IJA 2nd Air Division: Temporarily Restricted = Bonanza?

[pws1225]

I was looking through the Air Group OOB file that michaelm makes available with the WitPLoad utility trying to get a handle on the forces Japan has available at the start of the war (Scenario 1 or 2). I noticed that the units assigned to the 2nd Air Division located at Harbin are "Temporarily Restricted" and are denoted with (R) rather than [R] . Not being clear on what temporarily restricted meant, I checked the manual and on page 178 the manual states:

"Temporarily Restricted – units may not move by air or sea unless the HQ is changed. When the HQ’s are changed subordinate
units change to the classification of the parent."

From this, I take away that by changing the HQ of the 2nd Air Division HQ at Harbin from reporting to the Kwantung Army to, say, the Southern Army, I can move quite a few air groups out of Kwantung (for a mere 70 PPs) to areas where they are much more useful. Needless to say, as a JFB I like this idea but I am hestitant to exploit this "feature" of temporarliy restricted units because it differs so radically from the traditional notion of normally restricted units and having to pay PP for each unit. However, if changing the 2nd Air Division's HQ causes all subordinate units to change as well is WAD, then it would be foolish not to do so.

What do you more experienced players think? Is moving the entire 2nd Air Division out of Kwantung for 70 PPs a gamey exploit, or is it a natural and intended characteristic of "temporarily restircted" units?

[Olorin]

Stripping Manchukuo of all or most of its air assets would never happen in real life, without a dramatic change in IJA leadership. 70 PPs do not reflect this hypothetical change. I think that buying out the HQ is gamey.

Besides, you want the 2nd Air Div to train pilots.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Olorin

Stripping Manchukuo of all or most of its air assets would never happen in real life, without a dramatic change in IJA leadership. 70 PPs do not reflect this hypothetical change. I think that buying out the HQ is gamey.

Besides, you want the 2nd Air Div to train pilots.

The real fundamental problem with the entire Manchukuo garrison set up is that the threshold is based solely on assault value. Any unit, be it land or air, which does not have an assault value can be removed from its historical Soviet overwatch role without triggering Soviet activation. The payment of PPs is simply not an adequate mechanism to restrain widely unhistorical, and quite implausible, Japanese gutting of the Manchukuo forces.

As to the OP question regarding whether it is WAD, the answer is yes. But, and it is a huge but which many here just conveniently disregard because it inconveniences them, the devs have on numerous occasions stated that the entire HQ concept was implemented without the known flaws being sorted beforehand. Thus it is possible for Japanese players to transfer land units to the 2nd Air division and then get them bought out at a huge PP discount. That was never the intention of the devs but yes, in terms of game mechanism, it is WAD.

Alfred

[bigred]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Olorin

Stripping Manchukuo of all or most of its air assets would never happen in real life, without a dramatic change in IJA leadership. 70 PPs do not reflect this hypothetical change. I think that buying out the HQ is gamey.

Besides, you want the 2nd Air Div to train pilots.

The real fundamental problem with the entire Manchukuo garrison set up is that the threshold is based solely on assault value. Any unit, be it land or air, which does not have an assault value can be removed from its historical Soviet overwatch role without triggering Soviet activation. The payment of PPs is simply not an adequate mechanism to restrain widely unhistorical, and quite implausible, Japanese gutting of the Manchukuo forces.

As to the OP question regarding whether it is WAD, the answer is yes. But, and it is a huge but which many here just conveniently disregard because it inconveniences them, the devs have on numerous occasions stated that the entire HQ concept was implemented without the known flaws being sorted beforehand. Thus it is possible for Japanese players to transfer land units to the 2nd Air division and then get them bought out at a huge PP discount. That was never the intention of the devs but yes, in terms of game mechanism, it is WAD.

Alfred

With reguard to all the above issues I have come to a view that RHS101 is a possible solution to all these issues. With an active soviet threat from the beginning of the game japan will be more careful about removal of any forces from manchuko.

[pws1225]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Olorin

Stripping Manchukuo of all or most of its air assets would never happen in real life, without a dramatic change in IJA leadership. 70 PPs do not reflect this hypothetical change. I think that buying out the HQ is gamey.

Besides, you want the 2nd Air Div to train pilots.

The real fundamental problem with the entire Manchukuo garrison set up is that the threshold is based solely on assault value. Any unit, be it land or air, which does not have an assault value can be removed from its historical Soviet overwatch role without triggering Soviet activation. The payment of PPs is simply not an adequate mechanism to restrain widely unhistorical, and quite implausible, Japanese gutting of the Manchukuo forces.

