Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

First anti-gaminess house rule for AE

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> First anti-gaminess house rule for AE Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 7/31/2009 10:55:04 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3043
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: online
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


_____________________________


Post #: 1
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 12:08:04 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10231
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 2
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 12:27:52 AM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline
Would it be possible to have the partisans not activate if the allied forces are within a specified radius until mid 42 or something?

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 3
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 2:14:33 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3043
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: online
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


_____________________________



(in reply to Splinterhead)
Post #: 4
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 3:50:19 AM   
OSO


Posts: 335
Joined: 5/28/2006
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 5
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 7:23:49 AM   
sanch

 

Posts: 266
Joined: 10/30/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to OSO)
Post #: 6
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 7:31:18 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8214
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
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

(in reply to sanch)
Post #: 7
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 7:58:56 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2186
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Northern Virginia
Status: offline
Yes, they were hostile with the British
quote:

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

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 8
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 8:05:01 AM   
devoncop

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline
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"

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 9
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 8:14:48 AM   
Scott_USN

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: Eagle River, Alaska USA
Status: offline
Using PT's to destroy 20 to 50 Japanese transports around PI

(in reply to devoncop)
Post #: 10
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 9:04:12 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12182
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 11
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 10:40:42 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5030
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
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

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 12
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 11:01:43 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
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

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 13
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 12:12:23 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12182
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

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...

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 14
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 6:45:21 PM   
Graymane


Posts: 499
Joined: 3/31/2005
From: Bellevue, NE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

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?

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 15
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 6:59:41 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10231
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Graymane)
Post #: 16
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 7:07:55 PM   
Termite2

 

Posts: 264
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 17
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 7:20:26 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1939
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
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!

(in reply to Termite2)
Post #: 18
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 7:25:25 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1939
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

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?

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 19
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/1/2009 11:51:41 PM   
skrewball


Posts: 298
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: Udon Thani, Thailand
Status: offline
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."

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 20
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/2/2009 12:34:19 AM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2879
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline
No.

(in reply to skrewball)
Post #: 21
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/2/2009 12:36:22 AM   
XENXEN


Posts: 41
Joined: 12/1/2004
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Why not just assume that the owning side is using supplys or more supplys at the base to pay/feed local/civilian police forces to keep controle of the base. Make the base use supplys equel to that what a garrison unit would use or x2 or x3 times as much


_____________________________

For all his bluster, it is the sad province of man that he cannot choose his triumph, he can only choose how he will stand when the call of destiny comes, hoping that he will have the courage to answer

(in reply to skrewball)
Post #: 22
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/2/2009 2:19:06 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10231
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
Simplist option might be just to remove garrison requirements for Burma. There are millions of details are do not include - the real decision is which details to include versus which details to exclude. This detail might be best in the not included category.


_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to XENXEN)
Post #: 23
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/3/2009 9:39:44 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3567
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
I like the idea that Allied bases in Allied colonies have a garrison requirement.  To mitigate against Allied withdrawal then return which currently seems to mainly penalise Japanese at little cost to Allies maybe you could consider the following.

Where Allies withdraw (or reduce below requisite level) their garrison from relevant bases, airfield and port suffers 100% damage and fortification level is reduced to zero.  If the Allies move a garrison back in before the Japanese arrive, then 100% of supply is lost.  Obviously the airfield/port would also have to be repaired for the base to be of value to the Allies.  On the other hand if the Japanese get to the base first before the Allies return, then all airfield/port damage is completely removed and the supply dump is undamaged for the benefit of the colonial "liberators".

Alfred

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 24
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/3/2009 10:21:42 AM   
Bluebook

 

Posts: 143
Joined: 7/24/2009
Status: offline
Yeah, it is a problem. On the other hand, it is a very simple houserule-fix. Allies must garrison Burma (and NEI?) cities to minimum level. It will also be a pretty good representation of the political situation at the time. While it allows some form of Sir Robin, it should prevent the ludicrous flight from the Japanese that some players employ.

I say, no more Sir Robin in Burma and NEI!  

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 25
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/3/2009 12:27:22 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 7119
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
If it is a problem, why not just create a static garrison unit for the cities of concern?

_____________________________




(in reply to Bluebook)
Post #: 26
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/3/2009 1:32:37 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5472
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 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


Actually my proposal was to have partisans cause a PP hit. I still think thats the best solution.

(in reply to devoncop)
Post #: 27
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/3/2009 1:46:06 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1913
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: 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


Actually my proposal was to have partisans cause a PP hit. I still think thats the best solution.


That's clever! I like that one.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 28
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/3/2009 1:59:03 PM   
Caltone


Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: 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


Actually my proposal was to have partisans cause a PP hit. I still think thats the best solution.


That's clever! I like that one.



Sounds good to me too. Has the dev team considered this option?

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 29
RE: First anti-gaminess house rule for AE - 8/3/2009 4:39:18 PM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2879
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline
We have considered many options.

(in reply to Caltone)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> First anti-gaminess house rule for AE Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.109