Allied Garrison in SRA

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: herwin
Now you begin to understand why those parts of the world had such large garrisons. Neither the Burmese nor the Indonesians were happy under colonial rule.

At least until they had an opportunity to experiance "Japanese Liberation"! I to have a problem with the "partisan destruction" routine. It's not what happened. People just don't destroy their own livelyhoods as soon as the opportunity arises. What they do do is steal everything they can sell on the "black market". I think having undergarrisoned locations turn into "black holes" sucking up every supply point that comes through would be a better representation.

That's an intriguing idea, but I wonder if the natives really thought of western technology and industry as pertinent to their livelihoods? Seems just as reasonable they would have considered them artifacts of colonialism and destroyed them gleefully.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Mynok
That's an intriguing idea, but I wonder if the natives really thought of western technology and industry as pertinent to their livelihoods? Seems just as reasonable they would have considered them artifacts of colonialism and destroyed them gleefully.

The great majority of the people working on the docks and oilfields and factories and mines and such in colonial East Asia were locals. Europeans owned them, but native labor operated the plants. Labor often goes on strike, but they seldom burn down the factory. No factory, no job..., and they need the jobs to feed their families.

On the other hand, civilians stealing from anybodies military is a fine old tradition..., and was brought to near perfection by the citizens of Naples during the Second World War (when almost 40% of the supplies the Allies landed dissappeared into the black market).

[Fishbed]

Maybe, but they wouldn't start to burn their own crops down, as it is nearly the case right now.... code wise I don't know what's possible, but looks to me that tuning down the initial rate of destruction or putting a delay (destructions wouldn't start before, say, 1 week) would kill part of the gamyness (An allied player wouldn't abandon a city too early, because any Japanese push would be able to take it under one week with minimalist destructions)

[crsutton]

It is an interesting idea. Frankly, I was not aware I could do it. Now that I am aware, I don't think I will. Like said before. I have a great opponent and just want a fair game.
 
 

[Chickenboy]

Since there is no 'wiring for destruction' abilities for the allies, I would not accept any HR that restricted my ability to destroy valuable IJ war booty. Anything that mimics planned 'scorched earth' is necessary to make up for the very unrealistic lack of ability to destroy refineries, oil storage facilities and major production plants.

If the code were changed to permit this intentional activity by engineers, I'd happily allow for cessation of partisan destructive activities.

[Fishbed]

Yes I understand there's some scortched earth legitimate concern, but again, although I understand that right now
- there's already some system in place that is supposed to harm the installation when the Japanese take a DEI base (tell me if I am wrong)
- again destroying oil wells is fine, but for the moment it looks like everything standing is getting mercilessly trashed, which may be a little too much... Dutch soldiers didn't throw oil waste in the rice fields and set fire to it, or burnt down local shops and manufactures AFAIK.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

The great majority of the people working on the docks and oilfields and factories and mines and such in colonial East Asia were locals. Europeans owned them, but native labor operated the plants. Labor often goes on strike, but they seldom burn down the factory. No factory, no job..., and they need the jobs to feed their families.

Did they really? Or were they looking to snag some currency to better their lives? Thing is, we know nothing of the motivations of the natives, only the results. It's not a foregone conclusion they were dependent upon the Euros for survival.

[Jonathan Pollard]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
If the code were changed to permit this intentional activity by engineers, I'd happily allow for cessation of partisan destructive activities.

I think there already is code to permit destruction by engineers, but they destroy only if they are forced to retreat from the hex or are destroyed in combat. And the amount of destruction is random, supposedly influenced by the number of engineers (don't know if it was construction or combat engineers or both). At least that's the way it worked in stock WITP.

[jomni]

Whoops!  This is a wakeup call for me.  I'm playing Japanese and in securing the Chinese front, I let the partisans party in the interior. Better watch the important cities.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Since there is no 'wiring for destruction' abilities for the allies, I would not accept any HR that restricted my ability to destroy valuable IJ war booty. Anything that mimics planned 'scorched earth' is necessary to make up for the very unrealistic lack of ability to destroy refineries, oil storage facilities and major production plants.

If the code were changed to permit this intentional activity by engineers, I'd happily allow for cessation of partisan destructive activities.

I'd go for this too. The Dutch engineers did a pretty good job of messing up the oil facilities in the NEI and they didn't have to wait until the Japs attacked or a 'retreat' from a hex.

