Marching vs Rail

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7450
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

8.2.1.1 Operations Mode

>> Strategic - ... "The Japanese are limited to using Strategic OpMode on rail lines."

Me - and on ship TFs in Transport mode, which packs them in more tightly and gives them the opportunity to travel by rail immediately upon disembarking. The Allies of course can also do this.

Since I have only ever played as the Japanese this explains why I did not realize you could do this haha. Allies only!

Not all Allies are equal in this respect.

US Naval Ground units, Chinese and IIRC some Commonwealth cannot use Strategic Road Movement.

This is why it is sound practice to send only US Army ground units to China as they can take advantage of the major road network in a way that US Naval ground units cannot.
Hans

User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17908
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by RangerJoe »

As a cheat in the code, you can set the units that you want to move into Strategic movement mode for the road as long as you have one in that hex that is eligible to use that on the road, then set that eligible one to move to the target hex and set all the others to move as well. They will all strategically move - even the walking Chinese! You can even cancel the move order for the eligible one and they will still all move.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by rustysi »

As a cheat in the code

Playing the code.[:-]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17908
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: rustysi
As a cheat in the code

Playing the code.[:-]

[:-]

I did not state to use that cheat but to be aware of it.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by rustysi »

Aware means use.[:-]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17908
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Aware means use.[:-]

[:-]

No, it does not.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by Ian R »

Edit - never mind.

I don't think it's a cheat at all; why can't, for example, a US army unit let a USMC unit hitch a ride on its trucks? This was never changed in a patch in the 7 years they were provided, ergo, something resembling the adverse possession rule applies.
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 17908
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: Ian R
ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Tanaka




Kazaa thanks! So only allied units are strat road capable from this thread?

And not all of them

However, if you "stack", say, a CW unit with a UK or Indian unit, set them all to strategic (so requires a port or RR for the CW unit to change to that mode) and then give the Brit/Indian unit the road move order, and hit all to march, the CW units hitch a ride.

Which is what I pointed out and then a certain unnamed someone claims that just by being aware of something means that one does it. Just like knowing how a person lies, cheats and steals means that the person does it. So think of how many crimes are thus committed by law enforcement personnel and trial lawyers - even if they do not do said criminal acts.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child
Image
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by Ian R »

See above. I don't think its a cheat. I think it actually operates as a de facto fix for a judgment issue, namely that USMC, CW and French units were omitted from the hard code that defines who can road move.
"I am Alfred"
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Ian R

See above. I don't think its a cheat. I think it actually operates as a de facto fix for a judgment issue, namely that USMC, CW and French units were omitted from the hard code that defines who can road move.

It was never changed in a patch because it was not an oversight. It was a deliberate decision to restrict which nationalities could could use strategic movement on roads.

Alfred
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by Ian R »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ian R

See above. I don't think its a cheat. I think it actually operates as a de facto fix for a judgment issue, namely that USMC, CW and French units were omitted from the hard code that defines who can road move.

It was never changed in a patch because it was not an oversight. It was a deliberate decision to restrict which nationalities could could use strategic movement on roads.

Alfred

In other words, Alfred, someone (or perhaps a committee) made a judgment call about which nationalities could move in what in a boardgame you might call "lorry lifted road mode"*. The reason why Commonwealth specific nationality formations cannot enter road mode like all other Commonwealth nationalities' formations is elusive, as is the exclusion of USMC formations.

*As opposed to moving by human/equine muscle power on a road net instead of cross country.
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
BBfanboy
Posts: 20312
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:36 pm
Location: Winnipeg, MB
Contact:

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by BBfanboy »

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ian R

See above. I don't think its a cheat. I think it actually operates as a de facto fix for a judgment issue, namely that USMC, CW and French units were omitted from the hard code that defines who can road move.

It was never changed in a patch because it was not an oversight. It was a deliberate decision to restrict which nationalities could could use strategic movement on roads.

Alfred

In other words, Alfred, someone (or perhaps a committee) made a judgment call about which nationalities could move in what in a boardgame you might call "lorry lifted road mode"*. The reason why Commonwealth specific nationality formations cannot enter road mode like all other Commonwealth nationalities' formations is elusive, as is the exclusion of USMC formations.

*As opposed to moving by human/equine muscle power on a road net instead of cross country.
It could have come under the heading of "game balance" which would tend to introduce more restrictions on Allied formations to allow for a more exciting and long-played game.

There is also some logic to it - in the early war Canadian Army formations did not have a lot of transport - that was concentrated in the Service Battalions which were equivalent of USA BFs. But by 1943 the Canadian Army had received some of the vehicle production from the UK, USA and possibly licensed Canadian factories and could be considered strat-mobile by road. Almost all of the vehicles would have been in Britain where the Canadian Army was part of the build-up.
No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth
User avatar
rustysi
Posts: 7472
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:23 am
Location: LI, NY

RE: Marching vs Rail

Post by rustysi »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ian R

See above. I don't think its a cheat. I think it actually operates as a de facto fix for a judgment issue, namely that USMC, CW and French units were omitted from the hard code that defines who can road move.

It was never changed in a patch because it was not an oversight. It was a deliberate decision to restrict which nationalities could could use strategic movement on roads.

Alfred

Thanks Alfred.[&o]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”