43rd Infantry Division

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by btbw »

Never had enough pp)
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by Puhis »

No-one have "enough" PPs. Like real life commander never had enough of anything. I guess that's the all idea of PPs. Players can't get all, so it's better to make good plans. Or complain the game is borked.
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2378
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by SuluSea »

In a perfect world the whole PP program gets a complete overhaul (not that the code can handle what is needed) probably thoughts for a different thread.

In my Allied game that's going along at a snails pace it 2.24.42 and I just purchased the 41st Division which is a litte ahead of it's historical deployment despite purchasing 27th & 22nd Australian Brigades from Malaya Army already.
I've been thrifty with my PPs only changing the Chinese LCUs in combat, some air leaders, buying out some needed air units from the Phillipines but the majority has been spent on high value LCUs.



I maintain the developers have given both sides plenty enough PPs to play with and while the system isn't perfect I believe the point allotment and restricted units are close to what it should be.

There are very few things the Allied player needs to plan ahead for in comparison to the other side buying out units are one of them which a plan should be in place. If you come up short maybe an adjustment of your playing style is in order.
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by Shark7 »

I think you will find that with the PP system, Allied players will spend the bulk of theirs freeing up troops to send to the front, and Japanese players spend the bulk of theirs upgrading the Ki-55, Ki-30 and Ki-51 units to 2E bombers.

Its all about priorities.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Gridley380
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by Gridley380 »

Agreed that while the PP system isn't perfect (what is?) it works well and ALLOWS for historical deployments. As noted above, if you do things that weren't done historically you may not be able to do other things that were done historically.

I, personally, would like to see it expanded to allow 'purchase' of ships. Yes I know you can keep ships scheduled for withdrawal on the map for PP, I'm talking about having the opportunity to get units that spend most or all of the war in the Atlantic and thus don't show up on the OrBat.

I'd pay quite a few PP for USS Erie (sister to USS Charleston, my favorite escort).

The PP system is one of the best features of the game IMO. If game mechanics permitted I'd like to see everything up for sale: aircraft replacements, ships as noted above, more units of all types... I think it would help the Allies get something close to the flexibility the Japanese get with the production system.
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: castor troy


no need for this. The original poster used thousands of pps to move out stuff and then complains he can't move out what was moved out in real life. His whole argument is a fail. There are easily enough pp around so you can do what was done historically (you can do even more), so there's no need to complain at all and in his special case it's not to understand at all as he had enough replies earlier (nearly 3 years ago [8|]) as Alfred pointed out.


That's what others ASSumed, and now you. If you actually read what I posted instead you'd know better.
My reward is I get to pay 2000+ PPs to activate a division that historically was in the South Pacific in Oct '42.

Doesn't matter if I've got 10k points stocked up for a rainy day. There's simply no historical reason for this unit to arrive attached to West Coast command in 9/42.


I've got the points to pay. I shouldn't have to pay for this division.

3 years earlier we were discussing the early war units that went from free to restricted as a result of a patch. It's now the fall of '42 in this game.

FYI:

Gary Grigsby's Pacific War: 43rd ID arrives in 9/42 attached to South Pacific HQ

Gary Grigsby's War in the Pacific: 43rd ID arrives in 9/42 attached to the South Pacific HQ

It seems that PPs have gone from a housekeeping tool to change leaders and move units from one historic HQ to another historic HQ to now being just another restriction on the Allies to help the Japs last a little longer. That's not stated in the manual. The description of PPs didn't change much from the WitP manual to the WitPAE manual but their actual in game function has changed severely.

Units should arrive attached to their proper commands. Not using any PPs should result in a completely historic OOB. I'm playing an extremely well researched historical war-game not Hearts of Iron. PPs should be used to make non-historical changes not repair mistakes.

Bottom line: Historic combat units like the 43rd ID shouldn't be treated like town watch and mercenaries. It's disrespectful.
User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by LoBaron »

lol
Image
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by Shark7 »

Yes, we all know the Allied player can never win this game cause the PP system is stacked against him. [8|]
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Gridley380
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by Gridley380 »

ORIGINAL: mjk428

It seems that PPs have gone from a housekeeping tool to change leaders and move units from one historic HQ to another historic HQ to now being just another restriction on the Allies to help the Japs last a little longer. That's not stated in the manual. The description of PPs didn't change much from the WitP manual to the WitPAE manual but their actual in game function has changed severely.

