RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 1:26:23 PM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

Why does that sound like killing the patient to cure the desease?

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to pauk)

Post #: 31

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 2:07:49 PM

eMonticello

Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I've pointed out to Frag before that among the troops evacuated from the PI were the mechanics, both aircraft and naval. Obviously, these were not the whole units, but just a cadre of them. So he now wants to prevent us from being able to do what was historically done.

Many of us do not grab tiny portions af all units so they can be rebuilt, but we do grab tiny portions of a couple of important support units. This is certainly a pretty weak method of gaming the system, especially when what Frag is complaining about is easily handled by house rules.

If I read what Frag said correctly, he has already mentioned that the units that historically were evacuated are already represented in the game. So technically, if you leave them in the PI, you will still receive them as part of the normal replacements/reinforcements. If you pull them out of the PI, you will have created the "War of the Clones".

_____________________________

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 32

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 5:15:04 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

If you pull them out of the PI, you will have created the "War of the Clones".

Glad someone actually understands me

(in reply to eMonticello)

Post #: 33

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 5:35:05 PM

ltfightr

Posts: 537
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Little Rock AR
Status: offline

quote:

advantages: - you can rebuilt this unit (ok, we can debute if all units can be disbanded or just US and Brits; doesnt matter now)
- your opponent can not use isolated units for easy combat training of his pilots

Can You say Wake? The Us used wake as a live fire exercise area with the Japanese troops left to "wither on the vine" for several years. This was a way to "blood" green pilots before sending them on forward. Several other areas were used for this purpose also.

Instead of your suggestion MR Frag how about IF HQ=ABDA or USAFFE then PP=PP*10 to change HQ. If some one wants to take that hit ok with me if they fell that unit is that important to pay the cost let them save it (even a small cadre). I think that alone will stop most of what most people feel is "gamey" The only problem is those units in Southeast Asia since that is a non restricted command. maybe pry can add a new HQ for Singapore and make it a restricted command and add it to the suggestion above.

_____________________________

Support the Boy Scouts buy Popcorn!
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts/email_referral.jsp?id=3133025

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 34

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 6:56:02 PM

Djordje

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

This is the very first thing I will trash in 1.6 so enjoy it while you can.

Wow, Frag just promised us 1.6 patch.
I am going to keep his message in a safe place, as evidence.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 35

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 7:45:44 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

If some one wants to take that hit ok with me if they fell that unit is that important to pay the cost let them save it (even a small cadre)

Last I checked, this was supposed to be a historical war game, not a RTS with a Base Force/HQ machine where you pop units out of. I can not believe that Allied players with their overwhelming advantages are such whiners. Perhaps we need to advance Japan's OOB by a year to make up for this play style.

Lets all go play Blizzard's new "Clickfest in the Pacific"

(in reply to ltfightr)

Post #: 36

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 8:01:27 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

quote:

quote:

If some one wants to take that hit ok with me if they fell that unit is that important to pay the cost let them save it (even a small cadre)

Last I checked, this was supposed to be a historical war game, not a RTS with a Base Force/HQ machine where you pop units out of. I can not believe that Allied players with their overwhelming advantages are such whiners. Perhaps we need to advance Japan's OOB by a year to make up for this play style.

Lets all go play Blizzard's new "Clickfest in the Pacific"

I think Frag is right, the <15% rule would only slow an allied player down for a month or 2 , after that he still gets his unit bonanza...

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 37

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 8:07:09 PM

ltfightr

Posts: 537
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Little Rock AR
Status: offline

Look at the formula I propose: PPx10 if a ADBA OR USAFFE... That is a huge (and maybe impossible in time) to save amount to remove any large formation at least you won't see massive evacutations but if there was a unit you needed to save you could re build it. Hey the USA "rebuilt" SWPAC by evacuating a cadre.

It would also help if the PP calculation was based on TOE not current unit size.

It is not so far out in left field that politics could have influenced the decisions on when to withdraw what and when. The question is what is the cost. I like the restricted comands in the DEI and PI I just do not think the cost is high enough but I do think you should still be able to remove some units (even a fragment) if you are willing to pay a high enough price.

BTW 3 of my 4 games is as the IJN

_____________________________

Support the Boy Scouts buy Popcorn!
http://www.trails-end.com/estore/scouts/email_referral.jsp?id=3133025

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 38

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 8:38:24 PM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

I'm a lover not a whiner, Sir !!

