Disbanding land units

Matrix Games Forums

A look through the keyhole #10!

The Age of Shadows on Distant Worlds starts now!

Paypal System Update

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Disbanding land units

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 >> Tech Support >> Disbanding land units

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Disbanding land units - 10/4/2011 12:46:03 AM

rader

Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Considering you can rebuild all land units now, you probably ought to be able to disband any of your own land units at any time. Of course this would give points to the enemy as if they were destroyed for units that you did this with.

Post #: 1

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/4/2011 1:05:28 AM

witpqs

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

How would it provide points? Disbanded LCUs send their devices to the pool, right?

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 2

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/4/2011 11:07:00 AM

noguaranteeofsanity

Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Considering you can rebuild all land units now, you probably ought to be able to disband any of your own land units at any time. Of course this would give points to the enemy as if they were destroyed for units that you did this with.

You can disband land units, if they do not have a withdrawl date and are not permantly restricted, plus they must be located at their national home base, which are:

Delhi
Auckland
Sydney
Vladivostok
San Francisco
Osaka
Tokyo

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 3

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/4/2011 11:19:27 PM

rader

Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

I mean you should be able to disband your own unit at any time, even way behind enemy lines. Obviously you would lose all the devices and give up points as if they were destroyed. Essentially, you are giving up on them and having them surrender.

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)

Post #: 4

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 8:39:09 AM

Roger Neilson II

Posts: 1515
Joined: 7/16/2006
From: Newcastle upon Tyne. England
Status: offline

I don't see the purpose of this? Am I being very stupid?

Roger

_____________________________

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 5

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 4:16:16 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I don't see the purpose of this? Am I being very stupid?

Roger

I'm with you - I don't see how this one would improve anything.

(in reply to Roger Neilson II)

Post #: 6

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 5:03:29 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 646
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

If a unit is stuck after retreating into a interior hex from a costal hex and has no way to be resupplied or rescued, it would be nice to just be able to get rid of it versus just having to let it sit around until it attrites away.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 7

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 5:07:38 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

If a unit is stuck after retreating into a interior hex from a costal hex and has no way to be resupplied or rescued, it would be nice to just be able to get rid of it versus just having to let it sit around until it attrites away.

That use doesn't sound like fair play to me.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 8

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 6:05:46 PM

rader

Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

What do you mean isn't fair play? Being able to disband it, or just letting it sit there forever so it can't be rebuilt?

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 9

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 6:12:40 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

Being able to disband it.

So I take it then that you are talking about a different kind of 'disband' WITHOUT devices going back to the pool? That would be better called a 'Surrender' option.

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 10

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 6:35:13 PM

rader

Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 11

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 7:05:28 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

Because when units are disbanded the devices go back to the pools and (for those who count points) there are no points for their destruction.

What you are talking about is not disbandment.

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 12

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 7:42:51 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 646
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Well if they slowly attrite away now, what happens to the equipment and the points? Does the game engine permently remove the devices and give points as if they were destroyed? If the game does NOT do that for attrited units then the disband option would work as it does not change anything in how the game works now.

If the game does consider attrited unts as being killed, then using the disband routine would be 'gamey' as you stated and a new new option ' Surrender' would be needed. It just depends on how the game currently handles attrited units. Which I have no clue of btw lol.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 13

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 7:43:11 PM

Califvol

Posts: 119
Joined: 11/8/2002
From: The Land of Yore
Status: offline

Where this really comes to play is air transport. With many units you get down to their last bit of equipment and then it's too big to go by air. So, you are left the rest of the game to have this fragment left behind. During the war,provided the move was important enough,you just wrote the equipment off.

I'd have no problem with the bits left behind being destroyed and counting as VP just to prevent me from having to send naval transport for this tiny often a 15 man bit stuck with two howitzers.

Also, if they don't get cleaned up then you can't upgrade later on.

It's more of a peeve than a true issue, but it's been a peeve of mine for sometime.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 14

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 7:49:50 PM

noguaranteeofsanity

Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

You used to be able to disband units in locations other than the national home base, but the feature was removed in one of the patches, because it was causing problem, which were discussed here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2329700&mpage=1

(in reply to Califvol)

Post #: 15

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 7:56:02 PM

Califvol

Posts: 119
Joined: 11/8/2002
From: The Land of Yore
Status: offline

I don't want to hijack this thread.

