Pts for lack of garrisons in India

Pts for lack of garrisons in India (Full Version)

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

Message

spence -> Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 1:46:34 AM)
It's October 1944 and Japan is quite clearly losing the war (its a PBEM and I am the Allies - BTW this is the first time ever that I have gotten to this point in the war). I haven't been especially keeping track of this but it sure seems that low garrison levels in India are leading to a higher level of victory pts being awarded the Japanese Player than when the Japanese were winning in the early years (41-43). I can't say I know much about the Indian Independence movement but it sorta seems that betting on the loser in a war is not the smartest choice. Is there something I'm missing?

geofflambert -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 1:56:25 AM)
The independence movement didn't bet on a loser - the British Empire. It was a danger to the war effort throughout and to the empire afterward. The Chinese independence movement was no slouch when the Japanese were winning.

Ian R -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 2:11:14 AM)
Yes - you are missing some garrisons [;)]

Ian R -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 2:26:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert The independence movement didn't bet on a loser - the British Empire. It was a danger to the war effort throughout and to the empire afterward. The Chinese independence movement was no slouch when the Japanese were winning. The Brits did a deal with the Congress party - a tacit moratorium whilst the Japanese were defeated, followed by dominion status (i.e. like Canada/Australia/NZ) immediately post war. Ghandi, who preached non violent resistance, entered the agreement with the Viceroy (Lord Linlithgow) after the August 1942 riots. quote: Let me examine the Government offer. "It is that, as soon as hostilities cease, India shall devise for herself, with full freedom of decision and on a basis embracing all and not only a single party, the form of Government which she regards as most suited to her conditions." Full text of this letter is here: https://www.mkgandhi.org/selectedletters/85lord_linlithgow.htm Edit: After the war ended, the Congress party and the Muslim league could not agree on a federal government model that satisfied everyone, and Pakistan separated from India - the 'partition' solution - with east Pakistan later becoming Bangladesh. By 1946 the two groups were at each other's throats and a period of ethnic/religious migration followed. By this time the last Viceroy (Mountbatten) was under instructions to sort out whatever face-saving deal he could, and get out with a few thin strands of dignity left. India thus became a Commonwealth dominion, first, and after a constitutional referendum a year or so later, declared itself a republic - although it remains a member of the Commonwealth.

DConn -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 3:12:41 AM)
At least some of the units that start on garrison duty in India withdraw, so there may be places that were garrisoned early in the war but the garrison has withdrawn, so they are now under-garrisoned.

spence -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 3:46:02 AM)
Not really complaining about the lack of garrisons but much more about the increase in (minimal really) victory pts that seem to be awarded to the Japanese Player in the game when the Japanese are losing the war when far fewer pts seem to be awarded the Japanese Player when the Japanese are winning. quote: The Brits did a deal with the Congress party - a tacit moratorium whilst the Japanese were defeated, followed by dominion status (i.e. like Canada/Australia/NZ) immediately post war. Ghandi, who preached non violent resistance, entered the agreement with the Viceroy (Lord Linlithgow) after the August 1942 riots. Can't comment on the statement above but it would seem to indicate that the lack of garrisons should result in fewer victory pts awarded to the Japanese Player rather than more as the Japanese retreat from the borders of India (right now their closest pt of approach is Rangoon - they used to occupy a line between Arakan and Warazup )

RangerJoe -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 4:42:45 AM)
There were probably people who did not want to wait, who did not like the agreement, as well as people who just want to cause trouble.

Ian R -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 5:14:04 AM)
I do not think I have seen any change in the points awarded over time - they are, as far as I know, fixed, but I do not know the precise formula. I suspect that, but do not know, the deficit in garrison AV, and after the usual Grigsby die roll, produces a proportionate, but variable, VP award. Perhaps Alfred can say more about that... or not. One thing that should help you is the reorganization of Indian battalion units, where they receive about a 25% increase in AV. The only Commonwealth squads you get a decent supply of are Indians, so that helps with squeezing out enough garrison AV. Also there are a couple of garrison divisions (light TOE) broken into brigades. You can move a couple of those to major cities such as Hyderabad (most are static) to free up some AV points in smaller units. Incidentally the only reference in the manual to garrison values is under the heading "8.5 Partisans". It refers only to damage to facilities, not to the VP awards. There were some changes to garrison levels in the v1.00.95 - December 7, 2009 Second Official Update, but they were data changes to the scenarios.

RangerJoe -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 5:26:21 AM)
I do not see changes in the VPs for the base if I do not have enough of a garrison. I do see something like 1 VP lost due to the garrison requirements not being met.

Alfred -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 6:20:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R I do not think I have seen any change in the points awarded over time - they are, as far as I know, fixed, but I do not know the precise formula. I suspect that, but do not know, the deficit in garrison AV, and after the usual Grigsby die roll, produces a proportionate, but variable, VP award. Perhaps Alfred can say more about that... or not. One thing that should help you is the reorganization of Indian battalion units, where they receive about a 25% increase in AV. The only Commonwealth squads you get a decent supply of are Indians, so that helps with squeezing out enough garrison AV. Also there are a couple of garrison divisions (light TOE) broken into brigades. You can move a couple of those to major cities such as Hyderabad (most are static) to free up some AV points in smaller units. Incidentally the only reference in the manual to garrison values is under the heading "8.5 Partisans". It refers only to damage to facilities, not to the VP awards. There were some changes to garrison levels in the v1.00.95 - December 7, 2009 Second Official Update, but they were data changes to the scenarios. There are two things in play here. 1. Partisan Attack, and 2. VP value of a base Regarding Partisan Attack, Patch #2, Code Change #55, amended the manual. Now, when the garrison requirements of a base are not met, there is a chance a partisan attack which causes damage at the under garrisoned base, may result. If that occurs the base owner suffers: * damage to the port * damage to the airfield * 10% of the base's supply and fuel stockpile is lost * 1 VP is lost * no supply movement into or through the hex occurs The VP multiplier value of a base is determined by the scenario designer. The full quantum of VPs is only earned if the base itself is fully supplied. For VP purposes, being fully supplied means the base supply stockpile is at least equal to the supplies needed. The more under supplied a base is, the fewer VPs are earned. A base with no supplies at all earns only 25% of its VP value. Alfred

