Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

General Slim. That dude was so gamey - I totally dropped my PBEM against him. [:D]

Ya .. taking the 7th Indian Division Restricted to Southern Command into Mandalay is pretty suspect .. especially with all the PP's paid to activate the AUS Divisions at the same time to attack Borneo. I bet he paid for all those units while they were building up from destroyed units ... very very gamey indeed ...[8D]

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Well its clear when u play with those rules u dont curcumvent the rules, but pay the full price. Whats the point in having a rule if u dont follow it.
Ppl swicth the 2 regs of each div on Hawaii to pacific command the same as regs from each div at the west coast then recombine and its unrestricted as every thing else.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

But the whole "full price" thing is so rarely defined. When I say 150pp for those divisions, that is "full price" to swap them to any command in the game, and switching for full price instead of 1/4 to switch to, say, an unrestricted air hq within the same command structure, is the usual spirit of the rules. Japanese players frequently buy out a mauled bde in China to ship to an island somewhere (at a steep discount because it is mauled). Is stopping reinforcements to the 2nd marine rgt at the start of the game so that it is cheaper when you buy it out gamey or not (the other two regiments in the division are unrestricted as they arrive)? Is buying something out with disabled squads (which provide a discount) against the spirit of the rule? Waiting for units to be at full strength before they can be bought out provides its own set of issues as well. What if the pools are dry and it can't be filled out? What if you've specifically emptied the pools to other units so that situation happens?

That's why the rule is so murky and why pushing things to the limits of what might be reasonable (either in terms of mechanics or semantics) tends to happen. I like the approach CR and PJH have taken toward house rules in this game, trying to do things they believe are reasonable in context and talking it out when a disagreement arises. Of course you need the right parties for that to happen, but it's the most reasonable approach when possible to my mind.

Im new to AE, and very glad to hear that there is a discount to changing units a diffrent HQ under the same command. I have been buying units to SwPac for later assignment to command hqs and was worried about how i was ever going to afford them all.

That being said, Indian units aren't allowed in burma without 'buying' them? I admit my knowledge of the war in Burma/India theatre is virtually nil, so I dont know what happened historicaly. But it would make sense to me for Indian units to fight in Burma, why not fight the enemy in your neighbors yard instead of your own? In the early war i can see a rule restricting Indian units from crossing the border, but i can't see that restriction in mid/late war (say june 43 onward). I think the Indians would have been keen to exact revenge on the Japanese, and end the war as soon as possible. Also India/burma were still part of the English empire during the war, so I'm fairly sure the troops would go where they were told.

Manchuria is a bit of a diffrent situation, the troops there were defending against possible Soviet aggression, which while unlikely given the fact that the Soviets were busy with Germany, hindsight is 20/20 and at the time it seemed a very real threat that had to be countered. I know the game has a trigger to bring the Soviets into the war early if the Japanese player fails to maintain a sufficient garrison, but im not sure how the mechanics play out. Are units counted towards the garrison when they are assinged to a command or physical location? If the former then yes the Japanese player needs to pay the points to move units, if the latter then I dont think so since moving to many units will trigger early soviet aggression.

just my 2 cents;
Gmoney

ORIGINAL: Walloc


Saying that USMC unrestricted units going to India is the same as allowing the army in manchuria to go any where is similar not remotely compareble.

You're right. Having the USMC defending a part of the British Empire, in 1942 when the US was on its heels, and the US political culture was not exactly pro-colonialist, is pure science fiction. It would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

In contrast, the Manchurian forces were under unified political and miltary command. The issue in using Manchurian forces in China proper was a risk assessment vis a vis the USSR. It was not a quesiton of national sovereignty.

The associated issue, IN THE GAME, of whether using Manchurian forces in China allow China to be steamrolled is separate from what issue I'm addressing, which is what's allowed in terms of HRs when the players have mutually agreed there are no HRs? The USSR activation check and balance is always there; that handcuffs PH to an extent. Beyond that CR agreed to a no-HR game.