Bottom line: Historic combat units like the 43rd ID shouldn't be treated like town watch and mercenaries. It's disrespectful.

Not at all. The PPs allow variation in the Allied OrBat from the historic one. In order to allow units that did not deploy to combat areas to do so without allowing the Pacific to be flooded with Allied units, a variety of units are restricted. You then choose which units (historical or not) you want to send forward based on the circumstances in game.

If there were no 'buyable' units, then you would get EXACTLY what the Allies got, exactly when they got it, whether it was useful or not. The naval side of the OrBat is already almost exactly this way. Want your land and air units to show up the same way, or do you want some wiggle room? The game went for wiggle room. I wish they'd given us more.

You are free to make a mod where historically deployed units are unrestricted, but if you want any semblance of reality you'll also greatly reduce the PP accumulation rate. You'll also withdraw ships on time whether you want to or not, and you'll never buy out any units that weren't deployed, or send units overseas before they were.

Bottom line: the PP aren't there to ADD to the Allied OrBat, they're to allow CHANGES to the Allied OrBat. You may not like that, but that is the way the game is.
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: Gridley380

ORIGINAL: mjk428

It seems that PPs have gone from a housekeeping tool to change leaders and move units from one historic HQ to another historic HQ to now being just another restriction on the Allies to help the Japs last a little longer. That's not stated in the manual. The description of PPs didn't change much from the WitP manual to the WitPAE manual but their actual in game function has changed severely.

Bottom line: Historic combat units like the 43rd ID shouldn't be treated like town watch and mercenaries. It's disrespectful.

Not at all. The PPs allow variation in the Allied OrBat from the historic one. In order to allow units that did not deploy to combat areas to do so without allowing the Pacific to be flooded with Allied units, a variety of units are restricted. You then choose which units (historical or not) you want to send forward based on the circumstances in game.

If there were no 'buyable' units, then you would get EXACTLY what the Allies got, exactly when they got it, whether it was useful or not. The naval side of the OrBat is already almost exactly this way. Want your land and air units to show up the same way, or do you want some wiggle room? The game went for wiggle room. I wish they'd given us more.

You are free to make a mod where historically deployed units are unrestricted, but if you want any semblance of reality you'll also greatly reduce the PP accumulation rate. You'll also withdraw ships on time whether you want to or not, and you'll never buy out any units that weren't deployed, or send units overseas before they were.

Bottom line: the PP aren't there to ADD to the Allied OrBat, they're to allow CHANGES to the Allied OrBat. You may not like that, but that is the way the game is.

There's nothing wrong with wiggle room or what-ifs but there's also nothing saying that a player even has to spend his PPs. I definitely disagree that units should be intentionally assigned to the wrong HQ just to give players something to spend their points on. Which is what AE has opted to do.

In WitP I didn't really need to spend points. I had thousands in the bank before too long. Which meant I didn't have to intervene just to achieve an historic OOB. That's the way it should be IMO. If folks want to go nuts with PPs and get ahistoric results that's fine but it should not be the norm for the historic grand campaign. I don't recall any other historic wargame, with an otherwise meticulous OOB, that requires the player to "buy" the units actually used.

What we have we come to when we have to "mod" if we want the historic scenario?

War in the Pacific 3.0 pre-order now and get the Yamato Blood Dragon Armor!
User avatar
Gridley380
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by Gridley380 »

ORIGINAL: mjk428


There's nothing wrong with wiggle room or what-ifs but there's also nothing saying that a player even has to spend his PPs. I definitely disagree that units should be intentionally assigned to the wrong HQ just to give players something to spend their points on. Which is what AE has opted to do.


Divisions weren't earmarked for the Pacific when they were formed. The Army (for a division, Marshall's level or higher) decided what resources should be sent where on a continuous basis. The PP system, in part, represents you, the theater commander, using your influence with people like Marshall to get resources committed. Having to do so is quite historical. Expecting that units will flow to a secondary theater without any effort on the theater commander's part is not. US theater commanders had to ask for resources, and then had to deal with what got sent (which often bore only a passing resemblance to what they'd asked for, of course). The correspondence between Dugout Doug and Washington would be hilarious if it didn't want to make you cry.

The Allies regularly discussed what nations would commit resources and where they would be sent. These agreements changed over time as the situation changed. If the war had gone differently (and we can be sure it will in the game) then different allocations would have been made. Yes, even as early as mid-1942.