(in reply to ltfightr)

Post #: 39

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/1/2005 9:19:28 PM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ltfightr

Instead of your suggestion MR Frag how about IF HQ=ABDA or USAFFE then PP=PP*10 to change HQ. If some one wants to take that hit ok with me if they fell that unit is that important to pay the cost let them save it (even a small cadre). I think that alone will stop most of what most people feel is "gamey" The only problem is those units in Southeast Asia since that is a non restricted command. maybe pry can add a new HQ for Singapore and make it a restricted command and add it to the suggestion above.

You could make Singapore ABDA instead of SE Asia.

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 5/1/2005 9:24:50 PM >

(in reply to ltfightr)

Post #: 40

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 12:16:29 AM

doktorblood

Posts: 648
Joined: 2/14/2003
Status: offline

I'm not sure that rescuing cadres makes a whole lot of difference in the game. If you manage to get a few squads out it will take a long time to build back up and it will be sucking up a lot of squads that might have gone to other units.

Similar to what Frag posted in the B-24 thread. The number of squads doesn't change, they just go to different units.

_____________________________

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 41

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 3:43:47 AM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

Honestly, I see both sides of this issue. On the one hand, pulling cores of units out is gamey and ahistorical. On the other, I feel that one of the greatest benifits of this game is not to replay history but to make it possible to do ahistorical stuff. It all depends on your perspective.

As I mentioned before, if you are playing a PBEM, you can easily set up a few house rules to make the game as historical and realistic as possible. I really don't think that adding had wired restrictions is going to be of any great benifit to the game as a whole.

A lot of the people in the thread have offered pretty good and clever ways to limit the sort of thing that Frag is is trying to get rid of. Still, the problem is not nearly as gigangtic as this thread would have it seem, and does not require any drastic rule changes.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to doktorblood)

Post #: 42

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 4:34:51 AM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

A lot of the people in the thread have offered pretty good and clever ways to limit the sort of thing that Frag is is trying to get rid of. Still, the problem is not nearly as gigangtic as this thread would have it seem, and does not require any drastic rule changes.

Frag says he is trying to limit this because the game moves too fast.

I have pondered this for a while and now I think this is trying to treat bacterial meningitis with aspirin - you are treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause (which i think is mostly but not exclusively the logistics model).

_____________________________

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 43

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 4:45:52 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

I have pondered this for a while and now I think this is trying to treat bacterial meningitis with aspirin - you are treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause (which i think is mostly but not exclusively the logistics model).

Hear Hear!

Right on target!

_____________________________

(in reply to rtrapasso)

Post #: 44

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 5:24:32 AM

hithere

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/13/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

quote:

Last I checked, this was supposed to be a historical war game, not a RTS with a Base Force/HQ machine where you pop units out of.

hip hip hooray

quote:

I can not believe that Allied players with their overwhelming advantages are such whiners.
Perhaps we need to advance Japan's OOB by a year to make up for this play style.
Lets all go play Blizzard's new "Clickfest in the Pacific"

don't get me wrong, I am totally against the "selective redeployment

" stratigy because it uses too much post war knowledge (i do sent the POW up to attack * if i get a good sighting and not 4 Nippon battleships)

i am just saying that the < 15% worries me becuase of the aforementioned scenarios. since those units are repeated later in the game, why not just lock them in place or put a disband option with a 2 or 3 year wait. by then it will not matter to the allies and Japan needs those troops early. ofcourse i'm a gamer and not a programer so this may not even be possible

< Message edited by hithere -- 5/2/2005 5:29:10 AM >

_____________________________

Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 45

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 7:13:51 AM

n818af

Posts: 10
Joined: 10/26/2004
From: USA, Hong Kong
Status: offline

I am playing against AI
Here's what I did. I ordered all available Chinese units to Canton to block other Japanese units from reaching Hong Kong. Move Asiatic Fleet to Hong Kong and keep resupplying the colony by airlift. Eventually 38th Division will be exhausted. Keep expanding port and I made HK a sub base. By 1943 my subs virtually stop all shipping between Japan and Malaya and most part of DEI. Need a good fighter sqd for CAP in Hong Kong to defend against bombers from Formosa though.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 46

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 7:37:20 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

"If I read what Frag said correctly, he has already mentioned that the units that historically were evacuated are already represented in the game. So technically, if you leave them in the PI, you will still receive them as part of the normal replacements/reinforcements. If you pull them out of the PI, you will have created the "War of the Clones". "

Actually, this is the first time that I've seen Frag's reply that these mechanics are the basis for new units that are created later in the game. This is the reason why I have been risking ships to withdraw my base forces. Had I known otherwise, the Japanese would not have sunk so many of my transports!