A fourth issue driven by the code is the fact that yellow Resticted LCUs can walk anywhere on a connected land-mass, but can't get on ships. We don't have coded borders, which goes back to my first point above. Certain national borders would never have been crossed in the WWII political environment. But certain forces would have been allowed to board ships to sail to like-national bases, even though the game doesn't allow this. For example certain US Army units, even white Restricted, could easily have been sent to Hawaii once it was apparent Japan was not invading the WC. Certainly after Midway this was the case. But the game locks them down, even though they can walk to Canada.

Removing the Manchuria restrictions would be equal to allowing/moving the entire chinease army to go to India.

Right. And in a game with no HRs whatever the code allows is allowed. Except CR has evolved this game away from what he agreed to. He wanted a "Nemo game" but he continually wants negotiated restrictions which amount to ad hoc HRs as he sees the need. Were I PH I'd be getting pretty tired of these e-mails.

My bottom-line of the Restiricted issue is that situations like India/Burma or Manchuuria/China are cases where unified political entities make a decision to walk across a border in wartime which is not that relevant. But sending USMC infantry to fight near Calcutta, or US Army heavy formations to defend Oz from invasion in 1942 are in a RL la la land. The game allows it, but if one is looking for "balance" the latter is a far greater sin against history. As is frequently said, however, this is a game and not a sim, so let the Marines play. But then don't carp about Manchuria when the code allows it.

I'm with the "no HRs mean no HRs" camp. When you say that and then carp you end up in a bad place.

Don't disagree why i call it above problematic. Im just saying obviously no HR didnt to CR mean no HR, but play reasonble.

CR was a lawyer for over twenty years. He knows how to word contracts. No HRs mean no HRs.

Is that bad yeah. I would even say no HR didnt mean no HR to PJH either. Else there would never have been any issue with his perception of CRs off map box fleeing.

I agree. He should have let that go too. I argued in his AAR that the only proviso was if CR spun the TFs around in the wormhole. That has the potential to break the code and the devs have said it was never contemplated it would be done.

If any thing is allowed, nothing can be a problem. Obvious neither of the 2 thinks that, they have limits on reasonble.

"Reasonable" is at the core of many lawsuits. When you use absolutes like "no" that should dispose of debates over what is "reasonable." Both players are guilty of backsliding.

That being said, Indian units aren't allowed in burma without 'buying' them? I admit my knowledge of the war in Burma/India theatre is virtually nil, so I dont know what happened historicaly. But it would make sense to me for Indian units to fight in Burma, why not fight the enemy in your neighbors yard instead of your own? In the early war i can see a rule restricting Indian units from crossing the border, but i can't see that restriction in mid/late war (say june 43 onward). I think the Indians would have been keen to exact revenge on the Japanese, and end the war as soon as possible. Also India/burma were still part of the English empire during the war, so I'm fairly sure the troops would go where they were told.

Historically two things were going on in 1942 that "prohibited" Indian Forces for crossing into Burma. First, documented by B.H. Liddell Hart was this mistaken belief that an operation was impossible from Imphal to Katha because of supply. Once the IJ proved it was possible including bringing armour, the Brits started their own plan ... Second, was this guy Gandhi stirring a lot of trouble. What if the Indian forces decided to betray the crown while engaged with the IJ? Both of these notions were pure poppycock .. so Operation Capital later Extended Capital waits for 1944 ..

I am of the ilk that the Allied player should be allowed to possibly pull off a Burmese invasion in 1942 especally in scenario #2 ...and restrcited means you cant load stuff up ... but I am a AFB [8D]

The big thing is if the IJ just assume that the Indian army cannot cross into Burma at all .. "It's impossible!" My last opponent assumed this and very lightly defended Burma .. I paid the PP's just to make the game fair, and rolled over the IJ in 6 months securing Thailand by mid '43 .. needless to say the game died at that point ...

