Question for Those Who Play Japan (Lokasenna welcome now)

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58




As you get into the center of the onion, yes, garrisons matter. They're core to the "defend enough" process I spoke to above. Garrisoning ones that can straddle a lot of approaches is obvious. But that isn't Baker, or Marcus, or Tulagi.

Look at your own game. Of the bases you mention here and in your previous post--Hokkaido, Bonins, Marianas, Sakhalin, Okinawa, Formosa, Ryukus (did I miss any) had you had these ten depot divs to plunk down on them, would they have stopped Jocke from standing in Korea at the end of the game?

The very problem I'm talking about comes from my experience in the game you mention. Due to the ability of the Allies to be mobile with a crapload of units, able to land 5kAV in one base in about a day, these depot divisions would have been priceless! Korea didn't end that game, strat bombing did, so anything earlier that could have slowed Allied progress would have prolonged the game.

1. They would have allowed me to better garrison the Burma and Thai coast, likely preventing the easy capture of Tavoy and the eventual encirclement of the Burma Army. (I could easily have avoided it anyway by taking the Pisanoluke road but simply miscalculated movement). (3 depot divisions)

2. They would have provided welcome reserves for the front lines and likely slowed Jocke at Sarmi, in the Moluccas and on Mindanao. (3 depot divisions)

3. They would have given me a few extra units to bulk up Formosa defenses and released some better divisions to go to Okinawa, slowing the fall of that base dramatically, and thus directly delaying the invasion of Korea. (2 depot divisions)

4. They wold have given me a few more units for the Marianas defenses that could easily have slowed the fall of those bases, thus postponing the strat bombing of the HI industry. (2 depot divisions)

All of these things would have helped prevent a landing in Korea when it happened and they would have also saved me supply by delaying strat bombing in several locations as the progress of the Allies slowed.

I don't get your point.

The point is more troops would have slowed Allied progress, as outlined in specific detail above. There are never enough to go around as Japan.

This in turn would have likely delayed destruction of HI/LI production and possibly let the oil flow longer from the DEI. Production of supply for longer means the depot divisions could pay for themselves if they delayed stoppage of oil and strat bombing by 30-40 days. (Japan makes ~28k supply a day full out. Half that in three months of strat bombing and you have a supply problem. One month of 14k production is 420k supply. That feeds ten depot divisions for 2+ years. 50 points a day x 365 = 18,250).

[GreyJoy]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert



1. They would have allowed me to better garrison the Burma and Thai coast, likely preventing the easy capture of Tavoy and the eventual encirclement of the Burma Army. (I could easily have avoided it anyway by taking the Pisanoluke road but simply miscalculated movement). (3 depot divisions)

2. They would have provided welcome reserves for the front lines and likely slowed Jocke at Sarmi, in the Moluccas and on Mindanao. (3 depot divisions)

3. They would have given me a few extra units to bulk up Formosa defenses and released some better divisions to go to Okinawa, slowing the fall of that base dramatically, and thus directly delaying the invasion of Korea. (2 depot divisions)

4. They wold have given me a few more units for the Marianas defenses that could easily have slowed the fall of those bases, thus postponing the strat bombing of the HI industry. (2 depot divisions)

All of these things would have helped prevent a landing in Korea when it happened and they would have also saved me supply by delaying strat bombing in several locations as the progress of the Allies slowed.

I don't get your point.

The point is more troops would have slowed Allied progress, as outlined in specific detail above. There are never enough to go around as Japan.

This in turn would have likely delayed destruction of HI/LI production and possibly let the oil flow longer from the DEI. Production of supply for longer means the depot divisions could pay for themselves if they delayed stoppage of oil and strat bombing by 30-40 days. (Japan makes ~28k supply a day full out. Half that in three months of strat bombing and you have a supply problem. One month of 14k production is 420k supply. That feeds ten depot divisions for 2+ years. 50 points a day x 365 = 18,250).

Completely agree with Obvert here.
A depot division can be nasty, even if not experienced and not well supplied.
Place it behind 5/6 forts and in good terrain, possibly with some back-up units (artillery and HQ) and it can be nasty.
As Japan, I'd like to have as many units as possible, even if they eat my precious supplies. But that's just IMHO

[Numdydar]

As a JFB, I will respectfully disagree.
 
