Lunacy or Shrewdness?

[mogami]

Hi, There seems to be a massive misunderstanding about sending HQ to Karachi. It is intended that the units assigned follow WITHOUT paying PP. The Allied player must decide where he commits his major HQ but it is a one shot deal. (Japanese players cannot read the Allied reinforcement schedule and base war long plans on it)
A Unit cannot be on both sides of the map the cost in PP will be paid if player decides to transfer it again and in changing all the bases and units the transered HQ leaves behind.

If this results in the Allied player having a massive landforce in CBI so be it. (He will be short those units else where.)

Allied players must have flexabilty in how they deploy their mateiral. It is unfair to give Japan unlimited freedom to exploit Allied historical deployment/reinforcements.

[Andy Mac]

Its been a fun read and although we have not agreed always I hope you find an opponent. Now on your revised India proposal

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

1. India shouldn't be inviolable for the rest of the war but the idea of Karachi representing Aden is reasonable.

YUP

2. If India had been taken by Japan how would they have found Sikhs etc to replace losses in the Indian divisions not in India? I'm not trying to be difficult it just seems to me that in that day of relative ethnic homogeneity they wouldn't have been able to find 50,000 Sikhs etc of the right gender and age living outside of India.

OK I WOULD CONCEDE THATS REASONABLE

3. Indian Bdes containing British troops. I checked in-game and none of the Indian units in-game have British troops as part of their TO&E so I think that avoids that problem.

DESPITE ORBATS IRL THEY DID HAVE 1/3 BUT I DOUBT ITS A HUGE ISSUE

4. Indian vulnerability to seaborne invasion... Ok, that's reasonable AND counterable so completely within the spirit of the rules I wish to apply. So long as NO units from Karachi can participate I think that is reasonable... It would have to be handled somewhat carefully as I'd be afraid that an Allied player invading Ceylon in the face of Betty and Nell attacks could find convoys from Karachi also being attacked by mistake BUT I'm sure that could be worked around by telling him not to route any convoys through the area and requiring the Allied player to inform me of an invasion when his forces come within 24 hexes ( Emily range) of an Indian base with an AF ( I would, obviously, have to promise to base Emilys at each of these Indian bases to keep things honest. The reason for this is that to allow Allied convoys from Karachi to pass Ceylon unmolested I'd have to turn down the range of my Betty an Nell naval attack missions but that would obviously unfairly hinder me if I was facing an invasion so some sort of "fair warning" would have to be organised. Obviously I wouldn't be allowed to transfer additional troops or planes or ships until such time as I got a confirmed sighting of an enemy invasion convoy.



So, maybe the following would work:
1. Karachi is inviolable. Free shipment of forces to Australia via a map-edge "safe lane" within 4 or 5 hexes of the map edge.

I WOULD MAKE IT 1 OR 2

2. India CAN be invaded by forces from Australia and once Karachi is liberated Allied ground, land and sea forces at Karachi can begin moving out of Karachi 30 days after its liberation.

YES I WOULD SAY THATS REASONABLE AS LONG AS LIBERATION IS CAREFULLY DEFINED GIVEN THE DIFFICULTY IN DESTROYING SMALL JAPANESE UNITS IF CUT OFF.

3. Once a seaborne invasion is within 24 hexes of a Japanese-held Indian base with air units present the Allied player must inform the Japanese player so that naval search missions can be ordered.

WHY CANNOT SEARCH OPERATIONS JUST BE LEFT ON IF A TF IS SPOTTED OUTSIDE OF LANE ITS HOSTILE - IF IN DOUBT OBLIGATION ON JAPANESE PLAYER TO ASK BUT IF ITS NOT IN SAFE LANE ITS DEAD SEEMS REASONABLE.

4. The Japanese player can only begin moving troops, planes and ships into the Indian theatre of operations once Allied shipping is sighted by his naval search missions. Obviously forces already in the Indian theatre of operations ( everything north of Akyab/Jorhat border) can be repositioned as required.

