Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

 
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 >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 12:56:29 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		No they don't but as they disband 6 months away from start and as they are 'mostly' construction units the player and AI will need to adjust deployments to accomodate this.

Andy

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 751
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 4:29:56 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		I always liked the variable reinforcement option, it helps add replayability but with this new disband/withdraw system, it sounds like there need to be a variable withdraw system with the two tied together.


Is there some sort of list that shows what units will disband/withdraw in the next 30day along the PP cost?



< Message edited by pad152 -- 11/1/2008 4:36:07 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 752
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 4:42:44 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Yes there is a disband/withdraw list just below the reinforcement list but you have no control over it you cannot use PP's to hang onto LCU's when they go they go.


(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 753
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 5:14:44 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Yes there is a disband/withdraw list just below the reinforcement list but you have no control over it you cannot use PP's to hang onto LCU's when they go they go.




Well, I guess that's one way to stop the allied player from saving/striping LCU's from the resource area in 1941. I still don't like the idea of an active airbase (with squadrons) losing it's AV support. Maybe a way of spending PP's to delay the withdraw is needed!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 754
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 6:39:04 PM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline 		I plan on moving any air units away before the AV goes away or transporting in another AV unit. I can live with this.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 755
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 9:16:11 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

I plan on moving any air units away before the AV goes away or transporting in another AV unit. I can live with this.



Sounds nice in theory but, what if you forget, it's one of those out of the way places where it's too far to fly them to another base, or there is no other AV available for 30-60 days? I just don't see it as very realistic or historical for an active air base to have it's AV to just disappear!

I always thought you could use PP's to keep anything? Guess not!

Being able to spend PP's on another AV unit to transfer it to a different command yet, not able to spend PP's just the keep the unit I have in place, makes no sense.


< Message edited by pad152 -- 11/1/2008 9:17:30 PM >

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 756
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 9:38:50 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Maybe if the game issues a warning 10 days before happening: "X unit will retire in 10 days"

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 757
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 10:27:31 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		We are talking about 5 small units each one less than 300 men guys there are limits to what we can code or accomodate this didnt make the cut.

There is a list of all units that withdraw available that is sortable by date
The unit screen has a countdown clock for every unit that leaves

There is a limit to what we can do.

Re using PP's to stop withdrawal of LCU's deliberatly not included if we did how do you model the impact of 5th British DIv not heading to Italy or 7th Armoured Bde to the middle east or the US Corps going to Europe from the West Coast or the Russian forces going to the Western Front (do you really think any amount of political influence would have stopped Stalin shooting a commander that withheld troops ?)

In 99% of cases where units withdraw they are permanently retricted anyway and cannot deploy overseas so its all a rear area issue.

The 1% would have required rewriting several routines to accomodate a minor issue and we don't have time for it.

There is also a global option in the game set up that disables all disbandments - it greatly favours the allies so its mostly going to be a v the Allied AI tool but if you feel that strongly about it disable the whole feature

Andy

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 758
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 10:34:29 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

I plan on moving any air units away before the AV goes away or transporting in another AV unit. I can live with this.


Not all units allow their commands to be changed. Most "national" units (Phil, Burma, Thai, Dutch, ect) as well as some west coast units you CANT change the HQs for. The "Sir Robin Defense" doesnt work as well in AE as in WitP.

Edit: And a lot of other units have withdrawl dates within 6 months so you have to ask yourself: is it worth it to withdraw them?

As Joe said a while back in another thread, in AE you have to develop new strategies.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 11/1/2008 10:36:21 PM >

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 759
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 10:35:30 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Actually looking at it the most controverisial withdrawals are all CW.

7 AA Regts are disbanded in 44 in order to provide a 1 time injection of British Infantry replacements you get no choice in this

A number of emergancy formed Ard Regts are disbanded in India NZ and Australia largely because they were needed either as Inf replacements or after the crisis is over they realised they couldnt all be equipped or used.

