Emergency Reinforcements--WC Miscellaneous (**Spoilers**)

[Bullwinkle58]

This will be my last post on the Allies' emergency reinforcement triggers. It builds on the San Francisco base case posted yesterday. That post contains the details of the reinforcement package triggered by crossing the activation line. To prevent this becoming a novel, I would like to keep details to a minimum since I did test nine landings.

I marked this as containing Spoilers because it does reveal, when taken as a whole, some of the dev's design philosophy in the area of triggering. While it isn't exhaustive in that I did not test every non-core landing hex, it is directional in a way which could give a motivated Japanese player some ideas for how to change history in 1942 if they are not risk-averse. It gives a few exact locations where a Japanese player can set up a campaign without triggering. Some players might want to know that, some might not. You have been warned.[:)]

Preface:

This final set of tests builds on what I have discovered in the previous tests for Socotra/Karachi, Oz/Tasmania, and New Zealand. To review, Socotra DID NOT trigger. Tasmania DID trigger. Every hex in New Zealand appears to trigger.

Isolating Socotra and Tasmania, I wondered why the difference? As a hypothesis I considered the following:

1) Socotra is not part of India, either culturally, geographically, or politically. It had an historic RAF base during the war, but it is essentially Middle Eastern. The only reason it might trigger is due to it being the only real estate north of the Indian trigger line which is not on the sub-continent. Some AAR writers assumed it would trigger, some assumed it would not. I thought it likely it would not, and it did not. So, possibly the "rule" the devs used was "no island triggers."

2) So I tested Tasmania. I assumed Adelaide would trigger, but that Tasmania would not. I was wrong. Why? I suspected that the "modified rule" might be that islands trigger if they are politically attached to the continental landmass with the trigger line, if they are large and strategically useful to the Japanese if taken, and if they are geographically close by.

3) So, New Zealand. It has no islands that fit the above rule(s). It has its own rule in that there is no trigger line. Every hex of New Zealand appears to trigger, although this was not explicitly tested.

4) On to the West Coast. Andy Mac in the interim had stated that there was no separate Canadian package, but to my knowledge has never revealed the location of the trigger line. My assumption, based on Tasmania, was that many, but not all, islands on the WC north as far as perhaps Anchorage would trigger the WC package. Given Canada's firm status in the Allied alliance I assumed that at least major Canadian cities in the south, such as Victoria and Vancouver, would be in the trigger zone. I assumed that the Aleutians would not be, for political reasons (not part of a US state), as well as gameplay and historic reasons. The Aleutians WERE invaded, and did not trigger emergency ETO-robbing actions on the part of the Allied command. Overall though, I did not know the location of the WC trigger.

Methodology and Results:

1) I began with the SF save game, loaded before any SF landings. This was an amphib TF with capital ships and DDs included, and the IJA 4th Division loaded. A large replenishment TF was attached. I planned to use this save game as the base, and play a south set of turns, reload it, and play a north set.

2) I began with the three islands off the southern California coast. I reloaded a fresh save between each so that each island was landed with no previous try at any of its neighbors.

Results:

A) Channel Islands DID trigger the WC package.
B) Santa Catalina Island DID trigger the WC package.
C) San Clemente DID trigger the WC package.

3) I reloaded the base save and moved north to Alliford Bay. This was to probe for a northern boundary for the trigger zone. I was fairly confident it was in the vicinity of Anchorage, so Alliford B. was also an island test under the "Tasmania assumption."

Results:

A) I was surprised to find that Alliford Bay DID NOT trigger the WC package.
B) To push the issue, I deliberately attacked on the next turn and took the base. Still it DID NOT trigger.
C) Now, I was unsure if it did not trigger due to the island status, or the unknown trigger line.

4) To get another data point, I reloaded and targetted Coal Harbour. Still an island, but more south, and larger, and strategically more important due to the location of Victoria.

Results: Coal Harbour DID NOT trigger the WC package. Still no resolution to whether it was the island nature, the trigger line, or, perhaps, just the small size of the starting base. I decided to seek bigger fish, and a base I was virtually certain would trigger.

