First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
- Jim D Burns
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Salida, CA.
First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
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
- jwilkerson
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
- Location: Kansas
- Contact:
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
New Game Project Lead
- Splinterhead
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:45 pm
- Location: Lenoir City, TN
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
Would it be possible to have the partisans not activate if the allied forces are within a specified radius until mid 42 or something?
- Jim D Burns
- Posts: 3980
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
- Location: Salida, CA.
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
Jim
- 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
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.
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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.
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.
-
- Posts: 8499
- Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
- Location: Olympia, WA
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
Brad
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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.
"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
Ian
"I do not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it"
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
Using PT's to destroy 20 to 50 Japanese transports around PI
- castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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.
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
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
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
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
- castor troy
- Posts: 14331
- Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
- Location: Austria
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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...
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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.
- jwilkerson
- Posts: 7900
- Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
- Location: Kansas
- Contact:
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
New Game Project Lead
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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! [:'(]
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! [:'(]
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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?
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE
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."