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to n818af)

Post #: 47

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 8:25:38 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

Mr. Frag why are you ignoring the obvious posts that show this method to not be reasonable.

What happens to a division fighting that loses to many men, and is below your 15 percent? No gamey tactic is employed, it simply was harmed in fighting. It, under your plan, wont be able to rebuild.

What happens to the unit split up amongst several ships including for example an APD, where the main ships are sunk but the APD survives? Again no gamey tactics, this unit wont be able to rebuild under your proposed rule.

What happens to a unit broken into 3 brigades , where 2 brigades are destroyed and the third is beaten down to less than 15 percent. Again NO gamey tactics, but it wont be able to rebuild.

Sounds to me like your solution to a minor problem is to break the system. This wont JUST affect the allies, it will effect the Japanese as well.

I thought, Iguess incorrectly, that I was the supreme commander, able to decide what and where my forces fight and go. Who stands and dies and who runs away to fight aother day.

Are you also going to program in a fix so that the Japanese player in scenario 15 cant unhistorically attack all the places he does? Using the free load and extended move rule on the first turn, the Japanese can reach ports and locations that he COULD NOT have gotten to without setting off alarm bells all over the place.

Maybe add a PP system to recreate the animosity between the Japanese Army and Navy to prevent the unfretted ability of the Japanese player to unhistorically move army units anywhere he pleases with or with out navy support. This is JUST as bad ( meaning a minor problem) as the allies moving cadre out to save units.

Historically the Japanese Army REFUSED numerous Navy landings and proposed invasion because they didnt agree with the navy or felt they couldnt be protected. The Japanese Army also didnt randomly send its units from Burma to the south Pacific or to China. Maybe a rule ( besides the activation rule) to prevent the Japanese player from sending divisions to China from the Russian area. AFter all that would never have happened and didnt happen historically.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 48

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 8:57:17 AM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

What happens to a division fighting that loses to many men, and is below your 15 percent?

It surrenders long before hitting the 85% mark. Care to show any Allied units that sustained that level of loss?

Can we get serious here. Any unit loosing 50% would be taken off the line and rebuilt at home and come back as a new unit. Forget about 85% losses. Thats beyond decimated. Try and think about the shape of the guys left in that unit.

Face the reality, this is about gaming the system to get the Allied power into play faster instead of being forced to wait for the Yanks to come up to speed. This is about pulling ABDA & USAFFE units. I really don't get why you folks defend this style of play unless you are afraid Japan is going to win. If you were paying to move out INF units, I'd buy part of your arguement but there is only one reason to pull hq/eng units.

You ain't fooling anyone.

(in reply to Twotribes)

Post #: 49

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 11:08:23 AM

hithere

Posts: 432
Joined: 4/13/2004
From: Atlanta
Status: offline

like i said, i totally agree with you and i know for a fact that people due grab 1 day load worth of troops and move them to OZ. and i also know that they rebuild fairly quickly, (a few months) my concern is if a unit is getting hammered because i did a poorly planed invasion. i have to rush re inforcements in. by the time they get there (at least a week) the original unit is trashed. normally i would pull them back to noumea and let them rebuild. if you do the <15% thing, then that unit is lost for all intensive purposes. if the unit surrenders before then, then i guess this is basically moot. but i can think of several scen where a LCU can get below 15%

ofcourse, that would prob not happen very often, and if it did, it would pull squads from my "good" units. also, if they surrender anyway... and if it stops a gamey tactic, esp if those forces are represented in the new forces.....hhmmm

ok, you are just too good a arguer

_____________________________

Quote from one of my drill sergeants, "remember, except for the extreme heat, intense radiation, and powerful blast wave, a nuclear explosion is just like any other explosion"

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 50

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 11:12:51 AM

Onime No Kyo

Posts: 16842
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

What happens to a division fighting that loses to many men, and is below your 15 percent?

It surrenders long before hitting the 85% mark. Care to show any Allied units that sustained that level of loss?

Can we get serious here. Any unit loosing 50% would be taken off the line and rebuilt at home and come back as a new unit. Forget about 85% losses. Thats beyond decimated. Try and think about the shape of the guys left in that unit.

