Disbanding land units

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: rader

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

If a "surrender" option is included, those LCUs that surrender should not be allowed to be rebuilt.

I disagree. Surrendering should be the same as being destroyed. Destroyed units can be rebuilt. Some of the units formed during the war were actually rebuilds of units 'destroyed' early on.

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: rader

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

And the "island-hopping" stategy was certainly effective for the Allies in RL.

I'll focus on the other statement from ckammp that witpqs didn't quote... [:D]

I think it is a very valid strategy to cut off, isolate, and keep enemy units in "pow camps" thereby preventing them from being rebuilt and deployed back into the line against you. The island hopping strategy is a classic example of this. If the Japanese player can just "surrender" those LCU's that are trapped on remote CentPac islands, they can then rebuild them and use them to defend islands in the path of advancing Allied forces.

Now, one way to perhaps mitigate this abuse would be to put something like a 1 year delay on any "parent" units that are "surrendered" before allowing them to be rebuilt. I don't see this as an issue for fragments that are left behind for the various reasons mentioned above. Fragments can't be rebuilt, only parent units.

[rader]

Well, obsivously you would be destroying your own land units. This would destroy the devices and give points for their destruction.

And you have to be really careful in doing this. The Japanese cannot afford to rebuild all their units that are destroyed, so doing this over and over would simply not be a viable strategy. They don't have the armament points to do so.

And it is more a problem if the enemy does attack their base but nevertheless refuses to destroy the units. Maybe you ought to be able to surrender only if you are in contact with the enemy or located in an enemy base. It just seems a bit silly to me that when in contact with the enemy, you would rather have your units destroyed than left intact.

It's not just Japan... I have taken advantage of not being able to rebuild encircled units in China and Russia in both my PBEM games. So I'm as much an offender of this as anyone else [;)]

Let me be clear - if you CAN'T rebuild destroyed land units (whcih is the way it used to be), I think there is no need for units to be able to surrender.

If you CAN rebuild destroyed land units (and this was a recent change), I think it makes sense that you should be able to surrender land units in contact with the enemy. Otherwise, it seems like a bit of an exploit to surround units so they can't possibly escape and then just choose not to kill them. I.e., you get in a situation where you would prefer your units are destroyed to not destroyed. That seems a bit bonkers to me [8|]

[Numdydar]

Rebuilding anything takes,

1) time for the unit to appear on the map
2) PP points
3) Arms
4) Time to train back up as the unit returns in the same shape it left. I.E. not good.

So it's not like you surrender them on turn A and get the fully rebuit and retrained on turn A+1 [:D] Althought it would be nice lol.

So I see no issue with this option being implemented. It's far better that having a bunch of unit surrounded with no way out just because the other player did not want you to have them [:@]

[noguaranteeofsanity]

A couple of points we should keep in mind:

We should not forget that the Japanese in general did not surrender, so a surrender option for them is fairly unrealistic. While their preferred alternative was suicide, but why would any commander order their troops to commit suicide, instead of fighting to the death and at least have some chance of inflicting casaulties on the enemy? This sounds totally out of character for most Japanese officers or soldiers. Really, having the Japanese surrender on mass would be a piece of total fiction.

Second, as USS America says, surrouding an enemy and cutting them off is a valid military stratergy, often used during the war, with Rabaul being the best example, proving it is not a gamey approach. If those 100,000 odd Japanese troops at Rabaul were suddenly to dissapear, with their units reformed, that would be extremely gamey. Especially considering the Allies kept their distance, letting the Japanese sit there until the end of the war and no army, air force or navy has duplicate units with the same name or number. So if those units were to be replaced, it would be a new unit with a different name or number, as the original unit would still be wandering through the jungles somewhere on New Britain. Although limiting it to units in contact with the enemy, would avoid this problem.

[rader]

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

A couple of points we should keep in mind:

We should not forget that the Japanese in general did not surrender, so a surrender option for them is fairly unrealistic. While their preferred alternative was suicide, but why would any commander order their troops to commit suicide, instead of fighting to the death and at least have some chance of inflicting casaulties on the enemy? This sounds totally out of character for most Japanese officers or soldiers. Really, having the Japanese surrender on mass would be a piece of total fiction.

Second, as USS America says, surrouding an enemy and cutting them off is a valid military stratergy, often used during the war, with Rabaul being the best example, proving it is not a gamey approach. If those 100,000 odd Japanese troops at Rabaul were suddenly to dissapear, with their units reformed, that would be extremely gamey. Especially considering the Allies kept their distance, letting the Japanese sit there until the end of the war and no army, air force or navy has duplicate units with the same name or number. So if those units were to be replaced, it would be a new unit with a different name or number, as the original unit would still be wandering through the jungles somewhere on New Britain. Although limiting it to units in contact with the enemy, would avoid this problem.

