Potential Problem with British Withdrawal

Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945

Message

ASLifer -> Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 12:56:01 AM)
Hello everybody: I'm playing a solo game against Japan, and I've come across something that just doesn't seem quite right. The British withdrawal of ships could be disasterous for the allies if allied player is unlucky and has to withdraw ships every month. I know it's historically accurate that the British withdrew ships from Pac to Atl, but they never withdrew ALL of their destroyers for escort duty. As it stands right now, I am in the first month of 43 and the British only have 4 destroyers left for escort duty. I checked Ship availability and they don't get any replacements for some time to come. If at the end of the next 2 months i'm unlucky and have to withdraw ships, i will not have any British destroyers left for escort duty in the event that at the end of the 3rd month I have to do so again. If that happens, then I start paying a penalty in PP points. That could put the allied player in the hole for the rest of the game. I checked to see if this particular problem has been brought up before, but couldn't find anything. While I realize that for Historical accuracy, the British should have to withdraw ships, I also realize that in the interest of fairness for Game purposes, that shouldn't result in the withdrawal of all the British Destroyers, and the subsequent loss of PP points because there aren't any British Destroyers left to satisfy a future British ship withdrawal. It's one thing to loose PP points because you forgot to withdraw ships, or chose not to. And quite another to loose them because game mechanics depleted the necessary ships. (Not Historical) A possible fix, if others have noticed it, would be to make the British withdrawal check every other month, with the possibility of a no withdrawal needed result still possible. Has anyone else noticed this particular problem? I'd appreciate hearing from someone what they think, One way or the other. Regards ASLifer aka Loren Silvrcloak David

dpstafford -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 1:02:25 AM)
This has happened to me as well. All British DD's have already been withdrawn, and they are asking for more.......

GaryChildress -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 1:16:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ASLifer Hello everybody: It's one thing to loose PP points because you forgot to withdraw ships, or chose not to. And quite another to loose them because game mechanics depleted the necessary ships. (Not Historical) A possible fix, if others have noticed it, would be to make the British withdrawal check every other month, with the possibility of a no withdrawal needed result still possible. Has anyone else noticed this particular problem? I'd appreciate hearing from someone what they think, One way or the other. Regards ASLifer aka Loren Silvrcloak David EDIT: Did you loose all those DDs in combat or have they all been withdrawn throughout the war? Gary

Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 1:18:54 AM)
DDs are cheap, and can be kept with no problem, unless you waste away PPs for other purposes. My impression is Brits get to keep too many BBs... O.

ASLifer -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 1:32:28 AM)
Hi Gary: None lost in combat, withdrawn specifically due to British withdrawal requirements. 2 DD's for each Capital ship withdrawn gets expensive if Allied player is unlucky with the random dice roll at the end of the month to satisfy British ship withdrawal requirement. Regards ASLifer aka Loren Silvrcloak David

GaryChildress -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 1:37:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko DDs are cheap, and can be kept with no problem, unless you waste away PPs for other purposes. My impression is Brits get to keep too many BBs... O. Sounds like a possible mod fix here. Throwing a couple more DDs in every other month as reinforcements for the British might fix that. [:)] Realistically though, ASLifer, the British were hard pressed for DDs and convoy escorts in WW2, one of the reasons the US traded 50 old "flush deck" DDs for bases to the British early on. One can only expect that this shortage would be reflected in some desperate decisions on the part of the Allied commander, such as sacrificing "political points" in order to keep DDs on hand. Sounds fairly plausible to me. [8\|] Gary

jubail1999 -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 2:04:12 AM)
I never withdraw the DD's. I know there is a fixed cost of 600 PP's if I don't, so I plan at the beginning of the month to have enough at the end when the PP's are deducted.

