Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Moose,
How would those forces actually get to Singapore at this time? They would all wind up on a diving expedition.
ORIGINAL: Justus2
I have a question, regarding CRs recent posts on using PPs for transferring units from Manchuria. I didn't want to bring it up in the AAR, as I haven't played PBEM so I don't really know how this would be taken. I know it is frequently listed as a House Rule in other PBEM/AARs, but this game they specifically did not, to me that would imply they accepted taht PP would not have to be paid? Conversely, did CR pay PP to move US forces into Canada? That seems to me to be a similar situation, right? I am not trying to blame either side, just wondering if I am understanding the issue.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Justus2
I have a question, regarding CRs recent posts on using PPs for transferring units from Manchuria. I didn't want to bring it up in the AAR, as I haven't played PBEM so I don't really know how this would be taken. I know it is frequently listed as a House Rule in other PBEM/AARs, but this game they specifically did not, to me that would imply they accepted taht PP would not have to be paid? Conversely, did CR pay PP to move US forces into Canada? That seems to me to be a similar situation, right? I am not trying to blame either side, just wondering if I am understanding the issue.
CR has the USMC operating in India, so . . .
That's why I asked about Canada, to me that is the most similar comparison - not loading on ship, just a land crossing, but a different command area (crossing natioanl borders, which technically Manchuria isn't even doing that).ORIGINAL: Walloc
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Justus2
I have a question, regarding CRs recent posts on using PPs for transferring units from Manchuria. I didn't want to bring it up in the AAR, as I haven't played PBEM so I don't really know how this would be taken. I know it is frequently listed as a House Rule in other PBEM/AARs, but this game they specifically did not, to me that would imply they accepted taht PP would not have to be paid? Conversely, did CR pay PP to move US forces into Canada? That seems to me to be a similar situation, right? I am not trying to blame either side, just wondering if I am understanding the issue.
CR has the USMC operating in India, so . . .
He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
ORIGINAL: Justus2
That's why I asked about Canada, to me that is the most similar comparison - not loading on ship, just a land crossing, but a different command area (crossing natioanl borders, which technically Manchuria isn't even doing that).
ORIGINAL: Justus2
I know CR mentioned on a couple of the Army units, that he moved to CT without paying PP, only paid to load on ships. that to me seems a bigger stretch than moving around within China. But again, I havent dealth with this before, so wanted some other opinions
ORIGINAL: Walloc
He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.
ORIGINAL: Walloc
ORIGINAL: Justus2
That's why I asked about Canada, to me that is the most similar comparison - not loading on ship, just a land crossing, but a different command area (crossing natioanl borders, which technically Manchuria isn't even doing that).
Well i've seen different versions of the rule. Some specificly mentions China/Korea/Manchuria and India/Burma/China on other side. Under that version/versions i see no problem in doing US-Canada. My assumption is if u specificly mention the above only, then thats for a reason. Canada-US being one of the more obvious.
Others have a more strict no crossing borders periode. Under that Canada-US wouldnt be allowed, as i see it.
ORIGINAL: Justus2
I know CR mentioned on a couple of the Army units, that he moved to CT without paying PP, only paid to load on ships. that to me seems a bigger stretch than moving around within China. But again, I havent dealth with this before, so wanted some other opinions
Yeah i noticed this too. I would say its iffy, assuming u using the 2nd version of above rules, not in the first. US is not the same as CT holding box. On the other hand he has been specific about paying PPs for units to go into new on map locations/using them in combat. At leased it seems like that from comments he has made. What he actually have done i by nature of it I cant know.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Walloc
He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.
He has said he has bought out restricted units. That's not what we're talking about here.
If the rule is limited to restricted units then moving Japanese divisions around in Asia is fine. The HR is usually national units crossing borders. While the USMC can operate in India as an unrestricted unit, there is no way you could argue that is fine and moving Japanese forces from Man. to China isn't.
I'm with the "no HRs mean no HRs" camp. When you say that and then carp you end up in a bad place.