Again you get no choice in this

Apart from these the other units that leave are Withdrawals and these are units leaving the theatre


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 760
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 10:38:51 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Also a lot of the national units have very low or no replacement squads so if for example I do a full sir Robin in Malaya well you can but where exactly do you get replacements for your Malay units - there are now seperate Malay, Burmese, African, ISF, RAF Regt sections rather than just one lumped together CW Squad as per stock

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 761
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/1/2008 10:47:09 PM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline 		I'm fine with this.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 762
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/2/2008 12:39:55 AM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

...In 99% of cases where units withdraw they are permanently retricted anyway and cannot deploy overseas so its all a rear area issue...

Andy



That resolves my main concern with the issue

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

...there are now seperate Malay, Burmese, African, ISF, RAF Regt sections rather than just one lumped together CW Squad as per stock....


Good news, thanks

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 763
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/2/2008 3:49:11 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Andy

My concen is limited to 1941, early 1942 where the allies have fewer units and short of engineer units of all types. I've played with variable reinforcements on and have seen games where the allies can't do much of anything until March of 1942 because of the shortages of engineer units (can't build or expand forward bases, limited AV support). It was this type of thing that forced the allied player to strip/save engineer units from the Dutch resource area.

quote:

There is also a global option in the game set up that disables all disbandments - it greatly favours the allies so its mostly going to be a v the Allied AI tool but if you feel that strongly about it disable the whole feature


I really don't see a need for this!

(in reply to Splinterhead)
Post #: 764
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/2/2008 4:40:26 AM   
Oldguard1970

 

Posts: 578
Joined: 7/19/2006
From: Hiawassee, GA
Status: offline 		The global disable feature lets players eliminate the withdrawals if they hate them.  It offers Japanese players a way to give a boost to the AI.   Those who do not see a need for the disable feature can ignore it and keep the withdrawals in effect.



< Message edited by OldGuard1970 -- 11/2/2008 4:44:35 AM >

_____________________________

"Rangers Lead the Way!"

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 765
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/2/2008 11:41:10 AM   
JeffroK


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Actually looking at it the most controverisial withdrawals are all CW.

7 AA Regts are disbanded in 44 in order to provide a 1 time injection of British Infantry replacements you get no choice in this

A number of emergancy formed Ard Regts are disbanded in India NZ and Australia largely because they were needed either as Inf replacements or after the crisis is over they realised they couldnt all be equipped or used.

Again you get no choice in this

Apart from these the other units that leave are Withdrawals and these are units leaving the theatre




I understand the historical basis for this, but "what if" the Aussies are fighting for Sydney or Melbourne, the basis which was also returning manpower to industry, is out the door.

It would be good to have a trigger (low inf reps, no enemy on home soil etc) to drive this OR make it optional, if you want skeleton infantry units but a strong armd force (which is all but useless in the Jungle) then it should be your choice.

Be wary about forcing mid-late war options onto the player.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 11/2/2008 11:42:21 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 766
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/2/2008 1:00:08 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline 		I have a quick question about balance.

The Allies have all these new restrictions with who can change HQ, mandatory withdraws and so on.

What kind of changes are the Japanease players going to see? Will they see mandatory withdraws? Will they see home island units stuck w/ that HQ? Were there duplicate divisions for the Japanease in stock WitP?

Thanks in advance.

Chad

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 767
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/2/2008 1:54:01 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Both sides get withdrawals Japanese players suffer less from them because they had fewer units disband or taken out of theatre for a global war.

I would prefer to focus on the positive the allies get to offset these restrictions

TOE upgrades on its own compensates for any reduction the allies get as allied forces improve and get stronger so their Divisions become more powerfull with time - Japanese TOE's are relatively static throughout the war.

Also a lot of the Allied units that are now on map are ONLY on map becauser they can withdraw.

e.g. the allies now get units in places like India and Australia and even NZ/West Coast and Russia that in stock were not in the game because to include them without a means of taking them out again would cause issues.e.g. 5th British Div, 267th Indian Ard Bde various frontier Bdes, NZ militia, Australian Light Horse - these forces historically provided rear area coverage but stock didnt include them because they didnt have the tools to stop them unbalancing the game - we do

In general both sides have a far more accurate ORBAT IMO.

