Japan DOW Rhodesia and its aftermath

[calcwerc]

Sorry I failed to clarify this post is for information only, there is absolutely nothing against my opponent for doing this. Anything that's not specified is fair game. In fact, I appreciate him for doing this. Learned a lot of things that I would otherwise never know.

Well this Rhodesia war declaration is obviously the definition of cheese, but in top ELO games there are three criterias to win: best strategy, best tactical play, best cheese, not necessarily in that order. There´s no sarcasm to that, I respect the strategy from that perspective. I just think its no fun.

I also share the sentiment that there are too many special rules in the base game, and that it gets difficult even for very experienced players to keep track. Thats why I play TRP.

[BillRunacre]

Thanks, I'll make some changes.

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Rhodesia should just begin the game, at war with everybody (including themselves).
It's not like they have a layered, government.
There's no McDonald's, Walt Disney or Baseball games ongoing.
They weren't even a country.
Just a place to pick up some minerals, abuse the environment, run some tests.

I've already covered this, it's all about Pearl Harbor.
My Grandma(s), weren't reading the internet in 1938, saying "Gosh, there's Japs in Duck Soup City, China" or "Gee, it's getting hot in Rhodesia (where is it?)". My Grandma, wasn't saying, please send my sons to get their heads blown off and bodies mutilated over a nothing-burger.

The USA wanted nothing to do with Germany too, half of us are German.
December 1941, USA was not even close (as a people) to DOW on Germany/Italy.
FDR had to have Pearl Harbor.

The attitude was like General MacArthur, "Nuke 'em, send in the missionaries" (well that's Korea).

I will say thanks, Zulu and Michael Caine is one my favorite movies.
The preacher's warning, my fav: Death waits you! You have made a covenant with death, and with Hell you are in agreement. You're all going to die! Don't you realize? Can't you see? You're all going to die! Die! Death awaits you all!

[Cpuncher]

In the v1.20.00 update notes, it states:
"Amphibious Transports can no longer unload from a neutral sea coastal hex."

If this means what I think it means—that Amphibious Transports can't land troops from a neutral sea coastal hex—then I believe this is yet another unnecessary rule (and it doesn’t really solve the LRAT problem). It just adds more micromanagement for both sides, without much benefit. Not to mention, the game engine isn’t always consistent in determining which hexes are considered neutral.

See the attached image: after achieving a significant naval victory in the waters around Singapore, I found my LRAT unable to land at Penang (176,81)—the settlement northwest of my just-landed SF. All the coastal hexes west, southwest, and south of Penang are neutral, likely because DEI is still neutral. The closest valid landing hex is (177,83), two hexes south of my current SF. I could land from there, but then I can’t reach Penang in the same turn. Honestly, that feels kind of absurd.

I guess LRATs can’t simply be removed from the game—it would likely break WAW. But what if LRATs weren’t allowed to cruise, or have their AP reduced to 10 (with the ability to cruise)? That might address some of the balance issues that came with LRAT.

[Cpuncher]

I'm attaching the same image here again, as it illustrates two or three other issues:

1. The Japanese Corps north of Singapore has been sitting at 0 supply for at least four turns now but hasn’t suffered any attrition loss. I noticed the hex it’s on is a “sea+land” hex—maybe that’s the reason? Not sure if this is intended behavior. Additionally, my navy can’t shore bombard that unit, even though they can bombard all the other Japanese units nearby.

2. Regarding reinforcement limits for surrounded units: I assume there's a rule that land-surrounded units can't be reinforced beyond half their strength. I’m sorry, but I have to say this feels like yet another unnecessary rule. If someone is frustrated about not being able to capture a truly land-surrounded city in one or two turns, that’s a problem with their play—not the game. From my experience, competent players can consistently destroy a 6-entrenched, full-strength unit in Paris or an 8-entrenched unit in Sevastopol in just one turn. It just requires good management of supply, command, and sequencing.

If this rule must exist, then it shouldn’t apply to units with access to a port. In the image, the defender in Singapore is land-surrounded but still has access to at least one port for supply and reinforcement. In fact, in the following turn, both ports are repaired to strength 5—and I could have landed a full-strength unit into Singapore (It was prepared but not executed due to my senior moment). So why couldn’t I reinforce the one already there up to its supply level?

3. The hashed hexes: As mentioned earlier, UK navy still can’t cross them, even though she is at war with Japan. This line remains in effect until Pearl Harbor, but it seems an exception should apply if UK is already at war with Japan.

Side note: I realized it’s very dangerous to park subs near the hashed line. My opponent could attack them, cause them to dive into the restricted area, and trigger a huge US demobilization. Luckily that didn’t happen. The same can apply to German subs raiding near Canada.
Maybe subs in silent mode could be granted a turn to exit a forbidden area if they dive into it due to enemy action?