Japan has a lot of troops that imho are completely worthless. These depot divisions are definately in the useless category. Supplying these is no big deal. The issue is that you are going to have them pull precious devices out of the stockpile that could go to much better units. Do you really want MGs, morters, etc., going to these units versus line divisions? Just to be a speed bump to the Allies? Which as stated before can easily bypass pretty much any strong point they want.
 
Personally I would much rather disband them so that whatever devices that have can be put back into the pools for units much better than them to use.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: obvert



1. They would have allowed me to better garrison the Burma and Thai coast, likely preventing the easy capture of Tavoy and the eventual encirclement of the Burma Army. (I could easily have avoided it anyway by taking the Pisanoluke road but simply miscalculated movement). (3 depot divisions)

2. They would have provided welcome reserves for the front lines and likely slowed Jocke at Sarmi, in the Moluccas and on Mindanao. (3 depot divisions)

3. They would have given me a few extra units to bulk up Formosa defenses and released some better divisions to go to Okinawa, slowing the fall of that base dramatically, and thus directly delaying the invasion of Korea. (2 depot divisions)

4. They wold have given me a few more units for the Marianas defenses that could easily have slowed the fall of those bases, thus postponing the strat bombing of the HI industry. (2 depot divisions)

All of these things would have helped prevent a landing in Korea when it happened and they would have also saved me supply by delaying strat bombing in several locations as the progress of the Allies slowed.

I don't get your point.

The point is more troops would have slowed Allied progress, as outlined in specific detail above. There are never enough to go around as Japan.

This in turn would have likely delayed destruction of HI/LI production and possibly let the oil flow longer from the DEI. Production of supply for longer means the depot divisions could pay for themselves if they delayed stoppage of oil and strat bombing by 30-40 days. (Japan makes ~28k supply a day full out. Half that in three months of strat bombing and you have a supply problem. One month of 14k production is 420k supply. That feeds ten depot divisions for 2+ years. 50 points a day x 365 = 18,250).

On the "I don't get your point" thing I messed up the quoting. All I noticed was the bolded line. I see now you had added comments I thought were old at that point.

On your supply argument I think we have to back up a little here. To be clear on the facts, as the "depots" are actually nine "depot divisions" and one new Guards Depot Div, one has to look at what they actually are and where they are. All 10 LCUs come in at 35% training and 35% morale. Nine of them are carbon copies device-wise; the Guards is almost exactly twice as large but no better trained. TOEs are about 65%. The Guards and one Depot division can be disbanded; eight Depots cannot be. The PP cost to unrestrict one of the nine Depots, before reinforcements, is 611 PPs. In my test game I disbanded the Guards to see what happened to the pools, so I don't have a PP number, but I figure it's about twice given the TOE ratio.

So, to summarize, they're bad LCUs capability-wise, and they're nailed down in the HI unless Japan comes up with about 6721 PPs. At 60/day that's 112 days if my calculator batteries aren't dead. Nearly four months of not spending a PP point on anything else. If that PP cost is not incurred, even if the two disbands are let go, then Japan is stuck for the rest of the war with 8 depot divisions in the HI. It is also true that the ONLY way these 8 can "pay their way" is to either: 1) take a supply source that would otherwise not be taken, or 2) prevent loss of a supply source currently held or that will be held later, up to the equilibrium supply consumption/supply gain point. In the HI, if PPs are not paid, neither of these options exists. The 8 are a millstone. Perhaps not a back-breaking one if they don't fight and never are set for replacements, but as you say five-figures of supply consumption just sitting there. And recall this cost me only about 250 VPs. (An SST activation would have been only 70 men and no ships lost.)

Then take the case that PPs are scraped up to deploy them. There is the opportunity cost on the PPs themselves of course. But these 8-10 are deployed. Where is going to depend on the game and era when the activation is achieved. But regardless, they will also consume 8 or 10 divisions' worth of sealift. Maybe just to the China coast where they rail and walk to Tavoy, as you say would have been the case in your game. Or, substantial lift, escort, fuel, and submarine loss-risk to go to the Marianas. Where they will need extra supply from somewhere, but will not be self-funding. (In almost no island garrison role will they be self-funding.)