3. WOULD OVERCOME NEED FOR 4 AND 4 IS DANGEROUS IF ALLIES ARE BLUFFING TO DRAG JAPANESE OUT OF POSITION TO HIT MALAYA OR JAVA.

5. Indian forces cannot be transported to Australia BUT they can accumulate at Karachi and 30 days after Karachi is liberated they can move out of Karachi and participate in all Allied operations.

REASONABLE SUBJECT TO 2.

I AM seriously interested in getting input on a reasonable workaround here. I am well aware that I am seeing things from the Japanese perspective as my Allied game is only a few ays old an so I'm happy to get input from the Allied point of view so as to achieve proper balance here. If no-one else can sign onto them then so be it and this game will die. That outcome is acceptable to me albeit not preferable.


P.s. My opponent, IIRC, didn't offer the no transfer of US forces thing IIRC and that was one of the reasons I turned it down.

I WOULD SUGGEST THE NO TRANSFER IS ONLY APPLICABLE FOR THE SAME 30 DAYS AFTER KARACHI IS REINFORCED AND SHOULD NOT APPLY TO CANADIAN UNITS

[Andy Mac]

Wow I didnt realise it was a deliberate feature see you learn something new every game on the forum. [:D][:D]

I always thought it was an exploit. I guess I own an apology then.

Andy

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, There seems to be a massive misunderstanding about sending HQ to Karachi. It is intended that the units assigned follow WITHOUT paying PP. The Allied player must decide where he commits his major HQ but it is a one shot deal. (Japanese players cannot read the Allied reinforcement schedule and base war long plans on it)
A Unit cannot be on both sides of the map the cost in PP will be paid if player decides to transfer it again and in changing all the bases and units the transered HQ leaves behind.

If this results in the Allied player having a massive landforce in CBI so be it. (He will be short those units else where.)

Allied players must have flexabilty in how they deploy their mateiral. It is unfair to give Japan unlimited freedom to exploit Allied historical deployment/reinforcements.

[Nemo121]

AndyMac,
 
1. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "make it 1 or 2"?
 
2. Liberation. Good point. hadn't thought of that... Umm, I don't want to hamstring the Allies too much so I'd probably go for something which would define "liberation" as holding a large beach-head around Karachi such that it would be reasonable to ship troops and planes in from British holdings in Africa.
 
Umm, how about this... Liberation is defined as capturing or cutting off from land supply the Japanese bases north of latitude 11. This would mean that once Bombay and Delhi are taken and Ahmadabad and Malir are held ( forming a road link from the Allied beachead to Karachi) then Karachi is viewed as being liberated even if Lahore and Rawalpindi are garrisoned by cut off Japanese forces which might take months to destroy. That avoids the Allied player having to worry about me being gamey and forting up in Rawalpindi in order to prevent him from freeing up the troops at Karachi. Obviously if I retake Delhi, Bombay, Malir and Ahmadabad before the Allies can land in Karachi then the clock is reset and they need go back to 30 days delay. If the Allied troops are pushed into karachi then they, again, become inviolate, can be freely evacuated out and can try again at a later date.
 
My reasoning is that with Bombay in Allied hands and Delhi in Allied hands I wouldn't be able to fly Bettys and Nells within a reasonable torpedo-attack range of Karachi and thus Allied troop convoys would be able to unload relatively unmolested.
 
This is my initial thinking on the issue. I am completely open to anyone poking a hole in it or suggesting improvements.
 
 
3 Search Operations...
Well my thinking is that I cannot set Bettys at Colombo to 15 hex search without having them find troops sailing out of Karachi and attacking them which I don't want to do... If the Allied player wants to try to use this "rule" to draw me out of position in Malaysia/Burma etc then let him. That is something which I think would be possible if I had my planes on 24 hex naval search so I think it is a valid tactic. It is up to me to come up with a counter and since there IS a counter I think it is reasonable. If there was no counter I would feel it unreasonable.
 
So, excellent point but I think it is a reasonable tactic for the Allied player to use and therefore I don't want to prevent its use.
 
