Land movement between islands & mountains in China (Revised after testing)

[el cid again]

In order to mitigate the issues of restricted commands,

particularly in the Philippines and the Dutch East Indies,

what if land movement were possible between islands?

For example, permit movement between Leyte and Samar,
or between Sumatra and Java, by making a change in hexside
definition. No road or RR - just hexside change.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

This would give to much benefit to attacker. No need of invasions (with probability of loosing men during this), when you can simply walk directly from island to island.

[el cid again]

This would give to much benefit to attacker. No need of invasions (with probability of loosing men during this), when you can simply walk directly from island to island.

You misunderstand my motive: I wish to benefit the defender. Right now it is NOT ALLOWED to move a unit between different parts of the Philippines or the Indies: the defender simply is not able to reinforce or evacuate - by sea or air. When I proposed using unrestricted commands, I was told this was too much flexability for the defense - and that Soerabaja would never fall to the Japanese (something I don't believe but listen to anyway - just in case). If I leave commands restricted HOW can we allow these troops to move??? The idea that the Dutch East Indies, with a considerable navy and a merchant fleet of its own, cannot move between islands is hardly historical. And the US situation in the Philippines is equally silly: we cannot move even US marines on US Navy ships! You really think that is "realistic" - "historical" or even "fair"???

[witpqs]

I agree that it would benefit the attacker too much, in spite of the best intention. Also, it would change the character of the game too much (a land game with pictures of water!).

Even if there were a house rule not to use it (forces outside those for the area), the AI doesn't do house rules. It would be real nice (for many of us) if the scenario functioned with the AI.

I wonder if there is any way to unrestrict commands? It seems to me that having unrestricted commands with house rules that restrict where units can be moved is better than what we have now, if only we can figure out how to do it.

[treespider]

I see this as ripe for player abuse both by the attacker and the defender.

IIRC the Dutch and ABDA did not recall or consolidate their farflung forces into the Soerbaja Redoubt. Hence why the designer included political points...

Pontianak was defended by 500 Dutch, Celebes was garrisoned by 3100 Dutch troops in three remote locations, 2,800 NEI troops and a reinforced Australian battalion of 1170 defended Ambon, Dutch Timor by 600 Dutch and 1320 Australians, 4500 men defended Sumatra. (the figures are from an Osprey book)

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: treespider

I see this as ripe for player abuse both by the attacker and the defender.

IIRC the Dutch and ABDA did not recall or consolidate their farflung forces into the Soerbaja Redoubt. Hence why the designer included political points...

Pontianak was defended by 500 Dutch, Celebes was garrisoned by 3100 Dutch troops in three remote locations, 2,800 NEI troops and a reinforced Australian battalion of 1170 defended Ambon, Dutch Timor by 600 Dutch and 1320 Australians, 4500 men defended Sumatra. (the figures are from an Osprey book)

A good reason why the Dutch did not recall these troops because in many cases they were necessary to keep law and order. The DEI amy was more of an internal security force than a true combat force.

[el cid again]

This would give to much benefit to attacker. No need of invasions (with probability of loosing men during this), when you can simply walk directly from island to island.

Let me try this again.

First, between some islands movement is easier than to cross a major river. See for example Leyte and Samar, one of my specific proposals.
To say a unit CANNOT cross is physically false - and I don't care what operational effects it may have. We are modeling history, not trying to make it hard for the offense or defense.

Second, the Philippines and the Dutch Indies are maritime territories.
To disallow medium range marine transport seems very severe and ahistoric. But to ALSO disallow SHORT range marine transport smacks of attempting to achieve something very distorted. The fact is that both sides benefit from this short range shipping. Japan put THOUSANDS of these craft into service - both operated by locals and by the army - it is not just the Allied who used them. [See The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War Two].

Third, movement WITHOUT roads, trails or railroads is very slow - and reasonably simulates inefficient use of non-military irregular transport vessels.

Fourth, the intent is to increase operational flexability for the DEFENSE. I do not grasp how being unable to either reinforce or evacuate is a DISADVANTAGE for the defense? I really think you have this backwards.
IF an invader can invade anywhere, they can invade again somewhere else. And once they have invaded a good air base site, and built it up, they have the main thing they need. Movement by sea is FASTER as well. I don't see why they would go by land routes without roads or even trails? And if they do, I don't see why those critical hexes cannot be effectively contested?

