Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Moose, I disagree that you can do these things against a good player. You have to get the units there for them to have any effect. That is the glaring weakness in your plan to use tiny units and base forces. If you bring a lot of force to the party that is different, and of course you can only do so much of that. Needing reaction forces - yeah, that's closer to reality anyway.

As far as HQ units go, they won't even enter an enemy controlled hex without units that have AV going with them. That rule might extend to any unit with 0 AV, but for sure it coves HQ units.

Do good players always play other good players?

In China, the units start there. You don't need to transport them. They can atomize and hide in woods and mountains. They would be slowly killed, but the objective is not to hold territory, it's to take individual HI-production-days away from Japan.

In terms of large HI producers even an audatious Allied player can't do much until mid-1943, but after that there are targets in Indo-China and the south China coast that can be forced with carrier investment. Rangoon is very possible. The Batavia area can be hit fast from the IO with losses. If it is taken spreading into Java is feasible if the Japanese are occupied elsewehre. To some extent these are suicide missions, but the Allies have deep pockets. It might not work, but the bigger point is it skews games while it's being tested, for completely artificial reasons.

Never heard that rule on HQs. Is it documented anywhere? I know base forces with 0 AV go into enemy occupied hexes. I just did it last turn. Not only 0 AV, zero devices. Basically a CO and his dog.

Even in China you have to get the units there - from those woods and mountains. A good player will not let you do that (twice, at least!).

The HQ thing is well known but I have no idea if it is in the manual or elsewhere.

Instead of all or nothing, just cut all production by 50%when enemy av is in the hex. This will reflect the actual and psychological impact of enemy forces in the area. The economy in that hex will be impacted by workers abandoning the factories to get away from the war. There were a number of cases were this hampered the war effort. I recently read that dock workers fleeing Rangoon severely impacted the use of the port.

Well, as there are so many opinions, would it be possible to add that due a command line order like -i (just as an example!) to activate it, or no command to have it as it is? So people can easy try it out and see how much different it actually will be and can turn it off easy if its too good.

ORIGINAL: witpqs


The HQ thing is well known but I have no idea if it is in the manual or elsewhere.

Not 100% known. [:)]

BTW, the base force CO's dog wanted to take a leak in the jungle. The unit wandered away from the base and back into deep canopy this turn without being attacked. That's a new one on me too.

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Instead of all or nothing, just cut all production by 50%when enemy av is in the hex. This will reflect the actual and psychological impact of enemy forces in the area. The economy in that hex will be impacted by workers abandoning the factories to get away from the war. There were a number of cases were this hampered the war effort. I recently read that dock workers fleeing Rangoon severely impacted the use of the port.

This sounds pretty good to me. As an old Squad Leader player, the tank factory putting out T-34s at the front lines in Stalingrad stands out in the memory pretty well. Production should be possible if resources exist in the hex.

However, the key is transparency. If everyone knows what's happening, everyone can adjust his play style to deal with it.

Cheers,
CC

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Theages

What about only shutting off production, when a minimum number of enemy troops is present (AV check) and / or a certain attacker - defender AV ratio is reached (eg. more than 1:1)?

Anything, in theory, could be coded, but this proposal doesn't have a lot of logical consistency. If industry is inside the city, why would having more troops outside the city stop it from producing? You also get into satellites issues. For example, this gives the defender free intel on the AV strength of units sieging the city. The defender just has to watch for the switch to flip on or off. Also, a lot of units don't have any AV, but are still enemy units which flip hexsides. Finally, bombing defending troops could have the effect of stopping civilian workers from doing their jobs; flipping the switch the other way through bombing. There is already a way to stop civilians from producing--City attacks on the industry. There's no logical reason killing soldiers should stop steelworkers.

The scope of the game doesn't allow for a "realistic" solution.

Now it is all or nothing. Even a single non-combat unit stops production. The other way around the presence of 30 combat units won't impact production even if there was no defender.

I don't think the cities were all surrounded by a wall with all factories etc inside (medieval style). I doubt the defence of cities was done at the perimeter. A stronger defender would move out to engage the enemy before he can do harm to vital facilities. A weaker defender would protect defensible positions and vital points. He would have to give up parts of the city. So the size of the troops on both sides would be important for how much of a given area is controlled by which side.

A single map hex covers a "large" area. It can be assumed the industries' facilities (etc) are not concentrated on a single spot. To have a defender protect all sites of production, he would require a certain number of troops. The more enemy troops arrive, the more troops he would require to hold them all, or just give them up due to the size of troops arriving.

In real life there never was an all or nothing control of a town (if it was defended). It would take the successful attacker some time to capture the town. And that means production facilities would also change hands not all at once but time after time.

If there are enemy troops in the same hex, there should be "free" intel (up to a certain degree) since your troops are able to see them! You should be able to guess, if there are more enemies than you have troops (maybe not AV but troops).

It is also not logical to prevent resource / oil from producing. If the defender has enough troops he should be able to protect those centers.

If the "steelworkers" are forced to work for an occupying force, they would run away, when enough soldiers are killed. If they are loyal, killing their protectors could also make them flee.

Conclusion: all or nothing (current situation) seems sub-optimal

Another approach for a solution could be to include a random factor for each game turn, how many LI, HI, oil etc can produce. Maybe really just random or influenced by number of troops present or anything else(eg. a counter going up in relation to the odds of an attackers attack and going down in relation to a defender's attack)

An enemy at a base, who doesn't attack should not be able to prevent production.

Any changes need to fit in with the current simple method of either producing with enemy present or not.
1. Either LI and REF can produce with enemy present or not.
2. Either HI can produce with enemy LCU/TF present or not.