Stock did have some duplication of units for the Japanese but again the tools we now have to allow units to convert to Divs late in the war means that these forces are no longer duplicated.

Having now been working on the AI for over a year I think a lot of the decisions made in stock ORBATS especially the Japanese duplications that we all loved to criticise were 100% conscious decisions to cope with some of the AI's limitations - my respect for what the original stock team achieved in this area has never been higher coping with a game of this scale and scope is a mammoth challenge.

I don't really know what else to say we don't try to 'balance' the game we are attmepting to get the most historic representation of the Pacific War we can.

p.s. if you want a more 'Balanced Game' then try the alternate scenario which will be with the game in that scenario Japan does get extra LCU's, extra Ships and a stronger economy or wait a month or two after release and I am sure folks like Nemo or Alikachi or others will do other fantasy mods that will provide different challenges.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 768
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/2/2008 2:15:06 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline 		As always, thanks for the reply Andy. Nice to see that both sides are getting the historic OOB and TO&E attention they needed after stock WitP. Even without seeing the game, having updating units throughout the war seems like a **huge** improvement over stock.

One last question from above:

So will Japan be able to release some of their units from Home Defense via political points? Or will they be static and/or locked into that HQ similar to the West Coast units?

Thanks indvance.

Chad

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 769
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/2/2008 2:22:15 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Japan may release if PP's are paid

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 770
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/3/2008 1:23:46 AM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Land OOB question.  I have 3 sources that say 56th Bde, a.k.a. Sakaguchi Detachment, was a subset of 56th Division.  A reliable source recently said in the game OOB, 56th Bde is a subset of 60th Div.  Can't see how this can be.  56th Inf Bde (also known as Sakaguchi Detachment) IRL was the infantry group HQ, tankette co., 146th Inf Regt, I/56 FA, I/56 Eng Bn, II/56 Tnpt Bn (all from 56th Division) plus Miura Det. (I Bn/33d Inf Regt/16th Inf Div), 2d Kure SNLF, 2d Airfield Const Unit. CG was MG Sakaguchi Shizuo. Invaded Mindanao (Miura Det. landed on the north side of the island). After capturing Mindanao, Miura det. retured to 14th Army control and occupied Mindanao while rest of Sakaguchi det. (except maybe the SNLF and AF Constr. unit - don't know) rejoined the 56th Div for the invasion of Borneo. OpCon for 56th Bde as well as 56th Div was 16th Army in Palaus.  A Army (US) microfilm I have (somewhere) says the 3 infantry regts of 56th Div were 113, 146 and 148.  The 56th Div was a "new" triangular formation.

60th Div was a "square" division comprised of the following Indep Inf Bns: 46th, 47th, 48th, 49th, 50th, 112th, 113th, and 114th.  Didn't have an Inf Bde HQ as many of the triangular divisions had.  Also 60th Div did not have either a Recon/Cav element and no organic artillery.  This is from a microfilm I got from the National Archives.  Can't find it - I'll need to dig deeply to find it and then determine how I can view it.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 771
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/3/2008 3:16:48 AM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Japan may release if PP's are paid


Thanks Andy.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 772
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/5/2008 10:43:17 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I will respond tonight when I get home and can look at the scenario.

I am pretty sure all of the sub units you refer to below are present in game but may not be aligned the way you have with parent units.

