No it wouldn't, but less for political reasons than logistic. The USMC wouldn't be in India because of US political realities. But if the Japanese player wanted to send 15 divisions to CONUS (I've never seen this once, but I've seen the UISMC in India many times) he could if he paid PPs to get them on the ships. My issue is less the USMC being in India than CR doing that and then objecting to Japanese forces walking next door when Manchuria and China are the same country from the Japanese war-time POV.
So ur saying there was no difference between the japanease IJN and IJA and it didnt forster how the RL campaign played out.The fact that russia was next door didnt play a role on the japanease perception of the need to have a force in Manchuria. At leased it seems of less concern than moving USMC or any units to India, to counter an invasion that never happened so we dont know what the allied reaction too would be.
Not that it really matters as now its a concern of CR asking, not objection too, PJH if they played by same understand of paying PPs.
He might very well have objected if PJH didnt pay PP, but he apparently does. Both played with no HR and have same understanding of reasonble in this case. Do u object to PJH paying PPs then?
Again since ur on a strict no HR rules at the same time can have admittedly "less of an issue" with CR going by rules of the game putting units at India, doesnt seem very consistant.
Japan happens to have large numbers of forces on the Asian landmass, so they can walk more places thean Americans can, yes. An accident of geography.
But its not geographical issues that made u say moving a US heavy Inf div to Oz was pure RL lala land. Again the consistancy is totally lacking and its political when its fits, when its not its geographical.
But that historical risk, without 100% certainty, is the source of the original devs putting in the Man. garrison rule at all. There's no other place on the map with such a thing. And it removes a lot of Japanese leeway. Even if he can pay PPs to get those LCUs he can't move all of them. The Allies don't face that restriction anywhere, HR or no HR.
I see lots of places where units as in white restricted is limited to geografical locations. PPs cant buy them out, HR or no HR, so while the garrison rule is in manchuria only, there are lots of examples of doing the same on allied as well as japanease side through other means. Removing leeway.
They're making things up as they go along. Neither of us have perfect knowledge of what they've done PP-wise. My point continues to be that regardless of play to date a no-HR rule does not require paying PPs if the LCU can walk there. Forum and community convention may require it, but the code does not. And a no-HR game means "play to the code." A player can offer to pay PPs, or can pay PPs without being asked, but it's optional. If he does not his opponent has no right to demand it in a no-HR game.
Since CR asked and PJH answered, this seems more to be ur interpretation. Not theirs. Apparently to both no HR didnt mean pay no PP. Do we know what they have done no, but if we assume they are lying when asked, any thing can be possible. Either could be cheating for all we know.
Bullwinkle58. I try to point out this behavior so u possibly could think about whether this is in fact right or not. Do u have a bias that tilts ur arguments one side or the other?
It not just a question to me, about being right or wrong. If not im just an idiot and well i wont be the first nor the last u will meet. Peace.
The OOBs and map realities for each side give and take advantages from each side in different ways. I happen to believe most PBEM games are hampered by too many HRs. I have great respect for players who agree to no-HR games as they must remain alert to things which HRs relieve them of worrying about. If a pair want HRs, fine. But I don't think you can be a little pregnant on this. No means no.
Thats fine and u have every right to ur opinion, but avoid nicely the issue at hand. Guess its easier that way. Again no didnt mean no, and that counts for both sides as u ur self says in a post above. Trying to fit absoluts on some thing that apprently isnt absolut. Not that i dont get u want it to be absolut. Any how it is as it is.
< Message edited by Walloc -- 8/13/2012 9:57:10 AM >