[Umeu]

I'm attaching the same image here again, as it illustrates two or three other issues:

1. The Japanese Corps north of Singapore has been sitting at 0 supply for at least four turns now but hasn’t suffered any attrition loss. I noticed the hex it’s on is a “sea+land” hex—maybe that’s the reason? Not sure if this is intended behavior. Additionally, my navy can’t shore bombard that unit, even though they can bombard all the other Japanese units nearby.

2. Regarding reinforcement limits for surrounded units: I assume there's a rule that land-surrounded units can't be reinforced beyond half their strength. I’m sorry, but I have to say this feels like yet another unnecessary rule. If someone is frustrated about not being able to capture a truly land-surrounded city in one or two turns, that’s a problem with their play—not the game. From my experience, competent players can consistently destroy a 6-entrenched, full-strength unit in Paris or an 8-entrenched unit in Sevastopol in just one turn. It just requires good management of supply, command, and sequencing.

If this rule must exist, then it shouldn’t apply to units with access to a port. In the image, the defender in Singapore is land-surrounded but still has access to at least one port for supply and reinforcement. In fact, in the following turn, both ports are repaired to strength 5—and I could have landed a full-strength unit into Singapore (It was prepared but not executed due to my senior moment). So why couldn’t I reinforce the one already there up to its supply level?

3. The hashed hexes: As mentioned earlier, UK navy still can’t cross them, even though she is at war with Japan. This line remains in effect until Pearl Harbor, but it seems an exception should apply if UK is already at war with Japan.

Side note: I realized it’s very dangerous to park subs near the hashed line. My opponent could attack them, cause them to dive into the restricted area, and trigger a huge US demobilization. Luckily that didn’t happen. The same can apply to German subs raiding near Canada.
Maybe subs in silent mode could be granted a turn to exit a forbidden area if they dive into it due to enemy action?

1. Unit doesn’t just need to be at 0 to lose strength. They must be at 0 AND not connected to another hex with supply higher than 0. So basically, 0,0=lose strength. 0,1=not lose strength.

2. This is ironic for so many reasons, mainly since you add so many unnecessary rules yourself. But also, this whole thread started with you wanting more historical accuracy. Imagine fully reinforcing an army in a surrounded city. Where do these tens of thousands of soldiers come from? Even Verdun needed a secret road and Leningrad had the lake. I guess the problem in this case is actually not too many rules but too few or mostly the inability to create proper exceptions, since this unit in Singapore counts as surrounded when realistically it isn’t since the sea is not contested and the docks aren’t blocked by a Japanese ship.

But the game engine it seems is not great at handling exceptions, at least I surmised from answers the dev gave to handling certain problems.

3. Yes that line should disappear once UK is at war with Japan. US mobilization should increase or decrease depending on who declared war enough to make that line unnecessary.

But otherwise, accidentally being shepherded into that zone because you want to close to it is a valid offensive tactic. What you propose now actually adds another rule, and this one is really unnecessary… just as you say that not being able to capture a surrounded city early means a flaw in your own gameplay you should fix, going near such a dangerous zone is a flaw in gameplay one can fix or it is a risk one willingly takes.

[Umeu]

Thanks, I'll make some changes.

Nothing too drastic please. I’m playing a game where Japan invaded Burma and Malaysia around July, it bumped US mobilization up by only a little bit (10% I think). But I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this, since the US (at least general population) did not really care much about those places. And if the US wouldn’t interfere against Germany despite it taking over Europe and bombing Britain, it would not interfere in what would be perceived the same war, when Japan takes some unimportant places in the far East (at least in the eyes of Elvis’s grandma in bumville, nowhere, Alabama.)

I think a demarcation line around Australia which Japan can’t cross without pissing off the US would be nice. Or otherwise the presence of Japanese forces near Australian cities triggering US mobilization, just as it happens in China.
I’m not sure what the penalty is for DoW directly on Britain but I think it’s fair to not declare directly on Britain since the threat to a faraway dominion is not the same as to the home isles. And it’s not unreasonable to assume from Japan’s pov that UK fighting for it’s life against Germany might not contest the loss of places so far away from home (even though this assumption proved to be wrong). After all, the French did not and could not really contest the loss of Vietnam and Laos either.


https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopic.php?t=412133
Can you take a look at this also please?

[Cpuncher]

There’s one more aftermath worth mentioning: MacArthur won’t deploy if Australia is conquered before Pearl Harbor. He’s also not available for purchase, either. It would be nice to have MacArthur represented in the game, regardless of Australia’s status.

I wonder if a couple of alternative deployment locations could be added for him. If Australia is captured—or even just invaded but not yet taken (there are several other instances in the game where units deploy into threatened locations and get wiped out immediately)—then it’s conceivable the U.S. government would send him to Hawaii or Honolulu instead. And if those are also captured or threatened, perhaps he could deploy on the West Coast?

It’s not a huge deal to play without MacArthur, but it would be nice to have him in the game.