IS THE ABDA HEADQUARTERS UNIT WORTH SAVING?

[BrucePowers]

Well I said I cheated because there are a couple of Dutch ENG units in Akyab

[Nikademus]

As long as the Seahawks win.....its all good.

[:D]

[BrucePowers]

Who are they playing?

[Nikademus]

Dallas, with Tony [look Ma...one hand!!!] Romo.

I hope he gets his ass kicked.

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Big B


The thing is, if you were defending the DEI, and found/Knew the Japanese were in overwhelming strength - military logic would dictate that you destroy everything of value to the enemy, then fall back with what ever friendly forces are available, and make a real stand where you CAN hold to stop the Japanese - figuring all the while that 'first we stop them - then when we are strong enough we'll take these islands back for good'.
It would make no sense to wait until withdrawal is risky - so long as you denied the Japanese every resource you can.

If your King, and the British tell you that the Hawaian islands are untendable due to Japanese strength, but they have not yet invaded, and that all forces or part of them should be evacuated and redeployed to a more tendable line in say.....India.....would he or any US commander have agreed?

I doubt any Dutch commander would ever give up major dutch possessions before any enemy has landed to defend someone else's territory. Another way to put it.....You are Allies but are being ordered to serve the purposes of another Ally with the only carrot being that your told its for the greater good. (I"m sure King would go for that.....not)

Thats why i'd never evac Dutch units prematurely to go defend British posessions or American etc. I had a game where that happened to me. Didn't feel very historical. I hadn't even invaded any dutch posessions yet, but on invading Burma i suddenly one of the bases there occupied by several Dutch Base forces....interesting. Perfectly legal in the game. But i don't find it very historical.

Well, that would stretch it a bit I would say.

I was mainly thinking along the lines of "battle has been joined - and obviously if I delay I am cut off and cut up" If the Japanese aren't even in the DEI - I would agree that's hasty for the Big Bugout! They would never do that.
If on the otherhand 10 Japanese Divisions landed on British Borneo, then I would think about "redeploying"[:D]

[BrucePowers]

Since you are playing Dallas, I agree with you.

[BrucePowers]

In reply to Big B,

He is in Borneo and Sumatra in strength. My time runs short[:D]

[Big B]

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

Big B, it is a fine line to decide when to retreat. I know you know this. You put up a better defense in the Phillipines than I did. Terminus is advancing on Palembang right now. When the air base falls evacs are going to get tricky. Also, with him having Betties in Kuching, there is already some risk.

Yes, timing is everything in a case like that. As long as you can make it out to safety - hang in there! (and If kbad hadn't landed over 200,000 troops on Luzon I'd still be there![:@] - oh well, such is war![8D])

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Big B

Well, that would stretch it a bit I would say.

Not from a geo-political standpoint. US commanders would never "redeploy" giving up their territory without a fight to go defend someone else's backyard. I don't see the Dutch as any different.

I was mainly thinking along the lines of "battle has been joined - and obviously if I delay I am cut off and cut up" If the Japanese aren't even in the DEI - I would agree that's hasty for the Big Bugout! They would never do that.
If on the otherhand 10 Japanese Divisions landed on British Borneo, then I would think about "redeploying"[:D]

Well i've said all along...."redeploying well ahead of an actual invasion." However if Borneo is invaded that wouldn't signal to me to give up say Sumatra or Java without some sort of fight. If i'm defending Java and its invaded and the developing situation proves hopeless, I might try to evac some units, but not by sub because of the way the game mechanics work.

[Terminus]

HE's not playing them... Too chubby to get on a football field, except maybe as the tackling dummy...[:D]

[fokkov]

In a Historic context i think there is nothing wrong evacuating abda when things went the wrong way in the NEI.
After Wavell was ordered back and also "i don't remember his name US admiral" abda still excisted with
dutch general and admiral in command .
When things went bad alot of this command evacuated (ran away) to australia where it became the
HQ (army/air and nay) for all dutch units serving in the pacific theatre.
So getting them out (not to soon ofcours) is not gamey at all in my view ,
We should only have the ability to rename it to its proper designation later in the war.

p.s. some dutch front line units always used the frase that they where fighting the war and the HQ was celebrating the war as this HQ was located in Brisbane and melbourne.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Big B
The thing is, if you were defending the DEI, and found/Knew the Japanese were in overwhelming strength - military logic would dictate that you destroy everything of value to the enemy, then fall back with what ever friendly forces are available, and make a real stand where you CAN hold to stop the Japanese - figuring all the while that 'first we stop them - then when we are strong enough we'll take these islands back for good'.
It would make no sense to wait until withdrawal is risky - so long as you denied the Japanese every resource you can.

This would depend a great deal on the polotics involved and the opinions of the military chain of command, plus the pride involved. Plenty of military decisions make no sense what so ever. Belgium defending its country against Nazi aggression makes no sense from a strictly military point of view. But it does when one considers it was their home. I'm sure the Dutch felt the same way.

My advise to Bruce...remember the Alamo.

[Alfred]

I'm with Nikademus.  It is OK to redeploy Dutch LCU within DEI.  When that is practically impossible then they could be redeployed to the next frontline ie northern Australia.  To just pack them off to say Midway or Suva is quite unhistorical and to me gamey.
 
The more important point is that WITP has HQ that do not respawn and are restricted in their movements.  This is a conscious game design decision and therefore to circumvent it introduces an imbalance to the game, remembering that most people who play WITP probably do so against the AI.  If it had been intended that (1) ABDA be saved it would not have been restricted, or (2) it not be a temporary command, it would respawn in Soerabaja.
 
