43rd Infantry Division

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

43rd Infantry Division

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 >> 43rd Infantry Division

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

43rd Infantry Division - 8/18/2012 10:22:09 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

It took years but I finally managed to play a game into Sept '42. My reward is I get to pay 2000+ PPs to activate a division that historically was in the South Pacific in Oct '42. .I already had to scrounge points together to activate Americal, 40th & 41st - which meant delaying their arrival vs. their actual timetable.

The Japs attacked the US. It didn't require great political capital to convince the US to send troops the Pacific to kick their ass. If I wanted to send Canadian Mounties to Tulagi that should cost me. Sending divisions that were actually dedicated to the task should be free.

Has anybody ever investigated this to see if it's even possible to put all the historical Allied units & leaders in play in a timely manner?

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 12:15:32 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

You're crying into the wrong bucket of beer.

If it was the Japanese 43rd Division that required PP to pay for a redeployment from eastern Mongolia to the South Pacific you might find a sympathetic audience.

The Zaibatsu will change every machine tool in their factories at the merest hint that you are unsatisfied with the performance of their product with absolutely no repercussions. Just like any feudal society.

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 2

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 12:32:16 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

It took years but I finally managed to play a game into Sept '42. My reward is I get to pay 2000+ PPs to activate a division that historically was in the South Pacific in Oct '42. .I already had to scrounge points together to activate Americal, 40th & 41st - which meant delaying their arrival vs. their actual timetable.

The Japs attacked the US. It didn't require great political capital to convince the US to send troops the Pacific to kick their ass. If I wanted to send Canadian Mounties to Tulagi that should cost me. Sending divisions that were actually dedicated to the task should be free.

Has anybody ever investigated this to see if it's even possible to put all the historical Allied units & leaders in play in a timely manner?

50pp per day ...

...Let's say you just finished August 1942 since you said its September 1942...

...that is roughly 266 days...

...266 * 50 = 13,300...

...so if the Americal, 40 & 41st each cost 2000 as well, that's another 6000 points...

...13,300 - 6000 = 7,300 ...

...but you said you didn't have the 2000 available for the 43rd...

...so what happened to the 7,300 points or the other 3 divisions worth of stuff you freed up?

Alternatively you can always open the editor and mod a scenario and give yourself 10,000pp per day so its not an issue.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 3

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 1:05:37 AM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

50pp per day ...

...Let's say you just finished August 1942 since you said its September 1942...

...that is roughly 266 days...

...266 * 50 = 13,300...

...so if the Americal, 40 & 41st each cost 2000 as well, that's another 6000 points...

...13,300 - 6000 = 7,300 ...

...but you said you didn't have the 2000 available for the 43rd...

...so what happened to the 7,300 points or the other 3 divisions worth of stuff you freed up?

Alternatively you can always open the editor and mod a scenario and give yourself 10,000pp per day so its not an issue.

There's a save game editor? Great!!!! Because otherwise it took me a year and a half of real life just to get to Sept '42. Not wanting to restart.

FYI:

Gary Grigsby's Pacific War: 43rd ID arrives in 9/42 attached to South Pacific HQ

Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific: 43rd ID arrives in 9/42 attached to the South Pacific HQ

Historically:

quote:

The 43d Infantry Division was inducted into federal service on Feb. 21, 1941. The National Guard unit was primarily made up from infantry regiments of the 172nd. Vermont, the 103d maine, and the 169th Connecticut. The 118th Combat Engineers from Rhode Island made up the fourth New England state in the 43d.

Other units from amoung these four states were the 118th Medical, HQ Division (Headquarters), the 103d; the 152nd; the 192nd, and the 169th Field Artillery Battalions.

The division first trained at Camp Blanding, Florida. It was supposed to be only a one-year stint, but Dec. 7, 1941 changed all of that. The 43d was now in for the duration of the war. After completing advanced training in Mississippi, and large scale maneuvers in Louisiana and the Carolinas, the 43d shipped out of Fort Ord, California in October of 1942. It took the transport ships almost three weeks to reach New Zealand.

Stationed first in New Zealand, the 43d Division island hopped its way up the Pacific chain. Operations were conducted on many islands, some well known, others never before heard of.

Guadalcanal; the Russell Islands; New Georgia, where the 43d took heavy casualties taking Munda airfield. The Drinimour River in New Guines, Luzon and Manila in the Philippines. The 43d was slated to be one of the first Invasion forces on Japan proper. It was thought by many that the division could well be decimated. Japan surrenderd instead, and the 43d went to Japan as an occupation force.