I get that, and I was aware of unrest in India. That's why I think a decent house rule would be something like no Indian units in burma until mid 43 or early 44 unless Japanese units enter India first. Afterall the Japanese weren't exactly the most friendly house guests and regardless of the restlessness of the Indian people I'm pretty sure that once the Japanese had killed and raped a few thousand Indian people they would want vengence. Point in case is the russians, they had some pretty unhappy people's before the war, but once Germany invaded and started slaughtering/pillaging/raping the country the people pulled together and didn't stop until they reached Berlin.

For me the most importent thing is to make the game enjoyable, if I'm going to invest the time to play someone i want it to be mutually enjoyable. The two things holding me back from starting a PBEM game are the dozens of HR which seem to mostly enhance the Japanese player (i'd play allies first time through) and my job-once im healed it may take me a month or so to get on a boat but after that my turns would by nescesity be sporadic-alot of turns for 4-5 days when im onshore, no turns for a 3-6 days when im offshore fishing-no internet out there and no time even if there was;) In the winter I would be a better partner but there would still be a week to ten days each month I could potentially be gone, and they are very random (weather dependent) in the winter season.

That being said, I think both CR and PH are doing a good job of discussing things and working out thier diffrences, and i applaud them for that and hope that when i take the plunge I get an understanding oppenent as well.

Gmoney

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You're right. Having the USMC defending a part of the British Empire, in 1942 when the US was on its heels, and the US political culture was not exactly pro-colonialist, is pure science fiction. It would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

Just like a 15 divisions jap invasion of CONUS would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances. Or a japanease 15 divisional invasion of Karachi would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances. Yet the japanease players are allowed to go any where they like do any thing they like. One side is held to a higher standart than the other. Justifying by using of historical realities to fit ur arguement. While not allowing same to happen to the other side.

In contrast, the Manchurian forces were under unified political and miltary command. The issue in using Manchurian forces in China proper was a risk assessment vis a vis the USSR. It was not a quesiton of national sovereignty.

A risk isnt a risk if players are 100% aware of garrison limit and how close they are to comming under. In RL there was no such thing certain. Btw those ordering the Manchuria was not so unified as u make it. Again here u use political arguement that seems to fit ur arguement with out allowing for other realities.

The associated issue, IN THE GAME, of whether using Manchurian forces in China allow China to be steamrolled is separate from what issue I'm addressing, which is what's allowed in terms of HRs when the players have mutually agreed there are no HRs? The USSR activation check and balance is always there; that handcuffs PH to an extent. Beyond that CR agreed to a no-HR game.

Apparently both players HAVE been paying PPs to buy out units. So they seem to disagree with u.

Right. And in a game with no HRs whatever the code allows is allowed. Except CR has evolved this game away from what he agreed to. He wanted a "Nemo game" but he continually wants negotiated restrictions which amount to ad hoc HRs as he sees the need. Were I PH I'd be getting pretty tired of these e-mails.

Well again as both have engaged in the i behavior tho PJH backed down after a majority of ppl told him they saw np with the behavior.
As u say below they are both guilty of this.

My bottom-line of the Restiricted issue is that situations like India/Burma or Manchuuria/China are cases where unified political entities make a decision to walk across a border in wartime which is not that relevant. But sending USMC infantry to fight near Calcutta, or US Army heavy formations to defend Oz from invasion in 1942 are in a RL la la land. The game allows it, but if one is looking for "balance" the latter is a far greater sin against history. As is frequently said, however, this is a game and not a sim, so let the Marines play. But then don't carp about Manchuria when the code allows it.

So again one side because u see it as unified is allowed to do basicly any thing. Landing 15 divs in the case in Oz is np, as i understand u. Correct me if im wrong. Where as moving US Army heavy formations to defend Oz from invasion in 1942 are in a RL la la land. U have every right to ur opinion. I dont think many agree neither historicly nor gaming wise. Sorry, but yet again u hold the 2 sides to a different standart. On one side its a no HR game yet at times one side is held to historical "fact" weighing more heavily. When ever it fits ur arguement.

