Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Invading Pearl Harbor

 
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 >> The War Room >> Invading Pearl Harbor Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 2:09:39 AM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2431
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
Does anyone know off-hand if invading Pearl Harbor (or other close-in Hawaiian Islands) activates the American reinforcement bonus? If it does, that would be a non-starter in my book, but I am curious...



_____________________________

Andy M
Post #: 1
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 3:37:06 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3824
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Invading Hawaii does not trigger emergency reinforcements.

Alfred

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 2
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 5:55:03 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1943
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
It certainly should.

In an early patch the 40th Infantry Division & part of the Americal Division became restricted. This decision was deemed necessary for "game balance" - the Allies were actually able to defend themselvs from Japs rampaging through the Central/South Pacific - and that just couldn't stand. It takes 4 full months worth of PPs to activate them. If the Japs were threatening Hawaii there would be no political reason why those units wouldn't be used to defend US possessions since they were deployed in '42. Invading past Wake should at least give the Allies a one-time 3000 PP boost.

Unfortunately, hampering Allied ablilities while at the same time giving the Axis abilities well beyond anything they could ever have hoped to achieve is just par for the course with WitP.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 10:32:26 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5230
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Sorry, a blatant AFB post, lock the thread.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 4
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 2:33:32 PM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2431
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
Hard...but not a non-starter. I cant think of a case where I would want to accelerate american reinforcements, unless I were to be handed Los Angeles.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 5
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 3:37:29 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sorry, a blatant AFB post, lock the thread.

+1

Where's Mike?

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 3/18/2011 3:38:16 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 6
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 6:11:12 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Sorry, a blatant AFB post, lock the thread.

Nah, not really a blatant AFB post. The poor fellow has no clue why certain decisions were made. Some people just want to do a 'urinate on everything possible in the game you can find' kinda post. If you really want to lock it, I'll have it done, but don't think it's worthwhile at this point.

But yeah, the HI are outside the bounds of "emergency reinforcements". And those of you who play the game know why.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 7
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 8:57:28 PM   
aphrochine


Posts: 187
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline
I would have to say that some pivots would be nice for the Allies.  In one of my PBEM games, I've taken a beating on the seas and lost my CV's, yet the Admiralty still insisted they take 3 operational CV's from me...leaving the Pacific virutally undefended for everyone involved.   This the US would sit on 6 full divisions on the west coast while the IJA was invading Australia, or other CW nations would not respond??  As long as the IJA player knows what hex line to not cross...

I know it's a pipe dream, but it would be nice of a few hard checks were added to the game that would boost some things for one side or the other as reactions to ahistorically lop sided outcomes.


_____________________________

VMF-422 fanboy
Grog Virgin fanboy

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 8
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 9:00:44 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sorry, a blatant AFB post, lock the thread.

+1

Where's Mike?



RIGHT HERE, Pax. But I recognize "tongue in cheek" when I see it. Besides..,
if CD's are handled right invading Oahu should be a non-starter after 12/9/41.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 9
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/18/2011 9:44:32 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1338
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Nope.
Actually invading Alaska neither.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 10
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 1:29:37 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Sorry, a blatant AFB post, lock the thread.

+1

Where's Mike?



RIGHT HERE, Pax. But I recognize "tongue in cheek" when I see it. Besides..,
if CD's are handled right invading Oahu should be a non-starter after 12/9/41.

yes, sorry that I could not resist. Glad you took it as intended.



BTW: I agree with your assessment. PBEM, I think the Allied player would need to make mistakes to lose PH assuming HR not allowing PH amphib on 12/7.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 11
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 2:13:42 AM   
Disco Duck

 

Posts: 314
Joined: 11/16/2004
From: San Antonio
Status: offline
My understanding is that the Japanese looked at invading PH on December 7th. The argument against it was the amount of shipping required to maintain it. Any sustained combat would have destroyed the already damaged port facilities.

Has anyone actually tried this in the game?

As an aside is there any way to destroy your own port facilities and supplies to prevent capture?


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 12
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 3:19:06 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3824
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Look at FatR's AAR.

Destruction of own facilities is a die roll influenced by number of engineers present at base capture.

Alfred

(in reply to Disco Duck)
Post #: 13
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 11:08:27 AM   
darbymcd

 

Posts: 310
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
I had a game going of the Reluctant Admiral mod and my opponent invaded the Hawaiian Islands, but stopped short of Pearl. It went well in the beginning, he took the islands, quickly built up some airbases and just wiped out anything that sailed or flew in the area. But I think the idea of the landing and battle at PH was just a bit sobering. It would be very very costly. But the biggest cost is the opportunity cost. With so many resources there, shipping (mostly a problem of fuel) and airgroup, baseforces, etc, he just couldn't conduct the other, more important operations with enough strength. So it cost me a ton of ships and planes as I resisted past when resistance was futile, but in the end I think cost him more in time.

