PP's used for forces

PP's used for forces (Full Version)

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

Message

Zigurat666 -> PP's used for forces (12/16/2019 8:34:29 PM)
Im definitely not an expert at the game so input is required from some veterans. My opponent asked this pertaining to our game and frankly I never really understood why its a house rule either "I see a lot of the house rule that you need to pay political points before you move forces thrown around in the forum. What I am asking, and what I don't yet understand, is whether there is a loophole that allows you to avoid that. From my limited understanding of the game mechanics, it seems that you have to pay PP anyways before you can move restricted forces. Can you shed some light on this?"

kbfchicago -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/16/2019 8:55:36 PM)
For borders that require transport (e.g. U.S. into the Pacific theater) you must pay for a unit to change from restricted to an unrestricted command. For borders that do not require transport, e.g. Manchuria to China or India to Burma you can cross at will without paying the cost. House rule targets those "soft" boarders that will allow you to cross restricted units without changing commands.

geofflambert -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/16/2019 9:00:15 PM)
That's maybe the one house rule I like, and I'm doing that even though my current game has no house rules. If you can't load them on a ship, pay the PPs to cross a border on land.

Anachro -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/16/2019 9:07:29 PM)
There's also the loophole of not paying full PP by transferring units to air commands, etc.

dr.hal -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/16/2019 10:27:26 PM)
This whole system of PPs was incorporated into the game to bring political considerations into the strategic and at times tactical play. For example, the Dutch have forces throughout the islands and their "R" status prevents a player from concentrating those forces, lets say in Java or any other single location. This is a reflection of the political reality facing the Dutch government in December 1941. A small workaround to this "rule" is for the Allied player to use the Dutch search aircraft (and their transport a/c) to move those forces around (albeit at a far slower pace). Now in many respects this concept doesn't go far enough. Many Allied players do a "Sir Robin" in relation to Singapore and other "hopeless" places that might not be held against the Japanese onslaught. Yet, there are many Allied forces that are NOT restricted (by the "R" command allocation) and can be moved without paying political points. One could establish a house rule to prevent this, but then how far does this go???? I guess it comes down to how much "political reality" the players want to inject in the game. Which I believe is the beauty of the game, one can tailor it to fit one's needs.

GetAssista -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/17/2019 12:55:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anachro There's also the loophole of not paying full PP by transferring units to air commands, etc. To elaborate, you pay 1/4 pp to reassign command inside the theatre command group. Some important theatres with many initially restricted LCUs have unrestricted subcommands, mostly air. If you use those to unrestrict LCUs it is usually considered unfair. Word “full” in the usual houserule of “Full PPs paid” presumes that you dont do that. The exception is Australian command that has unrestricted subcommand Aus corp 1 or The other important followup is that you pay pp for individual airgroups, not their air HQs

ITAKLinus -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/17/2019 2:19:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: Anachro There's also the loophole of not paying full PP by transferring units to air commands, etc. To elaborate, you pay 1/4 pp to reassign command inside the theatre command group. Some important theatres with many initially restricted LCUs have unrestricted subcommands, mostly air. If you use those to unrestrict LCUs it is usually considered unfair. Word “full” in the usual houserule of “Full PPs paid” presumes that you dont do that. The exception is Australian command that has unrestricted subcommand Aus corp 1 or The other important followup is that you pay pp for individual airgroups, not their air HQs Hola GetAssista, can you explain me why the I Australian Corps is treated differently? I've never made distinctions for those guys [:D]

BBfanboy -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/17/2019 4:33:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dr.hal This whole system of PPs was incorporated into the game to bring political considerations into the strategic and at times tactical play. For example, the Dutch have forces throughout the islands and their "R" status prevents a player from concentrating those forces, lets say in Java or any other single location. This is a reflection of the political reality facing the Dutch government in December 1941. A small workaround to this "rule" is for the Allied player to use the Dutch search aircraft (and their transport a/c) to move those forces around (albeit at a far slower pace). Now in many respects this concept doesn't go far enough. Many Allied players do a "Sir Robin" in relation to Singapore and other "hopeless" places that might not be held against the Japanese onslaught. Yet, there are many Allied forces that are NOT restricted (by the "R" command allocation) and can be moved without paying political points. One could establish a house rule to prevent this, but then how far does this go???? I guess it comes down to how much "political reality" the players want to inject in the game. Which I believe is the beauty of the game, one can tailor it to fit one's needs. You can concentrate the Dutch forces by airlifting them to Java. Forces from the Philippines and Malaya can be moved by air temporarily to a valid location for their HQ while you are building up PP to buy them out and move them further.

