suggestions on new ally occupation rules

[WanderingHead]

Hi, just a couple of suggestions on the new allied occupation rules (i.e. one power occupying the territory of another allied power).

As I understand it, the factory multiplier will be the same as the factory multipier of the original territory owner. I would suggest that this multiplier be x1, rather than the increased value. First, this is consistent with all other occupation of non-original territory. Second, it would provide a strong motivation to return the territory to the original owner if possible. It would prevent or at least minimize situations where it is actually beneficial to swap ownership.

Also, it sounds as though a power can only occupy an allied territory after "liberating" it. I would suggest that this restriction be lifted, and a power could occupy allied territory if it is empty of any allied troops. Otherwise, I could see examples where a buffer of empty zones can protect an enemy occupation. For example, if Japan takes all of China except Sinkiang, which is devoid of Chinese troops, then Russia might have to go around Sinkiang in order to liberate China.

Glad to see a fix to this problem in the works. Thanks for the continueing support.

[Joel Billings]

Making it possible to return areas to their original owner would involve more difficult changes to the system. We went with what we could achieve without too much difficulty, in order to solve the basic problem of blocking allies from retaking territory. As this is not a boardgame, it's not always easy to solve issues exactly as one might ideally want to. In a boardgame it's easy to create a new rule for the player. In a computer game we're dealing with a certain code structure. Since you can't give back the territory, keeping the same factory multiplier seemed the best way to go (and was the way the code wanted to treat it, and sometimes the code wins if we don't feel strongly one way or the other). Perhaps down the road we can look into ways of giving the area back, but that's a much lower priority than other things we'd like to get done.

[pyrhic]

yeah, you can see potential problems popping up where you'd switch a russia factory for a WA just to get better units(i'm assuming WA converted factories will produce WA units with WA stats). Still it's much better than the alternative...

[5cats]

Now I'd guess that "liberated" factories would only produce supply & research, since there'd be no Pop to make units from.

[Joel Billings]

No, actually they use population in the territories they've occupied that are of the same nationality as the factory. At least that's what we think will happen.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings
As this is not a boardgame, it's not always easy to solve issues exactly as one might ideally want to. In a boardgame it's easy to create a new rule for the player. In a computer game we're dealing with a certain code structure. Since you can't give back the territory, keeping the same factory multiplier seemed the best way to go (and was the way the code wanted to treat it, and sometimes the code wins if we don't feel strongly one way or the other). Perhaps down the road we can look into ways of giving the area back, but that's a much lower priority than other things we'd like to get done.

Yeah, I understand that is more difficult than a board game (people still smarter than computers).

Looks to me like this will remain a fundamental game flaw (improved but still flawed). Certainly won't stop me from playing, but it sure would be nice to see it truly rectified.

[Drax Kramer]

What was the problem with leaving everything the way it was except for the change of timing of forced withdrawal of allied troops?

Instead of pulling British out of Karelia on Wallied turn, liberators would be pulled out on Soviet turn, thus preventing Germans from marching into the open territory before Soviets could reinforce it.


Drax

[dobeln]

That they could then only liberate territories adjecent to their own? (national / occupied)

[pyrhic]

doesnt really solve the problem if there's no russian forces available. At the very earliest it would be 2 turns before you could generate troops in the zone, assuming you built up the factories and resources...

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: Drax Kramer
What was the problem with leaving everything the way it was except for the change of timing of forced withdrawal of allied troops?

Instead of pulling British out of Karelia on Wallied turn, liberators would be pulled out on Soviet turn, thus preventing Germans from marching into the open territory before Soviets could reinforce it.

In addition to the other issues some pointed out, what if the transports that brought the WAllied troops are gone (say, sunk by Germans)? Are the WAllied troops then destroyed? Or similarly if the territory they came form has been captured?

Moving WAllied troops in anyone elses turn, save by existing retreat rules from combat, seems very problematic.