You say that they would have helped stave off strat bombing in your game. To some extent, having read both sides, I agree with you. IMO what you did with NFs, which I'm still studying and I believe others as well, was much more instrumental than anything 8 depot divs at 140 AV each could have done. But here you also help make my point a bit. No, Korea wasn't the cause of the war win for the Allies. It was the strat bombing. But if you had sent three depots to Formosa he still would have bypassed them. Three to Hokkaido he still wouldn't have gone there. If you could have sent three to Formosa to free up three better divs for Okinawa, I might suggest you should have sent the three to Okinawa anyway; it's far more vital to a strat bombing campaign than Formosa. I am sympathetic to Japan's problem though. I'm not criticizing; it's just a matter of the map. Japan is faced with the old "which shell is the pea under" game, with mobility the key (IOW, the Allies are moving the shell in this tortured analogy.) Where will they land? They know, or adjust, and Japan has to try to defend everywhere and wait for a non-feint to reinforce. Very hard, especially in late-war fuel-starved conditions for sealift.

So we're back to Alfred's point about mobility versus fixed defenses. These depot divs, if the PP pain is handled first, still can only help set up static defenses. If the Allies bash on them, they help. If the Allies go around them, they eat supply for no ROI. The worst case for Japan in every sense other than PP savings is they squat in the HI for three years and never, ever fight. An Operation Shangri-La puts Japan to that decision at very low cost to the Allies. Exactly how useful they are is a function of individual games and players, and I agree they are not worthless in some sense. But they're expensive in a couple of ways, and cheap for the Allies to trigger.

As I am often accused of never letting go of the bone I'll try to stop here and give you the last word. You made good points above and I am still thinking about many of them. A long, long time since I played late war and never in PBEM.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Personally I would much rather disband them so that whatever devices that have can be put back into the pools for units much better than them to use.

Only two of them can be disbanded. If all could be the move wouldn't be worth much to the Allies, except to deny their activation in the late war. Japan only gets one set of these.

[offenseman]

In many ways this discussion is a must read as some of the strategy and tactics behind and within the discussion are well thought out and deep. Much deeper than only the actual Chevy and Caddy operations. I understand the arguments on the depot divisions and all are valid in different circumstances.

Here is one intangible that may, in a way, deal with Allied mobility. When it comes to defense of Honshu the depot divisions can be used as maskirovka for try to make the Allies land where the Japanese want them to. Either them use them to increase troop count on certain beahces and/or as a faux Gustav Line of sorts for Allied recon; to perhaps make the Allies land at a point where better troops are near the beaches for example. For lack of a better phrase, it would be trying to use the Allies own mobility against them.

Of course if bought out those troops could also be used for that purpose on other likely invasion areas. This beagle in wolf's clothing is a byproduct of how I am sure many of us use the RTA divisions early in Burma. Early on the Brits intel is not as good and one big stack of troops may be RTA or maybe it is Imperial Guards and 33rd Division. Or when KB attacks a port with a small amount of Kates that might appear to the Allies as Mini rather than KB. Maskirovka. Sometimes the threat is enough to cause a person to not have to defend or the threat may be enough to cause an unwanted retreat.

Great discussion for all, let's hope it continues.

[crsutton]

Well, from an Allied perspective I play the campaign without giving much thought to Japanese land units. That is, I "do" try to know what I am facing on the front lines, however, this game is about control of the sea. Once that is accomplished then from a personal perspective I do not care how many and how large Japanese LCUs are. And I don't really think about weather a base has 50,000 troops or 100,000. If I have control of the sea then I can isolate any base, and due to Allied overwhelming power in the late stages of the war, I can take any base if I really need it or simply choose not to take it and set up shop elsewhere. The invaluable LST makes any base, no matter the port size a viable base to build up for the Allies thus negating virtually any Japanese strategic position. Three elite divisions are not very strong if they have no supply.

The only bases that I think are critical for the Allies to take and therefore for Japanese to defend are Hong Kong, Manila and Singapore-because of the value of their shipyards to the advancing Allies. But my experience is that once the Allies own the sea the size of the Japanese army does not really matter. So, I am kind of in the Alfred camp here. I am about advancing and finding easy air bases to build not about killing LCUs. Almost every major Japanese defensive point has an alternative option for the Allies. It is as true in AE as it was historically. For an Allied player the key to this game is not to panic and squander your assets in the early game. If you do this then there are few good solutions for even a quality Japanese player in the late game.