For thier actions in the Philippines, the 43d was awarded a Presidentail Unit Citation. The 43d Division was nicknamed the "Winged Victory" Division after Gen. Leonard F. Wing took over command in 1943. Gen. Wing was the only National Guard officer to command an active duty division in World War II.

http://www.43d-research.com/43d_Pacific_History.html

Doesn't matter if I've got 10k points stocked up for a rainy day. There's simply no historical reason for this unit to arrive attached to West Coast command in 9/42.

_____________________________

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 4

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 1:24:38 AM

Fallschirmjager

Posts: 6793
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Status: offline

I am an Allied Fan Boy. But I like the system. If you read about America right after the war, it really did take political capital to get resources freed up to be deployed into the Pacific.
The Army and Army Air Force had a Europe first policy in place and they stuck to it. The Navy had to fight tooth and nail to get air forces and the army to commit anything.
In the opening months of 1942 a deal was struck with Australia and NZ that if they would keep their forces in the Middle East that America would provide for their defense.
The Navy fought for the idea since it would make the Army have to provide the manpower. The British liked the idea since worldwide shipping tonnage was stretched to a breaking point.
The Army and the Australian and New Zealand home fronts wanted experienced ANZAC troops returned but ultimately agreed with the idea.

I think the PP system mostly works. I can sacrifice in some areas and am forced into the inter-service 'war' that really did exist at the time.

If anyone remembers the old SNES game PTO 2. Every month you had a meeting between heads of service and you used a deck of cards system where you could fight with the civilian government and the army for production and allotments of fuel, supplies and recruitment.
That was a great system to highlight the battle that went on between the armed services over limited resources.

_____________________________

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 5

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 2:04:11 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

It took years but I finally managed to play a game into Sept '42. My reward is I get to pay 2000+ PPs to activate a division that historically was in the South Pacific in Oct '42. .I already had to scrounge points together to activate Americal, 40th & 41st - which meant delaying their arrival vs. their actual timetable.

The Japs attacked the US. It didn't require great political capital to convince the US to send troops the Pacific to kick their ass. If I wanted to send Canadian Mounties to Tulagi that should cost me. Sending divisions that were actually dedicated to the task should be free.

Has anybody ever investigated this to see if it's even possible to put all the historical Allied units & leaders in play in a timely manner?

I have highlighted the bit in the OP which is a gratuitous kick, verging on an insult, to the devs.

Back in September 2009 the OP raised at length this very same issue of Allied units arriving restricted even though historically those units had been sent overseas. Andy Mac very clearly responded that it was a very conscious decision made by him, after looking at many saves from player games, to make them restricted to reflect the historical difficulties the Allies had in finding units to send overseas. In the absence of his decision, it was just too easy for players to send many more units overseas than had been the historical case.

As an answer was provided to the OP 35 months ago, it is quite uncalled for to suggest that the devs had not considered this issue.

Next we have the following thread which does not date from 2009.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3090217&mpage=1&key=restricted?

Read post #18 from Blackhorse. Again it addresses the issue and explains the cut off date used by the devs. Doesn't appear to me that the devs failed to investigate the issue. Quite the contrary, their actions were taken very much to achieve an overall historical outcome. Note in particular Blackhorse's observation, borne out by treespider in the current thread, that there are sufficient PPs available to unrestrict and send overseas all the divisions which historically were sent overseas. Only if PPs are spent on actions which did not occur historically, such as changing leaders of Chinese LCUs or moving air units out of the Phillippines or replacing the Allied leadership in Malaya, to mention only a few things, would a player run short of accumulating the necessary PPs to unrestrict the relevant historical units.

The devs consistently state that players who disagree with their decisions, are free to use the editor to change things to the player's liking. Just because a player does not like the decisions made by the devs, it is not productive to beat the devs over the head with claims that they failed to consider issues when it is clear that they did.

Alfred

Edit: For those interested in the 2009 thread I referred to above, here it is.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2241404&mpage=1&key=americal�

< Message edited by Alfred -- 8/19/2012 2:29:04 AM >

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 6

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 2:25:36 AM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
I have highlighted the bit in the OP which is a gratuitous kick, verging on an insult, to the devs.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 7

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 2:27:09 AM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

I 100% agree with Alfred, TreeSpider, and Fallschirmjager. See my AAR The Willing Admiral. I used about 750-800 PPs to replace leaders of many of the Malaya troops, ship commanders and some air unit commanders. I have knowingly delayed at least one regiment for 15-16 days. I think it was worth it.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 8

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 3:28:19 AM

zuluhour

Posts: 5244
Joined: 1/20/2011
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Don't talk to me about political points!!!

ps What would you expect from a TWIT.

