OOB At Scenario Start (Full Version)

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



Message

Dante Fierro -> OOB At Scenario Start (1/31/2019 3:50:08 PM)

Just curious, is it considered "gamey" in AE to review the OOB (including schedule of reinforcements) of either side at the start of a scenario (or campaign)? Is this considered normal part of game play?

I suppose another question here would be historically, how much were both sides aware of force dispositions in 1941?



GetAssista -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (1/31/2019 3:56:03 PM)

Veteran players know starting OOBs and critical reinforcement dates by heart anyway, nothing can be done about it. You cannot order yourself to forget stuff.
There is a "variable reinforcement date" option specifically to make things a bit less predictable wrt the schedule, PBEMs use it a lot



Dante Fierro -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (1/31/2019 3:56:55 PM)

So it really is unavoidable. Makes sense. Thanks Assista.



Lowpe -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (1/31/2019 4:00:44 PM)

Serious JFBs, will run the first turn at least once, before sending it to their opponents. I know of several that probably run the first turn many many times eking out every advantage. I find that a bit tedious and usually like a Dec 8th Start myself (however, that usually guarantees the Force Z lives).

About the only thing they don't do is purposefully try to nail the American CVs in the Pacific.

Now, to actually loading up as the Allies to see where everything is...that I don't know. I don't do it. However, you generally get a good idea from just looking at your first turn where the intelligence is quite good across the map. And if you play mods, well then things can change pretty much from stock.

I have read, but never really seen, complaints about JFB hitting reinforcement ocean hexes they know that connect with off map locations.




Dante Fierro -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (1/31/2019 4:07:30 PM)

Interesting. I suppose it might make for a more interesting start if you're not quite sure where everything is... But would it be historical?

In general, in PBEM games, what would you say is the most common variable reinforcement option selected? +-15 days, +-30 days? None at all? What do you prefer Lowpe?






Lowpe -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (1/31/2019 7:18:30 PM)

I generally just play fixed reinforcements. A longer variation could really screw things up. A lot of Japanese ground reinforcements are tied to Allied plane models arriving or prep for Soviets and in general already comes too late in the game.

I haven't ever gone hunting reinforcements.



Dante Fierro -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (1/31/2019 8:07:38 PM)

ps: Had to look up "JFB" in the forum acronym guide. Couldn't figure it out at first.

"Japanese Fanboi"

Still learning ... Glad to learn the terminology the experts are using here!




BillBrown -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (1/31/2019 8:25:41 PM)

As Allies I like the fixed reinforcements, there are units that should come in together( mainly ships ), but also air groups.



Barb -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 8:50:53 AM)

Currently playing as Allies with variable reinforcements +15 (IIRC) - and it really mess up several things:
- Ships/groups/LCU are arriving with different leaders than originally set in the DB because both were set to arrive at the same time, but the ship/group/LCU arrives few days early and gets a random leader.
- Task forces that were supposed to arrive together arrive spread out for month (e.g. Hornet Task Force, Wasp Task Force, Washington Task Force, etc. from the early reinforcements)
- Air Groups arrive in squadrons spread over the month. When filled up with training crews they would end up with quite different levels of training.
- Reinforcements are tied up to specific events (as were IRL), like Reinforcements of Marianas or Philippines, with variable reinforcements they could end up arriving several months late (add to that increased tempo of the game and if the allies get a head start and get inside the Japanese reinforcements loop, they could in fact advance without effective resistance).



jdsrae -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 10:30:45 AM)

I've played this game for years on and off (only ever against the AI) and only last year in an allied vs AI game I realised what a shambles my forces were in, mainly because I had lost track of the OOB, I'd completely blended SOPAC into SWPAC, plus elements of CENPAC, mainly because of the allied "problem" that I was into 1944 and had so many units on the map!
I drew myself a few org charts to help sort things out and plan where reinforcements would go when they arrived. I first prepared org charts for the allies (by nation) that show the in-game data base for Scenario 1 and then I made some ahistoric org charts to try and better organise a few things. I didn't worry about a few commands like USAFFE and ABDA who are all bound for POW camps anyway.
I don't think it is "gamey" to review and organise the side you are playing as nations didn't create units without a plan. They didn't have excel spreadsheets back then but there were still demands from each of the services, government budget cycles and other factors that meant the senior sirs would have known some time in advance what forces were likely to be created in the future, allowing them to do this sort of planning.