GetAssista -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/17/2019 6:26:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus Hola GetAssista, can you explain me why the I Australian Corps is treated differently? I've never made distinctions for those guys [:D] It is not the air group but land command, and it is practically the only non-air unrestricted subcommand with a lot of restricted LCUs in the 1/4PP zone. I get I Aus Corp is there for a reason - to use it to free up Aus forces for the island war cause they are limited, strong and have nowhere else to go. At least from the designer's point of view. Surely each individual player is eligible for having his own view on PPs usage for OZ land units. I think that unrestricted air commands like 13th for Japan are also there for a reason - to have different options available for the players should they decide to play a game with rapid unrestriction (1/4 pp for all).

BBfanboy -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/17/2019 10:09:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus Hola GetAssista, can you explain me why the I Australian Corps is treated differently? I've never made distinctions for those guys [:D] It is not the air group but land command, and it is practically the only non-air unrestricted subcommand with a lot of restricted LCUs in the 1/4PP zone. I get I Aus Corp is there for a reason - to use it to free up Aus forces for the island war cause they are limited, strong and have nowhere else to go. At least from the designer's point of view. Surely each individual player is eligible for having his own view on PPs usage for OZ land units. I think that unrestricted air commands like 13th for Japan are also there for a reason - to have different options available for the players should they decide to play a game with rapid unrestriction (1/4 pp for all). The 13th is an Air HQ, right? I think the designers' intention must have been to allow Air Units and BFs to be bought out to that HQ and moved, but not LCUs. One could make some argument that the LCU guarding an air base should be attached to the Air HQ, but in real life it would remain under Army control and the job of guarding the airfield would be a task assigned, not a transfer to the Air HQ.

Ian R -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/18/2019 1:56:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ITAKLinus ......can you explain me why the I Australian Corps is treated differently? It is an historically accurate portrayal. Australia started WW2 with two armies - the small regular professional army, whose members supplied some higher command officers, but more importantly the technical specialist staff officers, logisticians, NCOs to train the troops etc. It had no large ground combat units in September 1939. The second army was the militia, or CMF ("citizen's military forces") which was renamed AMF (Australian military forces). As the name suggests, this was the part time force made up of citizen soldiers (and officers). This force had 5 divisions of infantry (numbered 1 to 5), some cavalry units etc. The deployment of this force was restricted by law to Australian territory - which includes mandate territory such as Papua New Guinea, but NOT the NEI or Solomon islands. The law was changed in February 1943 to permit deployment south of the equator between Java and the Solomons. 3 Division HQS and several brigades (3rd, 5th, 11th Divisions) from the AMF were deployed in that expanded area. So when you buy out some restricted AMF divisions, you are in effect passing the amendment bill that enabled wider deployment. Note this was a conscript force during the war. Before 1943, the AIF called the AMF the koalas - you weren't allowed to shoot or export them. After September 1939, Australia decided to form a third army, being the second AIF (Australian Imperial Force). It is the second one, because the first one was formed for WW1. This took divisions numbers 6 to 9, and in 1945 10th division was to be reformed as an AIF division for Coronet. It also contained 1st Armoured Division, a unit designed to go to North Africa, but which stayed in Western Australia after 411207, and was eventually stood down. The AIF was an all volunteer force, all aged 21+ (at first) and could be sent anywhere in the world. The bird forces built from 23rd Brigade battalions were AIF units. Hence those divisions, and the I corps HQ, are unrestricted. (1st Armoured is restricted, in the game, but was not in real life; its non deployment off shore was a matter of unsuitability for jungle-mountain warfare). During the course of the war the inevitable happened, and the various units ended up with a mix of AIF, AMF, and occasionally even some regular army, personnel. So a rule was also brought in that if 75% of a unit was AIF persons, or 65% of a unit voted to transfer to the AIF, (% might be the other way round) the rest were "deemed to have volunteered". There was at least one AMF unit that volunteered, and never left home soil. [ Those division numbers were used, not only because the AMF were using 1-5, but because the first AIF in WW1 used division numbers 1-5. Similarly, the 2nd AIF brigades in WW2 start at number 16. This is also why many AIF unit designations have a '2/' in front of them. It is the second time an AIF used those designations for battalions etc.]

BBfanboy -> RE: PP's used for forces (12/18/2019 6:44:29 AM)
I suspect the reason for the unrestricted 1st Australian Corps HQ is to let the player buy out Aussie units to move to Australia's offshore bases by ship. Port Moresby, Milne Bay, Rabaul, etc. certainly could use reinforcement by any Allied player who wanted to make a fight for those. There is not enough time or PP to pay full price. IMO, using that Corps HQ to pay 1/4 PP after the Japanese have been stopped and Australian bases recaptured is overusing the privilege. I.E. pay full price for units going beyond Australia's starting territories.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875