From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Been thinking about this one for a few days now and want to bring up a point for consideration.
First let me say that I have no problem whatsoever with the change. I like it. Slightly handicapping for the Allies, but that's ok. Makes the game more historically accurate and I am always for that.
The point I want to bring up is: Has the same kind of consideration of actual political cost been applied to transfers from Manchukuo or are the transfers from there strictly calculated by device costs?
Shouldn't it cost much more political capital than simply the unit cost to pull tanks out of Manchukuo where the IJA would be likely to say "no way jose...not with us facing all those Soviet tanks"?
I don't play Japanese and I don't know if this is already the case, but what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.
Don't want to step on John 3rd's thread, so this will be the quick and dirty version. Good points .. butt .. Australia is easy; one Nation, localized area of operations, "small" OOB, well understood changes of status. Totally restricted units (like LH Motor Regts) can disband and return as something else (like Army Tank Bns) that are deployable. Not easy, but straight forward HQ definitions and straight forward movement options.
Japan is a "Side", rather than a Nationality, has a huge OOB, is deployed everywhere, and change of status coding must be universally applicable across the entire map. There's no room to move in the present game system. PP cost is calculated by device costs and initial restriction status (and a bit by HQ dependency flow). Some of the implications were not clear before release, and some weren't even considered until the gamey bois figured out how to cheat the intent. Still chasing our tails on this one without much hope of catching it.
Hope I didn't depress you too much . Ciao. JWE
Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.