The thing is, even if the Japanese take PH, it feels like a big deal but really isn't for the Aliies. You can just ship everything to Cape Town and enter it from there. It takes a little bit more time but is really not so significantly more. That leaves the Japanese interdicting empty shipping lanes. They can raid the west coast, but that works in your favor for attrition. So cost:benefit, I am unconvinced it is a great idea.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 14
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 12:52:27 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

RIGHT HERE, Pax. But I recognize "tongue in cheek" when I see it. Besides..,
if CD's are handled right invading Oahu should be a non-starter after 12/9/41.

yes, sorry that I could not resist. Glad you took it as intended.



BTW: I agree with your assessment. PBEM, I think the Allied player would need to make mistakes to lose PH assuming HR not allowing PH amphib on 12/7.



I've never had a problem with being "ribbed" for my support of the Allied cause. With all the JFB's on the forum, somebody has to stand up for sanity! And it's nice to be remembered....

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 15
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 1:09:33 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
In an early patch the 40th Infantry Division & part of the Americal Division became restricted. This decision was deemed necessary for "game balance" - the Allies were actually able to defend themselvs from Japs rampaging through the Central/South Pacific - and that just couldn't stand. It takes 4 full months worth of PPs to activate them. If the Japs were threatening Hawaii there would be no political reason why those units wouldn't be used to defend US possessions since they were deployed in '42. Invading past Wake should at least give the Allies a one-time 3000 PP boost.


The patch change was not made for "play balance" -- it was made to correct a glitch. The intended general rule of thumb for US at start forces on the West Coast is that they should start unrestricted if they historically shipped overseas in December, January and February. Otherwise, they start restricted. At the rate PPs accumulate, this allows the Allied player to release US forces at about the historic rate, and still do some fussing around with leaders, air groups, and smallish Dutch and Commonwealth formations.

The 40th Division did not ship out until September.

The US has ample forces available to defend Hawaii early in the war. It does *not* have enough forces to simultaneously protect Hawaii, fortify the islands across the South Pacific, and send reinforcements to Australia, while PPs are spent releasing forces from the DEI, Malaysia and the PI. Finding the appropriate balance is one of the many delightful frustrations the Allied player gets to deal with in AE.


_____________________________

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 mjk428)
Post #: 16
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 1:47:39 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3824
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

The US has ample forces available to defend Hawaii early in the war. It does *not* have enough forces to simultaneously protect Hawaii, fortify the islands across the South Pacific, and send reinforcements to Australia, while PPs are spent releasing forces from the DEI, Malaysia and the PI. Finding the appropriate balance is one of the many delightful frustrations the Allied player gets to deal with in AE.



That is so unfair and clearly shows the game is borked. It is my constitutional right to have sufficient PPs to undertake not only the above but also to:

* buy every destroyed land and air unit (including those slated to withdraw which after their resurrection will no longer need to be withdrawn),

* cover every air unit and ship not withdrawn so that I don't ever cross into negative territory,

* plus not garrison those tin pot North-West Frontier bases which demand an Allied garrison.

Not only is it my consititutional right as a non US citizen, it is also discriminatory by rewarding players on the basis of their skill in balancing competing demands plus it restricts my consumer rights to have my every whim completely met with the least effort on my part.

Just as soon as the devs have made some money from this game, I'm going to sue for punitive damages.

Alfred

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 17
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 2:00:29 PM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2431
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: offline
I didnt know you moonlighted as a satiristical comedian...and a good one too!!



_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 18
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 2:00:44 PM   
Tullius

 

Posts: 1168
Joined: 11/18/2004
From: Saxony (Germany)
Status: offline
Perhaps he referred to the 41th Division.

quote:

In February 1942, the 41st Infantry Division was alerted for overseas movement. It handed over its coastal defence responsibilities to the 3rd Infantry Division and concentrated at Fort Lewis. First to depart was the 162nd Infantry, 641st Tank Destroyer Battalion, and 41st Reconnaissance Troop, which entrained later that month for Fort Dix. This group departed the Brooklyn Navy Yard on 3 March 1942 and sailed for the Pacific via the Panama Canal, reaching Melbourne on 9 April. They were among the first U.S. military units to be engaged in offensive ground combat operations.


source: Wikipedia

This division is also restricted and you have to spend PP to transfer it to Australia.

quote:

The US has ample forces available to defend Hawaii early in the war. It does *not* have enough forces to simultaneously protect Hawaii, fortify the islands across the South Pacific, and send reinforcements to Australia, while PPs are spent releasing forces from the DEI, Malaysia and the PI.


When you play historically you have to deploy strong forces at Hawaii and even at the southern chain of Islands in the Pacific. Historically at the start of the was the US had not enough troops to cover all needs. Hindsight should not be a factor.