Face the reality, this is about gaming the system to get the Allied power into play faster instead of being forced to wait for the Yanks to come up to speed. This is about pulling ABDA & USAFFE units. I really don't get why you folks defend this style of play unless you are afraid Japan is going to win. If you were paying to move out INF units, I'd buy part of your arguement but there is only one reason to pull hq/eng units.

You ain't fooling anyone.

Frag, please understand me in the spirit in which I intend this. You are talking about historical plausibility. I am talking about game mechanics. Doing what you propose for the sake of the former stands a very good chance of completely screwing up the latter.

I want to make sure this is clear. I, like you, am in theory against pulling USAFFE units and Malaya units out to be rebuilt. But this is a historics/esthetics issue. Code should have nothing to do with it.

_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 51

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 6:16:41 PM

Mr.Frag

Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline

quote:

Frag, please understand me in the spirit in which I intend this. You are talking about historical plausibility. I am talking about game mechanics. Doing what you propose for the sake of the former stands a very good chance of completely screwing up the latter.

Oh I do understand where you are coming from completely. My point is quite clear here ... using what amounts to an exploit to take 1 squad of a unit out to safety with no risk (submarine) so it can rebuild is wrong. I doubt anyone can come up with any form of defense to this action.

Units lost in combat are supposed to be *lost* in combat. If that was not the case, they would all return after a suitable delay. Exploiting this to double up your units and ensure that you NEVER loose a unit at all is just gaming a specific weakness in the system.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 52

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 6:37:26 PM

rtrapasso

Posts: 22653
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

Frag, please understand me in the spirit in which I intend this. You are talking about historical plausibility. I am talking about game mechanics. Doing what you propose for the sake of the former stands a very good chance of completely screwing up the latter.

Oh I do understand where you are coming from completely. My point is quite clear here ... using what amounts to an exploit to take 1 squad of a unit out to safety with no risk (submarine) so it can rebuild is wrong. I doubt anyone can come up with any form of defense to this action.

Units lost in combat are supposed to be *lost* in combat. If that was not the case, they would all return after a suitable delay. Exploiting this to double up your units and ensure that you NEVER loose a unit at all is just gaming a specific weakness in the system.

Well, maybe there is a problem with this. I have my doubts - see below.

However, the game makes no provision to "disband" units into other units to try to flesh them out as you can do with aircraft squadrons and groups. Without this provision, your suggestion seems one-sided: you could rescue the troops but never use them for ANYTHING.

In my game (vs. AI) i selectively withdrew LCUs from outlying islands in PI and DEI. You can not move these groups within their own command without paying PP costs and i could not get supplies in using subs (due to my nonreproducible subs can't load supply bug), so what the heck. By the time i could get most of them out, the PI were falling, and i withdrew some cadres of the units on Luzon and Mindanao.

Lest you think this was a Sir Robin defense: the DEI is still holding fast (except for some bases on Borneo, Sumatra and Sulawesi) at 180 days into the game and seems likely to hold indefinitely. Java is intact.

The withdrawn units do help with some engineering functions, however, they soak up all the support squads, and this has slowed the pace of the game in many ways. It will probably take about 1 year to flesh out the few US units, and i doubt the Philippine Army units will ever recover. The Dutch units withdrawn from outlying islands are intact, while the ones defeated and pulled out (from Borneo) are pitiful and will probably not recover for years. By the time the units are really available for serious combat operations, it will be mid 1943, and they probably won't be that needed (at least i hope not!)

One of your stated reasons for opposition to withdrawal of units from PI and DEI was to slow the pace of the game. I think this is trying to treat the symptoms rather than the underlying problem, which i think is mainly due to the overabundant/too fast logistical system. Trying to force a player not to do a historically achievable option seems gamey to me, rather than the reverse.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mr.Frag)

Post #: 53

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 7:38:33 PM

tanksone

Posts: 390
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: St Paul, Mn.
Status: offline

So, Mr. Frag does this 15% mean on that trip or does it mean a total of the unit taken out before the bulk of the unit is overrun? Thanks for a great game by Matrix.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 54

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 8:02:40 PM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

To answer the original post= Darwin under SWpac, along with any USN sub and AS you can salvage from the PI. Puts them right on top of the IJN supply lines.

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)

Post #: 55

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 9:56:48 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

15% of what? Of the total AK load cost? The total AP Load Cost? Or 15% of each type of equipment on the TOE? (in other words you need some of every type of "stuff" in the TOE list).

Also: This 15% will be game wide, right?

So as I see it, that means if a unit loses down to 14% by combat, by starvation or by lack of some type of equipment in the pool, it will then never again be able to grow.

