|
JWE -> RE: DEI Question (12/4/2010 4:04:41 PM)
|
Both Andy and Kereguelen have interesting points. Hope I can address them.
In a sense, it’s still combined arms units, just dropped down an echelon or two. For example, 38th Div is broken down to 228, 229, 230 IRs and the 38th Mtn Arty Rgt into I/38th, II/38th, and III/38. If it had a Recce or Cav Bn (Rgt), that would get split out, too.
The Rgts each keep their support guns and get a proportion of DivEngs, and tankettes (if present). Some of the separated IRs (like Kawaguchi’s 124th) are broken down into component Bns.
Several reasons for doing this: first, is that’s how they were deployed. Again taking 38th Div as an example, it was never deployed as a division: the 228th hit Ambon and then Timor; the 229th hit Banka and then Sumatra; the 230th hit Batavia and then Bandoeng: same with the 48th Div (3 task groups). Only one that operated as a division was the 2nd.
Second, is that the DEI defense forces were realistically Bn sized in scale (with a few being able to coalesce to Rgts, but not many), while several are represented at company size. As mentioned, a 900 lb gorilla division sized unit doesn’t need to pause to urinate on these before eliminating them. So respective echeloning seems appropriate; Rgts and Bns opposing Bns (and some Rgts), and Coys seems to provide a skoosh more operational flexibility and fun.
Last, is the Arty. Our play style is very different; we tend to try and use assets as intended. Folding arty into infantry units just makes it vulnerable (in game engine terms) in attacks. Splitting it out allows arty units to conduct “bombardment” attacks while the poor, dumb, infantry bastards make a deliberate or shock assault. From our limited initial testing, a (broken down) divisional unit stack will eventually attrit to its arty and support assets. Surprise, surprise, ain’t that exactly what happened? Makes combat profile selection, of units within a stack, more reasonable.
So clearly, this scenario is non-functional with the AI. Never expected it to be and cannot see how the AI engine could even hope to deal with this paradigm shift. This is a “tool” scenario; a short PBEM or even a solitaire H2H. As an H2H, it is best run with 2 (or 3) day turns; the AI “code” (as opposed to the AI scripts written for scenarios) can usually accommodate a few turns when left to its own devices. In a solitaire H2H, one can do a couple H2H turns, a couple turns as Allies, a couple turns as Japan, a couple H2H, and so on.
Anyway, that’s the concept for this scenario.
|
|
|
|