My Japanese ORBAT experts are Joe and Kereguelen I will refer detailed answers to them

quote:

ORIGINAL: doc smith

Land OOB question.  I have 3 sources that say 56th Bde, a.k.a. Sakaguchi Detachment, was a subset of 56th Division.  A reliable source recently said in the game OOB, 56th Bde is a subset of 60th Div.  Can't see how this can be.  56th Inf Bde (also known as Sakaguchi Detachment) IRL was the infantry group HQ, tankette co., 146th Inf Regt, I/56 FA, I/56 Eng Bn, II/56 Tnpt Bn (all from 56th Division) plus Miura Det. (I Bn/33d Inf Regt/16th Inf Div), 2d Kure SNLF, 2d Airfield Const Unit. CG was MG Sakaguchi Shizuo. Invaded Mindanao (Miura Det. landed on the north side of the island). After capturing Mindanao, Miura det. retured to 14th Army control and occupied Mindanao while rest of Sakaguchi det. (except maybe the SNLF and AF Constr. unit - don't know) rejoined the 56th Div for the invasion of Borneo. OpCon for 56th Bde as well as 56th Div was 16th Army in Palaus.  A Army (US) microfilm I have (somewhere) says the 3 infantry regts of 56th Div were 113, 146 and 148.  The 56th Div was a "new" triangular formation.

60th Div was a "square" division comprised of the following Indep Inf Bns: 46th, 47th, 48th, 49th, 50th, 112th, 113th, and 114th.  Didn't have an Inf Bde HQ as many of the triangular divisions had.  Also 60th Div did not have either a Recon/Cav element and no organic artillery.  This is from a microfilm I got from the National Archives.  Can't find it - I'll need to dig deeply to find it and then determine how I can view it.



(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 773
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/5/2008 4:10:33 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doc smith

Land OOB question.  I have 3 sources that say 56th Bde, a.k.a. Sakaguchi Detachment, was a subset of 56th Division.  A reliable source recently said in the game OOB, 56th Bde is a subset of 60th Div.  Can't see how this can be.  56th Inf Bde (also known as Sakaguchi Detachment) IRL was the infantry group HQ, tankette co., 146th Inf Regt, I/56 FA, I/56 Eng Bn, II/56 Tnpt Bn (all from 56th Division) plus Miura Det. (I Bn/33d Inf Regt/16th Inf Div), 2d Kure SNLF, 2d Airfield Const Unit. CG was MG Sakaguchi Shizuo. Invaded Mindanao (Miura Det. landed on the north side of the island). After capturing Mindanao, Miura det. retured to 14th Army control and occupied Mindanao while rest of Sakaguchi det. (except maybe the SNLF and AF Constr. unit - don't know) rejoined the 56th Div for the invasion of Borneo. OpCon for 56th Bde as well as 56th Div was 16th Army in Palaus.  A Army (US) microfilm I have (somewhere) says the 3 infantry regts of 56th Div were 113, 146 and 148.  The 56th Div was a "new" triangular formation.


The elements of the Sakaguchi Detachment are represented as separate assets in the game. 56th Division starts broken into its component parts and may be rebuild to the complete division by the Japanese player if he wishes to to this. Sakaguchi Detachment was not the 56th Brigade but the 56th Infantry Group. Major-General Sakaguchi was the Infantry Commander of 56th Division.

56th Infantry Brigade was a completely different formation and not related to 56th Division. I'll explain this further down in this post.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doc smith
60th Div was a "square" division comprised of the following Indep Inf Bns: 46th, 47th, 48th, 49th, 50th, 112th, 113th, and 114th.  Didn't have an Inf Bde HQ as many of the triangular divisions had.  Also 60th Div did not have either a Recon/Cav element and no organic artillery.  This is from a microfilm I got from the National Archives.  Can't find it - I'll need to dig deeply to find it and then determine how I can view it.


60th Division was neither a "square" division nor a "triangular" division but a C-Type (garrison) division formed in China from 11th Independent Mixed Brigade in February 1942. It had two Infantry Brigades under command, 55th and 56th, which controlled the Ind. Inf. Battalions identified by you. The brigades were formed together with 60th Division in China. The division had a small artillery unit (12x 75mm Mtn Gun; inherited from 11th IMB) but (like all C-Type divisions) no recce or cavalry element. 60th Division may be formed by the Japanese player in the AE if he wishes to do this (11th IMB is set to rename to 55th Infantry Brigade in Feb 1942 and 56th Infantry Brigade arrives as a reinforcement at the same time, the player can combine them then into the 60th Division).

