DBB(C)-OOB question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

DBB(C)-OOB question

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 >> DBB(C)-OOB question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

DBB(C)-OOB question - 4/12/2016 11:57:20 AM

bush

Posts: 444
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline

I have received some of the Aussie I Corp reinforcements and I see the brigades do NOT combine into the parent division. Just wondering if anyone knows the reasoning behind that decision.

Post #: 1

RE: DBB(C)-OOB question - 4/12/2016 12:38:57 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

Check the HQ's. They have to be the same. You also need all of the parts in the same hex. If you don't have a "*" after the unit name, in the list of LCU'S then they will not combined....GP

< Message edited by General Patton -- 4/12/2016 12:40:40 PM >

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to bush)

Post #: 2

RE: DBB(C)-OOB question - 4/12/2016 1:20:44 PM

Arnhem44

Posts: 578
Joined: 11/23/2004
From: Singapore
Status: offline

No, what bushpu has brought up is correct, in DBB-C the Aussie 6th and 7th IDs cannot combine their component brigades, in fact the both divisions also have their supporting arms like their organic artillery regiments represented as separate units. I've also been meaning to ask what's the reasoning behind it.

I understand that the divisions never fought as such after they were transferred from Africa with the brigades being parceled out but shouldn't the option to have the divisions reformed be put in so as to leave the decision whether to do so to the player?

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 3

RE: DBB(C)-OOB question - 4/12/2016 6:19:46 PM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

Read this thread and the link I provide too.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3987152&mpage=1&key=&#3987608

It is all quite intentional and represents adherence to historical practice. The designers of the DaBabes family of scenarios attempt to make their scenarios more resistant to "gamey" practices which are perpetrated in the official scenarios. Means if you want to play their scenarios you are forced to play within the historical parameters. Don't like that limitation, play another scenario. After all, you haven't paid any money to download a scenario from the DaBabes family.

Alfred

(in reply to Arnhem44)

Post #: 4

RE: DBB(C)-OOB question - 4/13/2016 3:54:19 AM

bush

Posts: 444
Joined: 10/30/2007
From: san jose, ca
Status: offline

I LOVE the limitations. Anything to help the "game" be more like RL is okie-dokie by me. Thanks for the links too, I had forgotten about those.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 5