RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


obvert -> RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (1/27/2018 2:56:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

I was under the impression that OOB was historically modeled; or very closely so. Hard to be perfect.

I am no expert historian in this albeit I found no particular flaws.

My only "undocumented gripe" is the divisions with restricted Hawaiian Command - especially the two divisions mentioned above. I am uncertain when POA took over Hawaiian Command (i.e. not when Nimitz landed and formally took over - more when all Units in Hawaiian Command were placed at his disposal so to speak ).


Mac,

I was responsible for the US land OOB, so errors there rest on my shoulders. The Devs did try to model the OOBs historically. With PPs we strove for a balance of allowing the Allies flexibility top choose which units to release, but to have only enough PPs for the overall # of divisions and brigades to be deployed at roughly the historical rate.

The 24th and 25th Infantry Divisions, starting at Pearl Harbor, with 'round out' brigades coming from San Francisco, give the allies some early war flexibility. Historically, the 2 Hawaiian divisions didn't leave the islands until November of 1942, and mid-1943. However, the player can deploy them elsewhere in the Pacific much sooner, if he is willing to leave Oahu vulnerable.

Switching the regiments of the Hawaiian command to the Pacific Fleet costs ~150 PP per regiment, because of the discount rate to change HQs within the Command HQ. They can be combined with the two 'round out' regiments coming from San Francisco that are already attached to the Pacific Fleet (34th regiment for the 24th Division; 161st regiment for the 25th Division). [Pacific Fleet HQ later morphs into POA].

So within two weeks, the Allies can have 2 combined, deploy-able US divisions available at Pearl Harbor -- if they don't spend their PPs on anything else.

The Allies get one major PP 'freebie'in the early war. Because only unrestricted LCUs can board ships, the veteran Australian 6th and 7th divisions arrive in January unrestricted, and can be sent anywhere. In the actual war, Churchill, with Roosevelt's support, tried to get Australian permission to send the divisions to defend Burma. At the insistence of Australian Prime Minister Curtin, the divisions were returned to Australia for home defense.

Most allied players 'buy out' key units in the Philippines, Malaya and DEI in the first weeks, as well as changing air, naval and (sometimes) HQ commanders. These changes come at the cost of delaying the deployment of the rest of the allied forces. For the allies, it is a case of 'choose your poison' in the early war.




One other boon not usually mentioned is that when a CV is lost the air groups can be repurchased and arrive with their expert pilots in a month or two. Pilots may have been saved i noted war, but recreating CV air groups after the CV was lost wouldn't have happened.

Love the idea of nearly free PP exchange for units/groups within a command.

With air groups I don't know why so many are attached to un-purchasable [R] commands in the early war, as there really aren't enough airframes to use them all anyway.




rustysi -> RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (1/27/2018 6:33:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

buying out engineers and some of the artillery and flak units are ridiculously cheap,


Artillery seems rather expensive to me. I don't buy much/any out early.



I think this is a carry over from the early days (maybe it was WiTP and not the early days of AE) where artillery could be used as a land Death Star.

They toned done the lethality of artillery but never reduced the inflated cost.


That's what I thought as well.




rustysi -> RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (1/27/2018 6:42:44 PM)

quote:

I would like the ability to swap between unrestricted commands at zero pp.


Would be nice.

quote:

With PPs we strove for a balance of allowing the Allies flexibility top choose which units to release, but to have only enough PPs for the overall # of divisions and brigades to be deployed at roughly the historical rate.


That's fine, and frankly as it should be.

quote:

Most allied players 'buy out' key units in the Philippines, Malaya and DEI in the first weeks, as well as changing air, naval and (sometimes) HQ commanders. These changes come at the cost of delaying the deployment of the rest of the allied forces. For the allies, it is a case of 'choose your poison' in the early war.


Exactly my point when it comes to at least some players. They do all this and when they haven't any units left to opposed Japanese 'non-historical' advances they cry foul. Choose wisely when spending this limited 'resource' or suffer the consequences.




rustysi -> RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (1/27/2018 6:52:59 PM)

quote:

I was responsible for the US land OOB, so errors there rest on my shoulders.


I would doubt there're many of these, and at any rate I really don't look for them. As far a the Japanese OOB I have read that certain changes to their OOB were made intentionally for the sake of game play.

quote:

The clock ran out before we could fully implement HQs in the release of AE.


Hey, there're limits on any project, lest nothing get 'out the door'.




rustysi -> RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (1/27/2018 6:57:21 PM)

quote:

I believe this is an intentional speed bump to keep the US from getting too many high AV LCUs operational too early and throwing cogs into the gears of the initial Japanese expansion.

Its a play to game balance that I don't begrudge


My point for opening this thread in the first place.[;)]




geofflambert -> RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (1/27/2018 9:37:20 PM)

Believe it or not they really were afraid of a West Coast invasion, plus the Soviets were really pulling our chain on opening a western front in Europe. King and MacArthur wanted more troops quicker to the Pacific, but they were alone. Roosevelt was sympathetic up a point but that mainly amounted to the naval commitment to the Pacific.




geofflambert -> RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (1/27/2018 9:40:40 PM)

Much of our amphibious capacity was going to North Africa early and then the Med in '43.




Zorch -> RE: PP's (political points) a discussion (1/27/2018 10:24:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

Much of our amphibious capacity was going to North Africa early and then the Med in '43.

The Battle of the Atlantic was high priority until it was won in mid-43.




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.764648