Bob

[USSAmerica]

As an impartial, but AFB, observer in this war, I also like the idea of this HR.  I have no idea how well it would work, and like all HR's should be open to negotiation if play testing indicates it is not working well.  [:)]
 
I'll step down off the stage now and go back to my seat in the audience.  [:D]

[Mike Solli]

Hi guys.  I got dragged out of drill to go back to work.  You know, the nasty storm and all.....  Took almost 3 hours to drive typically an hour's drive.  Well, at least tomorrow I go only 12 miles vs. 70 miles in a blizzard.  Best part is that I'm off the rest of today. [:D]
 
I'm the one who requested the "Pay the PP to move units" HR.  I still like it, but it's definitely going to stimy the Burma invasion.  Historically, I don't know how the Japanese would have done all the moving around they did with the PPs available.  There are complete divisions that'll never move off the mainland China to where they moved historically due to a lack of PPs.  So far we've paid for all the moves, but we'll never catch up to history.

[Mike Solli]

Bruce, unless you're working Bob, I'll take it.

[Speedysteve]

I too like this HR. It slows things down and gives IMO a more realistic feel to things.

[Mike Solli]

Speedy, how much has the PP shortage hampered your movement?

[Mike Solli]

I'm going to assume Bruce is at work.  I've got Bob.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Speedy, how much has the PP shortage hampered your movement?

Currently, you might (and probably already have) notice(d) that a US division that is was shipped to Noumea at the beginning of the war is not there... this is because it was assigned to CENPAC by the game (for some reason).

[Mike Solli]

So you're having the same problems, eh?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

I too like this HR. It slows things down and gives IMO a more realistic feel to things.

It does give an interesting feel to the game (and definitely slows it down) but it is also confusing, i.e. - numerous units start in territory not assigned to their command - i.e. - China Command units can start in India, SWPAC in SEAsia areas, etc.

[fabertong]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Hi guys.  I got dragged out of drill to go back to work.  You know, the nasty storm and all.....  Took almost 3 hours to drive typically an hour's drive.  Well, at least tomorrow I go only 12 miles vs. 70 miles in a blizzard.  Best part is that I'm off the rest of today. [:D]

I'm the one who requested the "Pay the PP to move units" HR.  I still like it, but it's definitely going to stimy the Burma invasion.  Historically, I don't know how the Japanese would have done all the moving around they did with the PPs available.  There are complete divisions that'll never move off the mainland China to where they moved historically due to a lack of PPs.  So far we've paid for all the moves, but we'll never catch up to history.

I like this HR........as we and the allies have to scimp and save.....I just think the whole Burma/SAA thing is a problem.....a large part of the SAA will have to sit at Singapore (assuming that is an SAA base when taken)......and I suspect it will take 6 months to mount a usefull Burma operation.......I doubt we would ever take Rangoon.......although I know allowing flexibility now......does set a precident.....which may undermine the Idea behind it........

[Speedysteve]

I agree D. If it needs tweaking for x or y reason i'm open to that but in general I like it.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

So you're having the same problems, eh?

Some - i think we should try to play by the spirit of the rule, perhaps... there was an "exception" (on several votes) for "defensive purposes"


Proposal: maybe you could use units in Burma having some assigned to commands other than Burma to garrison or for noncombat units (base forces) but switching over assault units? Similarly, bombers should be in same command, but not patrol units...

What do you think??

EDIT: Since fighters are generally "defensive" they could be outside the command.

[niceguy2005]

As I look at the Allied reinforcement schedule I am shocked at what I am finding.  A lot of reinforcements come into the game under WC command and much of the rest seems to arrive under CENPAC.  I know one of the points of CHS is a more accurate OOB, but as I look at the command assignments I really start to have serious doubts about the capatibility of it with the witp game system.  With the HR we have I'm quite certain its unplayable.

I was right along side Mike in wanting to adopt the rule, but I'm just not sure CHS was designed for it. 

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

So you're having the same problems, eh?

Some - i think we should try to play by the spirit of the rule, perhaps... there was an "exception" (on several votes) for "defensive purposes"


Proposal: maybe you could use units in Burma having some assigned to commands other than Burma to garrison or for noncombat units (base forces) but switching over assault units? Similarly, bombers should be in same command, but not patrol units...

What do you think??

EDIT: Since fighters are generally "defensive" they could be outside the command.

What defines a command, proximity to its HQ, geographic region?

[Mike Solli]

I go with region for command, and pretty much ignore what the base says.  If we go with the base, pretty much all of Malaya is Burma.  I consider Malaya to be SRA.
 
By the way, Bruce has the turn.

[Mike Solli]

I say we stick with the HR as agreed upon and see how things pan out.

[BrucePowers]

I will work the turn after pizza and a greek salad[:)]

[BrucePowers]

Ok, I have the turn.[:)]

[BrucePowers]

The turn has been returned to the allies[:)]

[Speedysteve]

Turn to my colleagues[:)]