Question Re Red, Blue and Green OOBs

[Mobhack]

I was wondering does anybody actually use these generic OOBS at all?

They were set up do those who wanted to could say, roll thier own army for WW2 with a bit of mobhacking.

But if nobody ever has used them then they may be more useful for other things.

Like Blue-> special DAK subset of German OOB for Desert+Tunisia
Green -> ?

(Red is I think useful for Balkan groups versus each other already. Serbs vs Chetniks)

Andy

[Cross]

Andy,

I'm not certain, but I don't specifically recall anyone using the generic OOB.

Is the idea to free up some of the German OOB (which have about 990 out of 1000 used) or just to add a German North Africa OOB?

I guess the DAK would be similar to the USMC who have their own OOB. Sounds like a good idea.

As for 'Green', I know a few New Zealanders and Australians who would love to have their own OOB. Even if the OOB were almost identical, it's more a matter of national identity.

Cross

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by Cross

Andy,

I'm not certain, but I don't specifically recall anyone using the generic OOB.

Is the idea to free up some of the German OOB (which have about 990 out of 1000 used) or just to add a German North Africa OOB?

I guess the DAK would be similar to the USMC who have their own OOB. Sounds like a good idea.

As for 'Green', I know a few New Zealanders and Australians who would love to have their own OOB. Even if the OOB were almost identical, it's more a matter of national identity.

Cross

The idea of a DAK OOB is not to free up German OOB units, but to give a completely new sub-OOB (one could then add the elite Italian forces associated with them perhaps - ARIETE division and so forth, with better base stats).

Germany would be difficult to untangle, so the base OOB would be left alone - e.g. for those who want to progress after the DAK goes into the bag at Tunisia.

ANZAC is a small enough OOB and scenario set, that the Kiwis could be split off (Existing scenarios, AI pick list, extracting the batlocs from the existing ANZAC mixture). Oz could remain as the same OOB ID, renamed and re-flagged.

South Africa might be a worthwhile addition, too. None of the other Commonwealth countries really need splitting off as they are too small, and can remain subsumed in the UK or Indian OOBs.

Bolivia and Paraguay 30-35 might be worth incorporating (this is an outside chance!) - but they did fight for 5 years in the Chaco war. There were even 3 Vickers 6 ton tanks used there.

Brazil, Portugal and so on - those who did send some troops to aid the Allies in Italy in the last few months, probably do not justify their own OOBs. if required, then they can be as scenarios using the USA OOB as usually re-equipped with Allied weaponry. I am not really sure if these nation's expeditionary forces justify the hassle of maintaining a full OOB.

Mongolia did have its own forces - but they acted as an adjunct of the Red army. Probably can remain subsumed in same.

Same goes for the various Chinese warlords - the Nationalist China OOB does for them really.

Ethiopia/Abyssinia is probably worth an addition as they fought the Italians for quite a while though.

Denmark is another not worth doing as an OOB - they capitulated (sensibly) with no significant fighting. Any OOB for them would really be a "what if".

Red will be left as-is to cover the various Balkan nations (including Albania).

The various little Baltic countries like Latvia, Estonia and so on really only provided auxiliary troops to major players, so not worth their own OOBs.

I cannot really think of any nations that actually participated in WW2, or fought a 'real' war 1930-46 that we have missed. But someone out there may know of a real conflict that we have not covered in that time frame?.

"What if" nations are a different case, but I am not really interested in those. So no "what if Eire joined with the Axis" or "What if Hitler invaded Switzerland" stuff.

Cheers
Andy

[TonyE]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

I cannot really think of any nations that actually participated in WW2, or fought a 'real' war 1930-46 that we have missed. But someone out there may know of a real conflict that we have not covered in that time frame?.

The Peruvian-Ecuadorian war of 1941 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador...93Peruvian_War

Involved airpower, paratroops and tanks...and yes i`m really, really digging deep with this one.

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Originally Posted by TonyE

The Peruvian-Ecuadorian war of 1941 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecuador...93Peruvian_War

Involved airpower, paratroops and tanks...and yes i`m really, really digging deep with this one.

I once played a battle trying to play this same war...

[Tarasque]

Hello everyone, if the boss need them i need them so i fully support Tony the E on that one.
Ecuadorian by the way.

[TDR]

Originally Posted by Mobhack

[
ANZAC is a small enough OOB and scenario set, that the Kiwis could be split off (Existing scenarios, AI pick list, extracting the batlocs from the existing ANZAC mixture). Oz could remain as the same OOB ID, renamed and re-flagged.

Cheers
Andy

That sounds like a nice idea. It would avoid a lot of incorrect mixing post the Aust departure from the ME war zone.
It would allow a bit more detail re the 1st Aust Armoured Div, yes there was one, also the Motor Regts.

[DRG]

Bolivia and Paraguay 30-35 might be worth incorporating (this is an outside chance!) - but they did fight for 5 years in the Chaco war. There were even 3 Vickers 6 ton tanks used there.

Wow... three tanks

OK.. how many people actually play infantry heavy games ?? ( seriously. if you like to PBEM or solo mainly infantry.. let us know )

HOW MANY PEOPLE BOTHER WITH SPANISH CIVIL WAR BATTLES ?? I'll bet less than 2% of the players have bothered and, IMHO the only thing adding Bolivia and Paraguay to the game would give us is bragging rights to say we are the only wargame ever to do so.

My 2 cents.

Don

[Mobhack]

Originally Posted by DRG

Wow... three tanks

OK.. how many people actually play infantry heavy games ?? ( seriously. if you like to PBEM or solo mainly infantry.. let us know )

HOW MANY PEOPLE BOTHER WITH SPANISH CIVIL WAR BATTLES ?? I'll bet less than 2% of the players have bothered and, IMHO the only thing adding Bolivia and Paraguay to the game would give us is bragging rights to say we are the only wargame ever to do so.

My 2 cents.

Don

Pretty much my thoughts on the matter - I had never heard of that not so little war till I was browsing wackypedia the other day. So I just chucked in as a debating point.

Andy

[wulfir]

Originally Posted by DRG

OK.. how many people actually play infantry heavy games ?? ( seriously. if you like to PBEM or solo mainly infantry.. let us know )

I do.

In PBEM I like to buy 'realistic' forces, and have played several games with combinations of infantry/artillery/cavalry - particulary as Poland 1939 (bit of a favourite of mine) - in those games for the most part my opponents have brought an enitre Panzer Divisions allotment of Panzer IV tanks and something like Germany's entire 1939 fleet of Sdkfz 251 halftracks to the show.

Expensive tanks and half-tracks can however become a liability as you will be outnumbered by cheap leg units. An important drawback with leg infantry on big maps is the number of turns in your typical PBEM game might not be enough to both battle a mech force and advance (assuming it is a meeting engagement).