_____________________________

My Maximum Football Utilities:

http://www.abstract-football.com/max_tools.html

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 19
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 6:15:39 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1943
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
In an early patch the 40th Infantry Division & part of the Americal Division became restricted. This decision was deemed necessary for "game balance" - the Allies were actually able to defend themselvs from Japs rampaging through the Central/South Pacific - and that just couldn't stand. It takes 4 full months worth of PPs to activate them. If the Japs were threatening Hawaii there would be no political reason why those units wouldn't be used to defend US possessions since they were deployed in '42. Invading past Wake should at least give the Allies a one-time 3000 PP boost.


The patch change was not made for "play balance" -- it was made to correct a glitch. The intended general rule of thumb for US at start forces on the West Coast is that they should start unrestricted if they historically shipped overseas in December, January and February. Otherwise, they start restricted. At the rate PPs accumulate, this allows the Allied player to release US forces at about the historic rate, and still do some fussing around with leaders, air groups, and smallish Dutch and Commonwealth formations.

The 40th Division did not ship out until September.

The US has ample forces available to defend Hawaii early in the war. It does *not* have enough forces to simultaneously protect Hawaii, fortify the islands across the South Pacific, and send reinforcements to Australia, while PPs are spent releasing forces from the DEI, Malaysia and the PI. Finding the appropriate balance is one of the many delightful frustrations the Allied player gets to deal with in AE.



Thanks for the "rational" response.

These units were available unrestricted in PacWar, WitP, & AE 1.0. If they could be deployed too soon, then the rational way to deal with that was delaying their arrival or disabling 90% of their squads. Having to pay "political" points for units that were among the first to leave the States just doesn't sit right by me. Also, there may be ample points to change the units over that were needed but there is already a shortage of points for changing from Restricted Australia bases over to Southwest Pacific. In PacWar this occurred automatically. Some will say that it's not necessary but the restricted bases play havoc with air transfers of planes and troops. I like things orderly.Because I'm always hoarding PPs for big things I rarely use them for changing leaders like I should. I doubt Nimitz had much political trouble getting LTs replaced or moving around units destined to the Central/South Pacific. If I wanted to send the Americal Division to India I'd understand the problem. I don't play like that. The first year is all about reinforcing and base building along historical lines.



< Message edited by mjk428 -- 3/19/2011 6:22:52 PM >

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 20
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 6:20:32 PM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1943
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Sorry, a blatant AFB post, lock the thread.

Nah, not really a blatant AFB post. The poor fellow has no clue why certain decisions were made. Some people just want to do a 'urinate on everything possible in the game you can find' kinda post. If you really want to lock it, I'll have it done, but don't think it's worthwhile at this point.

But yeah, the HI are outside the bounds of "emergency reinforcements". And those of you who play the game know why.



I know why. PBEM Axis players complained, and instead of being slagged off like you do with the AI Allied players, they got what they wanted.

I've been playing Grigsby games for 30 years. I purchased WitP and AE on release day.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 21
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 6:56:09 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

The US has ample forces available to defend Hawaii early in the war. It does *not* have enough forces to simultaneously protect Hawaii, fortify the islands across the South Pacific, and send reinforcements to Australia, while PPs are spent releasing forces from the DEI, Malaysia and the PI. Finding the appropriate balance is one of the many delightful frustrations the Allied player gets to deal with in AE.



That is so unfair and clearly shows the game is borked. [snip] Just as soon as the devs have made some money from this game, I'm going to sue for punitive damages.

Alfred


LOL!

Good luck with your lawsuit! Triple damages and $US4.50 will get you a double-espresso.


_____________________________

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 Alfred)
Post #: 22
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 7:15:53 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Thanks for the "rational" response.

These units were available unrestricted in PacWar, WitP, & AE 1.0. If they could be deployed too soon, then the rational way to deal with that was delaying their arrival or disabling 90% of their squads. Having to pay "political" points for units that were among the first to leave the States just doesn't sit right by me. Also, there may be ample points to change the units over that were needed but there is already a shortage of points for changing from Restricted Australia bases over to Southwest Pacific. In PacWar this occurred automatically. Some will say that it's not necessary but the restricted bases play havoc with air transfers of planes and troops. I like things orderly.Because I'm always hoarding PPs for big things I rarely use them for changing leaders like I should. I doubt Nimitz had much political trouble getting LTs replaced or moving around units destined to the Central/South Pacific. If I wanted to send the Americal Division to India I'd understand the problem. I don't play like that. The first year is all about reinforcing and base building along historical lines.


"Rational" is my middle name. (But "Ir" is my first name.)