Bullwinkle58. I try to point out this behavior so u possibly could think about whether this is in fact right or not. Do u have a bias that tilts ur arguments one side or the other?
It not just a question to me, about being right or wrong. If not im just an idiot and well i wont be the first nor the last u will meet. Peace.

CR was a lawyer for over twenty years. He knows how to word contracts. No HRs mean no HRs.

"Reasonable" is at the core of many lawsuits. When you use absolutes like "no" that should dispose of debates over what is "reasonable." Both players are guilty of backsliding.

Yeah, but they is a human being too. They are rarely 100% logical, if any thing phyc plays a bigger roll. Will that hold up in a court of law. Depence, but no many times it wont. Obviously they each had their different limits. How the resolve this will depence on if there is a game or not. Im glad that u see at leased both engaged in this.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

Looks like the buy out of restricted units needs a lot of work for WITP II.

Playing with myself its easy to set these tpyes of things, except when Admiral Itchymoto buys out half of the Kwantung Army!

Latest bit of interest is PJH's concern about a counter invasion in the IO, who would be silly enough to do this??

I know we dont get to see 100% of what happens, but a bit of Allied pressure in the SOPAC area might be interesting, just to see what PJH has there and how much can be taken back.

For the JFB, how accurate is CR's count of Divs, plus what sort of extra strength is available in Bde & Rgt level units (which from memory PJH committed in Australia)

The purpose of the points was to show that political influence and persuasion had a huge impact on how troops were used during the war. It's clearly failed that purpose thus far.

If WITP2 ever comes out, each faction needs its own set of PPs and its own way of generating them. And yes, that would include the IJA and IJN.

This would also force the Allied player to juggle priorities between the various factions, or risk losing so much influence with one or more of them that they'll be barely able to buy out any units for future operations.

Meanwhile, the IJA and IJN would have their own distinct objectives that would allow each to either gain or lose influence, encouraging them to act nearly independent of one another, even under a unified commander (ie. you).

ORIGINAL: Walloc

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
You're right. Having the USMC defending a part of the British Empire, in 1942 when the US was on its heels, and the US political culture was not exactly pro-colonialist, is pure science fiction. It would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

Just like a 15 divisions jap invasion of CONUS would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

No it wouldn't, but less for political reasons than logistic. The USMC wouldn't be in India because of US political realities. But if the Japanese player wanted to send 15 divisions to CONUS (I've never seen this once, but I've seen the UISMC in India many times) he could if he paid PPs to get them on the ships. My issue is less the USMC being in India than CR doing that and then objecting to Japanese forces walking next door when Manchuria and China are the same country from the Japanese war-time POV.

Or a japanease 15 divisional invasion of Karachi would never, ever, ever have happened in any set of circumstances.

Same arguments. Japan would have had no military or political compunctions about doing this if they has been able. Different case with the Corps in Calcutta.

Yet the japanease players are allowed to go any where they like do any thing they like. One side is held to a higher standart than the other. Justifying by using of historical realities to fit ur arguement. While not allowing same to happen to the other side.

Japan happens to have large numbers of forces on the Asian landmass, so they can walk more places thean Americans can, yes. An accident of geography.

In contrast, the Manchurian forces were under unified political and miltary command. The issue in using Manchurian forces in China proper was a risk assessment vis a vis the USSR. It was not a quesiton of national sovereignty.

A risk isnt a risk if players are 100% aware of garrison limit and how close they are to comming under.

But that historical risk, without 100% certainty, is the source of the original devs putting in the Man. garrison rule at all. There's no other place on the map with such a thing. And it removes a lot of Japanese leeway. Even if he can pay PPs to get those LCUs he can't move all of them. The Allies don't face that restriction anywhere, HR or no HR.

The associated issue, IN THE GAME, of whether using Manchurian forces in China allow China to be steamrolled is separate from what issue I'm addressing, which is what's allowed in terms of HRs when the players have mutually agreed there are no HRs? The USSR activation check and balance is always there; that handcuffs PH to an extent. Beyond that CR agreed to a no-HR game.