 
4. Excellent point re: the teleporting of troops... Is the restriction on Canadian troops normal? I'm inclined to allow them to teleport in after the 30 days in order to give the Allied player a bit of advantage. I'm not interested in cutting off every reasonable option available to the allies just for advantage...

[Nemo121]

Double wow... Well if it is a one shot deal then so long as it doesn't happen into a besieged city I think it must be viewed as fair. So, if the Allies retake Karachi then "watch out" . The Indian theatre could prove decisive under those conditions.

[Nemo121]

Aztez,
 
I've asked my opponent for permission. I won't post without his permission but if I get it I will.

[Andy Mac]

Sorry I meant 3 or 4 hexes is to generous 1 or 2 from map edge seems fine.
 
Re Liberation that seems fine I would be more worried about wonky land movement i.e. cut off troops not retreating off the land route and requiring months to reduce (Sneer encountered this in China)
 
Bombay and Delhi is a tad harsh as they are both Urban hexes I would suggest Ahmabad must be held and a land route to Karachi being open and in supply to any coastal port of size X (X can be defined as 3 or 4) plus the port needs to have minimum 25k supplies aqnd maintain it and the land route needs to be kept open for the 30 days.
 
So the Japanese can bomb supplies or try to close the land route to Karachi to reset the clock (close the land route defined as a J hex not a contested one as 60 mile hexes are a bit wide on this one)
 
Just my tuppence worth
 
Andy
 
Re Search I am not clear what you mean sorry are you saying search at 15 hexes is to far ?
 
Bombay is best for the allies but dont force them into that kind of fight when they dont need it if they bottle up the garrison and can open up another port.
 
Ignore the Canadian issue I was over complicating an already complicated scenario

[Andy Mac]

But once the genie is out of the bottle and the 30 days expired thats it the Indians are back in the fight it would be to0 hard to reset again.
 
It may just be simpler all round to agree to an 18 month ceasefire in place with Karachi hex off limits to Japanese forces - Allies allowed to retreat remnants to Karachi and rebuild but not do anything for those 18 months.
 
And no US forces transferring in via PP transfers until 30 days after end of ceasefire.
 
It has the beauty of simplicity and ease of management and forces the allies to supply Australia via SOPAC rather than IO.
 
Andy

[Nemo121]

Ok, so instead of Bombay and Delhi the Allies can hold ANY port of size ( say 4 to represent the desire to take a major port) and must be able to trace a land route to karachi from this port via Ahmadabad and Malir? I'm fine with this. Like I said, I'm interested in what the forum finds fair. If the forum finds it fair then I'm happy to go along with it so long as it is counterable, complies with newtonian physics and appears "reasonable"..
 
This would allow the Allies to land at Chandpur, Diamond Harbour, Madras, Trivandrum, Panaji or Bombay and fulfill the conditions so long as they can create a continuous land corridor ( defined as a line of paved road and/or rail hexes ) all the way to Karachi.
 
So they could activate the countdown by holding Bombay, Ahmadabad and Malir and the rail hexes joining them OR even by landing at Chandpur and holding Asansol, Lucknow, hex 22-11, Ahmadabad and Malir and all the rail hexes along that route. Seems more difficult than just holding Bombay and Delhi to me but if people think that this is fairer than I'm happy to go along with it.
 
Since supplies just complicate things terribly I'd be happy to forget about the supply requirement.
 
To cut the land line the hex in question would have to be PURELY Japanese owned and not contested.
 
 
 
2. Search: I am just saying that if I set search to 15 normally then I'd be seeing and attacking the convoys running to Australia from Karachi from my Bettys at Colombo.
 
3. Fair enough, Canada ignored.
 
 
So, Karachi inviolable but Indian and British and African troops, planes and ships gather there. British, African troops, planes and ships can be transferred to Australia. Indian units remain behind. India can be invaded but once within 24 hexes ( maybe might be fairer to put this to 20 to represent Betty search range) of an Indian base with planes at it the Allied player must declare his ship presence ( if not already spotted by picket CS, Glen-equipped subs etc). This will allow me to change my planes in India to Naval Attack, form surface combat TFs from ships in Indian ports etc. I will not be allowed to fly further planes or other reinforcements in from outside of India until such time as I spot the invading TFs with air search.
 