For Japan in 1945 supply is the issue. Troops eat supply. So some economizing might be called for.

That said, if the Allies are fighting on the Chinese mainland, you are going to need a lot of bodies to throw in front of them.

[obvert]

On your supply argument I think we have to back up a little here. To be clear on the facts, as the "depots" are actually nine "depot divisions" and one new Guards Depot Div, one has to look at what they actually are and where they are. All 10 LCUs come in at 35% training and 35% morale. Nine of them are carbon copies device-wise; the Guards is almost exactly twice as large but no better trained. TOEs are about 65%. The Guards and one Depot division can be disbanded; eight Depots cannot be. The PP cost to unrestrict one of the nine Depots, before reinforcements, is 611 PPs. In my test game I disbanded the Guards to see what happened to the pools, so I don't have a PP number, but I figure it's about twice given the TOE ratio.

So, to summarize, they're bad LCUs capability-wise, and they're nailed down in the HI unless Japan comes up with about 6721 PPs. At 60/day that's 112 days if my calculator batteries aren't dead. Nearly four months of not spending a PP point on anything else. If that PP cost is not incurred, even if the two disbands are let go, then Japan is stuck for the rest of the war with 8 depot divisions in the HI. It is also true that the ONLY way these 8 can "pay their way" is to either: 1) take a supply source that would otherwise not be taken, or 2) prevent loss of a supply source currently held or that will be held later, up to the equilibrium supply consumption/supply gain point. In the HI, if PPs are not paid, neither of these options exists. The 8 are a millstone. Perhaps not a back-breaking one if they don't fight and never are set for replacements, but as you say five-figures of supply consumption just sitting there. And recall this cost me only about 250 VPs. (An SST activation would have been only 70 men and no ships lost.)

Good counter argument, and I think we're both back to the ability of the player to make use of the tools at hand. Your argument could be applied to any unit really. Is it worth it to fill out a new unit immediately and send it out to sit on a island, maybe before it's needed there? Maybe not, but then you risk it not geting there at all and losing the target easily, as happened with Okinawa in my game.

I guess I am moving into spring 43 in my Historiker game thinking about how few troops I can put on the front lines so these would feel like a godsend right now. I took the liberty of copying the OOB for 43 into summer 44. I was wrong in that there are some free troops coming before 44 beginning in November 43, but to get those very mediocre Ind. brigades up to speed in exp. and prepped still would take well into 44. See below. Only a few decent divisions in this entire record, so it's mostly PP buyouts.

What would make me happy about these is the cheap cost, only an average of 672/unit, and the early date of arrival, so time to prep and gain exp. It's kind of like having another Royal Thai Army. [:D] The difference being you could get in better commanders and get the exp. up faster.

So based on the list below, the size and AV alone would be a good value in locations where they could be in good terrain with decent fortifications. As with any Japanese unit on the front lines, the risk is Allied bypass, but at least with these most or all of the unit would likely be flyable, and using one would leave a division back somewhere more important. If a division is ~3 x PP cost at 1850+ PP, then I'd say these are worth it. Even crap units in defense are good at 3x the number.

The references to my game with Jocke were all about time.

Literally one more day of solid defense at Tavoy and I don't get an army of 500k men encircled. (He walked into my hex to close the last side the day before I would have walked out, but I also would have kept the road to Bangkok open earlier and avoided that altogether with two more days of movement for two tank divisions reinforcing the road blockade that in fact arrived too late).

At Sarmi one day of defense would have allowed the KB to close the sea and reinforcements to fly into Sarmi slowing that vector of advance on the New Guinea coast for likely another month or two.

These are all things I say in hindsight, but they were in my thought process at the time, and I know I wanted more troops to fill in just those spots. I might have been able to do it another way, and that is possibly my inexperience showing, but I think an extra 3k AV would have been pretty useful.

So below you can see that in Scen 1 from spring 43 there are not many free troops arriving to get into defenses. In November 43 there are 9 free brigades, a couple regiments and a clutch of naval units arriving. There are 3 more free brigades in Feb 44 and a few more before the first free division arrives in April 44. You get one more mediocre division, the 109th, in May 44. Then a bunch of the ~165AV brigades. That is not much to cover all that needs to be covered, and it's all a lot later than I'd like.

