.



JeffroK -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 8:37:31 PM)

Got no problems with the new system, if there is a garrison requirement I try to fulfil it. If this means moving a Battalion around so be it. If I need to keep a Division in Madras, bugger. But I wait until I can get enough AP in place and then release it (I have it training in the interim).

Dont look at the little picture a needing to garrison some small town in Burma, look at the bigger picture of both side having to leave substantial numbers of troops in rear areas to keep control, as IRL, versus stacking the front line with every possible LCU.



BaitBoy -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 8:51:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68

Basically making it not worthwhile to go on the offensive as VP lost will be greater than VP gained.




I think this is the key sentence in what I was trying to say. I did some rough calculations in my head upon starting my new PBEM(s) and basically discovered VP-wise it is beneficial for the Japanese to maintain the status quo for at least the first 4 to 6 months of the war.

Anyway, maybe that is just me, I know new stratagies are needed in China and I'm happy to play very conservatively there. I just felt the approach is wrong.

My suggestion, is to change it back to the previous base damage system with also the potential of a "coup d'etat" situation if the garrison is low or non-existent. So, basically the player has the chance of partisans occupying the base for the opposing side if they leave the base unoccupied or with a very low garrison. Any thoughts from the Developers? Just a thought, be interested to hear others thoughts too.



I'd be interested in those calculations, I'm not very familiar with the Japanese situation in China after the patch, but for this to be true it's impossible to find one or two divisions for a limited offensive without going over the garrison requirements.


I was able to find three divisions for offensive operations and various smaller units. It is possible to conduct an offensive as Japan, but not a big one and not every where.



ADB123 -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 9:21:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68
Frankly , I preferred the previous base infrastructure damage. I think that should be applied on a random sliding scale. Which is what I beleive was the case before.


Unfortunately the old system was far too easy to take advantage of, by making it easy to apply a scorched earth policy by abandoning bases with factories present. After that was removed, there needed to be a penalty applied otherwise there would be little incentive to garrison bases at all.

I will have to check the India garrisons though, as it would be better to not have any undergarrisoned bases at game start.

Andrew


Andrew -

The Indian base that started out with insufficient garrison was Sialkot. There was no "slack" given, the starting garrison was 19, the requirement was 20, so the game docked 1 Victory Point. (I thought that I remembered in the earlier patch that there was some threshold before partisan action started.)

I gave this some thought after I posted my original comment and I feel that a loss of Political Points would be more appropriate than Victory Points, and similarly effective, particularly during the early stages of the game.

Thanks for your comment.



khyberbill -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 10:46:26 PM)

I disagree with you regarding garrison duty in India. There was much unrest in India, especially following the massacre of innocent men, women and children in Amritsar in the early 20's. I tend to agree with you regarding China. But, I would rather lose the VP then the entire corps, so I will move them. AE is harsh on the Allies in China.



Cap Mandrake -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 11:02:21 PM)

The undergarrisoning (if that is a word) of a city certainly has a political implication. A good example was Hong Kong. Given that the South China Sea was a Japanese lake by late 1941, the city was indefensible. Churchill new this but he still "ordered" a couple of new batalions of Canadians there right before the flag went up.

A political point penalty to the Allies does make some sense. In the case of the Indian city mentioned 30 points in a month would stop a couple of PBY squadrons from moving out of the PI, for eg.



ADB123 -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/15/2009 11:17:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

The undergarrisoning (if that is a word) of a city certainly has a political implication. A good example was Hong Kong. Given that the South China Sea was a Japanese lake by late 1941, the city was indefensible. Churchill new this but he still "ordered" a couple of new batalions of Canadians there right before the flag went up.

A political point penalty to the Allies does make some sense. In the case of the Indian city mentioned 30 points in a month would stop a couple of PBY squadrons from moving out of the PI, for eg.


Actually, the PI Cats are Asiatic Fleet in AE, so they aren't restricted and you can fly them out at no cost. But your point is well taken. There are lots of other units that are tempting to convert - a shortage of PPs does put a serious constraint on ambitious conversions.



Nemo121 -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/16/2009 12:52:02 AM)

One issue though....

What happens if you play a game in which VP are irrelevant to the players?

It seems that this rule is an example of the game working IF and only if it is played the way the developers designed it to be played. If you make different strategic positions then the code doesn't have the resilience to cope.



spence -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/16/2009 12:53:47 AM)

What?