Feinder -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 2:17:25 AM)
I'm curious, "When, if ever, do the RN withdrawls stop?" When did they stop historically? Is this coded? PLEASE at least make them stop in April 45, there are after all, no U-boats left! -F-

Alikchi2 -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 2:22:08 AM)
I never give up RN ships. They are far too useful! I hardly use PPs anyways except to change leaders.

spence -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 5:01:51 AM)
It's not so bad. At least you still have some ships AND a place to withdraw them from. In scenario 2, Rising Sun, there is no Karachi or Bombay on the map and hence you can't withdraw any British ships yet chances are you will be called upon to do so.

rtrapasso -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 5:26:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence It's not so bad. At least you still have some ships AND a place to withdraw them from. In scenario 2, Rising Sun, there is no Karachi or Bombay on the map and hence you can't withdraw any British ships yet chances are you will be called upon to do so. Dunno scenario 2, but you can also withdraw through San Francisco.

spence -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 6:09:31 AM)
Scenario 2 concerns itself with the conquest of the SRA. The map includes the DEI, PI, Malaya and Burma (parts of China are on the map but no troops for either side are allowed to operate there other than at Hong Kong/Canton). Tricomalee is one supply source for the Allied Player. Chandpur is on the map but is not a supply source. The only other Allied supply source is Darwin which is also the only base in Australia that is on the map. Withdrawals of British ships are apparently a consideration that the designers let slip through the cracks when setting up the scenario.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 8:11:46 AM)
Thing is the RN withdrawl might be the only thing which actually marginally affects the Allied player. What else demands PPs when in short supply, outside of any thanks to hindsight resues of LCUs in Malaya and PI? Nothing keeps players from operating unrestricted HQ units with each other. Ships don't have HQ restrictions or withdrawl ramifications. As I see it, there present problem with the RN withdrawl feature is that it is simply that. I suggest that the USN and the merchant fleets could use one, not to mention air units and LCUs.

Twotribes -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 11:10:06 AM)
I suggest whats good for the geese is good for the gander. The Japanese had a SERIOUS problem between Army and Navy, yet it isnt modeled at all. Fine put in withdrawels for the US, but also add the problems of command between Japanese Ary and navy. Otherwise all you are asking for is another way to hamper the US while not being historicly accurate with the Japanese.

Arstavidios -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 11:44:49 AM)
Well YOU have to tell winnie that YOU want to keep those destroyers. He will get somewhat p*** off but otherwise he'll take your whole navy from you if you don't say you need it. Those greedy b****s in the Antlantic never have enough stuff anyway. [:D]

Rainerle -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 11:58:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes I suggest whats good for the geese is good for the gander. The Japanese had a SERIOUS problem between Army and Navy, yet it isnt modeled at all. Fine put in withdrawels for the US, but also add the problems of command between Japanese Ary and navy. Otherwise all you are asking for is another way to hamper the US while not being historicly accurate with the Japanese. Actually anybody who argues about japanese politics missing should be happy that there no real restrictions concerning allied politics. Yes there were Army/Navy squabbels but they were at least all japanese. If allied politics would be introduced you have between 7 and 9 nations with their different goals and aims who try to work together. So be careful what you wish for.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 12:08:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Twotribes I suggest whats good for the geese is good for the gander. The Japanese had a SERIOUS problem between Army and Navy, yet it isnt modeled at all. Fine put in withdrawels for the US, but also add the problems of command between Japanese Ary and navy. Otherwise all you are asking for is another way to hamper the US while not being historicly accurate with the Japanese. Some teeth needed to be modelled into the HQ thingy.[;)]

rtrapasso -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 4:44:18 PM)
quote: Yes there were Army/Navy squabbels but they were at least all japanese. You make it sound collegial. It was not. The IJ Army started building submarines FROM SCRATCH without any prior design experience, with no prior plans because they wanted subs to supply their cut off units. They couldn't get any help from the IJN. To get some insight into the depth of the problem: An US sub commander who was conducting demilitarization in 1945-46 in Japan once had a Japanese laundress come to him and abjectly apologize. Why? It seems that some US Army officers were in the building at the same time he dropped off his laundry. She was expecting to be beaten severely (possibly to death) for the horrible faux pas of allowing officers of both the Army and Navy to be under the same roof at the same time. The fact that they were US Army and US Navy, and that the two got along much, much, much better than the IJ Army and Navy never occurred to her, such was the depth of the division. Also remember in the Japanese military, it was considered a duty to KILL your superior officer if they were insufficiently patriotic, and/or disobey their orders. This is one of the reasons Yamamoto went to sea - to stay away from Army (and maybe some Navy) zealots who wanted to kill him. This might be fun to model.[X(][8\|] (Maybe it is modelled, and that's why officers keep disappearing - it's not the "Leader Bug(s)", it a feature!![:D][:'(] As for the modelling the friction between countries - that's what the Political Points were put in to simulate, iirc.

