Disbanding land units

[rader]

Considering you can rebuild all land units now, you probably ought to be able to disband any of your own land units at any time. Of course this would give points to the enemy as if they were destroyed for units that you did this with.

[witpqs]

How would it provide points? Disbanded LCUs send their devices to the pool, right?

[noguaranteeofsanity]

ORIGINAL: rader

Considering you can rebuild all land units now, you probably ought to be able to disband any of your own land units at any time. Of course this would give points to the enemy as if they were destroyed for units that you did this with.

You can disband land units, if they do not have a withdrawl date and are not permantly restricted, plus they must be located at their national home base, which are:

Delhi
Auckland
Sydney
Vladivostok
San Francisco
Osaka
Tokyo

[rader]

I mean you should be able to disband your own unit at any time, even way behind enemy lines. Obviously you would lose all the devices and give up points as if they were destroyed. Essentially, you are giving up on them and having them surrender.

[Roger Neilson II]

I don't see the purpose of this? Am I being very stupid?

Roger

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I don't see the purpose of this? Am I being very stupid?

Roger

I'm with you - I don't see how this one would improve anything.

[Numdydar]

If a unit is stuck after retreating into a interior hex from a costal hex and has no way to be resupplied or rescued, it would be nice to just be able to get rid of it versus just having to let it sit around until it attrites away.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

If a unit is stuck after retreating into a interior hex from a costal hex and has no way to be resupplied or rescued, it would be nice to just be able to get rid of it versus just having to let it sit around until it attrites away.

That use doesn't sound like fair play to me.

[rader]

What do you mean isn't fair play? Being able to disband it, or just letting it sit there forever so it can't be rebuilt?

[witpqs]

Being able to disband it.

So I take it then that you are talking about a different kind of 'disband' WITHOUT devices going back to the pool? That would be better called a 'Surrender' option.

[rader]

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: rader

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

Because when units are disbanded the devices go back to the pools and (for those who count points) there are no points for their destruction.

What you are talking about is not disbandment.

[Numdydar]

Well if they slowly attrite away now, what happens to the equipment and the points? Does the game engine permently remove the devices and give points as if they were destroyed? If the game does NOT do that for attrited units then the disband option would work as it does not change anything in how the game works now.

If the game does consider attrited unts as being killed, then using the disband routine would be 'gamey' as you stated and a new new option ' Surrender' would be needed. It just depends on how the game currently handles attrited units. Which I have no clue of btw lol.

[Califvol]

Where this really comes to play is air transport. With many units you get down to their last bit of equipment and then it's too big to go by air. So, you are left the rest of the game to have this fragment left behind. During the war,provided the move was important enough,you just wrote the equipment off.

I'd have no problem with the bits left behind being destroyed and counting as VP just to prevent me from having to send naval transport for this tiny often a 15 man bit stuck with two howitzers.

Also, if they don't get cleaned up then you can't upgrade later on.

It's more of a peeve than a true issue, but it's been a peeve of mine for sometime.

[noguaranteeofsanity]

You used to be able to disband units in locations other than the national home base, but the feature was removed in one of the patches, because it was causing problem, which were discussed here: tm.asp?m=2329700&mpage=1

[Califvol]

I don't want to hijack this thread.

My concern is over disbanding fragments not full units.

While they are close, I don't see them as actually the samething. Ergo, I am in the wrong thread! LOL

So, I will shutup about fragment disbandments.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well if they slowly attrite away now, what happens to the equipment and the points? Does the game engine permently remove the devices and give points as if they were destroyed? If the game does NOT do that for attrited units then the disband option would work as it does not change anything in how the game works now.

If the game does consider attrited unts as being killed, then using the disband routine would be 'gamey' as you stated and a new new option ' Surrender' would be needed. It just depends on how the game currently handles attrited units. Which I have no clue of btw lol.

Yes. It's not even 'as if' they were destroyed, they are destroyed by lack of supplies.

[Numdydar]

Cool. Then we would need a new option called 'Surrender' in order to keep things straight.

[carnifex]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I don't see the purpose of this? Am I being very stupid?

Roger

I'm with you - I don't see how this one would improve anything.

I'm reaching here:

You can prevent the enemy player from "training" his units on them.

You can save supplies and have other units use them.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: rader

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

If a "surrender" option is included, those LCUs that surrender should not be allowed to be rebuilt.

And the "island-hopping" stategy was certainly effective for the Allies in RL.