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 9

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 6:13:25 AM

StK

Posts: 76
Joined: 8/18/2012
From: Upper Austria
Status: offline

@mjk428: I'm sorry but your argument doesn't make sense. You spent 7300 pps to send land units, air units and commanders where they historically shouldn't have been and complain that after doing all that you can't send another unit somewhere because historically it should have been there? So you like the system when it works for you, but when you finally hit the limit of the system it's the systems fault?

_____________________________

Changing ones point of view isn't easy, but it provides one with a different view on the subject.

(in reply to zuluhour)

Post #: 10

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 9:23:33 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Sounds a lot like not planning ahead and complaining about the consequences. Wrong game, maybe?

And there are historical as well as gameplay reasons to restrict a majority of units to WC commands, usually those reasons lie within PBEM country.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 8/19/2012 9:24:59 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 11

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 9:39:39 AM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

And there are historical as well as gameplay reasons to restrict a majority of units to WC commands, usually those reasons lie within PBEM country.

No doubt this is just another sacrifice to the "play balance" Gods.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 12

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 10:10:28 AM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

And there are historical as well as gameplay reasons to restrict a majority of units to WC commands, usually those reasons lie within PBEM country.

No doubt this is just another sacrifice to the "play balance" Gods.

No doubt at all.

Now let me see, I am sure it is one of those extremely difficult situations.
Should a dev satisfy mjk428�s personal preference of how a game should play like, or should he ensure that the game is playable in multiplayer - for both sides.

I am just veeery slightly leaning towards PBEM playability...

_____________________________

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 13

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 11:56:52 AM

tocaff

Posts: 4781
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: offline

There's no need for either side here to get upset with one another. If we think back it's this type of questioning that led to WITP growing into AE. We won't all agree , but we should have tolerance.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 14

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 1:34:19 PM

TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum

Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline

The OP is right about one thing, it didn't require great political capital to send troops to all of those islands in the South Pacific.

But hardly anyone ever does that, more likely you'd just send the 43rd ID to India.

(in reply to tocaff)

Post #: 15

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/19/2012 4:35:22 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

I think you do not fully understand the amount of true fear felt by the US after Pearl Harbor. There was a tangible fear that a Japanese invasion fleet would show up somewhere on the West Coast...it was to the point that National Guards units were mobilized and old, obsolescent aircraft were hastily formed into new fighter squadrons. It makes sense that a fully combat ready division would be retained well into the war, simply based on fear of invasion.

Just to get an idea of how bad it was, google the Battle of Los Angeles, where AAA units fired on something (unidentified) for over an hour fearing it was some type of Japanese aircraft.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum)

Post #: 16

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 1:39:35 AM

Bearcat2

Posts: 577
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline

The 43rd was a NG unit. [ from New England?]
I am not argueing about the game mechanics; but the West Coast hysteria did not last that long, the major reason the 43rd was not shipped overseas was because it needed to be trained and equipped. It also lost a number of NCO's/officers who left to be the cadre of new units immediately after PH.
At the time of PH, they were training in Florida, didn't ship out for the west coast until aug 42, after they completed training.

_____________________________

"After eight years as President I have only two regrets: that I have not shot Henry Clay or hanged John C. Calhoun."--1837

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 17

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 3:33:57 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Termite2

The 43rd was a NG unit. [ from New England?]
I am not argueing about the game mechanics; but the West Coast hysteria did not last that long, the major reason the 43rd was not shipped overseas was because it needed to be trained and equipped. It also lost a number of NCO's/officers who left to be the cadre of new units immediately after PH.
At the time of PH, they were training in Florida, didn't ship out for the west coast until aug 42, after they completed training.

The USA mobilization was a bit of a mess, getting men and equipment into those units marked as a priority saw the others continually drained of troops. In additon, the quality of the NG units was extremely variable and oftenm needed extra time to "retrain" Officers and Men.

If you want a different approach, give the AFB access to every single US Army unit but the same number of PP to buy them out!