No argument with any of this, but it dosen't solve the problem. Why can I

A) rebuild my units if they are destroyed, BUT
B) Not rebuild them if they aren't destroyed.

I agree that the Japanese wouldn't necessarily surrender, but why can't you just order them to banzai charge until dead and then rebuild their units to honour the glorious dead of the empire? [:D]

[noguaranteeofsanity]

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

A couple of points we should keep in mind:

We should not forget that the Japanese in general did not surrender, so a surrender option for them is fairly unrealistic. While their preferred alternative was suicide, but why would any commander order their troops to commit suicide, instead of fighting to the death and at least have some chance of inflicting casaulties on the enemy? This sounds totally out of character for most Japanese officers or soldiers. Really, having the Japanese surrender on mass would be a piece of total fiction.

Second, as USS America says, surrouding an enemy and cutting them off is a valid military stratergy, often used during the war, with Rabaul being the best example, proving it is not a gamey approach. If those 100,000 odd Japanese troops at Rabaul were suddenly to dissapear, with their units reformed, that would be extremely gamey. Especially considering the Allies kept their distance, letting the Japanese sit there until the end of the war and no army, air force or navy has duplicate units with the same name or number. So if those units were to be replaced, it would be a new unit with a different name or number, as the original unit would still be wandering through the jungles somewhere on New Britain. Although limiting it to units in contact with the enemy, would avoid this problem.

No argument with any of this, but it dosen't solve the problem. Why can I

A) rebuild my units if they are destroyed, BUT
B) Not rebuild them if they aren't destroyed.

I agree that the Japanese wouldn't necessarily surrender, but why can't you just order them to banzai charge until dead and then rebuild their units to honour the glorious dead of the empire? [:D]

If they are not destroyed, you can not rebuild them, as a unit cannot be in two places at once. If your troops are still alive somewhere, then that unit still exists and as i explained, no miltary has duplicate units.

You can order them to banzai, just click the 'shock attack' button. Although Japanese troops do banzai if you watch the combat reply, while allied units surrender, when they are attacked with overwhelming odds.

[Pascal_slith]

A few misconceptions I see here:

If a unit surrenders, everything in it disappears into a POW camp at best. The 100'000 at Rabaul would not 'disappear' only to reappear later in a rebuilt unit. What you are actually talking about is the ability to create new operational organizational units (a battalion, a regiment, a division, etc.) into which new squads (just out of bootcamp), devices, etc. would be fed into and trained.

What you really want is the ability to create new operational organizational units different than those that appear at a given time in the game. You want the flexibility, for a cost first in PP's, then in time while its TOE gets filled, so that a type of unit can appear at an approximate time of your choosing. Whether it's the 4th US Marine Regiment or simply a US Marine Regiment is of no consequence.

I would posit that if you are playing against the "AI", what you are asking is impossible. The game has a structure (unit appearance timetable and location, PPs per month, etc.) for which the everything else has been adapted (for example the AI scripts among other things). What you are asking would "break" the system.

In a PBEM situation, though, it might be possible, with limitations such as:

You can 'disband' an LCU in a number of locations (national base list, perhaps a few others) as long as that location is XX hexes away from any enemy LCUs. In this case any remaining elements go to the 'pool' and the LCU organizational unit goes to the 'potential unit rebuild' pool. Other than needing the elements of the LCU for reinforcements for other types of organizations, I see no usefulness in this. Essentially this is akin to the Air Unit disband/withdraw scheme with equipment and pilots to the pool but no automatic reapparition of the organizational unit.

If a unit is in a 'war zone', i.e. within XX hexes of enemy LCUs, they 'surrender' and nothing goes to the pool but the organizational unit goes to the 'potential rebuild' pool. This is akin to the LCU being destroyed more quickly than it languishing away somewhere. But then again, why not just ask for the capability of building any LCU unit at any time as long as you pay a given PP cost, it appears at the appropriate national home base, and it builds up according to the current replacement influx scheme?

I reiterate that this is not a scheme that would work in a game against the "AI"/computer. Thus the chances of this being added are nil.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

But then again, why not just ask for the capability of building any LCU unit at any time as long as you pay a given PP cost, it appears at the appropriate national home base, and it builds up according to the current replacement influx scheme?

I reiterate that this is not a scheme that would work in a game against the "AI"/computer. Thus the chances of this being added are nil.