As for reviewing the opposing force OOB, I don't think that's "gamey" or off limits either. I see it as similar to your intelligence staff telling you what units are out there, from whatever spy networks they have, but when you ask them for details (especially as the Japanese) your intelligence staff have no idea if, when or where the enemy has deployed that unit to.

I'd love to have time to play a human opponent one day, as even when each player knows what units the other side has available, the fog of war is still there.
You'll find yourself second guessing where your opponent might have deployed certain units to, and you'll be wrong most of the time.
The AI does this too. As the Allies you'll see units from the Kwantung Army appearing in the strangest places meaning that no two games are the same.



GetAssista -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 10:41:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jdsrae
I've played this game for years on and off (only ever against the AI) and only last year in an allied vs AI game I realised what a shambles my forces were in, mainly because I had lost track of the OOB, I'd completely blended SOPAC into SWPAC, plus elements of CENPAC, mainly because of the allied "problem" that I was into 1944 and had so many units on the map!

This game would really benefit from PP-free reassigning of unrestricted units between different commands. Unrestricted commands of the same nation that is



traskott -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 11:04:43 AM)

Yes. Having the chance of change assignmentes more freely would be an improvement. With some downside to avoid "free changing of divisiones everyday" but....

I play with the idea of make to great "supreme HQ": Restricted and Unrestricted, so, at least, changing units between corps/armys didn't take so much PP.




jdsrae -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 11:06:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

This game would really benefit from PP-free reassigning of unrestricted units between different commands. Unrestricted commands of the same nation that is


The US Army in particular, historically reassigned Divisions between Corps HQ and Sixth/Eighth Army a number of times depending on the needs of the next operation. I went cross-eyed trying to stay close to historical org charts. Someone with more time than me could probably calculate how many PP the historical Division reallocations would cost in WITPAE terms, then go back in a time machine and tell the good Generals Marshall and MacArthur that it's not allowed!
I don't think it's worth worrying about in game though, especially playing allies the PP cost of unit transfers is one of the few things that might put a speed bump in front of the juggernaut.
I've just seen your tests of HQ effects on land combat GA, good stuff, in this context if the allies have a few divisions from different Corps/Armies involved in an operation it would reduce the bonuses that the allied stack gets, but they still retain their numerical and weapons effect advantages.



Macclan5 -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 12:09:58 PM)

My knowledge is imperfect in this - but that is what I understand.

In fairness - if I am not mistaken - this is mostly a bit of OCD-ness on our part ??

That is - any unit gains the same attack bonus when fighting within range of various HQ units per the manual ?

Therefore placing the 2nd Marine Division with i.e. SoPac Command in the Philippines with i.e. SWPac units and a i.e. SWPac command HQ still yields the same results from the engine. The Marines fight with all the bonus applicable subject to the rules outlined in the manual .

Therefore the need to transfer unit commands - free - greatly reduced - etc - amounts to a 'nice to have so I can organize the way I like to ?"

The need to implement a free transfer mechanism would only be critical if the 'HQ bonus' only applied to 'home HQ' and not any other... then there would be an impact on capability.



brian800000 -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 12:36:04 PM)

I'm new to the game, but what seems gamey is the movement of the KB to initially strike Manila rather than PH. The motivation seems to be the knowledge that there are a number of US subs that start there, but to my knowledge in real life most of those subs were deployed out of PH because of the risk of just such an attack. I guess the game starts them there because it really doesn't matter with the KB attacking PH and it is a lot easier than starting with a zillion sub patrols right outside of Manila.



BBfanboy -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 4:49:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5

My knowledge is imperfect in this - but that is what I understand.

In fairness - if I am not mistaken - this is mostly a bit of OCD-ness on our part ??

That is - any unit gains the same attack bonus when fighting within range of various HQ units per the manual ?

Therefore placing the 2nd Marine Division with i.e. SoPac Command in the Philippines with i.e. SWPac units and a i.e. SWPac command HQ still yields the same results from the engine. The Marines fight with all the bonus applicable subject to the rules outlined in the manual .

Therefore the need to transfer unit commands - free - greatly reduced - etc - amounts to a 'nice to have so I can organize the way I like to ?"

