Army vs Navy

Army vs Navy (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Califvol -> Army vs Navy (12/19/2002 11:23:36 PM)
Its my understanding that the MacArthur command in Australia was constantly at odds with the USN that was in the Solomons. I understand this to be so horrendous that it went so far as to denying assests and support to each other. I have the ability to mix and match units seemingly without penalty and there are no boundaries for strategic headquarters visible in the game. This aspect of the game seems missing. Is it there but unseen? Thanks for anybody that has some info.

Yamamoto -> (12/20/2002 1:06:23 AM)
The Japanese had the same issues. Since it isn't modeled for either side that seems fair. Frankly I think it would just add frustration to the player's experience. If you want to model it yourself just choose one side to play: army or navy. Whenever you want to give a command to the other type of unit flip a coin. If it lands heads up they follow the order. If not, try again another day. When I first saw this thread I thought it was about football. Army vs Navy: always a classic matchup. Yamamoto

dascateer -> (12/20/2002 1:53:45 AM)
Yes, Army-Navy Football is a classic!!! Pleased to note that Navy Crushed (note, with a capital "C") Army this year. Why could they not have done so in the past years which I managed to attend?

Califvol -> (12/20/2002 4:11:14 AM)
Speaking of football, I have read that the Army/Navy games were cancelled during the last half of WW II over inter-service rivalry. OK, so theater restrictions are not modeled. I would take issue with its too frustarting to model and would add that failure to model it neglects an item that had serious impact on the course of the war in this area.

dascateer -> (12/20/2002 5:25:40 AM)
Concur. In addition to the added frustration among gamers, I am not certain how anybody could realistically model such internal friction. Hard enough to do it with the tangibles, much less with the intangibles such as interservice rivalry and personality conflict (which was what much of it was as well). Believe it would only serve to reduce playability and cause more grief than it would be worth. Press the attack without it in my humble opinion!

Califvol -> (12/20/2002 6:50:42 AM)
From what I have seen in the game it "appears" that theater headquarters assignment of units has no function? My understanding of the facts are that land units could not move between the two theater headquarters depicted in the game. (The reason? MacArthur, PLUS interservice rivalries) If somebody has an example of cross boundary land operations/assigments, please enlighten me. Assuming what I have read is the case, its not too difficult to simulate nor frustrating to implement. In game terms it would mean that land units of different theater headquarters couldn't stack together. End of special rules. This information is already in the database. So, what do you get out of this? Its a subtle tweak of the game that prevents the US from combining units from different theater headquarters to conduct invasions. My understanding is it didn't happen in reality and ergo there is zero need to give this advantage to the Allied player in the game. Its also creates the real situation where careful consideration must be made on which theater headquarters is going to do what with the forces available. I fail to see how that would be frustrating.

denisonh -> (12/20/2002 7:32:37 AM)
If you really want to replicate this, there needs to be a restriction on switching forces from SOPAC to SWPAC. That would be a pain for air groups.

dascateer -> (12/20/2002 11:00:11 AM)
Setting simple geographic boundaries would be a simple and tacitly effective method of modeling this issue. Later in the war (beyond the scope/time frame of this game) the Marines commited six VMSB squadroms to assist McArthurs liberation of Luzon. This group was a model for interservice coordination. Again it is well beyond the games time frame after many interservice issues had been resolved. Such coordination could have taken place earlier in a more perfect world. I suppose the question boils down to this. Is it hypothetically feasable that units could have been shifted around the theater had the sitaution required? I believe the answer is yes, and in the absence of concrete evidence to the contrary or of a moritoriumn on such activity, the potential to do so likely did exist and does belongs in the game. I hold firm in the belief the game should remain as is. Limitations on movement within the theater (ie some Aussie unit commited to Australia) is well modeled and little would be gained by trying to further manipulate it. One mans thoughts.

Diealtekoenig -> (12/20/2002 11:03:59 AM)
You could duplicate this with a hotseat 4 player game: MacArthur Nimitz IJN IJA Maybe have some victory conditions that allow only one to win? Or pick two winners: One from the Japanese and one from the allied side

panda124c -> (12/20/2002 10:20:29 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dascateer [B]Concur. In addition to the added frustration among gamers, I am not certain how anybody could realistically model such internal friction. Hard enough to do it with the tangibles, much less with the intangibles such as interservice rivalry and personality conflict (which was what much of it was as well). Believe it would only serve to reduce playability and cause more grief than it would be worth. Press the attack without it in my humble opinion! [/B][/QUOTE] Not to hard two different humans with different victory conditions that conflict with each other. And a third determining who get what resources, with his own seperate victory conditions. :D

Howard Mitchell -> Re: Army vs Navy (12/21/2002 3:22:51 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Califvol [B]Its my understanding that the MacArthur command in Australia was constantly at odds with the USN that was in the Solomons. I understand this to be so horrendous that it went so far as to denying assests and support to each other. [/B][/QUOTE] The Japanese were far, far worse. The army and navy frequently didn't tell the other about defeats until months after the events, both services were developing their own (incompatible) IFF systems and, in a particularly bizarre twist at the end of the war, the army was building its own submarines as it didn't trust the navy to supply isolated army garrisons. There are plenty of other examples.

Hard Sarge -> (12/21/2002 8:57:56 PM)
Hi Califvol one think to remember, you can not really compare the two, while Mac and Nimitz may disagree about ideas and how to do things, the IJN/IJA wouldn't work with each other, wouldn't follow commands if given by the other and in our game, it is totally different area, but you can not really model the battle for Lunga, with out seeing what happened around PM also, it is HARD to say that Mac didn't get things he wanted or needed, he had his own US NAVY working for him, and on the other side, the Navy, had it's own US ARMY working for them (besides having there own troops) HARD_Sarge

panda124c -> (12/22/2002 8:59:33 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Hard Sarge [B]Hi Califvol one think to remember, you can not really compare the two, while Mac and Nimitz may disagree about ideas and how to do things, the IJN/IJA wouldn't work with each other, wouldn't follow commands if given by the other and in our game, it is totally different area, but you can not really model the battle for Lunga, with out seeing what happened around PM also, it is HARD to say that Mac didn't get things he wanted or needed, he had his own US NAVY working for him, and on the other side, the Navy, had it's own US ARMY working for them (besides having there own troops) HARD_Sarge [/B][/QUOTE] He also had the US Army ships to calll on, yes the US Army has a navy even today. Mac had the nack (?) of getting things when he needed them either by convincing his superiors or by going over their heads, he was not above of going to the press either, thus his 'reputation'. This did tend to get him in hot water with everyone.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875