Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ability?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ability?

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 >> Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ability?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat abil... - 10/18/2016 5:06:00 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

A lot of you guys are vets and/or buffs of this historical period, so I'm sure my question can be answered with total finality but . . .

Is it realistic that SO MANY of the LCUs in this game (I guess it was true of WitP and WPO as well) have effectively ZERO combat ability?

Lets take for example a "Naval HQ," which someone else posted an image of in another recent thread:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mussey

Thanks, I had to take a break to eat some Honey Badger Stew ().

Anyway, here's a screenshot of the 7th US Fleet. Note, no Naval Support squads. Should it have? I'm playing the Beta Ironman using v1.7.11.25.10

So, no attached Military Police? No token security detail? Nothing? Not even the equivalent of one "squad?" (if this was _actually how all sides organized their headquarters units, then I would have thought that targeted-assassination commando-paratrooper attacks would have been more common!?

)

I find it hard to believe that ANY LCU has literally zero ability to shoot with the small arms that approximate about one squad of infantry. Should not pretty much ALL LCUs (maybe not exactly_all_ but pretty near) have at least the equivalent of one or maybe half a squad of "Assault Value" so that "1" is the lowest value for "Assault Strength" instead of "zero?"

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 10/18/2016 5:13:02 PM >

_____________________________

The x-ray is her siren song. My ship cannot resist her long. Nearer to my deadly goal. Until the black hole. Gains control...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkIIlkyZ328&feature=autoplay&list=AL94UKMTqg-9CocLGbd6tpbuQRxyF4FGNr&playnext=3

Post #: 1

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 5:51:52 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

On the Allied side Command HQs were rear area units that would be accommodated on a fairly large base. The BF would be responsible for the MPs and security forces.
Front line HQs often had a protective company assigned from one of their sub-units,

In-game, LCUs with no combat-capable squads are given a combat value of 1 when they are engaged in combat. This reflects a few officers with handguns and clerks tossing typewriters and shooting elastics. HQs often escape under cover of the smokescreen of burning paperwork.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 2

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 6:04:26 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

On the Allied side Command HQs were rear area units that would be accommodated on a fairly large base. The BF would be responsible for the MPs and security forces.
Front line HQs often had a protective company assigned from one of their sub-units,

In-game, LCUs with no combat-capable squads are given a combat value of 1 when they are engaged in combat. This reflects a few officers with handguns and clerks tossing typewriters and shooting elastics. HQs often escape under cover of the smokescreen of burning paperwork.

Ah, so the designers already took my suggestion . . . awesome my work here is done.

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 3

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 6:20:04 PM

BillBrown

Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

These types of units do not have an Attack AV but they do have a 1/10 Defensive AV.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 4

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 6:21:39 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

These types of units do not have an Attack AV but they do have a 1/10 Defensive AV.

Sweet! I knew there be a simple explanation for this question!

_____________________________

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 5

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 6:24:37 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

These types of units do not have an Attack AV but they do have a 1/10 Defensive AV.

Right - I didn't specify it but I certainly did not mean an Attack AV. As for the 1/10th figure, for units with 0 AV that should be "0", but I always see them get 1 point per unit - e.g. when I attack an enemy stack that has only an HQ, an AA unit and an artillery unit, the raw AV of the enemy is 3 - one for each unit.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 6

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 8:49:18 PM

pmelheck1

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline

I am retired Air Force and was maintenance. So It seems I was one of the aviation support types depicted in game. In all the units I was in we were considered non combatants. I fired a weapon exactly twice in twenty years. In the advent of the base being over run we would have drawn small arms and put up what fight we could. We were only intended to attempt to slow the enemy not stop him or turn him back. And I also had the attitude that if I was to die it would be standing with a weapon in my hand and fighting to the best of my ability which was admittedly awful but I could at least throw lead in the direction of the enemy. We were focused only on getting planes in the air and turning them around when they returned. We most valuable place was working on aircraft or back shop systems in my case. We had dedicated security forces that were dedicated to securing the base including ground combat. However most of us looked to the army for ground combat and didn't think the security folks couldn't hold up as well as full on ground combat units. Security was awesome for base security and maintaining order but if armor or infantry rolled up we would have been very concerned that our SP's would have been nothing more that a barely noticed bump on entering the base.

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 7

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 9:26:59 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

I'm sure you were manning your grease gun with considerable aplomb.