Apparently both players HAVE been paying PPs to buy out units. So they seem to disagree with u.

They're making things up as they go along. Neither of us have perfect knowledge of what they've done PP-wise. My point continues to be that regardless of play to date a no-HR rule does not require paying PPs if the LCU can walk there. Forum and community convention may require it, but the code does not. And a no-HR game means "play to the code." A player can offer to pay PPs, or can pay PPs without being asked, but it's optional. If he does not his opponent has no right to demand it in a no-HR game.

Bullwinkle58. I try to point out this behavior so u possibly could think about whether this is in fact right or not. Do u have a bias that tilts ur arguments one side or the other?
It not just a question to me, about being right or wrong. If not im just an idiot and well i wont be the first nor the last u will meet. Peace.

The OOBs and map realities for each side give and take advantages from each side in different ways. I happen to believe most PBEM games are hampered by too many HRs. I have great respect for players who agree to no-HR games as they must remain alert to things which HRs relieve them of worrying about. If a pair want HRs, fine. But I don't think you can be a little pregnant on this. No means no.

Theguy on the grassy knoll has it about right,

Bullwinkle seems to be make a big thing about it being the Marines.

CR could have as easily sent the USMC to OZ and 27 Infantry Div to SEAC. (I would buy out a rump Armored Division or 2 and ship it to India while its cheap.)
(I think IRL there were at least 1 US Army Div and 1st USNC Div in OZ around this time, certainly by May 42.

Somehow the US convinced itself to sent Merrill & MARS to India.

The continual harping over "saving" a British interest is in odds with McArthurs determination to return to The Phillipines, within the US shere of influence.
Wasteful operations happened in the Aleutians, because they were US Soil.
The time the British spent in India was more than 200 years longer than the US spent in its conquered or purchased territories.

The problems pointed out in posts above were, like Greyjoy & rader in Hokkaido, probably not thought of by the designers and sadly not moddable.
If CR & PJH can live with it, great.

ORIGINAL: Schlemiel

ORIGINAL: Walloc

Well its clear when u play with those rules u dont curcumvent the rules, but pay the full price. Whats the point in having a rule if u dont follow it.
Ppl swicth the 2 regs of each div on Hawaii to pacific command the same as regs from each div at the west coast then recombine and its unrestricted as every thing else.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

But the whole "full price" thing is so rarely defined. When I say 150pp for those divisions, that is "full price" to swap them to any command in the game, and switching for full price instead of 1/4 to switch to, say, an unrestricted air hq within the same command structure, is the usual spirit of the rules. Japanese players frequently buy out a mauled bde in China to ship to an island somewhere (at a steep discount because it is mauled). Is stopping reinforcements to the 2nd marine rgt at the start of the game so that it is cheaper when you buy it out gamey or not (the other two regiments in the division are unrestricted as they arrive)? Is buying something out with disabled squads (which provide a discount) against the spirit of the rule? Waiting for units to be at full strength before they can be bought out provides its own set of issues as well. What if the pools are dry and it can't be filled out? What if you've specifically emptied the pools to other units so that situation happens?

That's why the rule is so murky and why pushing things to the limits of what might be reasonable (either in terms of mechanics or semantics) tends to happen.

If one has a set notion, finding reasons to justify it, is usually pretty easy. Are there flaws in the system, yes. Are there possible loop holes, yes. This was discussed among some players in the first years time after release. This gave way for some comments on this by devs, including a look at the possibility of making borders in game. That caused some players to make their own guidelines in forms of HRs in various forms.
How u deal with loop holes i guess decides what kinda game u want to play. Fortunatly u can play the game just as u like. No one is forcing u to play a certain way. If playing PBEMs since its an area of concern too u. U could just talk to the opponent to make sure u on the same page when it comes to this and wow to deal with the loop holes. Vs the AI it doesnt matter, as it doesnt object to how ever u play, but does it own form or cheating when it comes to this.

I like the approach CR and PJH have taken toward house rules in this game, trying to do things they believe are reasonable in context and talking it out when a disagreement arises. Of course you need the right parties for that to happen, but it's the most reasonable approach when possible to my mind.