The Allies can "liberate" Karachi by holding a size 4 port and tracing a clear land route from that port to Karachi via ROAD and RAIL hexes ( shown by rail and paved road symbols on-map). Path must go through Ahmadabad and Malir. Once Karachi is liberated all British, Indian, American, Canadian and African forces present can enter combat 28 days from that date.
 
I think that's getting closer to reasonable.

[Andy Mac]

Seems reasonabe compromise to me but I am only one player you still need to find someone to take it on (I have 5 games on the go and havent played lunacy games or else I would consider it !!!)
 
One potential issue I would suggest an honour rule that any UK or African troops to be used on the invasion have to unload at a non India port before reloading and being allowed to participate otherwise they could sail to south of colombo and then turn round and attack without being able to be attacked off the Aussie coast.
 
Optional extras you could consider (these can be ignored and are suggestions only)
 
1. I would suggest allowing 1 or 2 Indian formations be allowed to take on replacments to represent troops in ME and WD. i.e. 17th Indian is really the returning 4th Indian Div (there are about 6 Indian Divs in ME at this point 2,4,6,8,10 and 12th Divs plus an armopured Div in Persia)  I would also suggest allowing the armoured units to rebuild as they are low manpower for the tank crews. (Also about 1/3 of Indian Bns were Ghurka Bns which you havent conquered so some allowance should be made - the game uses Indian Sqds to represent Ghurka ones)
 
2. Air units you need to consider the distance from the Gulf to West India about 1,200 - 1,500 miles to Indian bases i.e 20 - 25 hexes anything with a transfer range of say 25 hexes should be allowed to fly to recaptured Indian Bases from Karachi spend 3 days on non ops to recover "fatigue" and then be avaible for ops as normal

[Andy Mac]

p.s. one reason I am suggesting all of this is that I would like to develop a standard house rule for my allied games so that in advance both sides always know where they stand on the India gambit so I would like to see how it developed if you can find someone to finish your game

[Nemo121]

Andy Mac,

Well to be fair I'd say I've been won away from Lunacy games. It seemed like a good idea but given the flawed game design I think one really needs house rules to ensure the game develops in a way that both players find reasonable. In the absence of House Rules the game will develop in ways unacceptable to one or both players and what is important, IMO, is not that the game develops along line A or B BUT that the two players are happy with whatever line it develops along as player happiness is the final arbiter... A very different perspective than I initially held but one lives and learns.


So, as to your other points:
1. Maybe it'd be fair to allow 2 Indian Divisions to be transferred to Oz with replacements ON.
2. As regards transfers... I don't think that would work since fighter groups at Karachi would have a transfer range less than 25 yet if I bombed Karachi they would be subject to destruction on the ground which would be unfair on the Allies. better to let there be fighters and bombers there on Day 28 IMO. If the Allies want to have fighters and bombers in karachi etc then they can ship them to Oz and back.... They have more than enough AKs to allow this...


So if no-one suggests any other modifications I will post this to the opponent finder thread tomorrow...

[EUBanana]

Enh.  This has gone from a game of anarchy rules (anarchy implies /no/ rules) and anything goes to masses and masses of rules being debated, agreements made about India and more besides.

I'm with the Allies here.  You can't battle all the way up to Karachi using whatever the game code allows and then complain that the game code allows the US to reinforce it.  Thats just not cricket, old bean.

[Nemo121]

The battle for India wasn't influenced one whit by anything "exploitative". it was good solid fighting which got the Japanese there and transporting troops and supplies by ship as opposed to teleporting them anywhere.
 
In addition there were ALWAYS some house rules and a clear expression that we would negotiate grey areas as the game progressed.  
 
