AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX)

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.

Because your troops are sitting at New York, today you order them to move to Boston and when you order them to move to Washington tomorrow they have already marched 15 miles South... lol, nothing more to say. And that´s no offense Sir... [8|]

Well what you describe would reset their march distance to zero in both AE and WitP.

You are trying to take an abstract game and imply that it duplicates the real world. Its a game, and games have limitations. And for the record, after review by the devs it was decided to leave it as it is.

What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me.

ORIGINAL: Barb

Note: This tactic is only useable by JFBs. AFBs arent allowed.

Actually, what you said is right, but what I consider bug is that it is possible for Japan only and allies cant do that (as you said).

I didnt say the allied PLAYER couldnt do it, I said AFBs arent ALLOWED to do it [:D]

[Flying Tiger]

Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage  - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.

[aciddrinker]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
...
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Chefoo (98, 46)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Nakhon Ratchasima (58, 61)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Udon Thani (61, 59)!
...

Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage  - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.

Well, YH is a tester. Part of his job is to discover loopholes. When he discovers something, the development team decides if he found a 'feature' or a 'bug'[;)]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: aciddrinker

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
...
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Chefoo (98, 46)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Nakhon Ratchasima (58, 61)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Udon Thani (61, 59)!
...

Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?

Manila has a garrison of 150. Some of the DEI has garrisons as well. India has LOTS of them.

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.

Well, YH is a tester. Part of his job is to discover loopholes. When he discovers something, the development team decides if he found a 'feature' or a 'bug'[;)]

Which I excel at [:D]

If there is a way to break a game, I will find it. I think Don has lost about half his hair just from me trying to explain how I managed to find something that I found so he could duplicate it so someone couldnt come along later and do the same thing.

But -

I consider myself to be a players player, and part of what I am trying to do here is point out things like this so EVERYONE is aware of them, not just a select few. But I dont talk about some things that I know are exploits that I also know arent going to get fixed.

[spence]

Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?

Since the Japanese are bound to capture these areas in fairly short order it would seem that such damage would actually be advantageous to the Allied Player since the Japanese Player would be obliged to repair them to use them.

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: spence

Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?

Since the Japanese are bound to capture these areas in fairly short order it would seem that such damage would actually be advantageous to the Allied Player since the Japanese Player would be obliged to repair them to use them.

I thought that he was talking about a need for the Japanese to garrison those bases against guerrilla attacks.

[Yamato hugger]

I was. In India and China both sides are required to garrison to prevent damage, but not so elsewhere.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage  - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.

I don't know if this is really as big an issue as it is being made. This was a unique situation where the Japanese captured an unocupied base. This isn't the US Army in 2009 this is IJA in 1941. The Japanese didn't stop to make nice with the locals they moved on. If AFB's don't like it here's an idea, don't leave empty bases for the Japanese to push through without a fight.

[m10bob]

Ref the "running out of fuel with barges" issue: Would it be possible to assign some barges for replenishment duty and just have them tag along?

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me.

Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected.

Pat

[String]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Ref the "running out of fuel with barges" issue: Would it be possible to assign some barges for replenishment duty and just have them tag along?

I think the obvious and historical solution here is not to send barges beyond their range and/or set up small fuel depots along their way.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I was. In India and China both sides are required to garrison to prevent damage, but not so elsewhere.

Add Burma to that list.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: medicff

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me.

Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected.

Pat

No, its anytime, but you wont move through an enemy controlled hexside regardless. So if you fail to take the base, the point is kind of moot, no?

[Flying Tiger]

I consider myself to be a players player, and part of what I am trying to do here is point out things like this so EVERYONE is aware of them, not just a select few. But I dont talk about some things that I know are exploits that I also know arent going to get fixed.

 
Thanks YH. Fair comment. Just remind me never to play against a tester though!!

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: medicff

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me.

Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected.

Pat

No, its anytime, but you wont move through an enemy controlled hexside regardless. So if you fail to take the base, the point is kind of moot, no?

while I somewhat understood it at some point that it´s possible in an empty hex (while still being very ABSTRACT) I have no idea how you want to justify this "feature" in an occupied hex. You can´t move through them but in an abstracted way you do that as some of your troops are marching North and when the rest of your troops kick the enemy out of the hex you then order the "magic move" and perhaps your troops marching North have then marched 45 miles South. Boy, oh boy... [:(]

So at the same day your attacking troops kick out the enemy your marching North troops did in fact march THROUGH the enemy (if we think the enemy holds in the middle of the hex). Sorry, the miles are wrong though as I was thinking about a 60 mile hex. But it´s nothing different in a 40 miles hex. This "magic move" is just bullocks.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

while I somewhat understood it at some point that it´s possible in an empty hex (while still being very ABSTRACT) I have no idea how you want to justify this "feature" in an occupied hex. You can´t move through them but in an abstracted way you do that as some of your troops are marching North and when the rest of your troops kick the enemy out of the hex you then order the "magic move" and perhaps your troops marching North have then marched 45 miles South. Boy, oh boy... [:(]

So at the same day your attacking troops kick out the enemy your marching North troops did in fact march THROUGH the enemy (if we think the enemy holds in the middle of the hex). Sorry, the miles are wrong though as I was thinking about a 60 mile hex. But it´s nothing different in a 40 miles hex. This "magic move" is just bullocks.

Quite easy to justify really. 46 mile hex. How much terrain does a - pick a unit - airbase company? They are going to freeze ANY movement "past" them? Lets say a division. A division on the defense covers an area about 3 miles wide if deployed in an open formation. Artillery support out to maybe 10 miles. Leaves plenty of room for maneuver, not to mention the minor fact that the guy doing the maneuvering still has to have enough force to kick that division out of the hex. So if the moving player has enough force to move the defender then likely the defender has enough to do without worrying about the unit that didnt bother to stop. His arty would be firing FPLs and interdiction fire (if even the maneuvering unit was even in range) would be out of the question. Like I said, in that regard it is no different than pursuit other than instead of chasing the retreating units you go in the direction that you want to go.

Actually whether you like it or not doesnt really matter. It has been reviewed and this is the way its going to stay. It isnt even on the pile of stuff to consider for the first patch.

Edit: and 1 other thing. Its a GAME. It has limitations. There is a lot about AE that people arent going to like. I dare say no one will be 100% happy with it. But then, name any game that can claim that everyone is 100% happy with.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Edit: and 1 other thing. Its a GAME. It has limitations. There is a lot about AE that people arent going to like. I dare say no one will be 100% happy with it. But then, name any game that can claim that everyone is 100% happy with.

I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about strip poker.... [;)]

[PeteG662]

Some prudish women would complain about it!

[Dili]

It is only gamey if the hex is full of big enemy units. The ideal was to have an hex ownership that wasn't ON or OFF but progressive and the mobility of the terrain. The contrary is also gamey, the defender to put a Regiment or a Division in a 40miles hex and claim that it stops every infiltration, IRL it should even be possible bypass the unit and in game to advance to another Hex but it is impossible.
the only exception would be in Alpine terrain. Since if the hex is full of enemy units we will need ours too to combat them then i think the way it is, is the less worse.