Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

 
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: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/12/2008 1:17:27 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
We are working on a solution to this I have an idea but it will take time to see whether its possible to code

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 481
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 1:29:31 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Hmmm well after getting knocked out of my poker clubs tourney 1st QQ v J4 he hit two pairs - how the hell he called me I will never know

I came home and started work on Indian Divs again just to give a flavour there are 8 different starting configurations each with there own upgrade path just for Indian Divs - each one has 1 or 2 upgrades and 1 (17th Indian) has 3.

I now HATE Australian Light Horse units AND Indian Infantry Divisions

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 482
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 11:42:58 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Will there be any penalty for them to jump from base to base during those early months which often happens now (most are probably done with little to no prep points)??



Andy basically answered your question, but if I may add a few points here:

There are not that many units available for Japan in the AE to jump from base to base during the early months (and less shipping that is suited for this task - but this is basically a Naval Team thingy).

Eventually Japan will receive (many) more units than in stock (and Japan will need them just to adequately garrison all the new bases), but there were many errors in the WITP OOB, especially when it comes to IJN LCU's (double-counting of units, units being available far too early, units being too strong etc.).

For example, SNLF's (there are no NLF's anymore) should still do well against weak Allied units (Philippine units, Dutch units, some CW units), but it will not be enough to drop some SNLF's to dislodge a US RCT or a NZ Brigade anymore. For this tasks, Japan will need some IJA units with their heavier equipment.




Query No 1: What about Combined SLNF's? [These are approximately two SNLF's with a few attachments, mainly a light or later amphibious tank company, and some support]

Query No 2: What about Naval Guard Forces and Special Naval Guard Forces? NLF's presumaly represented landing parties drawn from ship's crews - and for example one of these took Zamboanga from a company of Philippine Army - supported by a single light tank. But they were ad hoc units. NGF and SNGF were not.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 483
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 11:55:51 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

2. I agree its one of the solutions we are playing with but it depends on prioritisation



Just did some quick numbers all based on Stock, Scenario 15 to prove my point. Obviously all these values and dates are going to change w/ AE, but if left unchanged, the problem will still exist.

The last version of the USMC Rifle and Engineer Squads show up in December of 1943 (again this is stock). If you assume that both the 5th and 6th Marine Divisions which arrive after that point use the most current squad types, that means that the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Marine Divisions will need to upgrade to the new squad types. Stock TO&E puts a full strength Marine division at 297 rifle and 121 engineer squads. The build rate for Dec 43 Marine rifle squad is 54, and for Dec 43 Marine Engineer squad is 21.

That means that it will take 23 MONTHS TO UPDATE THE CURRENT MARINE DIVISIONS TO THE NEW TYPE!!! And this is assuming no losses during this time. They will all complete upgrading right before the war ends.

Math - 4 Marine divisions
297 Rifle * 4 = 1188 rifle squads / 54 rifle squads/month = 22 months
121 Engineer * 4 = 484 engineer squads / 21 engineer squads/month = 23 months

As I stated above, that does not make sense. This makes sense if you were rebuilding four full strength Marine divisions. But all you are doing is issuing new weapons, not new men. This is obviously not the case with devise driven material such as tanks, AAA guns, CD guns, artillery and so on.

Marines were limited. Thier small arms were not.



There is another dimension to this.

Because code gives so much weight to squad count,

and because different armies use different concepts of what makes a tactical maneuver element,

it turns out that the stock form of formations (which most mods retain) does not represent the relative combat power of a organization compared with the historical form nominally represented.

In the beginning, that is, before WWII, a squad was a single tactical maneuver unit, and by WWII most first line squads had an LMG (or some functional equivelant, like an SMG). But during WWII things began to change, and eventually the US Army went over to a system (still used) of two "fire teams" per squad, while the Marines went over to three "fire teams" per squad - all usually formed around a single LMG - all with an NCO (in the USMC this would be a "lance corporal" while the squad itself would be led by a "corporal" and a platoon would get both a "sergeant" and a leiutenant.
On the other side, the IJA had evolved a system somewhat similar to the US Army - insofar as there were two "fire teams" per squad - but only one of these had an LMG. The other was an "anti-tank team" - and it MIGHT have an anti-tank rifle - or more often other AT weapons - which it would generally NOT use in the daytime. While the US Army would rest at night, the IJA would sent its AT teams forward to attack - and if possible seek out and destroy enemy tanks (while they were unmanned, unmaneuvering, and not defended by infantry in the sense they were in daylight). Representing this is difficult in our system - and one team per squad might be best - but something should be done to make it more aggressive at night (less fatigue representing the alternate teams?). Many colonial, Chinese and militia forces had only one fire team per squad. Except for the problem of the IJA system, I think the way to model this using current code is to rename "squad" as "fire team" - and for the IJA a partial solution is - where they were issued - give them separate ATG teams.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 484
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 12:06:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

But apparently the CD defenses controlling Manila Bay are still split between the Bataan hex and the Manile hex?


