RHSPPO (Political Points Option) Discussion

[el cid again]

The concept of RHSPPO is this:

You get most units assigned to home commands and you then reassign them wherever you want to.

The problem is, what is the limit of your discretion (measured in political points)?

In stock, you got 50 political points per day. Japan starts with 500 and the Allies with 100.

In CHS, you got 100 political points per day. Japan still starts with 500 and the Allies jump up to 400.

In RHS, you get the same as RHS, by inheritance.

Now PPO proposes to change this.

For some reason, planes are cheap: you pay 36 or 48 or 72 points to transfer a squadron. But a land unit is costly: you pay 300-600 points for a brigade (the former for small Allied ones, the latter for big Japanese ones). Divisions are not what you would expect on this scale: a Japanese division costs 834 points, but a US one 1312, approximately. Apparently you pay more for motorized support - or something like that.

The problem in the game is the Allies have so much to transfer. On the other hand, in the beginning the Allies don't even know they are at war, or where it is coming? So I propose a radical change: Japan gets a lot of points to start with (the initiative) but the Allies get a lot every day - so they can actually transfer all the units they get AFTER they know there are war and where they want to send them.

First pass guesses:

Japan should get 1000 PP per day (enough to assign a division and change in their system) but start with 3000 PP.

The Allies should get 2000 PP per day (also enough to assign a division and change, but a lot more change, so all those air units can be assigned somewhere) - but start only with 1000 PP.

Comments sought.

FYI - just comparing Japan and the USA - the Japanese have actually MORE divisions to transfer. Japan's army was a good deal bigger than the US army was. Taken as a whole the Allies have a lot more troops - but that is because of vast numbers in China and Russia - which should not be so easy to move to (say) Australia. This is in part cultural, part strategy, and part economic: Japan was run by the army, an infantry dominated army, and thought in infantry terms. It also would have a hard time competing economically in an air war. The US was much more air minded and Gen Marshall (and FDR) wished to avoid a lot of casualties in ground combat. [They got a lot of casualties in bomber combat - not sure that was a win - but that was their choice]. The US set out deliberately to limit its ground forces, while Japan under pressure expanded its ground forces.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

I think it could imbalance the game. Allied player at first is in defensive. Player would take more divisions to make strongholds leaving airgroups at home (especially fighters). So allies at start would get more landpower, losing nothing. Japanese at start have air supremacy regardless Allies have planes or not.

I am only pointing out possible danger.

[spence]

I'm more of an Allied Player than Japanese Player so I'll speak to what I know as much as possible.

It seems like the Allied Player would have the option to redeploy the whole Philippine Army/USAAFE in just a couple of days...not that it is initially capable of much but I think the key word is initially here. 

Same goes for all those little BFs and garrison infantry battalions in the DEI.

My gut feeling is that the proposed changes would open the game up to 'gamey' exploitation by both sides.

  

[spence]

Any change to the PP system ought to try to come to grips with real internal political issues. While moving a division from one AO to another more than likely would have some political cost this business about some abstract political cost for replacing the Ens in command of PT32 or MSW12 is BS. Japan should pay POLITICAL POINTS to change the factories of one manufacturer over to producing planes designed by a different manufacturer. The Allies should pay POLITICAL POINTS to blow up Royal Dutch oil refineries. Those actions would much more likely be a source of friction to operations and discord in the command structure which is, at least by the name given to it, the theoretical object of the whole system.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

I think it could imbalance the game. Allied player at first is in defensive. Player would take more divisions to make strongholds leaving airgroups at home (especially fighters). So allies at start would get more landpower, losing nothing. Japanese at start have air supremacy regardless Allies have planes or not.

I am only pointing out possible danger.

And in the past your comments have always been germane - so I would love to consider this one. But I have not followed your meaning. Please try again - possibly with more words. And always remember - my Polish is much worse than your English - so it is never a criticism to say I need more work on the translation.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

Any change to the PP system ought to try to come to grips with real internal political issues. While moving a division from one AO to another more than likely would have some political cost this business about some abstract political cost for replacing the Ens in command of PT32 or MSW12 is BS. Japan should pay POLITICAL POINTS to change the factories of one manufacturer over to producing planes designed by a different manufacturer. The Allies should pay POLITICAL POINTS to blow up Royal Dutch oil refineries. Those actions would much more likely be a source of friction to operations and discord in the command structure which is, at least by the name given to it, the theoretical object of the whole system.

