did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by freeboy »

OK, Enemy pinned in Canton, I hold allthe other hex save opne disputed to the west, Then out of nowhere as I juggle troops around in the two hexes of road between Cantoon, jap help but contested, and Swatow, JAp held but contested.. he moves 58 units out of Canton on top of my unit in the road hex.. WTF.. My understanding is the units cannot move from a disputed hex to a hex in eitheer the ownership.. troops , or the control.. w key reveals this.. I definately had control!!! WTF
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

Any of the mods taking note of this? Mr. Frag? Mogami?
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by freeboy »

It is possible that I had a unit move into the hex at the same time the Japs did.. but I still "owned" having moved in and out several units.... ok 83 to be exact.. see the aar there is even a recent pix showing the hex ownership
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by Mr.Frag »

Don't see a recent pic with enough detail to matter. You trying to imply that a empty hex will block unit movement just because you moved through it and got your letter there?

Don't confuse supply movement with unit movement.
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Don't see a recent pic with enough detail to matter. You trying to imply that a empty hex will block unit movement just because you moved through it and got your letter there?

Don't confuse supply movement with unit movement.

Wait a sec - i have not been able to move troops from one enemy ZOC to another, even if is empty or disputed (of course, not both at the same time). THis was is 1.4. I had guys trapped in Rangoon (enemy unit in hex) that couldn't leave until i brought someone down from Mandalay to "unblock" the empty hex (that had an enemy ZOC, but no unit). And if movement is NOT blocked by a enemy ZOC, what happened to the retreat rules where the units surrender because the empty hex is blocked by a ZOC ("the rumor of enemy troops...")




User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by freeboy »

ok, so I was wrong in my understanding.. I bet alot of players thought of these hexes as controlled as I did.. thanks Frag! ZS's troops are going to be pretty upset about all those guys they meet on the road tomorrow!
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, so I was wrong in my understanding.. I bet alot of players thought of these hexes as controlled as I did.. thanks Frag! ZS's troops are going to be pretty upset about all those guys they meet on the road tomorrow!


Um - i agree with your original interpretation.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by Mr.Frag »

It's not that simple ... you can't issue orders to a unit to move into a zone where a supply path can not be traced.
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

It's not that simple ... you can't issue orders to a unit to move into a zone where a supply path can not be traced.


OK maybe i am confused. However, i iirc, the game keeps giving me messages to the effect "can't move directly from one enemy ZOC control to another" if i try ordering a unit to do so. Freeboy stated "My understanding is the units cannot move from a disputed hex to a hex in eitheer the ownership.. troops , or the control.. w key reveals this.. I definately had control!!! " which makes it at least SOUND like this is going on (one disputed ZOC hex to a hex exclusively under his control). I can't tell exactly what is happening from his picture...[&:]
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

OK, Enemy pinned in Canton, I hold allthe other hex save opne disputed to the west, Then out of nowhere as I juggle troops around in the two hexes of road between Cantoon, jap help but contested, and Swatow, JAp held but contested.. he moves 58 units out of Canton on top of my unit in the road hex.. WTF.. My understanding is the units cannot move from a disputed hex to a hex in eitheer the ownership.. troops , or the control.. w key reveals this.. I definately had control!!! WTF


So - again - maybe i am confused.

Did the Japanese move directly from one Allied ZOC (disputed or not) not another Allied ZOC (disputed or not)?
User avatar
airtrooper
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:49 pm

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by airtrooper »

From what I understand (I cant think of any hex based game I have played that has NOT worked like this) if a hex is under the infulance of an enemy ZOC ( in this games case has the other sides letter in the hex when you press w) you can not issue orders or get supplies into or thru that hex but if attacked and forced to retreat your units will be able to retreat into it unless enemy units are actually present.
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

From what I understand (I cant think of any hex based game I have played that has NOT worked like this) if a hex is under the infulance of an enemy ZOC ( in this games case has the other sides letter in the hex when you press w) you can not issue orders or get supplies into or thru that hex but if attacked and forced to retreat your units will be able to retreat into it unless enemy units are actually present.

Wow - if so this really contradicts stuff i thought i knew. I'll try finding a thread/post concerning this.
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

From what I understand (I cant think of any hex based game I have played that has NOT worked like this) if a hex is under the infulance of an enemy ZOC ( in this games case has the other sides letter in the hex when you press w) you can not issue orders or get supplies into or thru that hex but if attacked and forced to retreat your units will be able to retreat into it unless enemy units are actually present.

Did a search.

OK - try looking at this thread (bunch of stuff here, but ZOC retreats discussed by Mods/Developers): Is Land Combat Broken?
fb.asp?m=854164

On the inability of troops to retreat into UNOCCUPIED ZOC, but surrendering instead (for Allies).
Hello...