I dont necesarrily disagree. Question as this thread raises in a number of cases if ofc what is reasonble to different ppl can be different and what problems it can create. If one player think its reasonble to move units with out paying PP and other dont and they only find out X amount in to the game. Thats some hard to go back in time to fix.


Kind regards,

Rasmus

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

No it wouldn't, but less for political reasons than logistic. The USMC wouldn't be in India because of US political realities. But if the Japanese player wanted to send 15 divisions to CONUS (I've never seen this once, but I've seen the UISMC in India many times) he could if he paid PPs to get them on the ships. My issue is less the USMC being in India than CR doing that and then objecting to Japanese forces walking next door when Manchuria and China are the same country from the Japanese war-time POV.

So ur saying there was no difference between the japanease IJN and IJA and it didnt forster how the RL campaign played out.The fact that russia was next door didnt play a role on the japanease perception of the need to have a force in Manchuria. At leased it seems of less concern than moving USMC or any units to India, to counter an invasion that never happened so we dont know what the allied reaction too would be.

Not that it really matters as now its a concern of CR asking, not objection too, PJH if they played by same understand of paying PPs.
He might very well have objected if PJH didnt pay PP, but he apparently does. Both played with no HR and have same understanding of reasonble in this case. Do u object to PJH paying PPs then?
Again since ur on a strict no HR rules at the same time can have admittedly "less of an issue" with CR going by rules of the game putting units at India, doesnt seem very consistant.

Japan happens to have large numbers of forces on the Asian landmass, so they can walk more places thean Americans can, yes. An accident of geography.

But its not geographical issues that made u say moving a US heavy Inf div to Oz was pure RL lala land. Again the consistancy is totally lacking and its political when its fits, when its not its geographical.

But that historical risk, without 100% certainty, is the source of the original devs putting in the Man. garrison rule at all. There's no other place on the map with such a thing. And it removes a lot of Japanese leeway. Even if he can pay PPs to get those LCUs he can't move all of them. The Allies don't face that restriction anywhere, HR or no HR.

I see lots of places where units as in white restricted is limited to geografical locations. PPs cant buy them out, HR or no HR, so while the garrison rule is in manchuria only, there are lots of examples of doing the same on allied as well as japanease side through other means. Removing leeway.

They're making things up as they go along. Neither of us have perfect knowledge of what they've done PP-wise. My point continues to be that regardless of play to date a no-HR rule does not require paying PPs if the LCU can walk there. Forum and community convention may require it, but the code does not. And a no-HR game means "play to the code." A player can offer to pay PPs, or can pay PPs without being asked, but it's optional. If he does not his opponent has no right to demand it in a no-HR game.[/b]

Since CR asked and PJH answered, this seems more to be ur interpretation. Not theirs. Apparently to both no HR didnt mean pay no PP. Do we know what they have done no, but if we assume they are lying when asked, any thing can be possible. Either could be cheating for all we know.

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Bullwinkle58. I try to point out this behavior so u possibly could think about whether this is in fact right or not. Do u have a bias that tilts ur arguments one side or the other?
It not just a question to me, about being right or wrong. If not im just an idiot and well i wont be the first nor the last u will meet. Peace.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

The OOBs and map realities for each side give and take advantages from each side in different ways. I happen to believe most PBEM games are hampered by too many HRs. I have great respect for players who agree to no-HR games as they must remain alert to things which HRs relieve them of worrying about. If a pair want HRs, fine. But I don't think you can be a little pregnant on this. No means no.

[/quote]

Thats fine and u have every right to ur opinion, but avoid nicely the issue at hand. Guess its easier that way. Again no didnt mean no, and that counts for both sides as u ur self says in a post above. Trying to fit absoluts on some thing that apprently isnt absolut. Not that i dont get u want it to be absolut. Any how it is as it is.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Theguy on the grassy knoll has it about right,

Bullwinkle seems to be make a big thing about it being the Marines.