Regretfully, this theoretically germane comment is not useful to us. We modders have no control over fundamental design or code - and only rarely can "cheat" and redefine the system. When we do - it is still limited to being done in terms of the existing design and code. We are trying to create an option with more freedom of action for players - but we don't get to rewrite the code! And I am sorry that is true - not happy about it. Nevertheless, I seek comments WITHIN what we can do. Unless, of course, you have some clever way to put these proposals into practice without changing code - in which case please tell me what it might be?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

OK, i will use more words

So we are Allied player. At start we have to choose how we use our PP. Do we really need those fighters or low-range bombers early in the game? No! They are some kind of usesless, since at start Japan can get air superiority wherever he wants it. What we really want is more land combat forces. So we "buy" more Divisions and Brigades than it was in history. These additional land units will go to place such as Java, maybe Palembang, Guadalcanal, making these place unconquerable for some time. From now on, every single assault by Japanese would need almost entire Southern Area Army keept in one place to smash overgrown defenders. Game would slow down Japanese advance, and possibly prevent them to achieve histrorical boundaries of their conquests, unless he would use different tactics: leave unmolested Philippines and and go first for outer perimeters (such as Java, Port Moresby Timor) to give Allies no time to strenghten them.

Air groups are cheap, and there will be time to release them later, they can wait. They are needed only in stalemate and counterstrike phases of war, not earlier.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: spence

I'm more of an Allied Player than Japanese Player so I'll speak to what I know as much as possible.

It seems like the Allied Player would have the option to redeploy the whole Philippine Army/USAAFE in just a couple of days...not that it is initially capable of much but I think the key word is initially here. 

Same goes for all those little BFs and garrison infantry battalions in the DEI.

My gut feeling is that the proposed changes would open the game up to 'gamey' exploitation by both sides.

  

PPO is meant to put players in the strategic drivers seat more than scenarios which saddle them with historical decisions. As time passes in a game, historical decisions may make little sense, but you still get units sent to whatever place - not where real leaders would send them in fact in that situation.

In a sense, PPO is also meant to be played by "gamey" players. That is, it is intended to permit examination of some strategies different than history.

However, in order to avoid the problem Spence brings up, I have proposed we deliberately limit the Allied initial PP. 1000 PP - if ONLY used for PP army divisions - would only transfer three on the first day - and these are perfectly awful "divisions" (not even boots issued to a common standard, no command language in many units, almost no one trained above company level - these are not ideal combat units). On the other hand, in a few days you COULD transfer it as a body somewhere else (presumably south) and if that were a political priority - you might do so in real life too. I have an absolutely spactacular photograph of an army of Arab troops - under streaming green banners - moving down the coast road into Kuwait in 1991. It was politically convenient and expedient to have them move - and be seen to make this move - and I wholly approve of any resources expended to facilitate that move. But it was not the major force in the 1991 campaign - or even a major force. If you follow my meaning, I think this sort of thing might make perfect political sense and not be "gamey" at all - and I like to let PLAYERS decide - not tie them structurally all the time. My philosophy is "if you make bad choices, you won't get a good game."

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

OK, i will use more words

So we are Allied player. At start we have to choose how we use our PP. Do we really need those fighters or low-range bombers early in the game? No! They are some kind of usesless, since at start Japan can get air superiority wherever he wants it. What we really want is more land combat forces. So we "buy" more Divisions and Brigades than it was in history. These additional land units will go to place such as Java, maybe Palembang, Guadalcanal, making these place unconquerable for some time. From now on, every single assault by Japanese would need almost entire Southern Area Army keept in one place to smash overgrown defenders. Game would slow down Japanese advance, and possibly prevent them to achieve histrorical boundaries of their conquests, unless he would use different tactics: leave unmolested Philippines and and go first for outer perimeters (such as Java, Port Moresby Timor) to give Allies no time to strenghten them.

Air groups are cheap, and there will be time to release them later, they can wait. They are needed only in stalemate and counterstrike phases of war, not earlier.

Thanks Monter. This is an interesting concept - but I am not very afraid of it. The Japanese have an overwhelming initial advantage - and more freedom in this scenario to throw their weight where they wise BEFORE anything can get there. There is what the Pentagon calls "the tyranny of distance" - and Japan has the classic advantage of interior lines. Japan can take it before the Allies can reinforce it. IMHO the Allies will be smarter to run than to send more lambs forward to the slaughter anyway: what matters is troops in supply with air control over them. NOT sending air units only makes air control less likely - and supply won't be getting there without air power either - so the troops are just so much grist for the mill. Time will tell - but I fear much more the Allies use their PP to withdraw too much - and have it to throw back in later when they really would not have done that. As an Allied player I always FIGHT for my territory - not like the dumb AI which fights for almost nothing.

[witpqs]

Just wondering - what is the limit to PP's you can accumulate (in the code)?

As I've noted before, I like this option a lot. Having units arrive to commands that are irrelevant in the current game makes zero sense. Each side needs enough points to assign newly arriving units (almost all of them), and then some very modest pool of points to switch units over time.

Without having the lists to calculate from, I didn't know what sort of daily ration that would be. Seeing that it is 1,000 and 2,000 per day, I wonder if we will hit an upper limit in the code? Maybe Joe or Don can answer that question to avoid a nasty potential surprise later. Similar to the oil at Balikpapan, for example, that maxes out at 999,999 storage pretty quickly (with 3,000 oil in RHS).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Just wondering - what is the limit to PP's you can accumulate (in the code)?