5) With the severe and potentially destructive "strait rules" (Section 4.2.1.3 and App. C) in mind I reloaded and sent the TFs into the strait between Victoria and Oak Harbor to land at Vancouver. I felt sure that this mainland, major base, would trigger. I attempted to route, with wayppoints, to Vancouver by way of the narrow, island-strewn channel NE of Coal Harbour, but the code will not allow that. I even tried to break my smallest xAK, a 9000-tonner, into its own TF to run the gap, but no go. So I took the route through the strait, and hit a minefield and CD emplacements at Victoria.

Results:

A) AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 04, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Gun Fire at Victoria - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

291 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima, Shell hits 6
BB Hiei, Shell hits 7
CA Tone, Shell hits 15, heavy fires
DD Hatsushima, Shell hits 14, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Akigumo, Shell hits 7, heavy fires
xAP Huzi Maru, Shell hits 11, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Buenos Aires Maru, Shell hits 7, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Asama Maru, Shell hits 4, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Toei Maru, Shell hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Surabaya Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Nitii Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Nitiryu Maru, Shell hits 2, on fire
xAK Sakido Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Otori Maru, Shell hits 5, on fire
xAK Nisshun Maru, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Nissen Maru #3, Shell hits 7, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Kusuyama Maru, Shell hits 4, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Hokuzyu Maru, Shell hits 8, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Boston Maru, Shell hits 10, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK London Maru, Shell hits 3, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Syohei Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires
xAK Terukawa Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires
xAK Hitati Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires
xAK Goyo Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires

Japanese ground losses:
642 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 15 disabled
Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 38 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)

BB Kirishima firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at BB Kirishima
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at BB Hiei
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at CA Tone
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at DD Hatsushima
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at DD Akigumo
DD Akigumo firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAP Huzi Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAP Buenos Aires Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAP Asama Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Toei Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Surabaya Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Nitii Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Nitiryu Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Sakido Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Otori Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Nisshun Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Nissen Maru #3
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Kusuyama Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Hokuzyu Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Boston Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK London Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Syohei Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Terukawa Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Hitati Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at xAK Goyo Maru
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 12 encounters mine field at Victoria (209,51)

Japanese Ships
BB Kirishima, Mine hits 1
DD Hatsushima, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Hiei, Mine hits 1
CA Tone, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DD Akigumo, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Huzi Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Buenos Aires Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAP Asama Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Toei Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Surabaya Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

Japanese ground losses:
63 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)

2 mines cleared
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Gun Fire at Victoria - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

200 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
AO Kyuko, Shell hits 31, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Toho Maru, Shell hits 24, Mine hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Toei Maru, Shell hits 21, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Shinkoku Maru, Shell hits 30, Mine hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Nippon Maru, Shell hits 24, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Kyokuto Maru, Shell hits 18, Mine hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Kokuyo Maru, Shell hits 24, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Ken'yo Maru, Shell hits 17, Mine hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage

RCN Victoria Fortress firing at AO Kyuko
AO Toho Maru firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at AO Toho Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at AO Toei Maru
AO Toei Maru firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at AO Shinkoku Maru
AO Shinkoku Maru firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at AO Nippon Maru
AO Nippon Maru firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
AO Kyokuto Maru firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at AO Kyokuto Maru
AO Kokuyo Maru firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at AO Kokuyo Maru
RCN Victoria Fortress firing at AO Ken'yo Maru
AO Ken'yo Maru firing at RCN Victoria Fortress
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 11 encounters mine field at Victoria (209,51)

Japanese Ships
AO Kyuko, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Toei Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Shinkoku Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Nippon Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
AO Kyokuto Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
-------------------------------------------------------------

B) OPERATIONAL REPORT FOR Apr 04, 42 (edited)

Loss of DD Hatsushima on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of AO Ken'yo Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of AO Kokuyo Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of AO Kyokuto Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of AO Nippon Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of AO Shinkoku Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of AO Toei Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of AO Toho Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Goyo Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Hitati Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Syohei Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Boston Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Hokuzyu Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Kusuyama Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Nissen Maru #3 on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Nisshun Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Sakido Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Nitii Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Surabaya Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAK Toei Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAP Asama Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAP Buenos Aires Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of xAP Huzi Maru on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
Loss of AO Kyuko on Apr 04, 1942 is admitted
===================================

C) Despite this utter carnage, three heavily damaged ships (one carrying troops) emerged from the gauntlet and managed to land a very small fragment at Vancouver. To my great surprise, Vancouver DID NOT trigger the WC package.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Apr 05, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Invasion action off Vancouver

5 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
xAK Nitiryu Maru, Shell hits 4, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Kirishima

