Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Beezle

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Why would anyone remove MacArthur?[&:]

Look at his stats: Leadership 71, Aggression 72. Pretty good, better than most Allied generls. Plus, it costs 200 PP to replace him.

Regardless of what one thinks of the RL MacArthur, this is a game, and in this game, MacArthur is a good leader. Leave him in command, you'll get good results.

Out of disgust at people who try to turn an entire world war into a photo-op to promote their own ego. Dislike of someone who claims all successes are entirely due to his own brilliance and all failures (like not taking Buna on a schedule he dreamed up) as due to the cowardice and ineptitude of the slobs out there actually doing the killing and dying.

Ever read what he wrote about Australian troops? He's about the only reference I know who describes Aussies as cowardly and lacking fighting spirit. Ever ask an (old) Aussie what they think of him?

It's the attitude that irks me, not the ability.

I'm not trying to defend MacArthur; IMHO he was an over-rated egomaniac who didn't care about any of the soldiers under his command, either US or Australian.

That, however, is the real life MacArthur, and WitP:AE is a game. And in the game, YOU control MacArthur; he has no "attitude", only "ability". Since the devs gave him pretty good ability, why waste him?

And in any event, if having MacArthur in the game really upsets you, simply use the editor to remove him. Or, as others have suggested, make him the captain of an xAKL, and let him attack KB by himself.[:)]

That, however, is the real life MacArthur, and WitP:AE is a game. And in the game, YOU control MacArthur; he has no "attitude", only "ability". Since the devs gave him pretty good ability, why waste him?

I role play the game a lot <G>

I defend Alaska with all units orignially assigned to the North Pacific command and have them consume supplies digging fortifications like mad "in case the Japanese come that way". I put lots of ASW patrols on the west coast of the US because people are always telling the San Francisco Call Bulletin they are sure they saw a Japanese sub off Ocean Beach.

And I "see" the historic Mac there opening his orders and reading that because he tried to muscle out Nimitz one time too many he is now assigned to supervising a construction unit in Nome (that will keep him out or the presidential contest!)

You have your fun and I have mine [:)]

I suspect there is a great difference in how PBEM and vs AI players approach this game. I only play vs AI for a number of reasons (irregular schedule, mostly).

I hear about the ability to strip China of all IJ troops and send them off some where, or of the Allies to scrape up all troops in Alaska or south pacific garrisons and actually get those troops used efficiently.

I suspect the PBEM players are more "efficient" and hit with everything they have at what they judge to be the critical point.

Is that right?

As a vs AI player I don't do that. I consume an enormous amount of shipping and of my own time making sure at regular intervals that the Pago Pago garrison doesn't go unsupplied. If they did it would have no effect on the war, but the Allied High Command would never do that so I don't (the IJ high command might, but of necessity, not from choice).

So what I am saying is I _don't_ strip the game down to the bare essential numbers and play it "like a game" but try to play it like I was actually running the Allies in the 1940s.

Some of us PBEM players play that way as well. I try to think of myself as the commander of real forces, not 0s and 1s, so I try to do what I think would be done IRL. I think that my opponent plays the same way and in doing so we have had several years of very enjoyable gaming.

ORIGINAL: Beezle

ORIGINAL: Feltan

ORIGINAL: ckammp

... this is a game, and in this game, MacArthur is a good leader. Leave him in command, you'll get good results.

WITPAE is not a game, it is a life style. Hence, such issues are not as trivial as you assume.

Regards,
Feltan

What isn't modeled in the game is the disroptive effect Mac had on everything else. If you are King or FDR do you keep using Mac because of his combat skills (most of which are truly there but which not really known early in the war) or fire him because he won't act as a subordinate and keeps trying to do end runs to get more resources for "his" war?

Hehehe. Imagine if every turn you got told things like "You tried to upgrade the 217th fighter group but actually they didn't upgrade because MacArthur managed to divert the aircraft to his theater" or "you have to stop your attacks in the central pacific where you are about to have LBA covering all approached to the Japanese home islands and send 1/3 of the units to the Phillipines even though _you_ aren't actually interested in retaking the PI because _Mac_ is interested in retaking the PI"

I bet then people would spend the 200PP in a hurry <G>
That's the sort of decisions in RL you had to make at the very top.

MacArthur disrupted very little. He was at the other end of the world at the far end of the logistical string using very little in the way of resources, especially shipping and naval support.

Every theatre commander pressed for more resources.

King is irrelevant, he had no say over Mac. Initially, King should have been busy enough trying to keep the merchies from burning off the Atlantic coast for him to complain about Mac.

Well he really showed a good touch with the Inchon Landings but then thought he could wipe the North Koreans & Chinese off the map. Oh dear ...

the commander of real forces, not 0s and 1s

Well put. It depends on whether you get your fun from maximizing 0s and 1s as a puzzle or from roleplaying the, uh, role.

(In Napoleonic table top miniatures campaigns one of my primary goals is to be able to justify what I did at the court martial that will follow our defeat.

"But Sire, Blucher ordered me to 'hold that ridge', not to 'support the troops on the plain to it's right' .")

ORIGINAL: Beezle

That, however, is the real life MacArthur, and WitP:AE is a game. And in the game, YOU control MacArthur; he has no "attitude", only "ability". Since the devs gave him pretty good ability, why waste him?

I role play the game a lot <G>

I defend Alaska with all units orignially assigned to the North Pacific command and have them consume supplies digging fortifications like mad "in case the Japanese come that way". I put lots of ASW patrols on the west coast of the US because people are always telling the San Francisco Call Bulletin they are sure they saw a Japanese sub off Ocean Beach.

