Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
toselli
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun May 30, 2010 10:44 am

Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by toselli »

Hi everyone,
I know that the vast majority of people use the rule that the Japanese player must pay PPs to move restricted units from Manchuria to China, and I do also agree with this.
My question is slightly different though: If the Japanese player, using only the units originally supposed to operate in China, manages to achieve a free and unobstructed path from North China to Vietnam by clearing all Central China railroads, do you think he can move units by land from China to Indochina and Thailand wiyhout paying PPs, or do you think he should still buy them out to unrestricted commands? Bear in mind that I am not talking about units in Manchuria but only those originally intended to operate in China.

Thanks a lot.

Jeffrey
Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by Smeulders »

These units usually fall under the house rule as well. 
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
User avatar
RUDOLF
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:34 am

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by RUDOLF »

You can move out 10 Divisions for very cheap cost, just assign them to 2nd Air Divsion then after that assign the 2nd air Division to Southern Army.
All div out, no relevant cost.

Every full Div, all Eng, all Aviation and all aviation support + all artillery I moved out for the fraction of the cost that way. AND it is WAD!!! according to the designers.

So, once that is done just move in a small force from China to maintain the Garrison Requirements.
Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by Smeulders »

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

You can move out 10 Divisions for very cheap cost, just assign them to 2nd Air Divsion then after that assign the 2nd air Division to Southern Army.
All div out, no relevant cost.

Every full Div, all Eng, all Aviation and all aviation support + all artillery I moved out for the fraction of the cost that way. AND it is WAD!!! according to the designers.

So, once that is done just move in a small force from China to maintain the Garrison Requirements.

Know that almost every PBEM opponent will quit if you do this though. It is WAD in the sense that it does exactly what it was programmed to do, not in the sense that the devs wanted to give you way to unrestrict an obscene amount of units at a very low cost.
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
User avatar
CapAndGown
Posts: 3078
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Virginia, USA

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by CapAndGown »

ORIGINAL: toselli

Hi everyone,
I know that the vast majority of people use the rule that the Japanese player must pay PPs to move restricted units from Manchuria to China, and I do also agree with this.
My question is slightly different though: If the Japanese player, using only the units originally supposed to operate in China, manages to achieve a free and unobstructed path from North China to Vietnam by clearing all Central China railroads, do you think he can move units by land from China to Indochina and Thailand wiyhout paying PPs, or do you think he should still buy them out to unrestricted commands? Bear in mind that I am not talking about units in Manchuria but only those originally intended to operate in China.

Thanks a lot.

Jeffrey

The house rule was meant to stop units from walking across borders, period. A restricted unit cannot board a ship, so the only meaning for such a rule would be to prevent people from walking out of their restricted area.
User avatar
RUDOLF
Posts: 261
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 11:34 am

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by RUDOLF »

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


The house rule was meant to stop units from walking across borders, period. A restricted unit cannot board a ship, so the only meaning for such a rule would be to prevent people from walking out of their restricted area.


I agree.
So, Pay the 25% of the PP and assign it to 2nd Air Div, do it with all the units you intend to ever move out - and then eventually transferr the 2nd Air Div out to Southern Area HQ.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24648
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Smeulders
ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

You can move out 10 Divisions for very cheap cost, just assign them to 2nd Air Divsion then after that assign the 2nd air Division to Southern Army.
All div out, no relevant cost.

Every full Div, all Eng, all Aviation and all aviation support + all artillery I moved out for the fraction of the cost that way. AND it is WAD!!! according to the designers.

So, once that is done just move in a small force from China to maintain the Garrison Requirements.

Know that almost every PBEM opponent will quit if you do this though. It is WAD in the sense that it does exactly what it was programmed to do, not in the sense that the devs wanted to give you way to unrestrict an obscene amount of units at a very low cost.
I agree Smeulders. This should be a topic of discussion with another PBEM partner, lest the Allied player be hoodwinked with this gamey work-around.
Image
Dobey455
Posts: 445
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 8:50 am

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by Dobey455 »

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

ORIGINAL: cap_and_gown


The house rule was meant to stop units from walking across borders, period. A restricted unit cannot board a ship, so the only meaning for such a rule would be to prevent people from walking out of their restricted area.


I agree.
So, Pay the 25% of the PP and assign it to 2nd Air Div, do it with all the units you intend to ever move out - and then eventually transferr the 2nd Air Div out to Southern Area HQ.

So I assume you would be happy for the allied player to use a similar method to free up a dozen or so US divisions?
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7856
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by Q-Ball »

A necessary House Rule is that Restricted Units should never cross National Borders. The developers looked into including this in the code, but it was too complicated to implement. But that should be followed.