[el cid again]

Even if there were a house rule not to use it (forces outside those for the area), the AI doesn't do house rules. It would be real nice (for many of us) if the scenario functioned with the AI.

I wonder if there is any way to unrestrict commands? It seems to me that having unrestricted commands with house rules that restrict where units can be moved is better than what we have now, if only we can figure out how to do it.

I am opposed to using house rules. I like surprise and maximum options for players. ONLY if forced by some flaw in game design will I even consider using house rules. I also BEGAN by proposing unrestricted commands - and was told that is TOO MUCH of a change. I think restricted commands are a very bad design decision - and in particular bad history. NO UNIT can move between islands by air or sea? Who imagines this is true? HOW DID the units on those islands get there in the first place? If I order a regiment to move from port A to port B, and provide the ships or planes, who can believe it would be unable to go?
I would rather have (hated) house rules restricting the Dutch to the Indies and the Philippine Army to the Philippines than restricted commands. But I LISTENED - and was told this is a vital concept - that Japan can "never take Soerabaja" if we allow the Allies the "flexability" to withdraw onto it. Now that is what the Asiatic Fleet really did! And the US Army even had a task force on Java. I see no reason Adm Hart could not have taken 4th Marines to Java if he wanted to? And IF that means Java might not fall - I don't believe that - but IF it means that - what is wrong with that?

THIS proposal is an attempt to give the allies more limited flexability than full air and sea movement. AND to address the fact Leyte and Samar are so close it is harder to cross the Yangze than to pass between them, for example. I suppose it helps that I have been to Tacloban and know what it is like. Maybe you think this is "sea" - but it is more like "river."

[el cid again]

IIRC the Dutch and ABDA did not recall or consolidate their farflung forces into the Soerbaja Redoubt. Hence why the designer included political points...

1) IF we MUST do what historical commanders did, why play at all?

2) To some extent, this is false. British and US units DID fall back on Java. The fleet that fought at Java sea was mostly not Dutch. And US and Imperial forces did fight on Java if not in Soerabaja itself - which may or may not have been a better place to fight.

3) I have no clue why a proper mobile defense is "abuse"???? I might as a designer consider restricting Dutch forces to the territory - but to the island? I think this is "abuse" of the Allies - not even the smallest and historically accurate cases of movement can be duplicated. And it is not my view that players should be forbidden to move their units. IF you have a good case that "132 regiment" should be forced to defend Makassar I will make it static.

[el cid again]

Pontianak was defended by 500 Dutch, Celebes was garrisoned by 3100 Dutch troops in three remote locations, 2,800 NEI troops and a reinforced Australian battalion of 1170 defended Ambon, Dutch Timor by 600 Dutch and 1320 Australians, 4500 men defended Sumatra. (the figures are from an Osprey book)

I will stipulate this is good data. What is your point? That these units HAD to stay there? That NO OTHER units should ever be able to reinforce them - at least no other Dutch units? I really really do not understand why that might be the case? THAT these units were there I accept: that they must stay there - and that they cannot be reinforced - I do not grasp. Unless the ignorance, arrogance and inefficiency of the Dutch command are being simulated by this sort of forced paralaysis. Are you SURE you want to say they could not have made ANY better decisions? If so, why not just read history books about what they had to do - why simulate at all? What is the job of the Allied player if he cannot even choose to - say - reinforce or evacuate Palembang?

[timtom]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

A good reason why the Dutch did not recall these troops because in many cases they were necessary to keep law and order. The DEI amy was more of an internal security force than a true combat force.

Outside of China & Manchuria the game makes no attempt to simulate this reality. The Japanese aren't required to maintain a garrison in the SRA for this specific purpose, so I don't see why this should be an arguement for rooting the Dutch etc to the spot.

Further, restricting the Allied ability to redeploy asserbates the rather unhistoric problem of the Japanese player knowing the Allied OOB to a tee.

The Brits are free to abandon Malaya in the game - I suspect it wasn't quite that simple in reality. Personally I feel that doing the same in the SRA/Phillippines should be a command-decision. A strong case has already been made that doing the Sir Robin isn't necesarily the way to go.

A compromise might be to keep units on Java and Luzon restricted while attaching units on the outlying islands to unrestricted HQ's. The Allied player would thus still be forced to defend the core areas of each command.