As to the OP question regarding whether it is WAD, the answer is yes. But, and it is a huge but which many here just conveniently disregard because it inconveniences them, the devs have on numerous occasions stated that the entire HQ concept was implemented without the known flaws being sorted beforehand. Thus it is possible for Japanese players to transfer land units to the 2nd Air division and then get them bought out at a huge PP discount. That was never the intention of the devs but yes, in terms of game mechanism, it is WAD.

Alfred

Okay, I think I see what you guys are saying. At least I'm happy that I'm understanding the HQ system as it was designed. But the notion of using a WAD HQ system to pull off a historically unrealistic reallocation of air assets (as Orolin points out) or even potentially land assets (as Alfred points out) does seem like a blatant exploit of the game mechanics. Too bad, I would have liked to use those assets elsewhere. C'est la guerre.

Many thanks, Paul

[pws1225]

RHS101? What is that?

[Alfred]

pws1225,

I don't think you should feel totally trapped in keeping in Manchuria the exact historical Manchukuo forces. Provided you pay the full "retail" PP price, there is nothing wrong with changing your force structure. This is a game after all, not an exact replaying of a documentary. Paying the full "retail" price means other alternative uses for those expended PPs have been foregone. To capture the historical feel, the player should always be confronted with having to balance their limited means with the always much greater needs.

Alfred

[pws1225]

Thanks Alfred. In my current game with Dr.Hal, I have already paid full retail for a couple of LCUs from Manchukuo for use elsewhere. However, after stumbling across the "temporarly restricted" 2nd Air Division, I was thinking that perhaps I was missing a commonly used feature available to Japanese players. But as you and Olorin have pointed out, paying wholesale for the entire 2nd Air Division doesn't ring true with what was plausible. I may be willing to stretch historical realism, but I'm not willing to break it!

Regards, Paul

[dr.hal]

Well Paul as I'm beating the tar out of you, you could stretch things and not pay the points but it will do you no good as your empire is DOOMED! Hal

[Yaab]

What about buying only the offensive assets of 2nd Air Division, like level bombers? If Japs had no intention of provoking a war with the Soviet Union, they could still retain defensive assets like fighters in Kwantung, and move bombers somewhere else.

[Chernobyl]

Why is everyone so worried about historical accuracy and Japan being "gamey" when Japan is 'supposed' to lose? I don't get it. Why not make the game more of an even match? That seems way more fun to me.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

Why is everyone so worried about historical accuracy and Japan being "gamey" when Japan is 'supposed' to lose? I don't get it. Why not make the game more of an even match? That seems way more fun to me.

Because some of us actually want to fight Pacific war, with historical limitations.

You can even put restricted divisions and other LCU under 2nd Air Division, and get them out very cheaply? Totally gamey, if you ask me...

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: pws1225

What do you more experienced players think? Is moving the entire 2nd Air Division out of Kwantung for 70 PPs a gamey exploit, or is it a natural and intended characteristic of "temporarily restircted" units?

Provided you pay 'retail' (as Alfred indicates above), that would maintain the spirit of the PP cost for the Manchuko garrison's transfer out of its borders. I would not attempt to shortcut the PP system and rationale for same in the manner you describe.

[Chernobyl]

Right, but it seems like EVERYONE wants to play that way, which puzzles me.

I guess I come from games where people are incredibly concerned with game balance, and with WINNING.

In this game, the historical matchup has its entertainment value to me, but I don't understand how that is the way everyone plays this game. It seems pretty masochistic to play Japan when the inevitable outcome is ruin, sooner or later.

Sure a lot of people play scenario #2, but that doesn't really even begin to approach balance.

I think it would be really cool read an AAR where Japan gets an enhanced Navy, manages to conquer China and invades India, legitimately threatens Australia and the Allies only really begin to advance in late 43 / early 44, and there is a race to secure the most VP by the end of the scenario in 1946. THAT would be cool. But the vibe I get from reading AARs is that if Japan can SURVIVE through 1944, that is considered an accomplishment. It seems like the Japanese player has to play VERY WELL just to approach the historical timetable/accomplishments in the SRA and there are many pitfalls (I gather that a skilled Allied player will sink just about any unescorted troop convoy, will conduct a skillful fighting retreat that will slow you down and force you to bring significant force for every single operation). I don't argue that this isn't historical. Historically Japan was able to capitalize on skill, luck, and the incompetence of its opponents during this campaign.