(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 774
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/5/2008 4:22:29 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Thanks Kereguelen (its easy when you have the experts on call !!!)

Andy

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 775
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/6/2008 3:30:32 AM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks. I didn't mean Sakaguchi Det. was a brigade. The HQ assets came from the Infantry Group HQ common to many triangular Japanese divisions. Didn't express it well.

Someone else said that Sakaguchi came from 60th Div. I am aware that it was a very limited unit in China. That's why I couldn't see the Det. coming from them. I also know there was a 56th Ind. Mixed Bde., which is a whole other kettle of fish.

I originally wondered whether the AE would capture the Japanes penchant for spinning off detachments into what I call the Japanese version of kampfgruppe. However, unlike that German formation, the Japanese seemed to make their detachments all tooth and no tail. Ideal for kicking in the door, but unable to hold after that.

Thanks for your information.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 776
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/6/2008 4:12:05 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Well we certain capture the "spinoff" idea more so than stock ... the ability to lay in historical sub-units in the editor being a key enabler ...



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 777
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/6/2008 8:31:12 PM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline 		So have I got this right

When seeking a game I am going to have an option of asking for an opponent for "historical re creation game" - as realistic to real life as possible, or I could ask for an opponent for " the balanced game" -where Japan has , well, more "stuff"?

If this is correct -fantastic!

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 778
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/6/2008 9:21:57 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Sort of

Scen 1 will be the historic as close as we can get it scenario - depending on the choices you make i.e. withdrawals on/off, etc etc then the historic scen can veer away from histroy pretty easily - e.g. 5th British Div staying for the whole war is NOT historic  but you can do it.

Scen 2 will be the alternate scenario in this scenario Japan is a 'little' stronger its NOT a full on balanced scenario but a little stonger - a few more LCU's, a few more pilots, a little more in the economy,  a few more light vessels (a few more light vessels), a few more modern AK's and TK's - its trying to do what Scen 19 did for UV - a slightly different take on WITP - but not a full on mod I will leave that up to you lot !!!

Andy

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 11/6/2008 9:24:06 PM >

(in reply to 1275psi)
Post #: 779
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 11/7/2008 1:16:18 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

At the beginning of the war, there were battalion-sized US Navy civilian contractor base forces (mostly engineers, but small air support as well) on several Pacific islands. These are included in AE. They disband in a few months.


When units like this disband, I take it there will be some other scheduled AV unit to take it's place?

Witp has the option of variable reinforcement of upto +/- 60 days, could a base lose it's AV support for 60 days?  Old unit disbands and new unit doesn't arrive for 60 days, air units get stuck no support, this sounds like an need less issue (a car crash ready to happen!). If a base has active air units, AV support shouldn't be pulled out from under them without a 30 day warning (think British withdraw in witp).


The early war US land-unit withdrawals are the CPNAB ("Contractor Pacific Naval Aviation Bases") units. These represent the civilan contractors building a chain of air bases from Pearl Harbor to Australia, and some Pan Am personnel running airfields. The units varied in size from over 1000 men (Wake) to just 200-300 (Palmyra, Christmas). As civilians, these folks really weren't supposed to be building in a war zone, and the Navy phased them out (replaced by Seabees, of course). In the game, they all withdraw in July, 1942.

The AI plans to replace them with seabees and small air base units. No guarantees the replacements will get there, of course.

Other US withdrawals are for combat units going to the ETO -- but most of these are 'restricted' and can't leave the West Coast anyway. An exception is the "1st Special Service Force" -- an elite regimental-sized commando unit that makes a two-month cameo appearance in 1943 (long enough, historically, to participate in the capaign to retake the Aleutians) before being shipped off to Italy.

In 1944 the US Marines disband all of their parachute and ranger battalions. . . they needed them to help form the 5th and 6th Divisions, and the game engine doesn't allow for player options like "Form 5th Division? Y/N."


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 780
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.141