Yes. There's no easy answer for this.

In the actual war, if the Japanese captured Bataan while the Allies dug in to Manila, the harbor forts would still have prevented the Japanese fleet from sailing into Manila Bay. So we can't have all the CD defenses in Bataan.

Splitting the CD defenses seems to be the "least bad" option.



There were several different CD elements - they were indeed in both hexes - and many were on islands.

The game sometimes has a hex change which side controls it but NOT eliminate all the losing side's units. I think it can be arranged so that CD units have a better chance of surviving - and ideally long surviving the change of control of the hex itself. They still context enemy ships entering the hex.

The problem has two dimensions:

Primo: the way supply (almost always) works - supplies in a unit are dumped into the hex supply pool - and then the unit starts losing squads. The algorithm discriminates against low squad count devices, so if you have (say) 2 or 4 twelve or fourteen inch guns - you are likely to lose ALL of these - and be left with a few other devices of no significance - like support. But at least ONE unit retains its supply - it appears to be hard code in the slot - and if that unit is a CD unit its big guns survive long. I would like to see that sort of hard code in major CD unit slots, AND a change so that the chance a device is disabled by supply loss is inversely proportional to load cost - so big guns tend to give out last (as at Fort Drum).

Secundo: there is no easy way to "harden" a CD unit - so a mobile thing with pads or wheels is treated the same way as a major fort with vast layers of concrete and earth barriers. One can add "forts" to a unit - but these seem to do little to help the devices survive. One can put armor on the devics, but this should be turret face armor - and not some abstract thing. It should be possible to modify code so a CD unit with "forts" is harder to disable and more likely to survive even if the hex control has changed sides. The unit then exists only on internal supplies left when the hex fell. Only when these are exhausted is the unit at grave risk of falling apart.

The slot which seems to be hard coded so whatever unit is in it retains supplies is 2125 - the 105th USN Oahu Base Fort in stock and CHS.

Query: have the major IJA CD units - a brigade each - on Tsushima, Iki and at Pusan - been added? These each had a pair of 16 inch naval guns in Army turrets - and many smaller weapons - supported by infantry, engineers, etc. There were also major CD units with smaller guns (but the same turrets mounting 8, 10 and 12 inch tubes - all with ten inches face armor) - and more numerous guns - at Tokyo Bay and the straits between Honshu and Hokkaido (Tsugaru) and Honshu and Kyushu.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/13/2008 12:14:31 PM >

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 485
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 12:26:38 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
There is a new book - Australian Special Forces - and it appears that small forces - small enough to be delived by submarine on occasion - were a factor later in the war. And farther afield than I would have imagined. Similarly, an older book, The Alamo Scouts, indicates the US used such forces with effect in the MarArthur area. [They were modeled on the Eskimo Scouts, who during the war were special recon elements: today two different kinds of units claim their liniage: Alaska National Guard claimed all but one of its battalions were "Eskimo Scouts" until they were required to reform as support battalions - but a few small elements were retained anyway; The Alaska State Defense Force - which stills wears the ATG (Alaska Territorial Guard) patch - claims its three light infantry battalions are also of the same liniage (a fourth battalion - newly formed up - is Military Police).] The Aleutians campaign involved a lot of learning - including why you should NOT send in a landing without current assets on island. In a strange battle, US and Canadian forces landed on opposite ends of a valley - but the enemy was not present - so when they met - in the near perpetual fog of the area - they engaged each other - somewhat vigorously! The other big land battle didn't go so badly - because the enemy was actually there - although they did spook us by a kamakaze charge at the end that nearly overran a firebase.
The engine seems to work well if you put ANY small unit in the hex - you get good intel.


I did some follow-up research on the Alamo and Eskimo Scouts. The Alamo Scouts were the brainchild of LTG Krueger. He called them "Alamo Scouts" because he was a proud Texan.They reported directly to him as an "Army" level asset. Their total strength never exceeded 127 men, and they deployed in 'teams' of a dozen men or less to conduct raids and recon. The Alamo Scouts are too small to include as a separate unit in WitP-AE, especially in 1944.

The Alaskan Territorial Guard, aka "Eskimo Scouts" was a collection of unpaid, all-volunteer Alaskans who patrolled the long, sparsely populated coastline in their spare time looking for Japanese scouting parties, and searching for survivors of not-infrequent US airplane crashes. There were over 6,000 of these folks, led by a permanent military staff of 21 people, commanded by a US Army Major.