As I've noted before, I like this option a lot. Having units arrive to commands that are irrelevant in the current game makes zero sense. Each side needs enough points to assign newly arriving units (almost all of them), and then some very modest pool of points to switch units over time.

Without having the lists to calculate from, I didn't know what sort of daily ration that would be. Seeing that it is 1,000 and 2,000 per day, I wonder if we will hit an upper limit in the code? Maybe Joe or Don can answer that question to avoid a nasty potential surprise later. Similar to the oil at Balikpapan, for example, that maxes out at 999,999 storage pretty quickly (with 3,000 oil in RHS).

Actually - except for storage depots like Oahu and San Francisco and Panama - the limit for oil makes economic sense: when you have so many days production in storage you DO run out of tanks - and even if you did not - you DO NOT pump any more. They shut down the Uranium mine at Shinkoblwe in 1938 - when they had enough for present sales for 60 years in hand - and in the event that mine was not reopened until done for North Korea a few years ago (and still not officially).

I do not think a political point limit is an issue: players will USE their PP if playing PPO - that is the point. They will want more. But the limit is likely 32 k - that seems to be the normal limit in this system. Another possibility is 16 k.

I have PPO converted for Japan (not allies) - if you want to test it in prerelease say so.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The concept of RHSPPO is this:

You get most units assigned to home commands and you then reassign them wherever you want to.

The problem is, what is the limit of your discretion (measured in political points)?

In stock, you got 50 political points per day. Japan starts with 500 and the Allies with 100.

In CHS, you got 100 political points per day. Japan still starts with 500 and the Allies jump up to 400.

In RHS, you get the same as RHS, by inheritance.

Now PPO proposes to change this.

For some reason, planes are cheap: you pay 36 or 48 or 72 points to transfer a squadron. But a land unit is costly: you pay 300-600 points for a brigade (the former for small Allied ones, the latter for big Japanese ones). Divisions are not what you would expect on this scale: a Japanese division costs 834 points, but a US one 1312, approximately. Apparently you pay more for motorized support - or something like that.

The problem in the game is the Allies have so much to transfer. On the other hand, in the beginning the Allies don't even know they are at war, or where it is coming? So I propose a radical change: Japan gets a lot of points to start with (the initiative) but the Allies get a lot every day - so they can actually transfer all the units they get AFTER they know there are war and where they want to send them.

First pass guesses:

Japan should get 1000 PP per day (enough to assign a division and change in their system) but start with 3000 PP.

The Allies should get 2000 PP per day (also enough to assign a division and change, but a lot more change, so all those air units can be assigned somewhere) - but start only with 1000 PP.

Comments sought.

In truth the stock version of 50 pts is probably more realistic and historical if you look at it from tha aspect of prepping a single division for deployment to another AO. Think about the amount of time it would take to prep a division for deployment... 26 days (50X27=1350) of prep to transfer a division to another AO is not bad for WWII - in fact it's pretty fast for the Pacific campaign - at least in my opionion.

26 days to:
1. Get command structures working together
2. Equip the Division for the mission (the purpose for reassiginment)
3. Provide training for the troops
4. Gather supplies
5. Prep a TF for transport (if it will be deployed by ship or air units)

The problem as I see it is in a desire to prep for deployment multiple divisions within a 30 day time frame. I think the 100 pts per day is probably the best fit without allowing things to get too "gamey." 100 pts per day would allow you to transfer 2 divisons for deployment within 30 days.

I agree that at the initial start of the war the allies were defensive so I wouldn't think they would be in position to transfer many units to other commands; they were still struggling to find their tail-pipes with both hands.

Is there any way to have the allies start out at negative points - say -6,000 pts (about 2 months)? This would simulate the allies taking until mid-February to begin the process of manuevering troop units (saying they accumulated 100 political points per turn).

[Mifune]

What are the implications of the "Hard Coded" units? Will those be brought "home" as well or left in their original jumping off points?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Mifune

What are the implications of the "Hard Coded" units? Will those be brought "home" as well or left in their original jumping off points?

The ORIGINAL units remain in their commands. With rare exceptions, other units are assigned to "home" - which means different things in different countries. However, a couple of units are created for a specific purpose, and they get assigned there. In the case of USN/USMC they always are assigned to Pacific Fleet. USA/USAAF and Canada consider Western Command home. Even cross assigned units lose their assignment - and you must pay to cross assign.

This means many "political points" de facto "spent" in the game now must be "spent again" - every time you want to send a unit to the same theater it really went to. The difference is you get to pick the place.

This scenario is out in its first form. I want to know if there are any problems? I have no absolutely clear sense of what it should be set at - so this is very experimental.

[el cid again]

1Eyed:

I cannot change the game system. So I do not rationalize it the same way you do. I am not thinking that the PP represent the time to do staff work. Rather they are a limit.

In most war games I can send anything anywhere. This is a check on that. It is a limit on how many major units may have planning APPROVED in a single day. The planning is done BEFORE it gets to the top. And of course, if the place is distant, there is still the need to wait for the unit to get there. Which is nice simulation IMHO.