The troops are not surrendering to 100 IJA. They are surrendering to the substantial force that just defeated them and caused the need for retreat, in the belief they are surrounded and have no retreat path.

There does not have to be even 1 IJA troop in the retreat hex, to block retreat. Just an enemy or contested or zone of control. If an enemy unit passed through an empty hex, establishing a zone of control and continued moving, and the retreat path indicated movement into that hex, the retreating unit would still surrender. Not to zero enemy troops, but to the troops that just defeated them. They would surrender in the BELIEF that they were surrounded.

Need to get back to work...

Michael Wood

Meanwhile - i still can't figure out if the Japanese in Freeboy's game moved directly from one ZOC to another.[&:]
User avatar
airtrooper
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:49 pm

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by airtrooper »

ok I guess it does not work that way for this game...at least not supposed to work that way according to what these guys said.... but when I said I have never played a game that does this I just assumed that this one was the same because all the others I played had that rule.
I have not actually played this game that long but have always tried to make sure the units i wonted to surrender had at least one of my units in every hex around it and when I was unable to do so these units have retreated rather than been destroyed.
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

ok I guess it does not work that way for this game...at least not supposed to work that way according to what these guys said.... but when I said I have never played a game that does this I just assumed that this one was the same because all the others I played had that rule.
I have not actually played this game that long but have always tried to make sure the units i wonted to surrender had at least one of my units in every hex around it and when I was unable to do so these units have retreated rather than been destroyed.

Yes - i do the same. I just know that if i don't, somehow the system will break down and they'll retreat into or move from one of my ZOCs to another.
User avatar
freeboy
Posts: 8969
Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 9:33 am
Location: Colorado

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by freeboy »

ok, they not only got out into ahex that was maybe empty but definately a former owned and thus and "a" hew usingthe w key.. Now in three days they have marched 120 miles through one enemy unitand into enemy territory.. not on roads I cannot enven get my armor to move like this on a road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I would have known this it would have been easy to take one of the about 100 oer so units .. thas right.. into that hex.. I feel so violated.. need a shower[X(][X(]
"Tanks forward"
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, they not only got out into ahex that was maybe empty but definately a former owned and thus and "a" hew usingthe w key.. Now in three days they have marched 120 miles through one enemy unitand into enemy territory.. not on roads I cannot enven get my armor to move like this on a road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I would have known this it would have been easy to take one of the about 100 oer so units .. thas right.. into that hex.. I feel so violated.. need a shower[X(][X(]

Sounds like the old RR "slingshot" feature/bug - sometimes you can move 90 miles in any direction if your unit is sitting on a rail hex.
User avatar
kaiser73
Posts: 394
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2004 9:45 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by kaiser73 »

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, they not only got out into ahex that was maybe empty but definately a former owned and thus and "a" hew usingthe w key.. Now in three days they have marched 120 miles through one enemy unitand into enemy territory.. not on roads I cannot enven get my armor to move like this on a road!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If I would have known this it would have been easy to take one of the about 100 oer so units .. thas right.. into that hex.. I feel so violated.. need a shower[X(][X(]

don't understand. you mean that Zeta was able to move units out of a contested hex (JA ZOC) to an empty hex?
or that he was able to move from a contested hex to an enemy hex (controlled by you)?
User avatar
rtrapasso
Posts: 22655
Joined: Tue Sep 03, 2002 4:31 am

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by rtrapasso »

don't understand. you mean that Zeta was able to move units out of a contested hex (JA ZOC) to an empty hex?
or that he was able to move from a contested hex to an enemy hex (controlled by you)?

I asked the same question. From his original post in this thread, it *appears* like it was from one contested hex to another. Looking at the MAP posted in his AAR (in a thread in the AAR forum) makes me think the original hex was NOT contested - so did not have an Allied ZOC. That's the only thing that makes sense to me - aside from a serious bug/redesign/feature. However, i don't think it is a bug/redesign/feature right now until definitely shown otherwise.
User avatar
Zeta16
Posts: 1178
Joined: Wed Nov 20, 2002 6:35 am
Location: Columbus. Ohio

RE: did this change? land mvmnt rule???

Post by Zeta16 »

Here is what happened on my end. I had my troops in Canton and they were on the move to one of the other bases down the coast when at 45 miles they were stop by one small unit from going into the the next hex. I tried to attack that hex but he land troops in the hex from the PI, about 80 divisions. So we had a battle there and I withdrawed my troops there to the base in the next hex. He followed me there and on my screen the hex became empty so I ordered my troops to march to another Japanese held city so they moved out.
"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”