EDIT: The total AV of the free IJA units before April 44 is ~3100AV once filled out. Not much, and when you consider weak firepower and small unit size, practically it's a lot less.

[rustysi]

My two cents (oh, not again). Having followed this thread I think the tactic in the context of this campaign is fine. Bull and Loca are in a no holds barred, bare knuckle, street fight, that's fine. In another venue I would consider this a 'gamey' tactic. Now hold on, don't go off half cocked, let me explain. I don't wanna start a row here. The player would be using knowledge of the 'rules' to spark an event he would have no way of knowing would happen IRL. Yes, the Japanese player must be preparred for such events to occur, as Alfred has stated. If my opponent were to use such tactics elsewhere (such as Palembang, or Balikpapan) and were successful, I might cry in my beer, but I would say touche. If I as the Japanese player had the option to activate the troops or not I would say touche. But to just use this as a tactic I would prefer a different opponent. In any event it failed in all aspects, except to activate the 'depot' divisions. Just MHO don't beat me.[:D]

[Xargun]

What is the process if Japan lands on the west coast ? I want to say everything in the queue is moved up 6 months, but am not sure.

[Numdydar]

It depends on where on the West Coast. It is pretty big area lol.
 
Just like in OZ, there is a line where if you cross it additional US troops become avaialable. These are over and above the ones on the map and are availabale in normal play. Just what Japan needs is MORE US troops to have 'fun' with [:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

What is the process if Japan lands on the west coast ? I want to say everything in the queue is moved up 6 months, but am not sure.

Do a search on "emergency reinforcements". Some years ago Bullwinkle detailed all the counter invasion forces (excluding the Viet Minh) which are triggered in game.

Alfred

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

What is the process if Japan lands on the west coast ? I want to say everything in the queue is moved up 6 months, but am not sure.

No. The Allies immediately get substantial new LCUs as well as a very large device dump into the pools. The details are in that emergency reinforcement thread Alfred mentioned.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

My two cents (oh, not again). Having followed this thread I think the tactic in the context of this campaign is fine. Bull and Loca are in a no holds barred, bare knuckle, street fight, that's fine. In another venue I would consider this a 'gamey' tactic. Now hold on, don't go off half cocked, let me explain. I don't wanna start a row here. The player would be using knowledge of the 'rules' to spark an event he would have no way of knowing would happen IRL. Yes, the Japanese player must be preparred for such events to occur, as Alfred has stated. If my opponent were to use such tactics elsewhere (such as Palembang, or Balikpapan) and were successful, I might cry in my beer, but I would say touche. If I as the Japanese player had the option to activate the troops or not I would say touche. But to just use this as a tactic I would prefer a different opponent. In any event it failed in all aspects, except to activate the 'depot' divisions. Just MHO don't beat me.[:D]

To address the "gamey" idea one must first, as you do, state clearly that the design gives Japan no ability to activate these ten units. No ability at all. They are therefore completely at the sufferance of the Allied player. That is the design. Similarly, the various emergency reinforcement packages on the Allied side operate in symmetry for the Japan player. If he doesn't go to NZ that package stays in the Allied barn.

So, given that, the question arises if the "gamey" charge is leveled: when is it NOT "gamey" to activate this Japan depot div. package? To do so requires landing on a hex with the Japan national country code in the pwhex file. Should the Allies never do so? If so, why not? Is a landing at any time on Para Jima or the HI "gamey"? Or is there some date certain whereupon such a move does not become "gamey"? Or, is there also a minimum required Allied sacrifice of men and ships which ought to be offered up? How much? 1000 men and 10 transports? 5000 and 50? What is the exact number, please?

That's what you get when you go down the "gamey" trail. Or, you could play the game as designed and get far more interesting questions put before each player.

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

No. The Allies immediately get substantial new LCUs as well as a very large device dump into the pools. The details are in that emergency reinforcement thread Alfred mentioned.

Yep I found the thread... thanks

[jmalter]

This might be as good a time as any, to address my fellow forumites:

What it is, threads such as this one, w/ Moose & Alfred (!) & obvert & GJ & all other participants, add immensely to my enjoyment of our game. This recent thread is like another tasty juicy rare roast beef entree at a favorite restaurant, it provides plenty of 'food for thought'! Y'all engage my brain & enlarge my thoughts.