The Eskimo Scouts were basically "Coastwatchers on Ice". Wikipedia has a nice article on them. To represent the capabilities of the Eskimo Scouts I will see if we can add a "coastwatcher" capability to Alaskan bases in WitP-AE in a patch, if it is not already incorporated.

MG Buckner formed another special recon unit, the "Alaskan Scouts", later formalized as the 1st Combat Intelligence Platoon (Provisional). These were local rugged outdoorsmen who conducted recon and guided US landings in the Aleutians. This group was analagous to the Alamo Scouts, and like them, is too small to make an independent appearance in WitP-AE.




It is more complicated than this. More than 20,000 served in the Alaska Territorial Guard (not bad for a territory with 30,000 natives and 10,000 non-natives) - mainly because almost all adult women served in addition to men (a fact only recognized formally by the US Army in 1968, at a ceremony at Fort Richardson). There were three battalions of light infantry formed during the war (1, 2 and 3 ATG). The Alaska National Guard was called to before the war began - and did security duty in the early part of the war at Fort Richardson - but later went to California to train infantry replacements. There were also detachments - usually squad size - at coastal villages - and these served in the roles described above - mainly coastwatching and SAR and host/scouting for anyone who had to enter the area. [Alaska is unbelievably hostile - like Central Africa or Northern South America - it will kill you without mercy if you are ignorant - so a native guide - who need not be native - is quite important. You are considered "cheechakao" for a year - by which time you know better than to walk on tide flats, or whatever (no one has ever survived the quicksand in Turnigan Arm - it won't let you go - and within hours a bore tide will end your struggle). Tease a moose and he will kill you - with a single kick - and probably not be particularly impressed by the experience.] Wholly apart from these organizations were the Eskimo Scouts - which still exist - and whose history was long honored by the post war ANG battalions (whose names were like "2nd Battalion, Eskimo Scouts, ANG") until the ANG was forced to reform as support battalions in the 1990s - and even then selected companies of Scouts were retained. In the 1980s the Alaska State Defense Force reformed, and adopted as its formal uniform the ATG insignia (for Alaska Territorial Guard) - also imitating perfectly the ATG line organization (three light infantry battalions). When the DOD asked states to reform as MPs, Alaska demurred, and kept the three infantry formations, but also formed a 4th battalion of MPs. The history of the ATG is in Soldiers of the Mists. The history of all units in Alaska during WWII is in a four volume set The Forgotten War - and to a less photogenic extent - in The Thousand Mile War.

The first ANG battalion was formally the 297th Infantry Battalion.

The first battalion ATG formed in SE Alaska from about 430301 - including a company at Chilicoot Barrocks (Hanes/Skagway on the RHS map) - one at Juneau and one at Sitka. The reformed ASDF/ATG retains this organization.
The second battalion ATG formed at Anchorage Alaska from about 430101. The reformed ASDF/ATG retains this organization.
The third battalion ATG formed at Bethel Alaska from about 421201. The reformed ASDF/ATG moved this unit to Fairbanks.

The wartime significance of the Aleutian campaign was that it was where we learned things like why you want recon before you go in. One horrible "battle" occurred between US and Canadian troops! Because we did NOT know the IJA had evacuated. [We landed on opposite ends of a valley - L in shape - both advancing to contact - and in the mist - each assumed the contacted force was the enemy. The fighting was hard and continued until it got very close - when it was found we were both speaking English!] The Scouts job was to determine who/what was there just before we went in. This is indeed best done by small teams - and in the Viet Nam era a US Army recon team was typically only five. There is a book on The Alamo Scouts (that is the name of the book) that says they were modeled on the Eskimo Scouts.

[I joined the ASDF in the 1990s. ATG history is part of ASDF training/drills.]


< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/13/2008 12:54:10 PM >

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 486
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 12:56:40 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

The desired weaponry of a Marine Defense Battalion was army 155mm CD and 90mm AA guns. But both these types were in short supply, but various Naval weapons were available. For CD guns, there were numbers of old 5in/51, mostly previous installed in casemates on battleships and removed during refits.

So the Marines produced several separate TOEs for Defense Battalions. TOE numbers in the range 133-155 were used for Defense Battalions. I have three, all dated 27 February, 1941. I wish I had them all.


D-155-A:

Eight 155mm CD Guns
Twelve 90mm AA Guns
Twelve 37mm AA Guns
Twelve 20mm AA/AT guns
Sixteen 50Cal AAMG
Thirty 30Cal MG

To the best of my knowledge no Defense Battalion was ever fielded with this armament. By the time 155mm and 90mm guns were available, the 37mm were replaced by 40mm and the numbers of AA weapons rearranged.