In developing AE we actually looked at lessons learned from WitP and (in my case at least) Pacwar, and did some beta testing to get the PP and restricted unit mix correct. And we determined the best mix was to unrestrict at-start US LCUs that deployed prior to March 1, and restrict those, like the 27th, 40th and 41st Divisions, that deployed later. Somehow we left out that adjustment when AE 1.0 was released -- but we fixed it quickly in a patch.

Like you, I like to keep things orderly. And you are right, there are not enough PPs to assign everyone to the right HQs. Personally, I'd have preferred a de minimus (or no) PP charge for switching units among unrestricted HQs. But as that would have been mainly for aesthic purposes, not gameplay, it was way down the change list.


_____________________________

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 mjk428)
Post #: 23
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 7:24:12 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

Also, there may be ample points to change the units over that were needed but there is already a shortage of points for changing from Restricted Australia bases over to Southwest Pacific. In PacWar this occurred automatically. Some will say that it's not necessary but the restricted bases play havoc with air transfers of planes and troops.


Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? I would have said that the restricted bases are more flexible than SWPac, not less.

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 24
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/19/2011 8:38:47 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7423
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428
In an early patch the 40th Infantry Division & part of the Americal Division became restricted. This decision was deemed necessary for "game balance" - the Allies were actually able to defend themselvs from Japs rampaging through the Central/South Pacific - and that just couldn't stand. It takes 4 full months worth of PPs to activate them. If the Japs were threatening Hawaii there would be no political reason why those units wouldn't be used to defend US possessions since they were deployed in '42. Invading past Wake should at least give the Allies a one-time 3000 PP boost.


The patch change was not made for "play balance" -- it was made to correct a glitch. The intended general rule of thumb for US at start forces on the West Coast is that they should start unrestricted if they historically shipped overseas in December, January and February. Otherwise, they start restricted. At the rate PPs accumulate, this allows the Allied player to release US forces at about the historic rate, and still do some fussing around with leaders, air groups, and smallish Dutch and Commonwealth formations.

The 40th Division did not ship out until September.

The US has ample forces available to defend Hawaii early in the war. It does *not* have enough forces to simultaneously protect Hawaii, fortify the islands across the South Pacific, and send reinforcements to Australia, while PPs are spent releasing forces from the DEI, Malaysia and the PI. Finding the appropriate balance is one of the many delightful frustrations the Allied player gets to deal with in AE.




And remember. Real men pay retail....

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 25
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/20/2011 3:09:48 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1943
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

Thanks for the "rational" response.

These units were available unrestricted in PacWar, WitP, & AE 1.0. If they could be deployed too soon, then the rational way to deal with that was delaying their arrival or disabling 90% of their squads. Having to pay "political" points for units that were among the first to leave the States just doesn't sit right by me. Also, there may be ample points to change the units over that were needed but there is already a shortage of points for changing from Restricted Australia bases over to Southwest Pacific. In PacWar this occurred automatically. Some will say that it's not necessary but the restricted bases play havoc with air transfers of planes and troops. I like things orderly.Because I'm always hoarding PPs for big things I rarely use them for changing leaders like I should. I doubt Nimitz had much political trouble getting LTs replaced or moving around units destined to the Central/South Pacific. If I wanted to send the Americal Division to India I'd understand the problem. I don't play like that. The first year is all about reinforcing and base building along historical lines.

"Rational" is my middle name. (But "Ir" is my first name.)

In developing AE we actually looked at lessons learned from WitP and (in my case at least) Pacwar, and did some beta testing to get the PP and restricted unit mix correct. And we determined the best mix was to unrestrict at-start US LCUs that deployed prior to March 1, and restrict those, like the 27th, 40th and 41st Divisions, that deployed later. Somehow we left out that adjustment when AE 1.0 was released -- but we fixed it quickly in a patch.

Like you, I like to keep things orderly. And you are right, there are not enough PPs to assign everyone to the right HQs. Personally, I'd have preferred a de minimus (or no) PP charge for switching units among unrestricted HQs. But as that would have been mainly for aesthic purposes, not gameplay, it was way down the change list.



Thank you for your work and for the thoughtful response.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 26
RE: Invading Pearl Harbor - 3/20/2011 3:15:04 AM   
mjk428

 

Posts: 1943
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

quote:

Also, there may be ample points to change the units over that were needed but there is already a shortage of points for changing from Restricted Australia bases over to Southwest Pacific. In PacWar this occurred automatically. Some will say that it's not necessary but the restricted bases play havoc with air transfers of planes and troops.


Could you elaborate on what you mean by this? I would have said that the restricted bases are more flexible than SWPac, not less.



It could very well be that my problems arose because I changed the bases over to SWPac. It's going from Australia (R) to SWPac where I've had difficulities in the past.

This playthrough I'm not changing the bases - although I would like to for historical reasons.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Invading Pearl Harbor Page: [1]
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

0.129