But the problem from my perspective is that it seems even if Japan does everything right, Japan still loses in the end. And I don't really see the fun of celebrating christmas '44 holding on to a few burnt out bases on Honshu with 98% of my navy collecting reef. But then again hey maybe I just don't have the historical imagination that you guys do

[JocMeister]

To my very limited knowledge this was up for discussion some time ago. The allied player can do the same thing using two unrestricted air HQs attached to the WC command. It seemed like most agreed that using this method to buy out units cheaply was to be frowned upon.

I certainly wouldn´t feel comfortable doing it.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

Right, but it seems like EVERYONE wants to play that way, which puzzles me.

I guess I come from games where people are incredibly concerned with game balance, and with WINNING.

In this game, the historical matchup has its entertainment value to me, but I don't understand how that is the way everyone plays this game. It seems pretty masochistic to play Japan when the inevitable outcome is ruin, sooner or later.

Sure a lot of people play scenario #2, but that doesn't really even begin to approach balance.

I think it would be really cool read an AAR where Japan gets an enhanced Navy, manages to conquer China and invades India, there is a big continental war for Australia and the Allies only really begin to advance in late 43 / early 44, and there is a race to secure the most VP by the end of the scenario in 1946. THAT would be cool. But the vibe I get from reading AARs is that if Japan can SURVIVE through 1944, that is considered an accomplishment. I don't really see the fun of celebrating christmas '44 holding on to a few burnt out bases on Honshu with 98% of my navy collecting reef, but hey maybe I just don't have the historical imagination that you guys do

Welcome to the historical wargame. What did you expect? [:)]

Every miniscule detail in this game was modelled to reflect historical capabilities, positions, initial options, restrictions,...
Thats the BASIC of this game.

There are fantasy scenarios to even the balance more than Scen #2 (RA, Ironman,...) but the underlying mechanic needs to be the most accurate depiction of the historical
setup before WWII and the possibilities emerging from there.


You will find out that many here use this game to test historical capabilities against their skills. Which as Japan means to survive longer than historical without
using ahistorical mechanics (this is unavoidable, but you can limit yourself.)

[Chernobyl]

Right, I think I underestimated how much people here love history!

I love it too. I just also can't stand losing

Which is why I'm having a blast modding the game to include extra goodies for Japan. I'm adding a bunch of German capital ships right now


In regards to OP, yeah it does seem sorta "gamey" in the sense that it probably wasn't intended to be done that way. I'd ask my opponent for permission.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod
I just also can't stand losing

Ouch! Get rid of that ASAP, except if you want to end up with a blood pressure of AW1Steve... [:D]

[Chernobyl]

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

ORIGINAL: Liebestod
I just also can't stand losing

Ouch! Get rid of that ASAP, except if you want to end up with a blood pressure of AW1Steve... [:D]

Yes well from the AARs I can tell that you need to be extremely strong-willed to make it through the PBEM games. Almost guaranteed to have many setbacks that you need to accept.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Liebestod

Right, but it seems like EVERYONE wants to play that way, which puzzles me.

I guess I come from games where people are incredibly concerned with game balance, and with WINNING.

In this game, the historical matchup has its entertainment value to me, but I don't understand how that is the way everyone plays this game. It seems pretty masochistic to play Japan when the inevitable outcome is ruin, sooner or later.

Sure a lot of people play scenario #2, but that doesn't really even begin to approach balance.

I think it would be really cool read an AAR where Japan gets an enhanced Navy, manages to conquer China and invades India, legitimately threatens Australia and the Allies only really begin to advance in late 43 / early 44, and there is a race to secure the most VP by the end of the scenario in 1946. THAT would be cool. But the vibe I get from reading AARs is that if Japan can SURVIVE through 1944, that is considered an accomplishment. It seems like the Japanese player has to play VERY WELL just to approach the historical timetable/accomplishments in the SRA and there are many pitfalls (I gather that a skilled Allied player will sink just about any unescorted troop convoy, will conduct a skillful fighting retreat that will slow you down and force you to bring significant force for every single operation). I don't argue that this isn't historical. Historically Japan was able to capitalize on skill, luck, and the incompetence of its opponents during this campaign.

But the problem from my perspective is that it seems even if Japan does everything right, Japan still loses in the end. And I don't really see the fun of celebrating christmas '44 holding on to a few burnt out bases on Honshu with 98% of my navy collecting reef. But then again hey maybe I just don't have the historical imagination that you guys do

Balance? Balance????