Asking for that becomes more and more in terms of programming. The current ability to rebuild destroyed units uses the destroyed units' data (TOE, name, etc). Adding a surrender is certainly programming, of course. But adding a 'create new' unit is starting from scratch, asking the player what TOE & upgrade path to follow, writing displays for that (none exist to be copied), and so on.

Your idea is good, but it's like pulling a thread on a sleeve. Better to cut the thread short than unravel the garment.

[CV 2]

Frankly the ability to rebuild units is more because of player demand / game preference than anything to do with history. Very few ground units "destroyed" were rebuilt. But the ability to rebuild was put in place mainly (I suspect) to encourage players to fight it out with a unit rather than having a billion fragments as players scramble to "save a piece" of a unit or doing a complete Sir Robin.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Pascal

But then again, why not just ask for the capability of building any LCU unit at any time as long as you pay a given PP cost, it appears at the appropriate national home base, and it builds up according to the current replacement influx scheme?

I reiterate that this is not a scheme that would work in a game against the "AI"/computer. Thus the chances of this being added are nil.

Asking for that becomes more and more in terms of programming. The current ability to rebuild destroyed units uses the destroyed units' data (TOE, name, etc). Adding a surrender is certainly programming, of course. But adding a 'create new' unit is starting from scratch, asking the player what TOE & upgrade path to follow, writing displays for that (none exist to be copied), and so on.

Your idea is good, but it's like pulling a thread on a sleeve. Better to cut the thread short than unravel the garment.

The point of my post was to show that it would not happen (which I stated twice in my post). You've restated what I said except for the fact that you seem to think I'm putting forward an idea. I'm not putting forward an idea, I was showing that what was asked by previous posters is essentially this capacity to build a player chosen LCU at any time. I said the system was not built for it, implying it would take a radical reprogramming for it to work, and therefore would not happen in this version of WitP. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough....

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Pascal

But then again, why not just ask for the capability of building any LCU unit at any time as long as you pay a given PP cost, it appears at the appropriate national home base, and it builds up according to the current replacement influx scheme?

I reiterate that this is not a scheme that would work in a game against the "AI"/computer. Thus the chances of this being added are nil.

Asking for that becomes more and more in terms of programming. The current ability to rebuild destroyed units uses the destroyed units' data (TOE, name, etc). Adding a surrender is certainly programming, of course. But adding a 'create new' unit is starting from scratch, asking the player what TOE & upgrade path to follow, writing displays for that (none exist to be copied), and so on.

Your idea is good, but it's like pulling a thread on a sleeve. Better to cut the thread short than unravel the garment.

The point of my post was to show that it would not happen (which I stated twice in my post). You've restated what I said except for the fact that you seem to think I'm putting forward an idea. I'm not putting forward an idea, I was showing that what was asked by previous posters is essentially this capacity to build a player chosen LCU at any time. I said the system was not built for it, implying it would take a radical reprogramming for it to work, and therefore would not happen in this version of WitP. Sorry if I wasn't clear enough....

Didn't mean to be obtuse, just pointing out why I think it - as you said - wouldn't happen.

[JeffroK]

I'm always surprised at items the "will never happen" appearing in this game.
 
The devs and michaelm amaze me with the continued development of what seem the final version.
 
I would disagree with a "surrender" option and have little use for the rebuild option as well.
 
1.   Your cut off unit still threatens the enemy, forcing them to garrison islands, bases and LOC in the area or commit enough force to keep you in your hex, you could fly in some supply just to keep the honest. As shown by Ranier in his game against Castor Troy, bases can get a temporary influx of supply and then allow sorties into your opponents rear areas which are often poorly protected.
 
2.   The combat engine seems to handle surrenders, especially if you are an AFB in the early years[8D]
 
3.   Island hopping isolated 100,000's of japanese troops, but still occupied similar numbers of Allied troops. As a JFB I'd rather them besieging Bouganville than prepping for Tokyo.
 
2.   It didnt happen much IRL, apart from 4th Marines, are there any other examples of surrender and rebuild, 9th & 11th Indian, 18th British & 8th Australian were all lost from the OOB

[afspret]

I've often wondered why there isn't a disband/withdraw option for LCUs like there is for ACUs.

[CV 2]

There is a disband. It just has restrictions to prevent abuses. Like the one the OP would like to do *cough*

[Andy Mac]

The rule is designed to stop static fortress units and units based in restricted areas i.e. the West Coast US Divs that leave for other theatres being disbanded as an abuse - the allies have limited pools of devices this is a deliberate historic and game control and this decision is very unlikely to change as it was funadamental to the design of all the allied ORBATS.
 
As I said this was my call while a developer as their are no devs other than Michael now he could change that call but I think it unlikely