Japanese ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
4 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Nitiryu Maru at 5,000 yards
BB Kirishima firing to suppress enemy battery at 5,000 yards
6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Nitiryu Maru at 5,000 yards
BB Hiei firing to suppress enemy battery at 5,000 yards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amphibious Assault at Vancouver

TF 12 troops unloading over beach at Vancouver, 209,49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invasion Support action off Vancouver

12 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Nitiryu Maru, Shell hits 9, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB Kirishima
BB Hiei
Japanese ground losses:
24 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Nitiryu Maru at 11,000 yards
BB Hiei firing to suppress enemy battery at 11,000 yards
6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Nitiryu Maru at 11,000 yards
BB Hiei firing to suppress enemy battery at 11,000 yards
6" Mk V/VII Gun Battery engaging xAK Nitiryu Maru at 11,000 yards
BB Hiei firing to suppress enemy battery at 11,000 yards
----------------------------------------------------------

OPERATIONAL REPORT FOR Apr 05, 42 (Edited)

New Zealand invaded! Counter invasion forces released.
Bateson, R.N. reassigned
DD Akigumo is reported to have been sunk near Victoria on Apr 05, 1942
xAK London Maru is reported to have been sunk near Victoria on Apr 05, 1942
xAK Otori Maru is reported to have been sunk near Victoria on Apr 05, 1942
xAK Nitiryu Maru is reported to have been sunk near Vancouver on Apr 05, 1942
AM Canso arrives at Vancouver
97th Field Artillery Battalion arrives at Eastern USA
134th Field Artillery Battalion arrives at Eastern USA
503rd Coast AA Regiment arrives at Seattle
=====================================================

6) Completely flumoxed now, I determined to search for the trigger line between San Francisco and the Canadian border. I ordered a landing at Astoria.

Results: Astoria DID trigger the WC package.

7) It now appearing that the trigger might ONLY be in force for the USA, Seattle was the last logical candidate. However, given the strait rules, there was no way I could take my current force (sans minesweepers) to Seattle and live. Thus, I did not test Seattle. However, I think it is highly likely that Seattle represents the northern continental boundary of the trigger zone on the WC.

8) To test to see if perhaps this was still incorrect, and in fact the Vancouver results were due to nationality and not latitude, I went north and landed at Anchorage.

Result: Anchorage DID NOT trigger the WC package.

9) The final test was at Prince Rupert. While well north of the fail-line at Vancouver, I thought Prince Rupert had a slim chance of triggering due to its location on the continent, an excellent railroad leading inland, and its isolation from air cover which would allow a Japanese landing there to quickly drive inland across Canada before turning south to capture large airbases useful for strat bombing northen CONUS bases such as Spokane, Boise, or Seattle.

Result: Prince Rupert DID NOT trigger the WC package.

Conclusions:

1) The WC trigger line involves only US state territory. It does not cover the Alaska Territory, the Yukon, or Canadian provincial lands.

2) The important islands off SoCal ARE in the trigger zone, making them useless as air bases for strat bombing the southern WC, or as a resting place for troops after a transit and before an amphibious landing on the mainland.

3) The sanctuary available to the Japanese player at the island and mainland Canadian bases is a huge potential hole in Allied defenses if the Japanese player is risk-seeking. Strat bombing in North America will accrue VPs, and there is plenty available in easy LBA range from several non-triggering bases such as Coal Harbour. In addition, Victoria is vulnerable to an easy landing at Coal Harbour followed by a forced march through rough terrain, to be assaulted from the land side. Allied loss of Victoria would be a severe blow in 1942, both in VP terms as well as the ability to interdict Seattle traffic, shipyard use, and industry.

4) All of Alaska is open to Japanese attack, both for VPs as well as search/recon purposes in the event of an Allied northern advance strategy. While not every Alaskan mainland base was tested, the results are directional for Alaska being immune from triggering the WC package.

5) While a frontal assault on SF, LA, or San Diego is probably suicidal for the Japanese in any year, there are ample opportunities for Allied molestation from the beginning of the game to quite late into the Allied build-up. The Yukon bases in particular are hard to defend. They do not offer easy routes to Japanese improvement either, particularly port development, but they can be built large enough to harrass the northern tier of the US, as well as the major Canadian bases at Victoria and Vancouver.

