Bob

fabertong · Post by **fabertong** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 9:40 am

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I say we stick with the HR as agreed upon and see how things pan out.

I'm happy to stick to it.........Thread help us all.......[X(][X(]

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:00 pm

i have the turn!!!

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 2:12 pm

ORIGINAL: fabertong

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I say we stick with the HR as agreed upon and see how things pan out.
I'm happy to stick to it.........Thread help us all.......[X(][X(]

i'm blue-skying here:

How about we double PP - we allow an extra 50 pts/turn as "unofficial conversions", possibly retroactive 100 days... you could use these 5000 pts to "reassign" units outside your command to use for offensive (or defensive) purposes...

Of course, these wouldn't be shown "in game", but would allow you to use (say) Southern Area Army troops to be used in Malayia.

Unfortunately, this would require some bookkeeping on the part of the players: i think there should MAYBE be an official announcement such as

"Animals declare expenditure of 2250 pp to reassign XX Division from Southern Area Army to 4th Fleet" (or whatever).

and Allies would say something like
"Allies declare expenditure of 250 pp to reassign xxx RCT from CENPAC to SWPAC"

Alternatively, such moves could be kept secret and players on each side would be responsible for keeping track of expenditures, although i prefer the other way (i think it would be more realistic).

niceguy2005 · Post by **niceguy2005** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 3:39 pm

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: fabertong

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I say we stick with the HR as agreed upon and see how things pan out.
I'm happy to stick to it.........Thread help us all.......[X(][X(]

i'm blue-skying here:

How about we double PP - we allow an extra 50 pts/turn as "unofficial conversions", possibly retroactive 100 days... you could use these 5000 pts to "reassign" units outside your command to use for offensive (or defensive) purposes...

Of course, these wouldn't be shown "in game", but would allow you to use (say) Southern Area Army troops to be used in Malayia.

Unfortunately, this would require some bookkeeping on the part of the players: i think there should MAYBE be an official announcement such as

"Animals declare expenditure of 2250 pp to reassign XX Division from Southern Area Army to 4th Fleet" (or whatever).

and Allies would say something like
"Allies declare expenditure of 250 pp to reassign xxx RCT from CENPAC to SWPAC"

Alternatively, such moves could be kept secret and players on each side would be responsible for keeping track of expenditures, although i prefer the other way (i think it would be more realistic).

Robert, I really like the idea of a lump sum, one time allocation of political points, but just wish there were a way to do it in game. Is there a way to do it via the editor?

The big problem I see with implementing it in game (something the players just keep track of) is that it is going strongly favor Japan. The troop commands we want to alter, for the most part, belong to a restricted command.

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:57 pm

Robert, I really like the idea of a lump sum, one time allocation of political points, but just wish there were a way to do it in game. Is there a way to do it via the editor?

Sure - if we restart the game...[8|] [X(] [:'(]

As for the restricted troops problem: we could perhaps allow some other compensation for the Allies? A bigger chunk of PPs for the Allies?

It is true that this pretty much would only allow "conversion" of non-restricted troops.

i suspect this problem is arising because the designers of CHS never anticipated someone might be using a house rule like this.

BrucePowers · Post by **BrucePowers** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:08 pm

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Robert, I really like the idea of a lump sum, one time allocation of political points, but just wish there were a way to do it in game. Is there a way to do it via the editor?

Sure - if we restart the game...[8|] [X(] [:'(]

As for the restricted troops problem: we could perhaps allow some other compensation for the Allies? A bigger chunk of PPs for the Allies?

It is true that this pretty much would only allow "conversion" of non-restricted troops.

i suspect this problem is arising because the designers of CHS never anticipated someone might be using a house rule like this.

I think we are close to a solution......

Mike Solli · Post by **Mike Solli** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 5:32 pm

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Robert, I really like the idea of a lump sum, one time allocation of political points, but just wish there were a way to do it in game. Is there a way to do it via the editor?

