RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (Full Version)

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



Message

Bif1961 -> RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/5/2016 9:57:30 AM)

I need a poll answered. Many Japanese players use elements of the Royal Thailand Army, RTA, in Burma, should they pay or not pay Political Points before their use?[&:]



RogerJNeilson -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/5/2016 10:33:24 AM)

As far as I am concerned, feel free, they are rubbish and might as well die elsewhere as back in Thailand.Once the Allied forces start to get decent combat experience and equipment they cannot stand against much in the Allied inventory. Never having played the Empire I have no idea whether in the totality of things the expenditure or not of PPs will make any significant difference.

Roger



Jorge_Stanbury -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/5/2016 12:36:21 PM)

RTA units are permanent restricted

paying PP won't work. because you simply can't change HQs.


most PBEM games have a house rule that you can only cross national borders after paying PP. Hence, in most games this is not allowed.

That said, in both PBEM games I am playing (as both Allied and Japan), we allow Thai and Chinese troops in Burma
As Roger said, it is not a big deal, as these troops are good for garrison at most.

"Assault Value" is, purposely, one of the most deceptive values in this game.



kbfchicago -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/5/2016 1:05:14 PM)

Allowed.

However, when I play AI as IJ limit myself to S. of Mandaly Leshio line (essentially garrison duty around Rangoon)

As a related exception, we have allowed Allied units to Akyab (just the two hexes South of India connected by road to India) without PP buy out. If they go South of the Naaf River, PPs must be paid first.



Bif1961 -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/5/2016 2:23:13 PM)

As far as I am concerned, feel free, they are rubbish and might as well die elsewhere as back in Thailand.Once the Allied forces start to get decent combat experience and equipment they cannot stand against much in the Allied inventory. Never having played the Empire I have no idea whether in the totality of things the expenditure or not of PPs will make any significant difference.

Roger







Thank you for your response.



Bif1961 -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/5/2016 2:24:07 PM)

RTA units are permanent restricted

paying PP won't work. because you simply can't change HQs.


most PBEM games have a house rule that you can only cross national borders after paying PP. Hence, in most games this is not allowed.

That said, in both PBEM games I am playing (as both Allied and Japan), we allow Thai and Chinese troops in Burma
As Roger said, it is not a big deal, as these troops are good for garrison at most.

"Assault Value" is, purposely, one of the most deceptive values in this game.





That has been my experience in the several games I have played. The RTA HQ is a subordinate to the Southern Japanese Army and that can be changed with PPs.



Bif1961 -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/5/2016 2:25:29 PM)

Allowed.

However, when I play AI as IJ limit myself to S. of Mandaly Leshio line (essentially garrison duty around Rangoon)

As a related exception, we have allowed Allied units to Akyab (just the two hexes South of India connected by road to India) without PP buy out. If they go South of the Naaf River, PPs must be paid first.








There are several examples where prior agreement would work out the rough spots, thanks for your reply.



JeffroK -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/5/2016 10:39:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kbfchicago

Allowed.

However, when I play AI as IJ limit myself to S. of Mandaly Leshio line (essentially garrison duty around Rangoon)

As a related exception, we have allowed Allied units to Akyab (just the two hexes South of India connected by road to India) without PP buy out. If they go South of the Naaf River, PPs must be paid first.


Almost ditto

Allowed to take Moulmein and all places south, I also allow them into Malaya and occupy Penang & Kota Bharu.

While pretty weak, behind 6 forts they take some prying out.



leehunt27@bloomberg.net -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/8/2016 8:53:43 PM)

Allowed- its not a game changer no matter what. Also makes sense if Japan was "winning" that they would want a share of the spoils gained by adventuring over the border.



Bif1961 -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (3/28/2016 5:54:12 PM)

Thanks to those who responded it seems that the consensus is that they are typically allowed into Burma and Malaya with some restrictions that are previously agree upon. [:)]



Alpha77 -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (4/3/2016 2:32:08 PM)

I use them anywhere I can get them. The AI uses Canadian mounties on pacific islands too :)

And they are not as "rubbish" as pointed out, they are good garrison troops and can also gain some exp.

But it is indeed better to put some restrictions on yourself if playing vs. AI.



John B. -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (4/3/2016 10:06:25 PM)

I agree. We use Burma as a cockpit. Anyone can go in there. And, we let the Chinese into Vietnam (or we would but we've never gotten there) since historically Chinese units occupied Hanoi. Anything else and you have to pay PP. The RTA is sort of like the burmese troops, not that good but with forts can help protect against air drops behind the lines.



Macclan5 -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (4/4/2016 8:25:21 PM)

Wikipedia suggests that the RTA (and Indian National Army) were not deployed in such a fashion till 10 May 1942....

I have no information that would refute such a statement.

Question 1 - Does "real life" historical dates factor into such house rules ?




Alpha77 -> RE: RTA used in Burma to pay or not pay PPs? (4/4/2016 8:53:48 PM)

Isnt this only 1 div plus 1 cav unit in game that can be moved at all ? And a weak div at that. Maybe too much hassle for such weak force ? [:)]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.593994