So no movement from China to Vietnam, unless you pay the PPs (which you can if you like, almost all IJA units are not PERM restricted, just the Chinese collaborationist ones)

Oh, and don't do what RUDOLF says. Way gamey
User avatar
bigred
Posts: 4073
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:15 am

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by bigred »


I have offended other players by asking on someone's AAR "did u pay the full price or use the work around technique". All I wanted to know is why is there an issue w/ this. So the best answer is the two players involved really need to discuss this issue before the game begins. The problem will occur when a veteran uses this on a newbie(not cool).

Sometimes a no rules game is refreshing. Kill or be Killed. The "restricted unit " issue seems to be a sword both sides can use. the japs early and the allies alittle later.
---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
tm.asp?m=2597400
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: bigred


I have offended other players by asking on someone's AAR "did u pay the full price or use the work around technique". All I wanted to know is why is there an issue w/ this. So the best answer is the two players involved really need to discuss this issue before the game begins. The problem will occur when a veteran uses this on a newbie(not cool).

Sometimes a no rules game is refreshing. Kill or be Killed. The "restricted unit " issue seems to be a sword both sides can use. the japs early and the allies alittle later.
That's the key.
In my PBEM, I have allowed my Jap opponent to use as many manchurian units as he wants - I won't attack before the collapse of Armygroup Center in 1944. I can hardly believe that there was any real chance of the russians attacking Japan while German artillery is in range of Moscow...
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
DeriKuk
Posts: 355
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:44 am
Location: Alberta
Contact:

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by DeriKuk »

A simple data patch can solve the Manchurian abuse: Increase the garrison requirements for Manchurian bases.
User avatar
jomni
Posts: 2827
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 12:31 am
Contact:

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by jomni »

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

A simple data patch can solve the Manchurian abuse: Increase the garrison requirements for Manchurian bases.

We had a proposal last time to make the probability of Soviet activation random. I think that's a better idea as opposed to increasing. A downright increase limits the flexibility of the game. With the random factor, the player can still take units out of Manchuria but must be careful about the increasing risk of Soviet activation. Adding uncertainty will make the player think twice instead of the current system where the player exaclty knows how much to keep in Manchuria.
User avatar
Wikingus
Posts: 167
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2010 11:41 am

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by Wikingus »

ORIGINAL: jomni
ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

A simple data patch can solve the Manchurian abuse: Increase the garrison requirements for Manchurian bases.

We had a proposal last time to make the probability of Soviet activation random. I think that's a better idea as opposed to increasing. A downright increase limits the flexibility of the game. With the random factor, the player can still take units out of Manchuria but must be careful about the increasing risk of Soviet activation. Adding uncertainty will make the player think twice instead of the current system where the player exaclty knows how much to keep in Manchuria.

I would personally be against randomizing it. For me, a Soviet intervention in 1943 or something would kill all immersion. Maybe only if it activated late in the game, with the % chance of intervention increasing each month, until you'd be almost guaranteed to get a Soviet intervention in mid-1945. But anything else, no thanks.

(keep in mind that I'm fuzzy on the actual details on how it is now, and I don't know if the game takes into account anything besides the garrison values in Manchuria?)
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Opinion on restricted Japanese units movement

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: Wikingus
ORIGINAL: jomni
ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

A simple data patch can solve the Manchurian abuse: Increase the garrison requirements for Manchurian bases.

We had a proposal last time to make the probability of Soviet activation random. I think that's a better idea as opposed to increasing. A downright increase limits the flexibility of the game. With the random factor, the player can still take units out of Manchuria but must be careful about the increasing risk of Soviet activation. Adding uncertainty will make the player think twice instead of the current system where the player exaclty knows how much to keep in Manchuria.

I would personally be against randomizing it. For me, a Soviet intervention in 1943 or something would kill all immersion. Maybe only if it activated late in the game, with the % chance of intervention increasing each month, until you'd be almost guaranteed to get a Soviet intervention in mid-1945. But anything else, no thanks.

(keep in mind that I'm fuzzy on the actual details on how it is now, and I don't know if the game takes into account anything besides the garrison values in Manchuria?)
To make it random after a certain point is a perfect idea! IMHO, before Operation Bagration any Russian attack is total nonsense, no matter how few troops are in Manchuria. The Russians had enough to do themselves, too. After that, the percentage for likely activation should increase month my month, only to be slowered by the amount of forces inside Manchuria. So if you have 4000 AV there, its 5% the first month and 20% in 1/45. If you have 10.000 AV, it is 2% in 1/45 or so...
I think you get the point [;)]
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”