[JeffroK]

Now watch for a spate of JFB taking Canada and using it as a base for an attack on the USA.

Well done, though IMHO the trigger line needs to include Kodiak and CONUS/Canada.

[USSAmerica]

This is some great work you have done, Moose!  I appreciate it very much.  However, didn't someone quote the manual in one of your earlier threads where it specifically states US reinforcements are triggered by invading the WC, from 1 hex south of Vancouver?  It is great to know about the California islands.  [:)]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: USS America

This is some great work you have done, Moose!  I appreciate it very much.  However, didn't someone quote the manual in one of your earlier threads where it specifically states US reinforcements are triggered by invading the WC, from 1 hex south of Vancouver?  It is great to know about the California islands.  [:)]

Yeah, you did, while I still had my head in NZ. I shouldn't have been surprised. I did want to check the islands, and I had people telling me that the US Alaskan territories ought to be in there. Also, Andy Mac did a head-fake by posting that there was no separate Canadian package, which is true, but there's no Canadian US package either. [:)]

Anyway. I wanted to get it all in one place for the archives, and searchable with common key words. Even though I should have known Vancouver wasn't in there, has anyone driven a big Japanese TF right through the strait? That was no fun.

[CV2]

How many of the above are actual reinforcements and how many are just accelerated reinforcements? I know in WitP the penalty was reinforcements were sped up by 6 months. Are any of those NOT in the 6 month queue?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: CV2

How many of the above are actual reinforcements and how many are just accelerated reinforcements? I know in WitP the penalty was reinforcements were sped up by 6 months. Are any of those NOT in the 6 month queue?

I didn't check. The air groups alone would be some clicking. We're taking volunteers. [:)]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: CV2

How many of the above are actual reinforcements and how many are just accelerated reinforcements? I know in WitP the penalty was reinforcements were sped up by 6 months. Are any of those NOT in the 6 month queue?

I didn't check. The air groups alone would be some clicking. We're taking volunteers. [:)]

From memory, and without double checking, all the American air units were accelerated reinforcements. Without checking the editor, it would be interesting to see if all those group HQ would still appear if the invasion occurred after July 1942 because in normal play, those air units (IIRC - big caveat) are scheduled to be permanently withdrawn by 1 July 1942. And if not withdrawn after being triggered, do they cause los of VPs?

Alfred

[CV2]

Interesting question.

[michaelm75au]

The US/USMC/USN/Canadian air groups are still brought forward 6 months.

However, any withdraw/disband date is still in effect for these units.
This might be an oversight and probably needs to be raised in the Air OOB thread.

[vettim89]

Seeing such striking differneces from the CD at Victoria vs SF makes one wonder if it is a DB issue vice CD not working as expected. I will go take a look.


Edit: I checked. There seems to be no DB error. In fact teh SF CD devices should perform better on paper. As a group they have superior range, pen, and equal or better accuracy. Just odd

[stuman]

Damn interesting stuff you researched there Moose.

Now it is up to some of our devious, aggressive, Japanese players to see what can be done with this info [:)]

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Seeing such striking differneces from the CD at Victoria vs SF makes one wonder if it is a DB issue vice CD not working as expected. I will go take a look.


Edit: I checked. There seems to be no DB error. In fact teh SF CD devices should perform better on paper. As a group they have superior range, pen, and equal or better accuracy. Just odd

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the ships tried to pass the CD guns at Victoria, while at SF they landed in the hex ? I wouldn't be surprised if these used slightly different routines.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the ships tried to pass the CD guns at Victoria, while at SF they landed in the hex ? I wouldn't be surprised if these used slightly different routines.

The "strait rules" in the manual at 4.2.1.3 do say that minefields and CD guns will be extra lethal in those waters. Most players have run into the Bataan set at least once from either side, but not many have run the Victoria set. It makes Seattle very safe from sea attack, far more than SF.

Mare Island, Stockton, and Alameda have strait rules too, so the prudent Japanese palyer would land at SF and march to the other three. Except the prudent Japanese player wouldn't land at SF either.

[Sredni]

I wonder if the devs just decided it wasn't worth the effort to build a Canadian invasion response. I don't think Canada would be any different then OZ, US or India in dumping Europe as a priority the second home soil was threatened. I think it'd be pretty easy for the Japanese to land a beachhead and then blitz east to take all of Canada (or at least all 3 or 4 bases of the on map canada heh) if no additional troops were forthcoming.