D-155-B:
I have never been able to find a TOE under this designation, but I assume it is for a Defense Battalion variation. Based on the TOE of the other variations that I have, this is probably the one in general usage at the end of 1941. If anyone has any additional data, I'd be very happy to see it!



D-155-C:
Eight 155mm CD Guns
Twelve 90mm AA Guns (3inch M3 substitutes if 90mm not available)
Thirty 50Cal AAMG
Thirty 30Cal MG



D-155-D:
Six 7inch/45 CD Guns (substitute 5"/51 is 7" not available)
Twelve 90mm AA Guns (3inch M3 substitutes if 90mm not available)
Sixteen 50Cal AAMG
Thirty 30Cal MG


The ultimate TOE of a Defense Battalion was:
Eight 155mm cD Guns
Sixteen 90mm AA Guns
Sixteen 40mm AA Guns (one source says six but I think this is a typo)
Sixteen 20mm AA Guns
Sixteen 50Cal AA Guns (later in the war, as 4-gun mounts)
Thirty 30Cal MGs (reduced as the war went on and the threat of amphibious assault waned)



The standard MDB at the end of 1941 had:
Six 5"/51 CD Guns
Twelve M3 3" AA Guns
Twenty Four 50Cal AAMG
Thirty 30Cal MG


There is another known TOE:
Six 5"/51 CD Guns
Twelve M3 3" AA Guns
Twenty-Four 50Cal AAMG
Twenty-Four 30Cal MG


At some time prior to this, the numbers of MG were larger:
Six 5"/51 CD Guns
Twelve M3 3" AA Guns
Forty Eight 50Cal AAMG
Forty Eight 30Cal MG


All Defense Battalions were designed to be split or reinforced as required. TOEs existed for reinforceing light infantry companies, slightly enlarged light tank platoons (6 tanks), and additional CD guns (both 6" and 7", along with 5"/51). Each installation could be tailored as need and especially to space and supply constraints.

The six CD guns of an early Defense Battalion, for example, were organized into three firing batteries of two guns each and a minimal HQ Battery of less than a dozen clerks and supply types. The senior Commanding Officer of a firing battery doubled as Coast Defense Battery Commander, the next senior as XO, etc. What would be the HQ Battery staff was mostly split up between the firing batteries. If the CD Battery was concentrated at a single location, like Wake, the HQ battery would be formed from the component parts. If the firing batteries were dispersed (like Johnston and Palmyra) the HQ detachment remained at a rear base (Pearl) and oversaw the deliveries of supplies and replacements.

Note that the term "Battery" is overloaded. The Defense Battalion consisted of a CD Gun Battery, AA Gun Battery, Light AA Battery (AAMG), Beach Defense Battery (30Cal), Searchlight Battery, and HQ Battery. The CD "Battery" was organized like a battalion, with it's component units designated as batteries. Thus the CD Battery included three firing batteries and an HQ Battery.










One of the books on the defense of Wake - but the officer commanding (who for some reason is not given the glory given to a less senior officer) - gives a different organization - and says there were not supposed to be enough men for all the weapons - you could go from position to position and the weapons were already there. The pre war organization which existed in Dec 1941 included


6 x 5 inch 51 SP CD guns

12 x 3 inch 50 AA guns

18 x .50 cal HMG

30 x .30 cal MMG

12 x BAR equipped fire teams (3 squads)

8 x M3 Stuart light tanks

18 x medium AA guns (37 mm later 40mm)

I estimate about 100 support squads and 2 audio/visual spotter squads.

Only a detachment was at Wake - the rest was at PH.

See The Story of Wake Island by Col James P S Devereaux USMC

also

Wake Island by Duane Schultz

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/13/2008 1:02:45 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 487
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 1:16:55 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Simple answer Burmaes Army is not in to hard to get right the fact that a large part of them were simply dacoits picking on who ever was in retreat doesnt help.

Lushai Bde on allied side is about the only formation made up of Burmese troops.

Re PI at present we have no garrison requirement because a garrison requirement is not one sided  so if I give Manila a garrison requirement - both sides would need to meet it.

Random guerilla formations do not exist 1. because they need a base to spawn in or 2. become hardcoded and that buggers up modders and anyway the coding is closed !!!!





I have been able to form up a variety of guerilla formations which work fairly well. I used a CHS concept to begin with - from China - but have several variations. One I have never described - there is only one - just did it -

because the formal Dutch organization actually had guerilla squads in numbers on Celebes - I formed a Dutch unit at Makassar - and there are enough locations with local supplies that running it down is neither easy nor usually done.