My concern is over disbanding fragments not full units.

While they are close, I don't see them as actually the samething. Ergo, I am in the wrong thread! LOL

So, I will shutup about fragment disbandments.

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)

Post #: 16

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 8:24:15 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Well if they slowly attrite away now, what happens to the equipment and the points? Does the game engine permently remove the devices and give points as if they were destroyed? If the game does NOT do that for attrited units then the disband option would work as it does not change anything in how the game works now.

If the game does consider attrited unts as being killed, then using the disband routine would be 'gamey' as you stated and a new new option ' Surrender' would be needed. It just depends on how the game currently handles attrited units. Which I have no clue of btw lol.

Yes. It's not even 'as if' they were destroyed, they are destroyed by lack of supplies.

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 17

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 8:28:32 PM

Numdydar

Posts: 646
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Cool. Then we would need a new option called 'Surrender' in order to keep things straight.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 18

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 8:32:53 PM

carnifex

Posts: 1289
Joined: 7/1/2002
From: Latitude 40� 48' 43N Longtitude 74� 7' 29W
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson II

I don't see the purpose of this? Am I being very stupid?

Roger

I'm with you - I don't see how this one would improve anything.

I'm reaching here:

You can prevent the enemy player from "training" his units on them.

You can save supplies and have other units use them.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 19

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 9:13:59 PM

ckammp

Posts: 746
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

If a "surrender" option is included, those LCUs that surrender should not be allowed to be rebuilt.

And the "island-hopping" stategy was certainly effective for the Allies in RL.

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 20

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/5/2011 10:13:37 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

If a "surrender" option is included, those LCUs that surrender should not be allowed to be rebuilt.

I disagree. Surrendering should be the same as being destroyed. Destroyed units can be rebuilt. Some of the units formed during the war were actually rebuilds of units 'destroyed' early on.

(in reply to ckammp)

Post #: 21

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 12:48:44 AM

USS America

Posts: 15092
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Yes, a surrender option.

Why do you say it's not fair play? It seems much more like unfair play to intentionally avoid destroying enemy units so they can't be rebuilt...

And the "island-hopping" stategy was certainly effective for the Allies in RL.

I'll focus on the other statement from ckammp that witpqs didn't quote...

I think it is a very valid strategy to cut off, isolate, and keep enemy units in "pow camps" thereby preventing them from being rebuilt and deployed back into the line against you. The island hopping strategy is a classic example of this. If the Japanese player can just "surrender" those LCU's that are trapped on remote CentPac islands, they can then rebuild them and use them to defend islands in the path of advancing Allied forces.

Now, one way to perhaps mitigate this abuse would be to put something like a 1 year delay on any "parent" units that are "surrendered" before allowing them to be rebuilt. I don't see this as an issue for fragments that are left behind for the various reasons mentioned above. Fragments can't be rebuilt, only parent units.

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me

Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to ckammp)

Post #: 22

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 2:23:30 AM

rader

Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

Well, obsivously you would be destroying your own land units. This would destroy the devices and give points for their destruction.

And you have to be really careful in doing this. The Japanese cannot afford to rebuild all their units that are destroyed, so doing this over and over would simply not be a viable strategy. They don't have the armament points to do so.

And it is more a problem if the enemy does attack their base but nevertheless refuses to destroy the units. Maybe you ought to be able to surrender only if you are in contact with the enemy or located in an enemy base. It just seems a bit silly to me that when in contact with the enemy, you would rather have your units destroyed than left intact.

It's not just Japan... I have taken advantage of not being able to rebuild encircled units in China and Russia in both my PBEM games. So I'm as much an offender of this as anyone else

Let me be clear - if you CAN'T rebuild destroyed land units (whcih is the way it used to be), I think there is no need for units to be able to surrender.

If you CAN rebuild destroyed land units (and this was a recent change), I think it makes sense that you should be able to surrender land units in contact with the enemy. Otherwise, it seems like a bit of an exploit to surround units so they can't possibly escape and then just choose not to kill them. I.e., you get in a situation where you would prefer your units are destroyed to not destroyed. That seems a bit bonkers to me

(in reply to USS America)

Post #: 23

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 2:49:45 AM

Numdydar

Posts: 646
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

Rebuilding anything takes,

1) time for the unit to appear on the map
2) PP points
3) Arms
4) Time to train back up as the unit returns in the same shape it left. I.E. not good.