I meant this kind, not the M3.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 10/18/2016 9:30:04 PM >

(in reply to pmelheck1)

Post #: 8

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 9:38:55 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

I am retired Air Force and was maintenance. So It seems I was one of the aviation support types depicted in game. In all the units I was in we were considered non combatants. I fired a weapon exactly twice in twenty years. In the advent of the base being over run we would have drawn small arms and put up what fight we could. We were only intended to attempt to slow the enemy not stop him or turn him back. And I also had the attitude that if I was to die it would be standing with a weapon in my hand and fighting to the best of my ability which was admittedly awful but I could at least throw lead in the direction of the enemy. We were focused only on getting planes in the air and turning them around when they returned. We most valuable place was working on aircraft or back shop systems in my case. We had dedicated security forces that were dedicated to securing the base including ground combat. However most of us looked to the army for ground combat and didn't think the security folks couldn't hold up as well as full on ground combat units. Security was awesome for base security and maintaining order but if armor or infantry rolled up we would have been very concerned that our SP's would have been nothing more that a barely noticed bump on entering the base.

Interesting! So a "1" defensive AV for these groups _IS_ quite realistic!

_____________________________

(in reply to pmelheck1)

Post #: 9

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 9:56:58 PM

pmelheck1

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline

This is what I'm more used to rather than a grease gun

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by mullk -- 10/18/2016 9:58:03 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 10

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 9:59:39 PM

pmelheck1

Posts: 610
Joined: 4/3/2003
From: Alabama
Status: offline

I would think it was quite generous

An HQ unit would have a bunch of folks sitting at desks. Not much fighting capability but if the enemy needed a regulation quoted they are right on top of that

< Message edited by mullk -- 10/18/2016 10:02:05 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 11

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/18/2016 10:16:32 PM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mullk

I would think it was quite generous An HQ unit would have a bunch of folks sitting at desks. Not much fighting capability but if the enemy needed a regulation quoted they are right on top of that

Well . . . given the choices were probably between (i) 0 for offensive AV AND 0 for defensive AV, versus (ii) 0 for offensive and 1 for defensive; and further that (iii) even a very lightly armed "combat engineering company might have an offensive AV of 9 or 10; and (iv) it only seems to take about 17 infantry soldiers to equal "1" point of offensive assault value (the smallest fragment with a "1" AV i can find in my current play as Japan) . . . given effectively _all_ "non-combat" LCU a defensive strength of at least one seems fair enough.

I mean hecque, with enough typewriters, paper airplanesa and elastic-launched paperclips coming your way, could be about equal to a dozen guys with rifles . . .

_____________________________

(in reply to pmelheck1)

Post #: 12

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:05:06 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

I think that thing that mullk showed would be more effective than a thrown typewriter. I've got a Royal from about that era and I don't think it would do half the damage.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 13

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:05:48 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

These are the 'rear area' guys. They don't fight, and most front line guys wouldn't want them there in the first place. Lest they get the true grunts killed.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 14

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:08:07 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

These are the 'rear area' guys. They don't fight, and most front line guys wouldn't want them there in the first place. Lest they get the true grunts killed.

they might if they were handing out ice cream cones or were girls doing whatever.

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 15

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:26:55 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

These are the 'rear area' guys. They don't fight, and most front line guys wouldn't want them there in the first place. Lest they get the true grunts killed.

they might if they were handing out ice cream cones or were girls doing whatever.

Please honey, not while I'm being shot at.

P.S. Unless the 'honey' is why I'm being shot at.

Its like I always say... "Guns don't kill people... husbands that come home early do."

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 16

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:31:17 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

These are the 'rear area' guys. They don't fight, and most front line guys wouldn't want them there in the first place. Lest they get the true grunts killed.

Knowing they all get a "1" AV for defense, I'm happy! That seems perfectly legit.

I suppose an argument could be made that a "support" unit with more personnel could get a bit more than just "1" (maybe 1.2?) but then . . . would there be any real difference in getting 3,000 typewriters thrown at you versus 300?

Speaking of 300 . . .
Themistocles: the pen (or arrow) are stronger than the sword?

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 17

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:37:28 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

These are the 'rear area' guys. They don't fight, and most front line guys wouldn't want them there in the first place. Lest they get the true grunts killed.

Knowing they all get a "1" AV for defense, I'm happy! That seems perfectly legit.

I suppose an argument could be made that a "support" unit with more personnel could get a bit more than just "1" (maybe 1.2?) but then . . . would there be any real difference in getting 3,000 typewriters thrown at you versus 300?

Speaking of 300 . . .
Themistocles: the pen (or arrow) are stronger than the sword?