If that is so, you will need to keep a close eye on units and not let them fall below 15% ever, lest they be unable to recuperate when finally pulled out of battle or resupplied.

Hmm (evil mind at work). The Chinese regenerate completely when eliminated. So the Japanese should take Chinese units down to 14% and then take care _not_ to eliminate them. They won't regrow from the pool and they don't reappear at Chungking

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to Hornblower)

Post #: 56

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 9:56:54 PM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hithere

like i said, i totally agree with you and i know for a fact that people due grab 1 day load worth of troops and move them to OZ. and i also know that they rebuild fairly quickly, (a few months) my concern is if a unit is getting hammered because i did a poorly planed invasion. i have to rush re inforcements in. by the time they get there (at least a week) the original unit is trashed. normally i would pull them back to noumea and let them rebuild. if you do the <15% thing, then that unit is lost for all intensive purposes. if the unit surrenders before then, then i guess this is basically moot. but i can think of several scen where a LCU can get below 15%

ofcourse, that would prob not happen very often, and if it did, it would pull squads from my "good" units. also, if they surrender anyway... and if it stops a gamey tactic, esp if those forces are represented in the new forces.....hhmmm

ok, you are just too good a arguer

Frag, as someone that does not game the system, I have no problem whatsoever with your idea. I detest the idea of taking a Filipino fragment and having it reconstitute over then next year; I guess the people filling out the unit swim from Manila to San Francisco to volunteer. While you're at it, you might also prohibit subs from carrying any LCUs to prevent entire islands from being captured by an infantry squad and a rowboat.

I've had a number of units in the CBI that get trapped in the retreat cycle and go below 15% - including the parenthesized non-serviceable squads. To the extent these units would have been reconstituted in real life, your simple rule doesn't work. There would need to be some further qualification to limit it to the circumstances you are trying to fix. But this assumes that the unit would have been reconstituted. If the unit takes that much of a beating (85% war-ending casualties), it may be that HQ decides there is not enough of a cadre left to build around and disbands the unit, in which case your rule works. Dunno.

Freezing the units in the PI would be dangerous as a Japanese player might then try to game the system by, for example, ignoring the PI; the US player might legitimately have a reason to take units out of the PI but couldn't. Putting a PP multiplier in might help, but it would presumably be limited only to USAFFE units; while the Manila evacuation is the most common abusive scenario, rescueing cadres happens all over the map at all times during the war (Singapore, for example).

Of the solutions offered, yours may be the best. It is simple, but works only if you assume that any unit beaten down to 15% under any circumstances would be disbanded.

(in reply to hithere)

Post #: 57

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 10:01:30 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Of the solutions offered . . .

It would seem to me the most realistic solution, since the perceived problem is that the Dutch and the PI Garrison could not be easily withdrawn becaue of the political implications, would be to massively increase the cost in PPs.

You could to that by, uh, massively increasing the cost in PPs, or you could change how the PPs are calculated, making them always calcualted based on the TOE, not the current strength. That latter way would keep you from flying out an air unit when it is down to 3 planes, or an infantry unit when it is battered down to a nubbin, and paying little in PPs since it is so small at the moment you change HQ.

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 58

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 10:18:31 PM

Hornblower

Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline

If frag isn't pulling our leg with this 15% thing, there is another wrinkle. For instance i had a RN base unit get kicked out of Rangoon and it had to enjoy a nice little walk in Burma. Once it finally got to a friendly base and back in supply it was down to @210 men. At least 90% causulties. Its built back up now, but its moral and exp are in the crapper. How would this "rule" effect that? Same for parts of a unit that go down with the ship. Digging a little deeper, lets suppose I have a BG of B-25's broken up into squadrons. Each squadron is on a diffrent AK.. 2 of the AK's sink, but the 3rd one makes it to say Lunga. I've lost 66% of the Bomb Group, would that also fit into the 15% thing?

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 59

RE: Asiatic Fleet HQ - 5/2/2005 10:24:22 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

These questions are why I have doubts about Frag's fix. He's taking a small problem which can be handled by house rules, and possibly turning it into a larger headache for all players. I can understand increasing the PP cost of USAFFE/ABDA ground units (the USAFFE air units did, after all, get pulled out), but to install a new gaming algorythm that could possibly affect all units on the map might have repercussions that would be detrimental to the game. It's somewhat akin to using a flamethrower to light a cigarette.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 5/2/2005 10:30:03 PM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Hornblower)

Post #: 60