So it's not like you surrender them on turn A and get the fully rebuit and retrained on turn A+1

Althought it would be nice lol.

So I see no issue with this option being implemented. It's far better that having a bunch of unit surrounded with no way out just because the other player did not want you to have them

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 24

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 3:18:34 AM

noguaranteeofsanity

Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

A couple of points we should keep in mind:

We should not forget that the Japanese in general did not surrender, so a surrender option for them is fairly unrealistic. While their preferred alternative was suicide, but why would any commander order their troops to commit suicide, instead of fighting to the death and at least have some chance of inflicting casaulties on the enemy? This sounds totally out of character for most Japanese officers or soldiers. Really, having the Japanese surrender on mass would be a piece of total fiction.

Second, as USS America says, surrouding an enemy and cutting them off is a valid military stratergy, often used during the war, with Rabaul being the best example, proving it is not a gamey approach. If those 100,000 odd Japanese troops at Rabaul were suddenly to dissapear, with their units reformed, that would be extremely gamey. Especially considering the Allies kept their distance, letting the Japanese sit there until the end of the war and no army, air force or navy has duplicate units with the same name or number. So if those units were to be replaced, it would be a new unit with a different name or number, as the original unit would still be wandering through the jungles somewhere on New Britain. Although limiting it to units in contact with the enemy, would avoid this problem.

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 25

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 3:35:34 AM

rader

Posts: 910
Joined: 9/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

A couple of points we should keep in mind:

We should not forget that the Japanese in general did not surrender, so a surrender option for them is fairly unrealistic. While their preferred alternative was suicide, but why would any commander order their troops to commit suicide, instead of fighting to the death and at least have some chance of inflicting casaulties on the enemy? This sounds totally out of character for most Japanese officers or soldiers. Really, having the Japanese surrender on mass would be a piece of total fiction.

Second, as USS America says, surrouding an enemy and cutting them off is a valid military stratergy, often used during the war, with Rabaul being the best example, proving it is not a gamey approach. If those 100,000 odd Japanese troops at Rabaul were suddenly to dissapear, with their units reformed, that would be extremely gamey. Especially considering the Allies kept their distance, letting the Japanese sit there until the end of the war and no army, air force or navy has duplicate units with the same name or number. So if those units were to be replaced, it would be a new unit with a different name or number, as the original unit would still be wandering through the jungles somewhere on New Britain. Although limiting it to units in contact with the enemy, would avoid this problem.

No argument with any of this, but it dosen't solve the problem. Why can I

A) rebuild my units if they are destroyed, BUT
B) Not rebuild them if they aren't destroyed.

I agree that the Japanese wouldn't necessarily surrender, but why can't you just order them to banzai charge until dead and then rebuild their units to honour the glorious dead of the empire?

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)

Post #: 26

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 3:49:40 AM

noguaranteeofsanity

Posts: 257
Joined: 11/24/2009
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

quote:

ORIGINAL: noguaranteeofsanity

A couple of points we should keep in mind:

We should not forget that the Japanese in general did not surrender, so a surrender option for them is fairly unrealistic. While their preferred alternative was suicide, but why would any commander order their troops to commit suicide, instead of fighting to the death and at least have some chance of inflicting casaulties on the enemy? This sounds totally out of character for most Japanese officers or soldiers. Really, having the Japanese surrender on mass would be a piece of total fiction.

Second, as USS America says, surrouding an enemy and cutting them off is a valid military stratergy, often used during the war, with Rabaul being the best example, proving it is not a gamey approach. If those 100,000 odd Japanese troops at Rabaul were suddenly to dissapear, with their units reformed, that would be extremely gamey. Especially considering the Allies kept their distance, letting the Japanese sit there until the end of the war and no army, air force or navy has duplicate units with the same name or number. So if those units were to be replaced, it would be a new unit with a different name or number, as the original unit would still be wandering through the jungles somewhere on New Britain. Although limiting it to units in contact with the enemy, would avoid this problem.