Now if you don't want to think about those parts of history that's your choice, but that doesn't make them ahistorical.
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by JeffroK »

Not quite right, maybe not tagged on formation but training was biased towards one of the 2 major theatres.

There was a major draw down on PTO bound Divisions after the Ardennes offensive.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
jmalter
Posts: 1673
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2010 5:41 pm

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by jmalter »

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Not quite right, maybe not tagged on formation but training was biased towards one of the 2 major theatres.

There was a major draw down on PTO bound Divisions after the Ardennes offensive.
at about which time, the V-1 offensive req'd a rapid reversal of priorities - many ETO AA units had to be re-positioned along the buzz-bombs' flight-path, they could no longer be used as a manpower pool for infantry replacements.

but i've just gotta reject mjk428's premise, "Historic combat units like the 43rd ID shouldn't be treated like town watch and mercenaries. It's disrespectful." armchair brigadier needs to man up & spend the PP, before he sends the 43ID off to die for some nameless pixel-atoll. 'disrespectful' my arse, he's got confused between history and game-play.
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: jmalter

but i've just gotta reject mjk428's premise, "Historic combat units like the 43rd ID shouldn't be treated like town watch and mercenaries. It's disrespectful." armchair brigadier needs to man up & spend the PP, before he sends the 43ID off to die for some nameless pixel-atoll. 'disrespectful' my arse, he's got confused between history and game-play.

I was channeling Alfred. Feigning outrage on behalf of others.

If gameplay and balance is paramount then why not buy all the units? 100k for each player to buy and position each unit at start. No "Dec 7th Surprise". No magic first turn moves. No perfect intel prior to invasion. Now that's game-play.
User avatar
kbfchicago
Posts: 364
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2009 4:46 pm
Location: NC, USA
Contact:

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by kbfchicago »

While I have certainly been frustrated by the PPs they accomplish what (I believe) they intended. Forcing me to prioritize and make decisions as the CinC. The key is planning ahead...as in weeks/months ahead... :) Elegant solution to a tricky problem in simulating constrictions of mobilization, movement, resourcing, and national priorities at a grand strategic level.
MacBook Pro / WITP-AE running in Parallels v15.x
User avatar
crsutton
Posts: 9590
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 8:56 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by crsutton »

ORIGINAL: mjk428

ORIGINAL: LoBaron



And there are historical as well as gameplay reasons to restrict a majority of units to WC commands, usually those reasons lie within PBEM country.

No doubt this is just another sacrifice to the "play balance" Gods.


Which, oddly enough, seem to work very well.....

I have said a lot over the past three years about things I felt were wrong. PP points are not one of them. They seem to be just right on the money for the Allies. I am reaching the end of 1944 in my campaign and still am short of PP to the point where I have to make decisions about what resources I will use. Yet, I don't feel like I am short changed in any way as the Allied player. I got plenty. I just don't got everything....[;)]
I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by mjk428 »

I've long since paid the price and moved on in my game. It's December '42 and the 43rd is in Noumea waiting to see where they're headed next.

Just to be clear, my complaint wasn't about not having enough PPs. My real complaint is that IMO the OOB should reflect history as much as possible. I want the units to be assigned to the HQ they actually were with historically. A big part of why I got interested in wargames 30+ years ago was because they taught me many details about conflicts & battles that weren't in most history books. It just goes against the grain to intentionally assign them to the wrong HQ. Even if there's plenty of points to buy them out. It's a PITA to get everyone where they belong. I'd rather have fewer PPs and have everyone assigned appropriately. But that's just me.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by Nikademus »

your complaint has been answered multiple times. You don't like the answer. We get it. Its not going to be changed in stock. Use the editor. Knock yourself out.



mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

Post by mjk428 »

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

your complaint has been answered multiple times.

The original complaint regarding units changed by a patch was addressed by AndyMac and I accepted his honest answer and dropped it.

tm.asp?m=2241404&mpage=1&key=americal?

Didn't expect the OOB to be borked for the remainder of the war. That was a surprise. Happy to let it drop but you bumped the thread with your pointless post.

You don't like the answer.

Of course not.

We get it.

What's with the Royal "we"?

If you read the thread objectively it's obvious that several people didn't get it and jumped to the wrong conclusion. That's why I clarified.

Its not going to be changed in stock.

No doubt.

Use the editor.

Someday. Maybe.

Knock yourself out.

No.


Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”