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
My understanding is he's using the off-map Move techniquw to move restricted units to CT while they're still unbought. They'll do that even if they won't board ships. You can do this with aircraft as well. When you have PPs you buy them and they're already in CT. In a no-HR enviro it's fine. In one with a no-borders buy-out rule I'd say it isn't.
ORIGINAL: Walloc
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Walloc
He has been very clear that he has bought out units with PP. Also having units he cant move as he hadnt the PP to do it. IIRC that UMSC unit isnt even restricted for starters. So that rule wouldnt restrict that UMSC unit from going to India. Not saying per rules that PJH is doing any thing wrong, but i think its clear from CRs action his views/interpretation on this.
He has said he has bought out restricted units. That's not what we're talking about here.
If the rule is limited to restricted units then moving Japanese divisions around in Asia is fine. The HR is usually national units crossing borders. While the USMC can operate in India as an unrestricted unit, there is no way you could argue that is fine and moving Japanese forces from Man. to China isn't.
I'm with the "no HRs mean no HRs" camp. When you say that and then carp you end up in a bad place.
I totally disagree. First of all there are several different version of border crossing rules so any answer would have to be taken in that view.
The restricting units in manchuria has to do with else u can over run china in 2 months flat. There is a garrison limit for Mancuria that is significant lower than what was there until later in the war. The idea behind resticting units in manchuria is to avoid that they overun China in 2 months which isnt in it self realistic.
Similar on allied side u have limits to make it impossible to move the entire Chinease army out of china and into burma/india or where ever. Similar restricting units from going between Burma and India umlimited to slow the eventual counter offensive into Burma. Possibly but this is really depence on how the rule is setted up. Moving to Canada from US or US to CT. Depence wholly on how the rule is worded.
When ever a japanease unit is bought out. Its free to go any where. Any unrestricted japanease unit is free to go any where. There are no limits on what historicly there would be with the inter navy-army rivalry/political game. U can do any thing u want. I have no problem with that. Its a game ppl should be allowed under rules and possible HR to go make operations where they like.
Then the same can only be in effect for the allied side. Unrestricted units as well as units bought out JUST LIKE on the japanease side is allowed to go any where. Yes just as on the japanease side u can do things that is counter to historic thinking, but just as japanease side u should be allowed within rules and HR to do operations just as u like, in regards to what go where. What is good for the gooose is good for the gander.
Saying that USMC unrestricted units going to India is the same as allowing the army in manchuria to go any is similar not remotely compareble. Removing the Manchuria restrictions would be equal to allowing/moving the entire chinease army to go to India.
Kind regards,
Rasmus
ORIGINAL: Schlemiel
Even the paying pp to cross national borders rule can very, very easily be skirted (mostly by the Allies). It's quite possible to have nearly full strength 27th, 40th, 41st and American Infantry divisions deployable by Feb or March 42 for ~ 150pp total. There are notable opportunity costs for doing so, but it is quite possible to do in whole or in part. I've always wondered what the pay full price to cross national borders people do about some of the mixed restriction units as well (especially 24th and 25th divisions in Hawaii). Do they have to switch to something like south pac to recombine?
ORIGINAL: JeffK
A major difference between Manchuria/China and USA/Canada is that the Kwantung Army could find itself in Karachi or Singapore whereas the US Army gets to Alaska.
I dont think that this is going to work out for the long term game.
CR seems to want to play by his idea of what is right, in a game where PJH is playing the game.
Its like a knife fight where PJH has bought a gun.
Sad to see, and I dont understand why, CR is considering a northern campaign, cant see any reason for it(are they playing for points or till the bitter end??) except there are enemies on US soil.
Even the paying pp to cross national borders rule can very, very easily be skirted (mostly by the Allies). It's quite possible to have nearly full strength 27th, 40th, 41st and American Infantry divisions deployable by Feb or March 42 for ~ 150pp total. There are notable opportunity costs for doing so, but it is quite possible to do in whole or in part. I've always wondered what the pay full price to cross national borders people do about some of the mixed restriction units as well (especially 24th and 25th divisions in Hawaii). Do they have to switch to something like south pac to recombine?