You would still be buying British, Indian, Australian & New Zealand to patch up gaps in the line.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Bearcat2)

Post #: 18

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 11:20:40 AM

btbw

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

Easy way to solve problem is rewrite OOB so such LCU like 43ID arrive linked to isolated corps hq. Restricted but with 1/4 cost of pp when move inside same command HQ but not restricted corps hq.

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 19

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 11:29:22 AM

castor troy

Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw

Easy way to solve problem is rewrite OOB so such LCU like 43ID arrive linked to isolated corps hq. Restricted but with 1/4 cost of pp when move inside same command HQ but not restricted corps hq.

no need for this. The original poster used thousands of pps to move out stuff and then complains he can't move out what was moved out in real life. His whole argument is a fail. There are easily enough pp around so you can do what was done historically (you can do even more), so there's no need to complain at all and in his special case it's not to understand at all as he had enough replies earlier (nearly 3 years ago

) as Alfred pointed out.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 8/20/2012 11:32:20 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to btbw)

Post #: 20

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 11:35:02 AM

btbw

Posts: 379
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

Never had enough pp)

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 21

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 11:44:31 AM

Puhis

Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

No-one have "enough" PPs. Like real life commander never had enough of anything. I guess that's the all idea of PPs. Players can't get all, so it's better to make good plans. Or complain the game is borked.

(in reply to btbw)

Post #: 22

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 12:31:11 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

In a perfect world the whole PP program gets a complete overhaul (not that the code can handle what is needed) probably thoughts for a different thread.

In my Allied game that's going along at a snails pace it 2.24.42 and I just purchased the 41st Division which is a litte ahead of it's historical deployment despite purchasing 27th & 22nd Australian Brigades from Malaya Army already.
I've been thrifty with my PPs only changing the Chinese LCUs in combat, some air leaders, buying out some needed air units from the Phillipines but the majority has been spent on high value LCUs.

I maintain the developers have given both sides plenty enough PPs to play with and while the system isn't perfect I believe the point allotment and restricted units are close to what it should be.

There are very few things the Allied player needs to plan ahead for in comparison to the other side buying out units are one of them which a plan should be in place. If you come up short maybe an adjustment of your playing style is in order.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 8/20/2012 12:39:32 PM >

_____________________________

"There�s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.� ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to Puhis)

Post #: 23

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 4:05:56 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

I think you will find that with the PP system, Allied players will spend the bulk of theirs freeing up troops to send to the front, and Japanese players spend the bulk of theirs upgrading the Ki-55, Ki-30 and Ki-51 units to 2E bombers.

Its all about priorities.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 24

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 5:42:40 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

Agreed that while the PP system isn't perfect (what is?) it works well and ALLOWS for historical deployments. As noted above, if you do things that weren't done historically you may not be able to do other things that were done historically.

I, personally, would like to see it expanded to allow 'purchase' of ships. Yes I know you can keep ships scheduled for withdrawal on the map for PP, I'm talking about having the opportunity to get units that spend most or all of the war in the Atlantic and thus don't show up on the OrBat.

I'd pay quite a few PP for USS Erie (sister to USS Charleston, my favorite escort).

The PP system is one of the best features of the game IMO. If game mechanics permitted I'd like to see everything up for sale: aircraft replacements, ships as noted above, more units of all types... I think it would help the Allies get something close to the flexibility the Japanese get with the production system.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 25

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 8:50:28 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

no need for this. The original poster used thousands of pps to move out stuff and then complains he can't move out what was moved out in real life. His whole argument is a fail. There are easily enough pp around so you can do what was done historically (you can do even more), so there's no need to complain at all and in his special case it's not to understand at all as he had enough replies earlier (nearly 3 years ago ) as Alfred pointed out.

That's what others ASSumed, and now you. If you actually read what I posted instead you'd know better.

quote:

My reward is I get to pay 2000+ PPs to activate a division that historically was in the South Pacific in Oct '42.

quote:

Doesn't matter if I've got 10k points stocked up for a rainy day. There's simply no historical reason for this unit to arrive attached to West Coast command in 9/42.

I've got the points to pay. I shouldn't have to pay for this division.

3 years earlier we were discussing the early war units that went from free to restricted as a result of a patch. It's now the fall of '42 in this game.

quote:

FYI:

Gary Grigsby's Pacific War: 43rd ID arrives in 9/42 attached to South Pacific HQ

Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific: 43rd ID arrives in 9/42 attached to the South Pacific HQ

It seems that PPs have gone from a housekeeping tool to change leaders and move units from one historic HQ to another historic HQ to now being just another restriction on the Allies to help the Japs last a little longer. That's not stated in the manual. The description of PPs didn't change much from the WitP manual to the WitPAE manual but their actual in game function has changed severely.