Sure - if we restart the game...[8|] [X(] [:'(]

As for the restricted troops problem: we could perhaps allow some other compensation for the Allies? A bigger chunk of PPs for the Allies?

It is true that this pretty much would only allow "conversion" of non-restricted troops.

i suspect this problem is arising because the designers of CHS never anticipated someone might be using a house rule like this.

I think we are close to a solution......

Restart the game??!! [X(] [:'(]

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 6:59 pm

We need some more opinions from other players (Mike, Bruce, Speedy)...

Mike Solli · Post by **Mike Solli** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:04 pm

I'll do whatever you guys would like to try.  However, I'm of the opinion that we stick with the original HR.  But, whatever you guys want to do, go for it. 
 
The only reservation I have with giving each side a set number of points and tracking it manually is that neither side can pull units out of restricted commands.  I suspect that's where we both need units....

BrucePowers · Post by **BrucePowers** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 7:44 pm

No, I did not mean restart the game[:D]

I don't know where the allies need units from.

They could just withdrawl from Burma for 6 months and let me occupy the place and then try and take it back[X(][X(][:D][:D]

Dino · Post by **Dino** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:07 pm

As I understand, the purpose of that HR is to make things more realistic and to slow the pace of the war to historic level...however, not allowing SAA units into Burma will probably make the war slower than historical and it doesn't seem to be realistic IMO.

The Japanese Burma Area Army was formed on 1943-03-27 under the control of the Southern Expeditionary Army Group as a garrison force to help defend the nominally-independent State of Burma against reoccupation and re-colonization by British forces based in neighboring Assam.

Note that in Japanese terminology, an "Army" was equivalent to a British or American "Corps". An "Area Army" was equivalent to an Allied "Army".

The chief command for the Japanese in South East Asia was the Southern Expeditionary Army, under Field Marshal Hisaichi Terauchi. This HQ was equivalent to an Allied theatre command. Southern Expeditionary army was responsible for operations as far afield as New Guinea, the Philippines and Burma

The initial invasion of Burma was conducted by 15th Army, under Lieutenant-General Shojiro Iida.

In late 1943, a new HQ, "Burma Area Army" was created, under General Masakazu Kawabe. It absorbed 15th Army, now under Lieutenant-General Renya Mutaguchi and responsible for the Central front, and the newly created 28th Army under Lieutenant-General Shoso Sakurai which controlled the Southern front.

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Sat Mar 08, 2008 10:26 pm

Thanks Dino - this makes sense... i given that the Army wasn't actually formed until 1943 and was for defensive purposes, let the Southern Area Army (i think that is the one) be allowed into Burma. (Another hole in the CHS OOB)...[8|] [;)]

i also think we should be aware of/remember the rule exception for PP - "except for defensive purposes"... it wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

Mike Solli · Post by **Mike Solli** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:05 am

So, where stands Bob?

Mike Solli · Post by **Mike Solli** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:06 am

The electronic version, not the Texan. [:'(]

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:39 am

AFAIK - it went to NG, but i haven't heard from him since it did.

BrucePowers · Post by **BrucePowers** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:52 am

NG - New Guinea[X(][X(][:D][:D]

Mike Solli · Post by **Mike Solli** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:01 am

Did you finish, Bob?

rtrapasso · Post by **rtrapasso** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 2:33 am

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Did you finish, Bob?

Many hours ago...

fabertong · Post by **fabertong** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:10 am

Alas.......no Bob this morning..........no I'll have to fill in all the fox holes before work.......no where is the shovel..........

fabertong · Post by **fabertong** » Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:12 am

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

Thanks Dino - this makes sense... i given that the Army wasn't actually formed until 1943 and was for defensive purposes, let the Southern Area Army (i think that is the one) be allowed into Burma. (Another hole in the CHS OOB)...[8|] [;)]

i also think we should be aware of/remember the rule exception for PP - "except for defensive purposes"... it wouldn't make much sense otherwise.

OK, that means we are free to use SAA units in Burma and India?............yes?.........and we keep an eye out for any other OOOb probs....

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB

RE: One year of BOB