Ian R -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 6:25:34 AM)
Edit - Alfred posted while I was looking for this: The 1 VP loss doesn't change - but there is a die roll to see if it occurs - one die roll triggers everything. Link: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4714191&mpage=1&key=garrisons%2Cgarrison� quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Kursk1943, It would be most unwise to leave ungarrisoned any captured Home Islands Japanese bases. There are two types of garrison requirements; a regional one (Manchukuo) which applies only to Japan and specific local bases which can apply asymmetrically to both sides. Different algorithms with different consequences apply. *A. Manchukuo Garrison* 1. The threshold is 8,000 available Japanese Assault Value ("AV"). Since Patch #6 (Change #116), the relevant area is the Manchukuo hex ownership (= the nationality code). It includes both bases and non base hexes within the relevant area. Previously it was the old North West Zone left over from classical WITP. 2. Be above the threshold, even by only 1 AV, and there is no die roll check. 3. Be below the threshold, even by only 1 AV, and a die roll check is made to see if the Soviets are activated. This check is made every turn the garrison is below the threshold. 4. The die roll is weighed against the size of the garrison. The smaller the delta between what is the currently present AV and the 8,000 AV threshold, the less likely an adverse die roll will result. 5. An adverse die roll for Japan always results in activating the Soviets. There is no other penalty applied nor is there any variability. *B. Specific Base Garrison* 1. Not all bases have a garrison threshold requirement. 2. Bases with a garrison threshold requirement may have asymmetrical AV threshold requirements. Only available AV present at the base counts towards meeting the threshold, disabled AV does not count. As such a base may demand: (a) a larger sized Allied garrison than the Japanese garrison size, and vice versa, (b) a garrison from only one side and not the other, (c) the same sized garrison for both sides 3. The required available AV garrison size can be found on the base screen. The List All Bases info screen will also show the garrison requirements, as will mouse overs. This AV garrison requirement is a threshold. 4. Be above the specified threshold, even by only 1 AV, and there is no die roll check. 5. Be below the specified threshold, even by only 1 AV, and a die roll check is made to see if a partisan attack occurs. This check is made every turn the garrison is below the specified threshold. 6. The die roll is random and determines whether a partisan attack occurs at all. The lower the available AV is, the higher chance that a partisan attack occurs. 7. A partisan attack may not result in any damage but if it does cause damage, post Patch #2 (Gameplay Change #55) the effects of a partisan attack are: (a) the loss of 1 VP. This is a fixed cost. (b) the loss of 10% of supply and fuel present at the base. This is a fixed cost. (c) supply cannot enter the base nor flow through the base hex to another destination (be it LCU or base). This is a fixed cost. (d) the airfield and port facilities can be damaged. The Japanese Home Islands are long and narrow. Blockage of supply movement in a single hex in the rear can have a significant impact on the availability of supply to frontline units. Alfred

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 6:28:51 AM)
Well, if you don't meet the garrison requirements, you suffer the consequences. I think there is a chance to suffer one VP per turn per undergarrisoned base, with increasing probability the higher the garrison deficit. Btw, there are a couple of Burma Rifle battalions which do not withdraw which can be used to take-over garrison duty from the British/Indian battalions that do withdraw. Lol, I have been slower than Alfred as well...

Ian R -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 6:31:53 AM)
Another link - from a coder, specifically about the supply blockage: quote: ORIGINAL: BigJ62 It resets each turn. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2319817&mpage=2&key=garrisons%2Cgarrison

RangerJoe -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/25/2021 12:55:27 PM)
Yes, don't waste those Burmese units. Their squads eventually become Indian '44 squads, at least according to the scenario that I am playing.

Lokasenna -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/26/2021 3:05:16 PM)
To be honest, if I don't want to garrison a place, I don't garrison it. Yeah, it might add up to a few hundred victory points over several years, but I just don't care about them. 1 VP isn't even a drop in the bucket.

geofflambert -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/26/2021 3:22:25 PM)
I'm not garrisoning those three towns in the middle of nowhere in Thailand, it's not worth it.

BBfanboy -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/26/2021 3:45:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert I'm not garrisoning those three towns in the middle of nowhere in Thailand, it's not worth it. If you pay the costs of my living there, I would go to one of those "3 towns in the middle of Thailand". Maybe Frances McDormand will come and make another movie ... [;)]

Sardaukar -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/26/2021 4:33:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert I'm not garrisoning those three towns in the middle of nowhere in Thailand, it's not worth it. If you pay the costs of my living there, I would go to one of those "3 towns in the middle of Thailand". Maybe Frances McDormand will come and make another movie ... [;)] You going there and movie might be named "Apocalypse Now 2"...[:'(][8D]

BBfanboy -> RE: Pts for lack of garrisons in India (3/26/2021 10:03:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: geofflambert I'm not garrisoning those three towns in the middle of nowhere in Thailand, it's not worth it. If you pay the costs of my living there, I would go to one of those "3 towns in the middle of Thailand". Maybe Frances McDormand will come and make another movie ... [;)] You going there and movie might be named "Apocalypse Now 2"...[:'(][8D] Ah, but you are just the messenger boy, running an errand... [:D]

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.233398