Units should arrive attached to their proper commands. Not using any PPs should result in a completely historic OOB. I'm playing an extremely well researched historical war-game not Hearts of Iron. PPs should be used to make non-historical changes not repair mistakes.

Bottom line: Historic combat units like the 43rd ID shouldn't be treated like town watch and mercenaries. It's disrespectful.

_____________________________

(in reply to castor troy)

Post #: 26

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 9:07:48 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

lol

_____________________________

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 27

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 9:30:59 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

Yes, we all know the Allied player can never win this game cause the PP system is stacked against him.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 28

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 11:24:14 PM

Gridley380

Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

It seems that PPs have gone from a housekeeping tool to change leaders and move units from one historic HQ to another historic HQ to now being just another restriction on the Allies to help the Japs last a little longer. That's not stated in the manual. The description of PPs didn't change much from the WitP manual to the WitPAE manual but their actual in game function has changed severely.

Bottom line: Historic combat units like the 43rd ID shouldn't be treated like town watch and mercenaries. It's disrespectful.

Not at all. The PPs allow variation in the Allied OrBat from the historic one. In order to allow units that did not deploy to combat areas to do so without allowing the Pacific to be flooded with Allied units, a variety of units are restricted. You then choose which units (historical or not) you want to send forward based on the circumstances in game.

If there were no 'buyable' units, then you would get EXACTLY what the Allies got, exactly when they got it, whether it was useful or not. The naval side of the OrBat is already almost exactly this way. Want your land and air units to show up the same way, or do you want some wiggle room? The game went for wiggle room. I wish they'd given us more.

You are free to make a mod where historically deployed units are unrestricted, but if you want any semblance of reality you'll also greatly reduce the PP accumulation rate. You'll also withdraw ships on time whether you want to or not, and you'll never buy out any units that weren't deployed, or send units overseas before they were.

Bottom line: the PP aren't there to ADD to the Allied OrBat, they're to allow CHANGES to the Allied OrBat. You may not like that, but that is the way the game is.

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 29

RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/20/2012 11:42:22 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

It seems that PPs have gone from a housekeeping tool to change leaders and move units from one historic HQ to another historic HQ to now being just another restriction on the Allies to help the Japs last a little longer. That's not stated in the manual. The description of PPs didn't change much from the WitP manual to the WitPAE manual but their actual in game function has changed severely.

Bottom line: Historic combat units like the 43rd ID shouldn't be treated like town watch and mercenaries. It's disrespectful.

Not at all. The PPs allow variation in the Allied OrBat from the historic one. In order to allow units that did not deploy to combat areas to do so without allowing the Pacific to be flooded with Allied units, a variety of units are restricted. You then choose which units (historical or not) you want to send forward based on the circumstances in game.

If there were no 'buyable' units, then you would get EXACTLY what the Allies got, exactly when they got it, whether it was useful or not. The naval side of the OrBat is already almost exactly this way. Want your land and air units to show up the same way, or do you want some wiggle room? The game went for wiggle room. I wish they'd given us more.

You are free to make a mod where historically deployed units are unrestricted, but if you want any semblance of reality you'll also greatly reduce the PP accumulation rate. You'll also withdraw ships on time whether you want to or not, and you'll never buy out any units that weren't deployed, or send units overseas before they were.

Bottom line: the PP aren't there to ADD to the Allied OrBat, they're to allow CHANGES to the Allied OrBat. You may not like that, but that is the way the game is.

There's nothing wrong with wiggle room or what-ifs but there's also nothing saying that a player even has to spend his PPs. I definitely disagree that units should be intentionally assigned to the wrong HQ just to give players something to spend their points on. Which is what AE has opted to do.

In WitP I didn't really need to spend points. I had thousands in the bank before too long. Which meant I didn't have to intervene just to achieve an historic OOB. That's the way it should be IMO. If folks want to go nuts with PPs and get ahistoric results that's fine but it should not be the norm for the historic grand campaign. I don't recall any other historic wargame, with an otherwise meticulous OOB, that requires the player to "buy" the units actually used.

What we have we come to when we have to "mod" if we want the historic scenario?

War in the Pacific 3.0 pre-order now and get the Yamato Blood Dragon Armor!

_____________________________

(in reply to Gridley380)

Post #: 30