ckk -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 5:10:15 PM)
In game terms The AI if it determines that there will be a British withdrawal searches for the principal ship CL BB or whatever and if you have it requires you to withdraw it with 2 Brirish only DD's, but it never checks to see if you even have 2 British DD's[X(]It will never ask for main ship if you don't have one but it can and will require the escort I save most of mine and soon you will have enough PP's to ignore the withdrawal

dtravel -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 11:29:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso This might be fun to model.[X(][8\|] (Maybe it is modelled, and that's why officers keep disappearing - it's not the "Leader Bug(s)", it a feature!![:D][:'(] Please! Don't give them ideas! [:D] But I have to disagree with Ron about the unrestricted commands, at least on the Allied side. The reinforcement schedules are based on what happened in real life. If the war goes down a completely different path the reinforcements would have been "tagged" for different commands. I think a good example is the North Pacific command. The Allies get a lot of forces for that command because IRL the Japanese invaded the Aleutians. If the Japanese did't invade there, many of those forces would have been sent to the south or central Pacific.

bradfordkay -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 11:30:27 PM)
"This might be fun to model. (Maybe it is modelled, and that's why officers keep disappearing - it's not the "Leader Bug(s)", it a feature!!" On the allied side, I pass off the leader bug as plane crashes. Now, if only I could get my mechanics to do a better job! [:(]

rtrapasso -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 11:37:21 PM)
quote: On the allied side, I pass off the leader bug as plane crashes. So when a Japanese LT shows up as commander of the Essex, that's a suicide plane crash where the pilot survived, and manage to convince everyone he is the C.O.?[:'(]

bradfordkay -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/28/2005 11:46:49 PM)
Nissei. [:'(]

dereck -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/29/2005 12:14:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rainerle Actually anybody who argues about japanese politics missing should be happy that there no real restrictions concerning allied politics. Yes there were Army/Navy squabbels but they were at least all japanese. If allied politics would be introduced you have between 7 and 9 nations with their different goals and aims who try to work together. So be careful what you wish for. Non-Americans may not like this but the real truth was that in the Pacific on the allied side (I'm not talking about SEAC) there was only one country that called the shots and that was America.

Rainerle -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/29/2005 12:08:44 PM)
Well then model that chinese units fraternize with japanese and go after each other. Or that australian units refuse to leave for different theaters because australia is threatened or that the US refuse a british dutch drive into SRA because they don't want them to stay after the war or that the chinese request 10.000 supply points before they allow any US bomber be stationed there, or .... the list could go on here much longer. I'm not saying that the japanese rivalry did not produce problems and such, just that that the allied were hampered even more. The reason it didn't matter much is, like dereck stated, the allied side relied to (fill in your own high percentage number) on the american side allone. If the allied forces would have been more evenly distributed those different views would have really hampered the allied war effort.

rtrapasso -> RE: Potential Problem with British Withdrawal (11/29/2005 4:23:22 PM)
quote: Or that australian units refuse to leave for different theaters because australia is threatened This IS modelled - trying moving Australian units out of Australia without expending political capitol. Of you don't have the PP, you can't do it. Australian units DID move out of Australia during the war. As far Japanese having an easier time with this - this is nonsense! When commanders would literally be killed by their own side (IJA killing IJN officers) for opposing a battle plan thought up by the wrong faction, the Japanese effort was hampered enormously. None of this is touched in the game. EDIT - thinking on it, the Chinese fraternization is also modelled. The Chinese produce for the Japanese (supplies, heavy industry, etc.) once the Japanese move in.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.9375