Wasn't it because the tender-hearted Japanese were afraid of causing civilian casualties and unnecessary destruction of private property that they halted their initial successful offensives (1937-38) to bring down the craven regime of Chang Kai Shek.

The garrison requirements should be removed immediately so that the aggressive IJ Player can do what he wants with all those troops sitting around in civic action corps as there were no real life constraints on the total freedom of Japanese actions.



khyberbill -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/16/2009 1:03:15 AM)

quote:

The Indian base that started out with insufficient garrison was Sialkot.


Having lived in Sialkot as a child, I wonder what factory was there in the 40's to worry about? It was certainly gone by the time I showed up. There is a bridge there over the Chenab river, and that bridge was/is the link between Peshawar and Lahore and would be worth garrisoning. In fact all the bridges from the Khyber Pass to Lahore were well guarded in that time period. The one at Sialkot was well guarded in the 50's and 60's by the Pakistani Army. I recall jeeps on each end fitted out with 105mm recoiless rifles. I was rather pleased to see Sialkot show up in AE though! Thanks Andy!



stuman -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/16/2009 4:59:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

What?

Wasn't it because the tender-hearted Japanese were afraid of causing civilian casualties and unnecessary destruction of private property that they halted their initial successful offensives (1937-38) to bring down the craven regime of Chang Kai Shek.

The garrison requirements should be removed immediately so that the aggressive IJ Player can do what he wants with all those troops sitting around in civic action corps as there were no real life constraints on the total freedom of Japanese actions.


I have to disagree with you there. If you are saying that the Japanese had absolutely no need, what-so-ever to leave any troops in any Chinese city at any time, then I do not think that reflects a realistic understanding of the realities of the issues the Japanese occupation forces faced.



bklooste -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/16/2009 8:41:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs



By the way, about going banzai on China... that is unhistorical. Japan was as stretched as they could in China, and no way they could achieve military victory (that's just my two cents).

Thanks,
fbs




Thats not true at all , they lost the 2nd battle of Changsha after being surounded and decided the rest of China wasnt worth it ..When the US started baseing bombers in 44 they launched a major offensive that captured huge chunks of China but they could not hold / garrison it. They were a lot more stretched in 44 than 41.

I think spreading the CHinese Light industry and the Garrison system captures this quite well.



Fishbed -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/16/2009 10:11:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GB68

I thought China was unbalanced in favour of the Japanese, but this method used to counter that is severly punishing the aggressive player. Basically making it not worthwhile to go on the offensive as VP lost will be greater than VP gained.



Well if so, it sounds perfectly right to me...!!!



Fishbed -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/16/2009 10:14:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

What?

Wasn't it because the tender-hearted Japanese were afraid of causing civilian casualties and unnecessary destruction of private property that they halted their initial successful offensives (1937-38) to bring down the craven regime of Chang Kai Shek.

The garrison requirements should be removed immediately so that the aggressive IJ Player can do what he wants with all those troops sitting around in civic action corps as there were no real life constraints on the total freedom of Japanese actions.


I have to disagree with you there. If you are saying that the Japanese had absolutely no need, what-so-ever to leave any troops in any Chinese city at any time, then I do not think that reflects a realistic understanding of the realities of the issues the Japanese occupation forces faced.


Don't bother, Spence is just being sarcastic. That's twice in the same day, sounds like he had a rough time or something like that which could explain why he apparently just can't say things nicely without behaving like an a*s.



Andy Mac -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/16/2009 2:26:11 PM)

If VP are irrelevant to players you are going to ignore auto victory and play through anyway so just ignore the impact totally.

Or via the editor you can go through and set the garrison values to zero ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

One issue though....

What happens if you play a game in which VP are irrelevant to the players?

It seems that this rule is an example of the game working IF and only if it is played the way the developers designed it to be played. If you make different strategic positions then the code doesn't have the resilience to cope.




Andrew Brown -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/17/2009 12:01:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

One issue though....

What happens if you play a game in which VP are irrelevant to the players?


VP loss is not the only penalty. There are effects on supplies and supply paths as well.

Andrew



bradfordkay -> RE: I'm unhappy with VP losses for garrison shortages (12/17/2009 4:44:53 AM)

Andrew (or anyone in the know), could you elaborate on that last part. The game manual doesn't mention any effect upon supply paths, so it would be nice to have an idea as to what this is all about. 



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.03125