You guys rock - I wouldn't get half as much pleasure from WitP:AE w/o reading & joining in to this forum.

My best respects & thanks to every damn' one of you.

best regards,
jmalter

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: jmalter

This might be as good a time as any, to address my fellow forumites:

What it is, threads such as this one, w/ Moose & Albert & obvert & GJ & all other participants, add immensely to my enjoyment of our game. This recent thread is like another tasty juicy rare roast beef entree at a favorite restaurant, it provides plenty of 'food for thought'! Y'all engage my brain & enlarge my thoughts.

You guys rock - I wouldn't get half as much pleasure from WitP:AE w/o reading & joining in to this forum.

My best respects & thanks to every damn' one of you.

best regards,
jmalter

Prince Albert thanks you I'm sure. [:'(]

Alfred too. [8D]

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: rustysi

My two cents (oh, not again). Having followed this thread I think the tactic in the context of this campaign is fine. Bull and Loca are in a no holds barred, bare knuckle, street fight, that's fine. In another venue I would consider this a 'gamey' tactic. Now hold on, don't go off half cocked, let me explain. I don't wanna start a row here. The player would be using knowledge of the 'rules' to spark an event he would have no way of knowing would happen IRL. Yes, the Japanese player must be preparred for such events to occur, as Alfred has stated. If my opponent were to use such tactics elsewhere (such as Palembang, or Balikpapan) and were successful, I might cry in my beer, but I would say touche. If I as the Japanese player had the option to activate the troops or not I would say touche. But to just use this as a tactic I would prefer a different opponent. In any event it failed in all aspects, except to activate the 'depot' divisions. Just MHO don't beat me.[:D]

To address the "gamey" idea one must first, as you do, state clearly that the design gives Japan no ability to activate these ten units. No ability at all. They are therefore completely at the sufferance of the Allied player. That is the design. Similarly, the various emergency reinforcement packages on the Allied side operate in symmetry for the Japan player. If he doesn't go to NZ that package stays in the Allied barn.

So, given that, the question arises if the "gamey" charge is leveled: when is it NOT "gamey" to activate this Japan depot div. package? To do so requires landing on a hex with the Japan national country code in the pwhex file. Should the Allies never do so? If so, why not? Is a landing at any time on Para Jima or the HI "gamey"? Or is there some date certain whereupon such a move does not become "gamey"? Or, is there also a minimum required Allied sacrifice of men and ships which ought to be offered up? How much? 1000 men and 10 transports? 5000 and 50? What is the exact number, please?

That's what you get when you go down the "gamey" trail. Or, you could play the game as designed and get far more interesting questions put before each player.

Hey Moose if you see in my post I said such an action in your game was fine. I only use the 'gamey' expression here for lack of a better one. I myself would probably find the extra troops as an advantage for Japan, they never seem to have enough, and I don't think the supply issue would be too severe. In your context you are simply using your knowledge of the rules to spark an event for the purpose of putting a strain on your opponent. In your game I said fine. So I'll just call it 'gaming the game', how's that? Again in your game the way you have it set up, I say fine. If and when I get to a level where I can PBEM I'll see what I'd prefer then.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: rustysi

My two cents (oh, not again). Having followed this thread I think the tactic in the context of this campaign is fine. Bull and Loca are in a no holds barred, bare knuckle, street fight, that's fine. In another venue I would consider this a 'gamey' tactic. Now hold on, don't go off half cocked, let me explain. I don't wanna start a row here. The player would be using knowledge of the 'rules' to spark an event he would have no way of knowing would happen IRL. Yes, the Japanese player must be preparred for such events to occur, as Alfred has stated. If my opponent were to use such tactics elsewhere (such as Palembang, or Balikpapan) and were successful, I might cry in my beer, but I would say touche. If I as the Japanese player had the option to activate the troops or not I would say touche. But to just use this as a tactic I would prefer a different opponent. In any event it failed in all aspects, except to activate the 'depot' divisions. Just MHO don't beat me.[:D]

To address the "gamey" idea one must first, as you do, state clearly that the design gives Japan no ability to activate these ten units. No ability at all. They are therefore completely at the sufferance of the Allied player. That is the design. Similarly, the various emergency reinforcement packages on the Allied side operate in symmetry for the Japan player. If he doesn't go to NZ that package stays in the Allied barn.

