OOB Marine Corps - why no Okinawa Scenario?

[kverdon]

I played through OOB Marine Corps again, and despite my issues with some of the Scenarios, the biggest to me was the omission of Okinawa from the DLC. Why not include the "Typhoone of Steel" as the epic conclusion to the DLC? If would be a grand fight that would be An Epic Final battle for your Corps. The land battle would be grueling and you could add in some Picket Destroyers or other Naval units to defend from Kamikazi attacks for your air units. I just don't understand why this was omitted??? If you were to resubmit OOB Marine Corps again and include Okinawa, I'd gladly repurchase it.

[GiveWarAchance]

You are right it should be the final battle.
But they made two American campaigns for Pacific and the US Army campaign has Okinawa. It is a selling point to avoid repeating the same battle in two DLCs.
If it were me designing it, I would have Okinawa in both campaigns, but it would be fairly different in each. Okinawa was a very big battle with many parts so there is ample room for creativity.

[kondi754]

I played through OOB Marine Corps again, and despite my issues with some of the Scenarios, the biggest to me was the omission of Okinawa from the DLC. Why not include the "Typhoone of Steel" as the epic conclusion to the DLC? If would be a grand fight that would be An Epic Final battle for your Corps. The land battle would be grueling and you could add in some Picket Destroyers or other Naval units to defend from Kamikazi attacks for your air units. I just don't understand why this was omitted??? If you were to resubmit OOB Marine Corps again and include Okinawa, I'd gladly repurchase it.

There is already Okinawa Scn in the US Pacific Main Campaign.

[VKing23]

And a Guadalcanal scenario is featured in both the US Pacific and the Marines campaign. They differ in terms of Victory Goals, Starting Points, Map and Unit Mixture. The same could have been done with Okinawa.

[kondi754]

Maybe the point is, there must be the operations, in which USMC participated exclusively.
Okinawa's forces were composed of the US Army and US Marines 50/50.

But it's probably a bad argument, because US Army units also fought at Guadalcanal and Solomon Islands (where they were in the minority).

[Erik2]

Maybe the point is, there must be the operations, in which USMC participated exclusively.
Okinawa's forces were composed of the US Army and US Marines 50/50.

So one scenario could use teh Marine core and the other the regular army core.
There would have to be other significant differences to make them stand apart though.

[GiveWarAchance]

Maybe the point is, there must be the operations, in which USMC participated exclusively.
Okinawa's forces were composed of the US Army and US Marines 50/50.

But it's probably a bad argument, because US Army units also fought at Guadalcanal and Solomon Islands (where they were in the minority).

So in an awkward way you are supporting the idea of including Okinawa in the marines campaign.

[kondi754]

Maybe the point is, there must be the operations, in which USMC participated exclusively.
Okinawa's forces were composed of the US Army and US Marines 50/50.

But it's probably a bad argument, because US Army units also fought at Guadalcanal and Solomon Islands (where they were in the minority).

So in an awkward way you are supporting the idea of including Okinawa in the marines campaign.

It doesn't matter, because I think it's unrealistic.

[GiveWarAchance]

Maybe the point is, there must be the operations, in which USMC participated exclusively.
Okinawa's forces were composed of the US Army and US Marines 50/50.

But it's probably a bad argument, because US Army units also fought at Guadalcanal and Solomon Islands (where they were in the minority).

So in an awkward way you are supporting the idea of including Okinawa in the marines campaign.

It doesn't matter, because I think it's unrealistic.

There was 1st, 2nd, and 6th marine divisions in the battle of Okinawa so that's almost all the marine corps in one battle. How is it unrealistic?

[kondi754]

It is unrealistic that developers will add anything to an old campaign.

[kverdon]

Yes it is true that it is unrealistic to expect the devs to correct any of their deficiencies in OOB, but there is perhaps hope that some of the talented Mod community could add it in. I just don't get the developers of this game. They come close to really getting it right at times and then fumble in the red zone. Pretty much like watching the Falcons in the recent Super Bowl.

Where I give them fault is in their scenario design. Some are just fine but other are just flawed and in many cases just don't make sense. (this has been beaten to death in the OOB Blitzkrieg threads) Even in OOB Pacific and Marine Corps some of the unit allocation and victory conditions don't make sense. It is almost like the devs come up with the idea for an scenario and then when the game engine does not work with it, instead of tweaking the game engine, they create artificial scenario conditions to try to make it challenging. Instead of challenging, it leads to player frustration. Some examples in OOB Pacific:

OOB Pacific: The Pearl Harbor Scenario. This is a "Golden Bullet" scenario if there every was one. There is no way without repeated play to figure out the exact combination of moves of the medical jeep and the AA guns to achieve the arbitrary secondary victory conditions. I would have to replay it but the Scenario with the Kamikaze attacks is another one where they arbitrarily lowered the strength points of the supply ships to make them more susceptible to being "One-Shotted".

OOB Marine Corps: Guadalcanal. Ok you start with the invasion of Tulagi and Florida Island, which, historically were smaller actions than the main invasion of Guadalcanal. However, on the next scenario, Guadalcanal, you only get to deploy a fraction of the force you used to take Florida and Tulagi. This makes no sense. The other glaring flaw in this scenario is where you are tasked with defending the construction battalions. One of the Construction units is located right on the front lines so it will get attacked on the first turn instead of where it SHOULD be, near Henderson Field. Maybe some on the design team watched John Wayne in the "Fighting Seabees" one too many times? Then there is Henderson Field. Henderson was the bane of IJN units in the Solomon area for most of the Campaign. Avoiding the attack aircraft there, or trying to destroy them, shaped their strategy. However in the Scenario, due to the constraints of the Air-To-Air mechanics and the secondary victory condition to shoot down x enemy planes, you MUST base 2 fighter units there. You cannot obtain that objective with just a fighter and dive/torpedo bomber. By the time Henderson opens up to greater than 6 air points, it is a moot point. Henderson should have a 9 point value to start with. The rest of OOB Marine Corps is ok with the newer updates but it should have included Okinawa. When you hit Iwo, your corps just hits it's stride and then its over. It would have been nice to have one last epic battle to use your fully updated Corps to their fullest in a final Epic Battle.