 
If the above doesn't strike you as cricket that's fine. You stick to your games and I'll stick to mine. I'm trying to find a way out of this issue which is fair to both players without having to abandon the game. If you disagree with this attempt then so be it, don't apply to continue as the Allies.

[mogami]

Hi, Be alot easier if Japan just stayed away from Karachi in stock map games. If Japan wants to go for Karachi use a map that has the other bases present. Karachi in the stock map is not meant to be simply the city of Karachi but everything located beyond the map edge.


More then seeing another lunacy game I am really hoping to see Nemo play a game where his plan as Japan is to execute the historic Japanese war aims.  (Secure oil/resources and then defend against all comers)

You'd be suprised how few house rules you need when your not trying to conquer the map.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

The battle for India wasn't influenced one whit by anything "exploitative". it was good solid fighting which got the Japanese there and transporting troops and supplies by ship as opposed to teleporting them anywhere.

India is just one part of the entire game, maybe the lack of house rules helped you conquer Java that much quicker, say, and then thus let you hit India sooner rather than later before its defences were well established.

I just find it odd that a game which began with a "anything goes", has now turned into a game with a huge list of proposed rules more comprehensive than most other games have used.

...and I detect a whiff of sour grapes over Karachi, which is why I posted.

[Nemo121]

Well the rules proposed for this game are much more favourable to the Allies than the rules I'm following in my own Allied game. As to the whif of sour grapes... The strange thing with smells is that they can be misleading.
 
I have NO problem with not being able to take Karachi or cut off British reinforcements ( contrary to what appears to be popular belief). I DO have a problem with the teleportation in of troops from CONUSA which I view to be a clear breach of the house rules we agreed at the beginning of the game. My opponent believed that we should proceed by the letter of what we had agreed at the beginning of the game with no real allowance made for issues arising as the game progressed whereas I thought we would negotiate grey areas as they arose. These two viewpoints proved incompatible.
 
As to why there are more house rules now... Well, it was my 2nd game. My first game lasted only a couple of weeks and so I learned a LOT through playing the 6 months of this game. What I learnt was put into those house rules in order to avoid future "grey areas". If you don't think that people should modify house rules ( their number and content) based on their in-game experience then so be it. I think that they should and so that's what I'm doing now before going out to seek a new opponent. If people think the house rules are unfair to the allies or too onerous then they will refuse to play by them. So be it.
 
I don't think they are too onerous though as I'm playing by far more onerous and restrictive ones as the Allies in my Allied game.
 
You can disagree... and obviously do. So be it.
 
 

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, There seems to be a massive misunderstanding about sending HQ to Karachi. It is intended that the units assigned follow WITHOUT paying PP. The Allied player must decide where he commits his major HQ but it is a one shot deal. (Japanese players cannot read the Allied reinforcement schedule and base war long plans on it)
A Unit cannot be on both sides of the map the cost in PP will be paid if player decides to transfer it again and in changing all the bases and units the transered HQ leaves behind.

If this results in the Allied player having a massive landforce in CBI so be it. (He will be short those units else where.)

Allied players must have flexabilty in how they deploy their mateiral. It is unfair to give Japan unlimited freedom to exploit Allied historical deployment/reinforcements.

exploit. You can try with poll....

[Andy Mac]

Sorry I dont understand what you are saying Pauk.
 
Are you saying that in your opinion its an exploit despite Mogami saying it is what was intended and that we test the premise in a poll ?
 
If yes thats fine we can canvas opinion but if one of the original testers and a current mod says it was developed as a feature and is not a bug or a mistake then I personally would be inclined to ignore a poll and believe what I was told.
 
Just because everyone thinks its an exploit doesnt mean it is.
 
(Most allied players agreed not to do it when we thought it was a bug and most still wont be doing it (including me) but if it is a feature it is a feature and not an exploit)
 
Andy 

[Sneer]

sending hq is very heavy exploit but many of your movement Nemo in this game was more or less exploit too
if you play no-rule game you have to take all it brings - sorry but it is my point of view