Vlad LL

Moderator: Hubert Cater

Post Reply
pjg100
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:32 pm

Vlad LL

Post by pjg100 »

I think it is silly that JA can simply move all of its regular troops out of Manchukuo on turn 1 and replace them with garrisons, shortly after getting their butts whipped in a major battle against the USSR (Nomonhon (sp?), August 1939), with no consequence. How about this, or something like it:

The JA-SU nonaggression pact becomes a JA decision event, which is triggered when JA moves any of the army, corps or HQ in Manchukuo out of the area. If JA says no, then for each of the starting army, corps and HQ that start in Manchukuo that move out, USSR mob increases by 1% per turn; this is on top of any mob increase resulting from leaving the Manchukuo cities ungarrisoned. If JA says yes, then there is no additional USSR mob increase from moving the army, corps and HQ out, but JA units cannot interdict the Vladivostok LL unless JA is at war with the USSR.

So the typical course would probably be for JA to accept the pact in 9/1939 and replace its regular troops in Manchukuo with garrisons, just as typically happens currently. Once GE DOWs USSR, JA has a choice: either reinforce Manchukuo and DOW USSR, which has the effect of enabling interdiction of the Vlad LL, or not. Perhaps add a modest NM penalty to JA if it is at war with all of China, USSR and USA, to make the JA decision as to whether to DOW USSR more interesting.


User avatar
ElvisJJonesRambo
Posts: 2513
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 6:48 pm
Location: Kingdom of God

RE: Vlad LL

Post by ElvisJJonesRambo »

Wow, I read that 3 times, that's deep. You must be in the legal field, that's quite the brief.

I have this translation program which told me this: When Japs move their Big Boy pieces outta Manchuria, Russia gets mad. Therefore, round #2 of war, should happen if you press zee right/wrong button on Pop-Up decision.
Slaps issued: 16 - Patton, Dana White, Batman, Samson. Medals/Salutes given: 6, warnings received: 11, suspensions served: 4, riots: 2.
pjg100
Posts: 383
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 4:32 pm

RE: Vlad LL

Post by pjg100 »

Heh, you nailed it.
Aussiematto
Posts: 344
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2011 8:27 am
Location: Australia

RE: Vlad LL

Post by Aussiematto »

More generally, things could be more eventful ... this is a good idea pjg100 even if it took me a while to discern the meaning too! So, rather than things being fixed, you could perhaps provide Japan with more choices which then also mean we don't have to do all that micro-management of garrisons!
I still remember cardboard!
User avatar
crispy131313
Posts: 2125
Joined: Fri Nov 29, 2013 11:37 pm

RE: Vlad LL

Post by crispy131313 »

I included the Non-Aggression Pact in my current PBEM match, I think it would be a great addition to the game. As the Allies if I find my opponent has only garrisons in Manchuria I will neglect to sign it, and will enter war with Japan without having to DOW which tanks US mobilization.

Here is the event decision;

Image
Attachments
Capture.jpg
Capture.jpg (92.2 KiB) Viewed 181 times
Fall Weiss II - SC3 Mod
tm.asp?m=4183873

Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII: World at War”