They had a unique position in US defense planning. They were not seen as continental battle troops by any stretch of the imagination.

CR could have as easily sent the USMC to OZ and 27 Infantry Div to SEAC. (I would buy out a rump Armored Division or 2 and ship it to India while its cheap.)

If he paid PPs to change the HQ I might be OK with that. I'm sure he didn't. Remember, this is not just about sending the MArines hither and yon. It's about doing th at and then complaining that an opponent might be walking Japanese troops in ocupied land to other Japanese territory in occupied land. And in a no-HR game.

(I think IRL there were at least 1 US Army Div and 1st USNC Div in OZ around this time, certainly by May 42.

The Marines weren't there to garrison Oz. They were passing through to the Solomons.

Somehow the US convinced itself to sent Merrill & MARS to India.

Minor.

The continual harping over "saving" a British interest is in odds with McArthurs determination to return to The Phillipines, within the US shere of influence.

Apples and pranges. The PI was a protectorate, and in some ways half there to being a state. And Mac was not in the civilian chain of command. He did think the universe revolved around himself, but the president didn't agree.

Wasteful operations happened in the Aleutians, because they were US Soil.

Not relevant to the point.

The time the British spent in India was more than 200 years longer than the US spent in its conquered or purchased territories.

Ditto.

The problems pointed out in posts above were, like Greyjoy & rader in Hokkaido, probably not thought of by the designers and sadly not moddable.
If CR & PJH can live with it, great.

Again, not the point in a no-HR game.

ORIGINAL: Walloc

So ur saying there was no difference between the japanease IJN and IJA and it didnt forster how the RL campaign played out.The fact that russia was next door didnt play a role on the japanease perception of the need to have a force in Manchuria. At leased it seems of less concern than moving USMC or any units to India, to counter an invasion that never happened so we dont know what the allied reaction too would be.

The concern over the USSR is hard-coded regardless of the game situation. I see this as hamstringing the Japanese player in a way the Allied is never hamstrung, despite there being iron-bound historical realities which would have prevented certain cross-national force allocations at certain times in the war. I've said this several times now, so I should just let my position lie where it is.

Not that it really matters as now its a concern of CR asking, not objection too, PJH if they played by same understand of paying PPs.

I have also said that, beside the point that they seem OK with constantly questioning each other over "reasonableness", my point is they said they were playing a no-HR game and that has only one pure definition. Play with HRs, fine. Play without HRs, fine. Say you're playing without and then make up ad hoc HRs, recipe for problems. If they can get through this, fine. Most players could not and the game would end early with hurt feelings. Again, I've said my piece.

Bullwinkle things he is here to win the arguement, lets give him the gold medal and move on.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Bullwinkle things he is here to win the arguement, lets give him the gold medal and move on.

Win or not, I do try to make a consistent one.

Maybe I'm legalistic (but no lawyer), but it seems some HRs are a good idea. Rather than assuming your opponent thinks the same way you do about reasonableness, it should be spelled out in advance as much as possible and when unforeseen circumstances pop up, discuss it.

Cheers,
CC

I think what we have here is no longer a No HR Game, but a Gentleman's Agreement Game.

In a gentelemen's game, there are certain agreements made during the course of the game that are sealed with a handshake (an e-handshake in our case) after they are hashed out verbally, usually when the behavior of one side or the other is deemed to no longer be consistent with that of a gentleman.

This is what CR and PJH have progressed to, and I don't see an issue with it if they don't.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


The Marines weren't there to garrison Oz. They were passing through to the Solomons.

After getting mauled at Guadalcanal, the 1st Marine regiment spent 10 months in Melbourne where they were a defacto garrison force. I would be very surprised if the Australian command did not take that into account while they were figuring, how many units they needed in reserve down-under.

I would be also be surprised if there was not a lot rotation, of IJA divisions between China The Manchurian Commands, and The Home Guard, when a unit got beat up.

But most important, this is a game, so if it's not against the rules, then all is fair war in the Pacific.