From: Daly City CA USA
I find it enormously humorous that support can righteously tell us on the one hand that in v1.6 the Allies will no longer be allowed to pull a few miserable support cadres out of the PI or DEI, even after paying the PPs for this action, which was, after all, the design intent for PPs,
TJ, quit inventing things and misquoting what was stated.
No one has ever said that you can't move whole units out. The problem is specifically with people picking up a single grunt on a sub to have the unit completely regrow when the real unit is lost in combat. I have absolutely no problem with people risking ships to load troops and try and get them out.
Sneaking in underwater in a sub and pulling a grunt is a different story.
Separate to that is the handling of base units ... a mechanic with no tools is not going to be servicing an aircraft. Pretending that you picked up the machinery shop with your sub is being rediculious.
Not trying to misquote you, Ray. Let me try again.
As I understand it, you don't want Allied players to pull a squad here and there of, say, base forces, only to see these one day grow into full-fledged base forces. Is that correct or incorrect? Same same with HQ units?
As I see it, this runs counter to the purpose of including PPs in the first place. (I don't argue here that PPs make good sense, mind you, just that that was their intended purpose.) I also don't see this as any great gain for the Allies in the long run as replacements must be drawn from their pools to affect these unit reconstitutions, which is, again, part of the normal (intended) course of play.
I see it like this. An Allied player uses a sub to extract, say, a couple of air support squads and a couple of general support squads from an air-base unit. Is that unrealistic? I don't know. Were I the Allies and saw valuable troops about to be killed I'd make an effort to extract as many as I could. Didn't the British do this at Dunkerque? Was that gamey? Should they instead have said, "Well, Heinie got the best of us this time, and after all we don't want to be called "gamey" players, so maybe it's best to let those men all die or walk into POW camps and just start over from scratch"?
If you want to know, if the submarine/ASW model worked about half right I doubt I'd assign any of my boats to do any such thing. I might assign one or two to grab some HQ cadres. That directly parallels history as I'm sure even you would agree, no? Or must we squabble over that obvious point, too?
It amazes me that on the one hand you can be part of a development team which came up with a system which allows the Japanese to run perfectly amok all the way across China and all way to India if they choose in the opening months of the war, yet you then balk at something as inconsequential as a submarine carrying a cadre out of harm's way, which must be paid for eventually in terms of real game cost in any event, but have no problem whatsoever with loading that same unit in its entirety on an AP and then lifting it somewhere more useful.
So, your objection is actually the use of submarines but not APs for this purpose? Or is your objection that the replacement rules make no sense? What?
The only rationale I've heard so far is that these sub lifts are ahistoric (which they categorically are not in terms of purpose) and "gamey," which I also don't agree with. At least not nearly as "gamey" as the incredibly-stuffed naval bombardment routine, just for example, which all Japanese players that I'm aware of use not only happily but energetically defend as something they "see no problem with" in the first place.
But like I said. Fix the submarine/ASW model so my boats have some good purpose other than to lift out cadres and sow mines and I'd be more thasn happy to instead sink Japanese shipping with them. I still wouldn't understand your willingness to allow APs to lift any units they please out of the PI and SRA, but that's another issue, I guess.