Outside China there is one other initial guerilla unit - 1st Battalion Viet Minh - in only platoon strength - appears at an isolated location (Dien Bien Phu) not easy to get to. Like Chinese communist (and Indonesian communist) guerillas - these units are to some degree supply independent.


By adding many locations in NEI and China and PI and Indochina, it was possible to have irregular units appear at various times. Much of the time these units appear where and when intended. The rest of the time - the Chinese and Viet Minh (at least) appear in South China - at Kunminh (which seems to be a code setting) - and they also reappear there if ever actually destroyed.

I made most kinds of guerillas (not the Dutch regulars) semi-static - they become mobile under pressure (if attacked) - and will retreat in preference to dieing - but they aren't free to wander around like regulars either. They help regulars in a battle in the same hex - not just by adding weapons - but because they have been there - code gives their side information about enemy units in the hex - player intel is better about what is there. As it should be.

In NEI I added two flavors of guerillas OTHER than the regular units that starts at Makassar: communist Allied units appear in outer islands during the war - these are called "anti Japanese" - and are battalion sized - while "anti-Dutch Brigades" form on Java - and are pro Japanese. Because they did, were, and ultimately won independence for Indonesia. In a similar way, the Viet Minh are Allied - are anti-Japanese - and they were US allies during WWII - FRENCH allies BEFORE WWII (very wierd - they fought OTHER revolutionaries - you had to be communist or the communists would betray you to the French!) And they ended up fighting the French, and later the US, after WWII!

I have not figured out how to do PI guerillas yet - except that US and PA units may go into the hills - and there are three places to do that effectively: Baguio (missing from stock - it is the heart of Luzon and a place almost impossible to capture without an army) - it is malaria free - mountains - rice growing and mineral rich - Cebu - and one other city in the Visayas (Bacolog and Ilolo - actually two different places in the same hex). Cebu is a city of some significance, has a shipyard, a developed airfield, and very significant local production, including lots of food. It was defended by 81st Division (Philippine Army). The other hex was defended by 61st Division. Only a battalion held Baguio/Balinta Pass - it was deemed impractical to breech if the high ground was held. The garrison at Fort John Hay abandoned its positions and went into the hills - never to surrender. This is the best guerilla country in the game - and instead of guerillas - I use regulars here. Because IRL that was the heart of who did it. [My father in law ended up scouting for them, and when he died, the Philippine Army built a road to his village to build a monument - the only monument I ever saw in any village in any country - dedicated to him alone. Ironically, the promise of Gen MacArthur he could immigrate to the USA was never kept, and he was only paid a pension the last two years of his life.] Gen Yamashita decided to defend Baguio in force - and it was not practical to force him out - so we went all the way to Japan to get written orders to surrender after the war was over. [He pointed out that it was against Japanese law to surrender. The house he surrendered in at Fort John Hay is still US territory - but you need permission from the Embassy in Manila to visit.]

Code would make irregulars better. But it is not required to get them.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/13/2008 1:28:05 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 488
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 1:41:21 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Will there be any penalty for them to jump from base to base during those early months which often happens now (most are probably done with little to no prep points)??



Andy basically answered your question, but if I may add a few points here:

There are not that many units available for Japan in the AE to jump from base to base during the early months (and less shipping that is suited for this task - but this is basically a Naval Team thingy).

Eventually Japan will receive (many) more units than in stock (and Japan will need them just to adequately garrison all the new bases), but there were many errors in the WITP OOB, especially when it comes to IJN LCU's (double-counting of units, units being available far too early, units being too strong etc.).

For example, SNLF's (there are no NLF's anymore) should still do well against weak Allied units (Philippine units, Dutch units, some CW units), but it will not be enough to drop some SNLF's to dislodge a US RCT or a NZ Brigade anymore. For this tasks, Japan will need some IJA units with their heavier equipment.




Query No 1: What about Combined SLNF's? [These are approximately two SNLF's with a few attachments, mainly a light or later amphibious tank company, and some support]

Query No 2: What about Naval Guard Forces and Special Naval Guard Forces? NLF's presumaly represented landing parties drawn from ship's crews - and for example one of these took Zamboanga from a company of Philippine Army - supported by a single light tank. But they were ad hoc units. NGF and SNGF were not.


(1) It will be possible to combine two SNLF's into a Combined SNLF (if I remember correctly, Yokuska 5th and Kure 5th SNLF). The other (Dec 1941) Combined SNLF is not included because the SNLF's that formed it were converted to Naval Garrison Units historically (and this happens in the AE).