No argument with any of this, but it dosen't solve the problem. Why can I

A) rebuild my units if they are destroyed, BUT
B) Not rebuild them if they aren't destroyed.

I agree that the Japanese wouldn't necessarily surrender, but why can't you just order them to banzai charge until dead and then rebuild their units to honour the glorious dead of the empire?

If they are not destroyed, you can not rebuild them, as a unit cannot be in two places at once. If your troops are still alive somewhere, then that unit still exists and as i explained, no miltary has duplicate units.

You can order them to banzai, just click the 'shock attack' button. Although Japanese troops do banzai if you watch the combat reply, while allied units surrender, when they are attacked with overwhelming odds.

< Message edited by noguaranteeofsanity -- 10/6/2011 3:52:14 AM >

(in reply to rader)

Post #: 27

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 7:02:55 AM

Pascal

Posts: 1634
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: in 'Haboob' country weekdays; the OC on w/ends
Status: offline

A few misconceptions I see here:

If a unit surrenders, everything in it disappears into a POW camp at best. The 100'000 at Rabaul would not 'disappear' only to reappear later in a rebuilt unit. What you are actually talking about is the ability to create new operational organizational units (a battalion, a regiment, a division, etc.) into which new squads (just out of bootcamp), devices, etc. would be fed into and trained.

What you really want is the ability to create new operational organizational units different than those that appear at a given time in the game. You want the flexibility, for a cost first in PP's, then in time while its TOE gets filled, so that a type of unit can appear at an approximate time of your choosing. Whether it's the 4th US Marine Regiment or simply a US Marine Regiment is of no consequence.

I would posit that if you are playing against the "AI", what you are asking is impossible. The game has a structure (unit appearance timetable and location, PPs per month, etc.) for which the everything else has been adapted (for example the AI scripts among other things). What you are asking would "break" the system.

In a PBEM situation, though, it might be possible, with limitations such as:

You can 'disband' an LCU in a number of locations (national base list, perhaps a few others) as long as that location is XX hexes away from any enemy LCUs. In this case any remaining elements go to the 'pool' and the LCU organizational unit goes to the 'potential unit rebuild' pool. Other than needing the elements of the LCU for reinforcements for other types of organizations, I see no usefulness in this. Essentially this is akin to the Air Unit disband/withdraw scheme with equipment and pilots to the pool but no automatic reapparition of the organizational unit.

If a unit is in a 'war zone', i.e. within XX hexes of enemy LCUs, they 'surrender' and nothing goes to the pool but the organizational unit goes to the 'potential rebuild' pool. This is akin to the LCU being destroyed more quickly than it languishing away somewhere. But then again, why not just ask for the capability of building any LCU unit at any time as long as you pay a given PP cost, it appears at the appropriate national home base, and it builds up according to the current replacement influx scheme?

I reiterate that this is not a scheme that would work in a game against the "AI"/computer. Thus the chances of this being added are nil.

< Message edited by Pascal -- 10/6/2011 7:05:33 AM >

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to noguaranteeofsanity)

Post #: 28

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 3:29:02 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12400
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

But then again, why not just ask for the capability of building any LCU unit at any time as long as you pay a given PP cost, it appears at the appropriate national home base, and it builds up according to the current replacement influx scheme?

I reiterate that this is not a scheme that would work in a game against the "AI"/computer. Thus the chances of this being added are nil.

Asking for that becomes more and more in terms of programming. The current ability to rebuild destroyed units uses the destroyed units' data (TOE, name, etc). Adding a surrender is certainly programming, of course. But adding a 'create new' unit is starting from scratch, asking the player what TOE & upgrade path to follow, writing displays for that (none exist to be copied), and so on.

Your idea is good, but it's like pulling a thread on a sleeve. Better to cut the thread short than unravel the garment.

(in reply to Pascal)

Post #: 29

RE: Disbanding land units - 10/6/2011 5:01:07 PM

CV 2

Posts: 374
Joined: 2/21/2011
Status: offline

Frankly the ability to rebuild units is more because of player demand / game preference than anything to do with history. Very few ground units "destroyed" were rebuilt. But the ability to rebuild was put in place mainly (I suspect) to encourage players to fight it out with a unit rather than having a billion fragments as players scramble to "save a piece" of a unit or doing a complete Sir Robin.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 30