[rattovolante]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
On the other hand, civilians stealing from anybodies military is a fine old tradition..., and was brought to near perfection by the citizens of Naples during the Second World War (when almost 40% of the supplies the Allies landed dissappeared into the black market).

well Naples might be an interesting case. As I understand it, the activities under both German and Allied occupation were more due to starving and desperation than proper partisan or stay-behind activity.

AFAIK the primary cause of the city's insurrection against the withdrawing germans was hunger and the fact that the germans had order to destroy and/or boobytrap anything they couldn't evacuate, including buildings, port facilities, stockpiles etc.

But please note that the traditional historical explanation is more on the lines of a proper partisan uprising (for what it's worth, wikipedia embraces this explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_days_of_Naples). So take my own point of view with a grain of salt.



In any case, what's interesting for WitP mechanics is that:
- in real life, the effect of the low german garrison was actually to hinder the german demolition effort
- with the WitP model the effect of the low german garrison would be to add to the damage eventually caused by german engineers dislodged from the hex by allied troops.

of course I'm not saying that the naples case can be considered a guideline for the DEI - I know very little about the pacific theather. But IIRC in Java at least weren't the independence groups rather pro-japanese than pro-allies? Or this only changed at the end of the war, and it's better depicted as the surrendering japanese being more pro-independence groups than pro-dutch?

[vlcz]

ORIGINAL: loricas

my trouble is not to have same place to garrison: the point is that in same places the penality to not have garrison is in fact a bonus...

Exact, the problem is not if the effects of the uprising are "historic" the problem is that the mechanism is subject to "gamey" uses (i.e. allies using them as demolition squads). A posible solution could be giving each city a % of uprising equal to the % of garrison values missing. On successful uprising a "militia" unit of AV aproximate to the required garrison would appear in the city and make deliberate attacks until eliminated...this would mean at least you lose possesion of the base/facilities.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Pascal

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Since there is no 'wiring for destruction' abilities for the allies, I would not accept any HR that restricted my ability to destroy valuable IJ war booty. Anything that mimics planned 'scorched earth' is necessary to make up for the very unrealistic lack of ability to destroy refineries, oil storage facilities and major production plants.

If the code were changed to permit this intentional activity by engineers, I'd happily allow for cessation of partisan destructive activities.

I'd go for this too. The Dutch engineers did a pretty good job of messing up the oil facilities in the NEI and they didn't have to wait until the Japs attacked or a 'retreat' from a hex.

Agreed Pascal. The game, while it occasionally / randomly permits destruction of oil facilities when Engineer types are forced out, does not systematically permit this. Result? If the IJ forces don't get around to Palembang, Balikpapan or Java until April (plenty of time to wire things for detonation), there's still a very good chance that nothing will happen with a facility.

It is my understanding that the number of Engineer types, amount of fighting that goes on in the hex until the engineers get kicked out and unit preparation are irrelevant and that a 'random' chance determines the outcome of the intentional sabotage. Too random for my blood.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Kaletsch2007

After starting my PBEM, i thought about that issue too. Should have requested a house rule, that forces my opponent to garrison up to the minimum requiered.

Easy solution would be, to make some units static.

Such a house rule will impact the defending player's ability to move combat forces throught the theatre. You're telling me that I can't move my (admittedly crummy) Malay rifles battalions to Rangoon / Pegu because I'm being forced to keep them in some malarial base 300 miles from the front lines?

If that's the designer's intent, then why make them mobile units in the first place?

[Kaletsch2007]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Kaletsch2007

After starting my PBEM, i thought about that issue too. Should have requested a house rule, that forces my opponent to garrison up to the minimum requiered.

Easy solution would be, to make some units static.

Such a house rule will impact the defending player's ability to move combat forces throught the theatre. You're telling me that I can't move my (admittedly crummy) Malay rifles battalions to Rangoon / Pegu because I'm being forced to keep them in some malarial base 300 miles from the front lines?

If that's the designer's intent, then why make them mobile units in the first place?

In principle, I agree with that. Still there is one question left. What is worth fighting for in the DEI ? The oil, of course. In my opinion, it is just gamey not to defend the most valuable installations, just to hand them over as much damaged as possible.
And BTW, I am fine with the damage that occurs during the fight and loose of the base.