And I "see" the historic Mac there opening his orders and reading that because he tried to muscle out Nimitz one time too many he is now assigned to supervising a construction unit in Nome (that will keep him out or the presidential contest!)

You have your fun and I have mine [:)]

Nimitz usually muscled MacArthur, not the other way around. Nimitz was a theatre commander and in command of the entire Pacific fleet. Mac was only a theatre commander; he wasn't in charge of all the USArmy troops in the Pacific. Any guess where most of Pac fleet operated? or the ratio of ships allocated between 3rd/5th fleet and 7th fleet?

ORIGINAL: Beezle


As a vs AI player I don't do that. I consume an enormous amount of shipping and of my own time making sure at regular intervals that the Pago Pago garrison doesn't go unsupplied.

Those of us pretending to be on Pago Pago 1942 thank you.

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
Like others have said, it's hardcoded in the game, but nothing stops you from sending him to command a BF in the middle of Australia if you like.

what could aussie base force personel ever have done to deserve a fate like that?

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

ORIGINAL: xj900uk
Like others have said, it's hardcoded in the game, but nothing stops you from sending him to command a BF in the middle of Australia if you like.

what could aussie base force personel ever have done to deserve a fate like that?

Actually, it is an attempt to get rid of him. Putting him with a bunch of Aussies in the middle of Australia is probably more dangerous than having him charge several Japanese machine guns without a bayonet.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Some of us PBEM players play that way as well. I try to think of myself as the commander of real forces, not 0s and 1s, so I try to do what I think would be done IRL. I think that my opponent plays the same way and in doing so we have had several years of very enjoyable gaming.

However I do draw the line at committing seppeku if I have to surrender! [:-]

Chez

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

So you're saying that MacArthur is immortal?

Actually, he just fades away... [:'(]

... and turns into a park that Richard Harris can sing about.
&nbsp;

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

... and turns into a park that Richard Harris can sing about.

He turns into a freeway in Oakland where it takes two hours to advance 2 miles.

(Local geography:

The east bay (SF Bay area) has two freeways. The one along the shore is "The Nimitz" and the one inland is "The MacArthur". Cute, huh?)

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

ORIGINAL: John Lansford




what could aussie base force personel ever have done to deserve a fate like that?

Actually, it is an attempt to get rid of him. Putting him with a bunch of Aussies in the middle of Australia is probably more dangerous than having him charge several Japanese machine guns without a bayonet.

Put Mac in a room between a group of thirsty Aussies and a kegger.

problem solved. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Put Mac in a room between a group of thirsty Aussies and a kegger.

problem solved. [:D]

Are there any other sort? [;)]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Why would anyone remove MacArthur?[&:]

Look at his stats: Leadership 71, Aggression 72. Pretty good, better than most Allied generls. Plus, it costs 200 PP to replace him.

Regardless of what one thinks of the RL MacArthur, this is a game, and in this game, MacArthur is a good leader. Leave him in command, you'll get good results.

Out of disgust at people who try to turn an entire world war into a photo-op to promote their own ego. Dislike of someone who claims all successes are entirely due to his own brilliance and all failures (like not taking Buna on a schedule he dreamed up) as due to the cowardice and ineptitude of the slobs out there actually doing the killing and dying.

Ever read what he wrote about Australian troops? He's about the only reference I know who describes Aussies as cowardly and lacking fighting spirit. Ever ask an (old) Aussie what they think of him?

It's the attitude that irks me, not the ability.

Even Rommel spoke good about this guys!

While its true that we gave Mac high ratings in skill and aggressiveness (because even contemporaries who hated his guts admitted that he was brilliant; and he was certainly one of the most aggressive US Army commanders in the Pacific), we tried to reflect his shortcomings (egomania, disdain for allies, mis-conduct of the PI campaign, unfairly blaming subordinates for not achieving his unrealistic expectations at Kokoda and Buna) with low inspiration and mediocre land combat ratings.

There are better US Generals than Mac, but not at start -- in 1941 and 1942 he is probably your best bet to command SWPAC.

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


While its true that we gave Mac high ratings in skill and aggressiveness (because even contemporaries who hated his guts admitted that he was brilliant; and he was certainly one of the most aggressive US Army commanders in the Pacific), we tried to reflect his shortcomings (egomania, disdain for allies, mis-conduct of the PI campaign, unfairly blaming subordinates for not achieving his unrealistic expectations at Kokoda and Buna) with low inspiration and mediocre land combat ratings.

There are better US Generals than Mac, but not at start -- in 1941 and 1942 he is probably your best bet to command SWPAC.

I do not substantially disagree with your assessment, save the fact that you didn't mention he accepted $500K from the President of the Philippenes for "defending" the country -- an offense that would have gotten any other officer court martialed. Oh, and he also received the Medal of Honor for poorly executing, and even poorer planning of, the defense of the Philippenes. Roosevelt and Marshal made the mistake of assuming that while America needed a hero, that America did not necessarily need a live one.

In the role as Allied Commander, the role one plays when playing WITPAE on the Allied side, it would seem within the bounds of reason that you could leave him to his fate on Corrigidor. Even if he has the best "numbers" and would logically be a good SWPAC commander, there is something just awful about it.

A few lines of code. Actually, probably a very few, would take WITPAE from a great game to cult status. When Corrigidor falls, a simple prompt to the Allied player, a boolean decision: Evacuate McArthur? 1) Yes, 2) No.

Regards,
Feltan