So, given that, the question arises if the "gamey" charge is leveled: when is it NOT "gamey" to activate this Japan depot div. package? To do so requires landing on a hex with the Japan national country code in the pwhex file. Should the Allies never do so? If so, why not? Is a landing at any time on Para Jima or the HI "gamey"? Or is there some date certain whereupon such a move does not become "gamey"? Or, is there also a minimum required Allied sacrifice of men and ships which ought to be offered up? How much? 1000 men and 10 transports? 5000 and 50? What is the exact number, please?

That's what you get when you go down the "gamey" trail. Or, you could play the game as designed and get far more interesting questions put before each player.

Hey Moose if you see in my post I said such an action in your game was fine. I only use the 'gamey' expression here for lack of a better one. I myself would probably find the extra troops as an advantage for Japan, they never seem to have enough, and I don't think the supply issue would be too severe. In your context you are simply using your knowledge of the rules to spark an event for the purpose of putting a strain on your opponent. In your game I said fine. So I'll just call it 'gaming the game', how's that? Again in your game the way you have it set up, I say fine. If and when I get to a level where I can PBEM I'll see what I'd prefer then.

I understand the context of your comments, but I still take umbrage in general with the word "gamey." It has negative connotations. So does "gaming the game." I just play the game, as designed and coded.

I push back around here on "gamey" because I think too many players use it without thinking about its ramifications. If you use it I believe it is on you to then explain the exact parameters that would merit the withdrawal of the charge. It's a binary. If THIS is "gamey", then at what point is the thing "not-gamey"? And I mean exact parameters no matter into what uncomfortable circumstances they lead. So if landing an SST-worth of troops on the HI is "gamey", how many would not be? If the answer is "it's always gamey", then why? Even in the Fall of 1945 when Olympic was set to go? Or, if the HI is always off limits due to depot activation, how far away do the Allies have to stay? Why is depot division "gamey", but landing on one of the non-national Kuriles a couple of hexes from Sapporo isn't? In that case is an SST gamey, or an APD, or one xAP, or ten APs, or fifty APAs? What's the breakpoint? Justify your answer.

"Gamey" often substitutes for "it makes me uncomfortable" with no attendant analysis or "and so?" next step thinking. That's the problem with it. It doesn't have end-points, and players here usually fall back on the "well, just talk to your opponent" dodge. The problem with that is one player ALREADY "talked" through the action. He obviously thought it was fine else he wouldn't have done it. (Unless he's a sociopath and then you have other problems.) So the "discussion" begins as a zero-sum game. Somebody has to give in. They may smile and say "no problem", but it's a problem for most competitive people. When you golf with your boss and he asks for multiple mulligans, you smile, agree, but inside you think he's a jerk. After awhile you don't want to play with him anymore. We've all seen AARed games here collapse after one too many "discussions."

You may not like how the game works, but it's objective. It works the way it works. You can plan around it. You don't have zero-sum discussions. Or even non-zero-sum. You just play.

[rustysi]

I knew this was gonna be a PITA. Listen Moose this is why I said I didn't want to cause a row. OK, I guess you understand what I'm saying? You are using your knowledge of the rules to spark an event that you have no way of knowing if it would occur IRL to gain a perceived advantage. If you were attempting an invasion to stay fine, but you're not. Again I said, in the context of your game there's absolutely nothing wrong with what you've done. You have no rules. Its not an easy thing to put exact parameters on something like this. Look around you, the world is not black & white, its mostly grey. Some games the Allies could conceivably be invading Japan early. To put some kind of date or whatever on it would also be unfair. The easiest thing would have been to give Japan the option to activate the troops or not. Oh, did I say that outloud, I have no idea how easy it would be to code. I'm not asking the Dev's to change anything here either. I think they have enough on their plate as it is. I'm saying I would not use such a ploy in my games. If you wish to that's fine. I doubt we'll ever be opponents, nothing wrong with that. And if we were I'd accept that this is your style of play. Heck as I said I might even welcome the extra troops as Japan, I've not gotten that far in my games as Japan (v. AI).