Alfred

[pauk]

yes, it is hard not to agree with Nik.

I found this move unhistorical and litle bit unrealistic. But don't have any complains about it - it is up to my opponent do decide if they want to evaucate these units (Dutch) from the DEI or not...

This is certainly not most honourable move by Allies, but hey, it's a game, after all.

[alanschu]

I never give back British ships either. I'm greedy. the PP penalty should probably be more severe i've always felt.

Isn't it kind of odd that you don't move around DEI units because it's a bit gamey and exploitative, yet have no problems not sending back ships that the United Kingdom feels would be useful on the Home Front or in the Mediterranian?

[Fokkov2]

imho , its not unhistorical, also due to the fact that the later HQ which was formed after evacuating of the remeander of Abda to Aus.  is not in the game , so nothing wrong with the use ( in the right place which is Aus)
of Abda , only the name is not correct and it isn't a frontline command .
All dutch units after the fall of NEI where under operational command of the respective allied commander in the theatre they where operation  but logistic,personel and maintanance was all done by the new dutch HQ in Melbourne.
Several units kept on fighting in Timor untill '43 (together with some aussies) wich where controlled partly from
this HQ and also the "Insulinde corps".

So don´t see any objection in relation to what happend in ´42 not to evacuate all or part of ABDA as long as you keep it in Aus.

Every one was tying to get out then  , american B17 and P40 units , and there ground support, English units escaped from Singapore    ,

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: alanschu

Isn't it kind of odd that you don't move around DEI units because it's a bit gamey and exploitative, yet have no problems not sending back ships that the United Kingdom feels would be useful on the Home Front or in the Mediterranian?

Not really. First, there's a political points penalty for doing so. (though i think it should be more severe) Second, the Withdrawl routine is randomly generated and not based on historical precidents. The PP/withdrawl routine was a compromise decision as it was considered more ahistorical to have UK ships, regardless of where they were, suddenly disapear from the map in PacWar.

[alanschu]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: alanschu

Isn't it kind of odd that you don't move around DEI units because it's a bit gamey and exploitative, yet have no problems not sending back ships that the United Kingdom feels would be useful on the Home Front or in the Mediterranian?

Not really. First, there's a political points penalty for doing so. (though i think it should be more severe) Second, the Withdrawl routine is randomly generated and not based on historical precidents. The PP/withdrawl routine was a compromise decision as it was considered more ahistorical to have UK ships, regardless of where they were, suddenly disapear from the map in PacWar.

Is there not a political point cost for switching ABDA as well?

Well, you acknowledge that there PP cost of the withdrawl is not severe enough. Perhaps your issue with the DEI withdrawls is that the cost of converting a unit off of ABDA is too cheap as well.

It just seems odd that you write off one game mechanic because it's gamey, but not a similar one because you're "greedy." It seems that since withdrawl is not historical, and because the PP cost isn't punitive enough, you opt to just ignore withdrawl altogether (which would seem to me to be significantly more ahistorical than the ahistorical withdrawl requests). In your eyes it's okay to spend minimal PP to ahistorically ignore withdrawl altogether, but not to spend minimal PP for ahistoric troop movements? You say that the Dutch would never leave the DEI (which I agree with), but do you think that the British, in the midst of defending the Suez, as well as knee deep in the Battle of the Atlantic, would simply allow needed (even if less than historically) ships to remain in the Pacific/Indian Ocean?

Would it be different if the requests were based on history?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: alanschu

Well, you acknowledge that there PP cost of the withdrawl is not severe enough. Perhaps your issue with the DEI withdrawls is that the cost of converting a unit off of ABDA is too cheap as well.

That is part of the problem. I've said it frequently....including this thread about the weakness of the PP cost system.

In your eyes it's okay to spend minimal PP to ahistorically ignore withdrawl altogether, but not to spend minimal PP for ahistoric troop movements? You say that the Dutch would never leave the DEI (which I agree with), but do you think that the British, in the midst of defending the Suez, as well as knee deep in the Battle of the Atlantic, would simply allow needed (even if less than historically) ships to remain in the Pacific/Indian Ocean

As i explained, if the withdrawl routine was based on a historical deployment then a better case would be made. However to receive a BB in January, only to require a BB to leave the next month can be argued to make little sense deployment wise as well.....the transit time alone would make such a move impractical. The PP cost for the larger warships at least is far more severe than moving small Base forces from Java to Midway. Altering the deployment path of a single warship or two based on theater is also to me an apples and oranges situation to redeploying national ground units and support forces to defend areas they'd never move to in RL. One can argue how "historical" it is whether or not "Warspite" operates under a UK "Force" at Gibralter or Ceylon at x period of time. Having Dutch base forces redeployed to India in Dec 41 or Midway is a different kettle of fish IMO.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: alanschu

Isn't it kind of odd that you don't move around DEI units because it's a bit gamey and exploitative, yet have no problems not sending back ships that the United Kingdom feels would be useful on the Home Front or in the Mediterranian?

Not really. First, there's a political points penalty for doing so. (though i think it should be more severe) Second, the Withdrawl routine is randomly generated and not based on historical precidents. The PP/withdrawl routine was a compromise decision as it was considered more ahistorical to have UK ships, regardless of where they were, suddenly disapear from the map in PacWar.

Not to mention, India finds itself in much greater danger in most Witp games than it did IRL. If the Jewel of the Empire were being invaded might that not have altered the redeployment of ships?