[el cid again]

A compromise might be to keep units on Java and Luzon restricted while attaching units on the outlying islands to unrestricted HQ's. The Allied player would thus still be forced to defend the core areas of each command.

Very creative. I had thought about mixed commands - say US Army/USMC units unrestricted but Philippine Army restricted. But territory might be a better solution. Two divisions were moved FROM the Visaya's TOO Luzon historically - so much for "units didn't move." Had the war come later, it was planned to send CD units TO the Visayas.
Why not allow such things?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

A compromise might be to keep units on Java and Luzon restricted while attaching units on the outlying islands to unrestricted HQ's. The Allied player would thus still be forced to defend the core areas of each command.

Very creative. I had thought about mixed commands - say US Army/USMC units unrestricted but Philippine Army restricted. But territory might be a better solution. Two divisions were moved FROM the Visaya's TOO Luzon historically - so much for "units didn't move." Had the war come later, it was planned to send CD units TO the Visayas.
Why not allow such things?

Those things are allowed albeit with a political point cost.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

First, between some islands movement is easier than to cross a major river. See for example Leyte and Samar, one of my specific proposals.
To say a unit CANNOT cross is physically false - and I don't care what operational effects it may have. We are modeling history, not trying to make it hard for the offense or defense.

If this is true then I certainly agree with the change. But the hexside should be made to be a river crossing hexside.

Second, the Philippines and the Dutch Indies are maritime territories.
To disallow medium range marine transport seems very severe and ahistoric. But to ALSO disallow SHORT range marine transport smacks of attempting to achieve something very distorted. The fact is that both sides benefit from this short range shipping. Japan put THOUSANDS of these craft into service - both operated by locals and by the army - it is not just the Allied who used them. [See The Japanese Merchant Marine in World War Two].

Third, movement WITHOUT roads, trails or railroads is very slow - and reasonably simulates inefficient use of non-military irregular transport vessels.

Again, if this is true and we are talking about essentially 'crossing a river that happens to be connected to the sea at both ends', then I am in favor of the change (provided the hexside is made to be a river crossing).

Fourth, the intent is to increase operational flexability for the DEFENSE. I do not grasp how being unable to either reinforce or evacuate is a DISADVANTAGE for the defense? I really think you have this backwards.
IF an invader can invade anywhere, they can invade again somewhere else. And once they have invaded a good air base site, and built it up, they have the main thing they need. Movement by sea is FASTER as well. I don't see why they would go by land routes without roads or even trails? And if they do, I don't see why those critical hexes cannot be effectively contested?

The only advantages to the attacker (that I believe he was pointing out) is that - without being able to cross - the attacker must use naval transports that are modelled in-game and subject to loss, and the attacker would also be subject to disruption upon landing. With land-to-land movement those penalties go away.

[treespider]

The only advantages to the attacker (that I believe he was pointing out) is that - without being able to cross - the attacker must use naval transports that are modelled in-game and subject to loss, and the attacker would also be subject to disruption upon landing. With land-to-land movement those penalties go away.

Although with the current land model a 'river' crossing would initiate the dreaded shock attack...which is initiated with a landing.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Even if there were a house rule not to use it (forces outside those for the area), the AI doesn't do house rules. It would be real nice (for many of us) if the scenario functioned with the AI.

I wonder if there is any way to unrestrict commands? It seems to me that having unrestricted commands with house rules that restrict where units can be moved is better than what we have now, if only we can figure out how to do it.

I am opposed to using house rules. I like surprise and maximum options for players.

Agree.

ONLY if forced by some flaw in game design will I even consider using house rules. I also BEGAN by proposing unrestricted commands - and was told that is TOO MUCH of a change.

A good example of a needed house rule (with unrestricted commands): units politically restricted to Australia, PI, DEI, etc. are stuck within their area (unless the PP are payed to change them to a different command) but they can be moved around via air or sea transport if the destination is within their area.

I know that some disagree, but I feel having unrestricted commands with (needed) house rules is better than having restricted commands.

I think restricted commands are a very bad design decision - and in particular bad history. NO UNIT can move between islands by air or sea? Who imagines this is true? HOW DID the units on those islands get there in the first place? If I order a regiment to move from port A to port B, and provide the ships or planes, who can believe it would be unable to go?

Agree.

