First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by Jim D Burns »

While studying the situation in Burma, I just realized that the addition of partisans to bases for the allied side gives the allies a new ability that I feel is gamey. If the allies abandon those bases, the partisans will destroy all the industry before Japan has a chance to capture Burma.

So I suggest players use a house rule that requires the allies to keep a minimum garrison in partisan bases until Japan crosses the Burmese border.

Jim
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 7900
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by jwilkerson »

A similar thread on the dev site a few weeks back was titled something like "Partisans are your friends" ... so issue known ... solution not ... at this point ...

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
User avatar
Splinterhead
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by Splinterhead »

Would it be possible to have the partisans not activate if the allied forces are within a specified radius until mid 42 or something?
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by Jim D Burns »

A better solution might be to have partisans destroy supply instead of industry. Both players value supply at all times. Maybe allow each attack to destroy 300-1000 (random) supply per day?

Jim
User avatar
eloso
Posts: 335
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 1:57 am
Location: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Contact:

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by eloso »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

A better solution might be to have partisans destroy supply instead of industry. Both players value supply at all times. Maybe allow each attack to destroy 300-1000 (random) supply per day?

Jim

This might not be the best plan. We have more control over the flow of supplies now too. So once you evacuate the bases, the supply demand will go down anyways and you could turn it down more if you choose. Maybe if the supplies gifted to China were cut, that would be enough incentive to defend it.
Image
sanch
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:55 am

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by sanch »

Maybe if the base is un-occupied, then the natives will believe they kicked out the alien invaders, and won't destroy anything. Then, only if you wanted to use the base, would you need to worry about the garrison. It helps, but doesn't truly solve the problem of deliberately under-garrisonning bases.
 
For that problem, maybe you could track partisan-destroyed stuff separately from combat/air-destroyed stuff. Then, if the base changes hands, the partisan-destroyed stuff (or maybe some percentage of it) gets magically repaired. Thus, to truly deny it to the enemy when retreating, you need to destroy it through combat or city attacks, and kills the gaminess.
bradfordkay
Posts: 8499
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by bradfordkay »

Were the Burmese partisans fighting against the western colonialists? If not, I would say that the best way would be to have them attack only when the base is Japanese. If they did fight against the allies as well as Japan, I can understand why you are having a difficult time dealing with the issue. 
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
denisonh
Posts: 2080
Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Upstate SC

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by denisonh »

Yes, they were hostile with the British
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Were the Burmese partisans fighting against the western colonialists? If not, I would say that the best way would be to have them attack only when the base is Japanese. If they did fight against the allies as well as Japan, I can understand why you are having a difficult time dealing with the issue. 
Image
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
User avatar
devoncop
Posts: 1407
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 12:06 pm

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by devoncop »

There is always the option to include a significant VP penalty to the side whose bases are overrun by partisans to reflect the hit to prestige over such an event happening?Slightly blunt tool but may have the desired effect, and although the supply rather than industry damage suggested may also work,it would not really penalise the allies..........Cheers
Ian
"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"
Scott_USN
Posts: 718
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:32 pm
Location: Eagle River, Alaska USA

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by Scott_USN »

Using PT's to destroy 20 to 50 Japanese transports around PI
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

A similar thread on the dev site a few weeks back was titled something like "Partisans are your friends" ... so issue known ... solution not ... at this point ...



why not having it just the same as in China? Garisson requirements only for the Japanese? As soon as the Japanese don´t garisson the bases the partisans destroy the HI/oil/resources.
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by JeffroK »

CastorTroy

Because there was significant anti-colonialist pushes in places like the DEI, French Indo-China & Malaya.

Having a Garrison requirement makes a lot of sense, but I feel the penalty is currently too high and needs to be softened a bit
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Andy Mac
Posts: 12573
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by Andy Mac »

There are two different representations of Burma insurrection being displayed here,
 
1. Rangoon - a general disaffection with the British therefore needs to be garrisoned
2. Dacoits in northern Burma raiding your supply convoys need to guard you LOC or you will get hit
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

CastorTroy

Because there was significant anti-colonialist pushes in places like the DEI, French Indo-China & Malaya.

Having a Garrison requirement makes a lot of sense, but I feel the penalty is currently too high and needs to be softened a bit


I´m aware of this but I feel the same as the original poster. In PBEM an Allied player will immedietely identify it being an advantage for him to move out of the base, get all the sites damaged by partisans and then perhaps move into it again. When the Japanese show up, everything to conquer is destroyed already while you still have to fight the Allied... for nothing to gain...
User avatar
Graymane
Posts: 584
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 11:21 pm
Location: Bellevue, NE

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by Graymane »

ORIGINAL: castor troy

ORIGINAL: JeffK

CastorTroy

Because there was significant anti-colonialist pushes in places like the DEI, French Indo-China & Malaya.

Having a Garrison requirement makes a lot of sense, but I feel the penalty is currently too high and needs to be softened a bit


I´m aware of this but I feel the same as the original poster. In PBEM an Allied player will immedietely identify it being an advantage for him to move out of the base, get all the sites damaged by partisans and then perhaps move into it again. When the Japanese show up, everything to conquer is destroyed already while you still have to fight the Allied... for nothing to gain...

That is the trick really. How to make it not an advantage? Is there a way to make unrest spread or become greater in other cities for the allies if they let one fall to partisans?
A computer without COBOL and Fortran is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 7900
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by jwilkerson »

We discussed the possibility of having an ungarrisoned base which required a garrison have a chance of switching sides - that is a rather abstract way of representing some downside of walking away from the base completely - but this idea was not adopted.
AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead
Bearcat2
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2004 12:53 pm

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by Bearcat2 »

It must be a coincidence; but last nite I was watching "3 came back" which is based on a true story; while the thrust of the movie has to do with civilians captured by the Japanese, it tells how the civil authorities were ordered to stay put and destroy all facilities and supplies.   In this particular case, Sandakan; and the invading Japanese were as angry as a 1950 era movie would allow to find the facilites and supplies destroyed.
"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by mjk428 »

How dare those Allies not properly protect the Empire's future holdings!


Sorry, I'm going to move my cyber troops into the best defensive positions. To heck with the natives and Tojo's boys.

BTW, thanks for the scorched earth tips! [:'(]
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

A similar thread on the dev site a few weeks back was titled something like "Partisans are your friends" ... so issue known ... solution not ... at this point ...



Why not make the bases that are quite likely to switch sides early free of partisans until May '42?
User avatar
skrewball
Posts: 305
Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Belgium

RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

Post by skrewball »

Is there anyway to make abandoned bases spawn land based units that are hostile to the army that abandoned it?
"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem."
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”