(2) I think I have one independent SNLF coy at start for service in the PI. NLF's formed from ship crews are not represented. Naval Guard (garrison) and Special Naval Guard Units are either represented as part of Naval Base Forces and Special Base Forces or as independent units. Some SNLF's become Naval Garrison Units. SNLF's have their correct formation dates and individual TOE's now.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 489
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 2:25:08 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

One of the books on the defense of Wake - but the officer commanding (who for some reason is not given the glory given to a less senior officer) - gives a different organization - and says there were not supposed to be enough men for all the weapons - you could go from position to position and the weapons were already there. The pre war organization which existed in Dec 1941 included



Wake Island's defenses were still in the process of being set up. The detachment of the 1st Defense Battalion, at Wake, was not the permanent garrision of Wake, just a care-taker unit during installation. Once all weapons were in place, the men were to leave and men from another unit (3rd or 4th, one of the units then at Pearl Harbor) was to rotate in.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 490
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 7:04:53 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
1. Will late war US Marine divisions include the Marine armour or will it be separate as a Tank Bn?


Each USMC Division includes a tank battalion. The tank battalions are first formed with 72 light tanks (a mix of M2A4s and M3 Stuarts), then a combination of Stuarts and M4 Shermans, and eventually upgrade to 46 Sherman medium tanks.

A separate medium tank battalion makes an appearance, but is later disbanded (the tanks were used to upgrade the divisional tank battalions).

US Army divisions do not have armor in their TO&E until the Summer, 1945 upgrade to prepare for the invasion of Japan. Then each infantry division gains 54 tanks, evenly split between M26 Pershings, and M4 Shermans (105mm Close Support).

The US Army also gets a couple of battalions of flamethrower tanks. [Only tanks with main-gun flamethrowers were counted. The field-modded tanks that sported a very short-range F/T in place of a bow machinegun were not very effective. They are included, but only as 'standard' tanks of their type.]





Thanks for the update! Not having Marine armour in stock always bugged me.

Pershings and 105 Shermans! Thats going to pack a punch. Would love to play that scenario out in Combat Mission.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 491
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 7:12:06 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
Another TO&E Question:

About what will your vanilla USAAF and USN base forces look like?

I know something like this will change many times, but what are the basics?

Will they still include rifle squads? Will it still be 40? Will they have AA/CD elements more similar to stock or CHS? Will the 30 avaiation and 100 support still be used?

I have been playing CHS recently against the AI while waiting for AE, and one of the things that bugs me about USAAF/USN base forces in CHS is that if they actually fill out to full TO&E with all those .50 cal AAMG, rifle squads and such, even if they have their full TO&E of 100 support, they still can not even support themselves, let alone other units in the same hex. Thats really backwards in my opinion, defeating one of the main purposes of a base force.

Thanks in advance.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 492
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 7:59:40 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
You would need to ask Joel that one I can give the RAF equivalent if thats any use

This is the final mid 43 RAF 'normal' Base force

1 x Battery of HAA Guns - 8 x 3.7" Mk II's
1 x Battery of LAA Guns - 12 x Bofors 40mm/L60
8 x Twin AAMG's (Bren or Lewis)
32 x Aviation Support (2 RAF Sqns)
1 x Field Sqn RAF Regt (9 x RAF Regt Rifle Sections, 4 x Marmon Harrington or Rolls Royce Armoured Cars)
1 x Field Park Coy Royal Engineers (12 Engineer Squads and 3 Engineer Vehicles)
1 x Sound Detector or Radar Sets
200 x Support Squads
 
And this is a 1943 'Group' Base Force (1 per RAF Air Group)

1 x Regiment of HAA Guns - 24 x 3.7" Mk II's
1 x Regiment of LAA Guns - 36 x Bofors 40mm/L60
24 x Twin AAMG's (Bren or Lewis)
75 x Aviation Support (1 x RAF Wing)
1 x Reinforced Field Sqn RAF Regt (12 x RAF Regt Rifle Sections, 12 x Marmon Harrington or Rolls Royce Armoured Cars)
1 x Reinforced ISF Garrison Company (12 x ISF/Militia Rifle Sections)
2 x Field Park Coy Royal Engineers/RIE or Indian Pioneers (24 Engineer Squads and 6 Engineer Vehicles)
2 x Sound Detector or Radar Sets
250 x Support Squads

These are the ultimate end points in base forces and RAF Regt troops are thin on the ground in early years typically base forces earlier in the chain of upgrades have ISF forces as garrison and only get RAF Regt troops in 43 although the RAF Regt troops will be in short supply.

The high number of support squads are designed to reflect improving techiques of dealing with Malaria as higher support levels mitigate against the effect so over time the number of support squads in base forces will increase as well.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 493
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 8:00:35 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
p.s. of course higher level of support squads use more supply so allies will need more supply to operate up front.