Well they have more combat power, just not an AV (assault value). They are number of devices /10. So the larger they are, the more 'combat power' they'll have to defend.

_____________________________

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 18

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:43:27 AM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

If I recall correctly, something like 90% of all troops deployed to the Pacific, never saw combat....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 19

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:44:50 AM

MakeeLearn

Posts: 4278
Joined: 9/11/2016
Status: offline

Is this true even for the Marines, or is it more than 1 for Marines. Will have to check next time.

It seems that you would only want everyone on the line in defense. There are still noncombat duties that have to be carried out.

quote:

rustysi

Well they have more combat power, just not an AV (assault value). They are number of devices /10. So the larger they are, the more 'combat power' they'll have to defend.

was thinking along those lines about that.

< Message edited by MakeeLearn -- 10/19/2016 12:57:27 AM >

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 20

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 12:54:41 AM

Anthropoid

Posts: 3107
Joined: 2/22/2005
From: Secret Underground Lair
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

These are the 'rear area' guys. They don't fight, and most front line guys wouldn't want them there in the first place. Lest they get the true grunts killed.

Knowing they all get a "1" AV for defense, I'm happy! That seems perfectly legit.

I suppose an argument could be made that a "support" unit with more personnel could get a bit more than just "1" (maybe 1.2?) but then . . . would there be any real difference in getting 3,000 typewriters thrown at you versus 300?

Speaking of 300 . . .
Themistocles: the pen (or arrow) are stronger than the sword?

Well they have more combat power, just not an AV (assault value). They are number of devices /10. So the larger they are, the more 'combat power' they'll have to defend.

Okay, joking aside . . . "combat power" is this a real concept in the game? I was not aware that there was such a thing. A search of that exact string in the manual turns up a couple hits only, all in the section of the manual detailing how the various movement modes, i.e., this might simply be a 'generic term' the manual writers used and which does not represent any additional variable relative to "assault value."

The latter exact string, shows up dozens of times throughout the manual.

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to clarify: are you saying that an HQ unit with 3000 personnel gets more "value" of some sort in combat than an identical HQ unit with only 300 personnel?

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

If I recall correctly, something like 90% of all troops deployed to the Pacific, never saw combat....GP

Damn! If that is true, it is incredible that combat troops did not have even more disdain for HindQuarters and other "Rear Area" troops!? General insubordination, or more severe forms like fragging were never really issues for Yank or Japanese troops, eh (not sure about other nations, but wouldn't think it was ever an issue except perhaps among Chinese, where understandably the factionalism led to a general failure to coordinate)?

< Message edited by Anthropoid -- 10/19/2016 12:58:01 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 21

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 1:13:39 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

"combat power"

Just an expression, don't be so literal.

quote:

3000 personnel gets more "value" of some sort in combat than an identical HQ unit with only 300 personnel?

The term for the game would be devices. So yes a unit of 3000 devices would have a 'defense value' of 300. One of 300 devices would defend with 30.

_____________________________

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 22

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 1:15:03 AM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

If I recall correctly, something like 90% of all troops deployed to the Pacific, never saw combat....GP

Yup, it took about 10 support people of all types to keep one dude in combat.

_____________________________

(in reply to btd64)

Post #: 23

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 3:27:21 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

These are the 'rear area' guys. They don't fight, and most front line guys wouldn't want them there in the first place. Lest they get the true grunts killed.

Knowing they all get a "1" AV for defense, I'm happy! That seems perfectly legit.

I suppose an argument could be made that a "support" unit with more personnel could get a bit more than just "1" (maybe 1.2?) but then . . . would there be any real difference in getting 3,000 typewriters thrown at you versus 300?

Speaking of 300 . . .
Themistocles: the pen (or arrow) are stronger than the sword?

All joking is never aside when I'm around. Think about the movie "The Final Countdown". Then think about the IBM Selectric. With one of those puppies (they had power cords) you could garotte some poor Jap.

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 24

RE: Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ... - 10/19/2016 8:30:15 AM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

Seriously, I have found it really hard to eliminate HQ units unless they are trapped first - they tend to run away! So on your issue of the 3000 man HQ and the 300 man HQ, they both get one point of AV in defence but the bigger unit takes longer to eliminate so it is not necessary to give it more AV.

BTW - for combat squads you need 13 men but for support squads only 10 men. I think engineer squads are 12 men.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Anthropoid)

Post #: 25

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Is it Realistic that So Many LCUs have ZERO combat ability?

Page: [1]