The need to implement a free transfer mechanism would only be critical if the 'HQ bonus' only applied to 'home HQ' and not any other... then there would be an impact on capability.

At the Corps and Army HQ level, this is correct. But to get the double bonus of having both a Corps/Army HQ plus a Command HQ, there is an alignment issue. I think the guys who are really far-sighted with their organization and target planning can pull off this double bonus, but I consider it not worth the PP and mental effort to get it perfect. War is Heck! [:'(]



GetAssista -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/1/2019 7:13:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5
My knowledge is imperfect in this - but that is what I understand.

In fairness - if I am not mistaken - this is mostly a bit of OCD-ness on our part ??

That is - any unit gains the same attack bonus when fighting within range of various HQ units per the manual ?

Therefore placing the 2nd Marine Division with i.e. SoPac Command in the Philippines with i.e. SWPac units and a i.e. SWPac command HQ still yields the same results from the engine. The Marines fight with all the bonus applicable subject to the rules outlined in the manual .

Therefore the need to transfer unit commands - free - greatly reduced - etc - amounts to a 'nice to have so I can organize the way I like to ?"

The need to implement a free transfer mechanism would only be critical if the 'HQ bonus' only applied to 'home HQ' and not any other... then there would be an impact on capability.

At the Corps and Army HQ level, this is correct. But to get the double bonus of having both a Corps/Army HQ plus a Command HQ, there is an alignment issue. I think the guys who are really far-sighted with their organization and target planning can pull off this double bonus, but I consider it not worth the PP and mental effort to get it perfect. War is Heck! [:'(]

There is no alignment issues with AV bonus to my knowledge. Everybody gets it from any HQ in range.
Pure organizational (or OCD if you wish) reasons for PP-free transfer



BBfanboy -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/2/2019 5:52:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Macclan5
My knowledge is imperfect in this - but that is what I understand.

In fairness - if I am not mistaken - this is mostly a bit of OCD-ness on our part ??

That is - any unit gains the same attack bonus when fighting within range of various HQ units per the manual ?

Therefore placing the 2nd Marine Division with i.e. SoPac Command in the Philippines with i.e. SWPac units and a i.e. SWPac command HQ still yields the same results from the engine. The Marines fight with all the bonus applicable subject to the rules outlined in the manual .

Therefore the need to transfer unit commands - free - greatly reduced - etc - amounts to a 'nice to have so I can organize the way I like to ?"

The need to implement a free transfer mechanism would only be critical if the 'HQ bonus' only applied to 'home HQ' and not any other... then there would be an impact on capability.

At the Corps and Army HQ level, this is correct. But to get the double bonus of having both a Corps/Army HQ plus a Command HQ, there is an alignment issue. I think the guys who are really far-sighted with their organization and target planning can pull off this double bonus, but I consider it not worth the PP and mental effort to get it perfect. War is Heck! [:'(]

There is no alignment issues with AV bonus to my knowledge. Everybody gets it from any HQ in range.
Pure organizational (or OCD if you wish) reasons for PP-free transfer

Did you miss the part about having the Command HQ in range too? That is when you get the AV bonus (subject to die roll), as I understand it. With Army and Corps HQs only you get some better die rolls but not a doubling of AV.



GetAssista -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/2/2019 8:07:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Did you miss the part about having the Command HQ in range too? That is when you get the AV bonus (subject to die roll), as I understand it. With Army and Corps HQs only you get some better die rolls but not a doubling of AV.

Ah, you meant *that* alignment..
The one discussed in the thread so far was the alignment of LCUs and HQs with different commands, and Macclan5 was asking about that too.



rustysi -> RE: OOB At Scenario Start (2/2/2019 5:35:26 PM)

quote:

But to get the double bonus of having both a Corps/Army HQ plus a Command HQ, there is an alignment issue.


quote:

Did you miss the part about having the Command HQ in range too? That is when you get the AV bonus (subject to die roll), as I understand it. With Army and Corps HQs only you get some better die rolls but not a doubling of AV.


But this has nothing to do with HQ assignments. Its a range issue. In range you may get the bonuses. If not no. Doesn't matter which HQ the unit is assigned to, if in range its eligible.

Edit:Of course preparation is a factor as well.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8120117