I would rather have (hated) house rules restricting the Dutch to the Indies and the Philippine Army to the Philippines than restricted commands. But I LISTENED - and was told this is a vital concept - that Japan can "never take Soerabaja" if we allow the Allies the "flexability" to withdraw onto it. Now that is what the Asiatic Fleet really did! And the US Army even had a task force on Java. I see no reason Adm Hart could not have taken 4th Marines to Java if he wanted to? And IF that means Java might not fall - I don't believe that - but IF it means that - what is wrong with that?

Nothing.

THIS proposal is an attempt to give the allies more limited flexability than full air and sea movement. AND to address the fact Leyte and Samar are so close it is harder to cross the Yangze than to pass between them, for example. I suppose it helps that I have been to Tacloban and know what it is like. Maybe you think this is "sea" - but it is more like "river."

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: treespider

The only advantages to the attacker (that I believe he was pointing out) is that - without being able to cross - the attacker must use naval transports that are modelled in-game and subject to loss, and the attacker would also be subject to disruption upon landing. With land-to-land movement those penalties go away.

Although with the current land model a 'river' crossing would initiate the dreaded shock attack...which is initiated with a landing.

I think you mean 'not initiated with a landing'. You are right. That is a better compromise than the current situation.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

IIRC the Dutch and ABDA did not recall or consolidate their farflung forces into the Soerbaja Redoubt. Hence why the designer included political points...

1) IF we MUST do what historical commanders did, why play at all?

2) To some extent, this is false. British and US units DID fall back on Java. The fleet that fought at Java sea was mostly not Dutch. And US and Imperial forces did fight on Java if not in Soerabaja itself - which may or may not have been a better place to fight.

3) I have no clue why a proper mobile defense is "abuse"???? I might as a designer consider restricting Dutch forces to the territory - but to the island? I think this is "abuse" of the Allies - not even the smallest and historically accurate cases of movement can be duplicated. And it is not my view that players should be forbidden to move their units. IF you have a good case that "132 regiment" should be forced to defend Makassar I will make it static.

Free the Dutch!!!

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: treespider

The only advantages to the attacker (that I believe he was pointing out) is that - without being able to cross - the attacker must use naval transports that are modelled in-game and subject to loss, and the attacker would also be subject to disruption upon landing. With land-to-land movement those penalties go away.

Although with the current land model a 'river' crossing would initiate the dreaded shock attack...which is initiated with a landing.

I think you mean 'not initiated with a landing'. You are right. That is a better compromise than the current situation.

Yes thank you for thinking what i meant and not what i typed!

[el cid again]

Those things are allowed albeit with a political point cost.

No they are not. This is a lawyer's cop out. I could play that game by simply editing in a lot more political points - and say "I changed nothing - every unit transferred was properly transferred." This is a scenario design issue and I prefer to address it head on.

First of all - note that troops REALLY CAN pass between some points WITHOUT embarking on ships. Failure to address this in movement mechanics is ahistorical and geographically false. It matters not a whit what the political/military impact is - no unit near Tacloban is going to be unable to pass between Leyte and Samar if there is sufficient time.

Second, you do not pay political points to get privilages to move alone - but to CHANGE COMMAND. IF you do that, you then have a command HQ too distant to matter. If you also move the command HQ, it is not in its own area and loses impact there. This is artificial and somewhat unrealistic - and I have no clue just what is being simulated.

Third, the tiny rate of generation of political points is used for many things. In Japan you use it to run the economy. I like it for that purpose, or to transfer units from home to another command. But note that if you use it properly you end up transferring some units to politically restricted commands - or you are lieing about where the command you transferred them is relative to their actual destination. It is really just trading one restricted command for another, or trading one for an unrestricted command in a false area. I do not see this as simulating anything either.

But this is where I came in: I propose to do away with ALL restricted commands - or perhaps not all - if some of them make sense (e.g. China, Japanese Home Islands, may make sense). But that was said to give the Allies "too much flexability." I am not sure that is a bad thing - once a team transferred BOTH central Pacific carriers to the Indian Ocean - transiting south of Australia - and achieved surprise confronting a small Japanese invasion force far from the Kiddo Butai (as it approached Balikpapan). I felt it was fair and (it was a live game) as human judge I allowed it. Whatever you sent to point A is not at some other place, and you run risks with consequences which ought to be the real reason you are reluctant to do so - or not.

But political restrictions are really separate from geography. To require all "islands" be treated as such may be a technical error on this scale. Note that Singapore and Hong Kong are substantially islands - but we don't treat them as such.