Japanese forces tend to be lighter supported and will therefore 'eat' less

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 494
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/13/2008 8:09:19 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Just to give the contrast a full strength 1941/42 RAF Base force

1 x Battery of HAA Guns - 8 x 3.7" Mk II's or 3" AA Guns 
1 x Battery of LAA Guns - 12 x Bofors 40mm/L60 or 2 Pounder AA Guns
8 x Twin AAMG's (Vickers) 
16 x Aviation Support (1 RAF Sqns)
1 x ISF Rifle Company 6 ISF/Militia Squads
4 x Horsed Cavalry Sections or Rolls Royce Armoured Cars
1 x Field Park Coy Royal Engineers (12 Engineer Squads and 3 Engineer Vehicles)
1 x Sound Detector or Radar Sets
100 x Support Squads

or a Light RAF Base Force

4 x Twin AAMG's (Vickers) 
8 x Aviation Support (1 RAF Flight)
1 x ISF Rifle Platoon 3 x ISF/Militia Squads
1 x Local Engineer Detachment  (4 Engineer Squads)
10 x Support Squads


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 495
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/14/2008 3:28:11 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants




Andy basically answered your question, but if I may add a few points here:





Query No 1: What about Combined SLNF's? [These are approximately two SNLF's with a few attachments, mainly a light or later amphibious tank company, and some support]

(1) It will be possible to combine two SNLF's into a Combined SNLF (if I remember correctly, Yokuska 5th and Kure 5th SNLF). The other (Dec 1941) Combined SNLF is not included because the SNLF's that formed it were converted to Naval Garrison Units historically (and this happens in the AE).



Turns out that several more CSNLFs were formed after the war began - it is not just two cases.

It is true that many SNLFs converted to Naval Guard Forces - or at least were assigned the same mission - by gaining extra batteries of CD guns mainly. More generally, it was possible to form one ANY time it was mission appropriate. Once - before our period of the war began - so many formed up there was a de facto "naval infantry division" - for the invasion of Shanghai. Instead of either getting all the CSNLFs when they historically appeared - or the ability to combine them from any handy SNLFs - it appears you are saying there is/are one or two specific cases where combination is permitted - and no others?

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 496
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/14/2008 3:34:29 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

One of the books on the defense of Wake - but the officer commanding (who for some reason is not given the glory given to a less senior officer) - gives a different organization - and says there were not supposed to be enough men for all the weapons - you could go from position to position and the weapons were already there. The pre war organization which existed in Dec 1941 included



Wake Island's defenses were still in the process of being set up. The detachment of the 1st Defense Battalion, at Wake, was not the permanent garrision of Wake, just a care-taker unit during installation. Once all weapons were in place, the men were to leave and men from another unit (3rd or 4th, one of the units then at Pearl Harbor) was to rotate in.




This is true. Also - Admiral Kimmel wanted to form a "Wake Island Militia" - but while it DID fight - it was never legally formed up - and it was a strange and rare case of "semi-officially sanctioned American illegal combattants." The Marines - having lots of weapons and inadequate manpower - used the men of the civilian construction contractors (mainly) - and did so without the slightest effort to give them any "identifying insignia" (an arm band would do - of any color). Lacking a uniform, they were not lawful combattants, and the Japanese were outraged, executing the most blatant offenders summarily (leading to many charges of "atrocity" - although WE do exactly the same thing to unlawful combattants - in every era). Anyway - the force that fought was the caretaker force - slightly reinforced (which was meaningful as it had too many weapons).

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 497
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/14/2008 1:14:26 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants




Andy basically answered your question, but if I may add a few points here:





Query No 1: What about Combined SLNF's? [These are approximately two SNLF's with a few attachments, mainly a light or later amphibious tank company, and some support]

(1) It will be possible to combine two SNLF's into a Combined SNLF (if I remember correctly, Yokuska 5th and Kure 5th SNLF). The other (Dec 1941) Combined SNLF is not included because the SNLF's that formed it were converted to Naval Garrison Units historically (and this happens in the AE).



Turns out that several more CSNLFs were formed after the war began - it is not just two cases.

It is true that many SNLFs converted to Naval Guard Forces - or at least were assigned the same mission - by gaining extra batteries of CD guns mainly. More generally, it was possible to form one ANY time it was mission appropriate. Once - before our period of the war began - so many formed up there was a de facto "naval infantry division" - for the invasion of Shanghai. Instead of either getting all the CSNLFs when they historically appeared - or the ability to combine them from any handy SNLFs - it appears you are saying there is/are one or two specific cases where combination is permitted - and no others?


Some SNLF's convert (or rename) to Naval Garrison Units, some gain extra CD and AA assets.

Don't know what you want to tell me with your reference to the Shanghai invasion. Not in our timeframe.