Prince Rupert might be a better invasion choice then vancouver what with victoria guarding the strait.

And I'm not sure if this was still in play late in the war, but early war at least Canada had issues trying to send men over sea's. The PM managed to get conscription passed, but he had to included a wishy washy "no overseas service" opt out. So early on I would imagine there would have been a large pool of conscripts who were confined to Canadian service instead of being sent to Europe. Again I'm not sure how long this issue lasted into the war.

At least I think this was WWII I'm thinking of...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I wonder if the devs just decided it wasn't worth the effort to build a Canadian invasion response. I don't think Canada would be any different then OZ, US or India in dumping Europe as a priority the second home soil was threatened. I think it'd be pretty easy for the Japanese to land a beachhead and then blitz east to take all of Canada (or at least all 3 or 4 bases of the on map canada heh) if no additional troops were forthcoming.

I don't understand the logic of putting the line where it is either. I'm not sure the American public would have gotten crazy over running to defend Nome, but Vancouver is close, and big, and a lot of Americans have been there. A major invasion at Vancouver was not going to stay there and the US would be immediatley threatened by air attack.

I'd have put the trigger line north of Prince Rupert at a minimum, and used the US package if necessary.

But, as it is now, I think we might get better GAMES with it where it is, since Canada is open to invasion in all sorts of ways and places, and strat bombing can get a Japanese player a lot of VPs very quickly.

[Nomad]

This raises an interesting question. Most games seem to have the house rule that restricted units have to have PPs spent to assign them to an unrestricted command. But, should there be a different rule for USA units to enter Canada? the rule was mostly put in to keep players from attacking with restricted units, but this would be defending. Just food for thought, since it would seem a bit odd to have Japanese forces in Canada bombing US factories and the US not doing anything about it.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

This raises an interesting question. Most games seem to have the house rule that restricted units have to have PPs spent to assign them to an unrestricted command. But, should there be a different rule for USA units to enter Canada? the rule was mostly put in to keep players from attacking with restricted units, but this would be defending. Just food for thought, since it would seem a bit odd to have Japanese forces in Canada bombing US factories and the US not doing anything about it.

Yes indeed, more than just a bit odd. I think your suggestion makes a lot of sense.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

This raises an interesting question. Most games seem to have the house rule that restricted units have to have PPs spent to assign them to an unrestricted command. But, should there be a different rule for USA units to enter Canada? the rule was mostly put in to keep players from attacking with restricted units, but this would be defending. Just food for thought, since it would seem a bit odd to have Japanese forces in Canada bombing US factories and the US not doing anything about it.

I had never thought of your suggested issue before, I suppose because Americans and Canadians are so close in so many ways (my mother was one, so perhaps I'm biased.) There is zero chance that US forces would not cross the border to help Canada, and the same chance Canadians would mind. IMO of course. No need to pay PPs.

[FOW]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Seeing such striking differneces from the CD at Victoria vs SF makes one wonder if it is a DB issue vice CD not working as expected. I will go take a look.


Edit: I checked. There seems to be no DB error. In fact teh SF CD devices should perform better on paper. As a group they have superior range, pen, and equal or better accuracy. Just odd

Not odd. Seems OK given the OP Mode of the LCUs concerned.
In the SF test, Moose declared that the SF CD unit was set to 'REST'
In the Vancouver test, there was no declaration of the op modes, so I have to assume they were set to 'COMBAT'

If the SF test was re-run in 'combat' mode, or Vancouver test with forts set to 'rest' mode, I believe the results might be more "balanced".

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

Maybe it has to do with the fact that the ships tried to pass the CD guns at Victoria, while at SF they landed in the hex ? I wouldn't be surprised if these used slightly different routines.

The "strait rules" in the manual at 4.2.1.3 do say that minefields and CD guns will be extra lethal in those waters. Most players have run into the Bataan set at least once from either side, but not many have run the Victoria set. It makes Seattle very safe from sea attack, far more than SF.

Mare Island, Stockton, and Alameda have strait rules too, so the prudent Japanese palyer would land at SF and march to the other three. Except the prudent Japanese player wouldn't land at SF either.

That would explain it quite well, I thought SF was a straight as well so I didn't think the straight rule was the reason for the difference.