Matrix Games Forums

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 previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 43rd Infantry Division

 
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: 43rd Infantry Division Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/21/2012 12:32:34 AM   
Gridley380


Posts: 249
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 31
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/21/2012 5:49:23 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5229
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
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

(in reply to Gridley380)
Post #: 32
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/21/2012 7:59:37 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1357
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

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.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 33
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 8/21/2012 9:38:16 AM   
mjk428

 

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

quote:

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.

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 34
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 9/15/2012 10:30:39 PM   
kbfchicago


Posts: 136
Joined: 10/17/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 35
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 9/15/2012 11:21:32 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7419
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428


quote:

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

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 36
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 9/16/2012 12:50:11 AM   
mjk428

 

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

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 37
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 9/17/2012 8:54:05 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25313
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
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.





< Message edited by Nikademus -- 9/17/2012 8:55:04 PM >

(in reply to mjk428)
Post #: 38
RE: 43rd Infantry Division - 9/18/2012 6:20:42 PM   
mjk428

 

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

quote:

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.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/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.


quote:

You don't like the answer.


Of course not.


quote:

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.


quote:

Its not going to be changed in stock.


No doubt.


quote:

Use the editor.


Someday. Maybe.


quote:

Knock yourself out.


No.



(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 39
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: 43rd Infantry Division Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.073