I did not implement the ability to combine SNLF's into Combined SNLF's when the component SNLF's were converted to something different later because it is not possible to divide them after combination.

And combining two SNLF's into a Combined SNLF gives no real benefit in the game because a Combined SNLF historically just added up the assets of two SNLF's.


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 498
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/14/2008 2:13:27 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
Hi Kereguelen, were/are you able to get any useful data out of Rays of the Rising Sun which I sent? I know most of the info was pretty vague but will the Chinese puppet armies be included in the game?

Thanks.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 499
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/14/2008 5:54:53 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
Joel, any detail on the USAAF/USN typical base force layout?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You would need to ask Joel that one I can give the RAF equivalent if thats any use

This is the final mid 43 RAF 'normal' Base force . . .



Thanks for the detail Andy. Nice to see the high number of support squads.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 500
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/14/2008 8:37:22 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
With the "light" base force, I see there are only 4 engineer squads. In current WitP this would be useless since you need at least 10 non-disabled squads for any building or repairs to get done. Or has this algorithm been changed perhaps?

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 501
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/14/2008 9:23:59 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Kereguelen, were/are you able to get any useful data out of Rays of the Rising Sun which I sent? I know most of the info was pretty vague but will the Chinese puppet armies be included in the game?

Thanks.


Hi Gary,

wanted to send you a mail concerning this, but seems that I forgot about this in the pre-Christmas hectic (Sorry!).

'Rays' was really useful and the puppet armies are included now. Still struggling to give them correct TOE's, but actually there're is quite alot of 'hidden' info that (combined with other sources) allows for TOE data that may at least come close to history. And it was a most interesting read, btw.!

If you don't mind, I'll keep 'Rays' for some time until I can finalize the work?

Thanks

K

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 502
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/14/2008 9:29:39 PM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


If you don't mind, I'll keep 'Rays' for some time until I can finalize the work?

Thanks

K


Most welcome. It delights me that I could be of some help on this grand undertaking. I'm in no hurry for the book. Keep it as long as you need.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 503
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/15/2008 12:52:28 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

Joel, any detail on the USAAF/USN typical base force layout?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You would need to ask Joel that one I can give the RAF equivalent if thats any use

This is the final mid 43 RAF 'normal' Base force . . .



Thanks for the detail Andy. Nice to see the high number of support squads.


Chad,

Three basic types of US Base Forces: Army, Air Force, and Naval

Army: 150 Support, 16 AV Support, 24 Other (Inf, AA)
Air: 100 Support, 60 AV Support, 12 Eng, 26 Other (Inf, AA)
Naval: 100 Support, 30 AV Support, 100 Naval Support, 12 Eng, 26 Other (Inf, AA, CD)




_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 504
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/15/2008 5:55:36 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

Joel, any detail on the USAAF/USN typical base force layout?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You would need to ask Joel that one I can give the RAF equivalent if thats any use

This is the final mid 43 RAF 'normal' Base force . . .



Thanks for the detail Andy. Nice to see the high number of support squads.


Chad,

Three basic types of US Base Forces: Army, Air Force, and Naval

Army: 150 Support, 16 AV Support, 24 Other (Inf, AA)
Air: 100 Support, 60 AV Support, 12 Eng, 26 Other (Inf, AA)
Naval: 100 Support, 30 AV Support, 100 Naval Support, 12 Eng, 26 Other (Inf, AA, CD)






Cool, thanks for the details. Seems like it will be much easier in AE to round out your base forces to 100% TO&E. Big thumbs up. I would personally rather have smaller base forces that you can actually get to full TO&E than large ones that spend the entire war at Pearl and are still not at a full TO&E.

So, when you naval, do you mean the multiple USN base forces or the few Naval Base froces that we see in stock? They get inherent naval support! Thats awesome.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 505
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 1/20/2008 5:26:59 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Got a little taster to share with you its all subject to change still but I figured it was worth a look






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 506
A couple of new screenshots - 1/20/2008 5:28:12 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Part 2 after the TOE change to lighten it for Jungle work






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 1/20/2008 6:18:04 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 507
RE: A couple of new screenshots - 1/20/2008 6:20:45 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
p.s. before anyone comments I know Rabaul Det. and the Ind Coy's are not part of 1 AUs Corps

7th AUs Div is lighter because it starts down the equivalnet of 3 Coy's of Inf which accompanied Black Force to Java

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 508
RE: A couple of new screenshots - 1/20/2008 10:04:53 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
DDDRRRRROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLL

Have to clean my keyboard now.  <continuously repeating "This is gonna be good">.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 509
RE: A couple of new screenshots - 1/20/2008 3:28:19 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 510
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
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

0.844