Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Sorry guys no can do . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The problem for someone like me is the fact that I don´t know the historic names of the different regiments so if I would split up a div into it´s regiments, then bring the regiments to different places, I could never recombine them as I don´t know what regiment number belongs to what div...

for me 2nd Div / A / B / C works best!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

re Aust Div Cav Rgts

6 Div Cav left its Mk VII Lt Tanks in the ME, it only took its carriers back to Aust.  In Aust after leave it only operated in the traditional role for a short time before retraining as Infantry (To the Green Fields Beyond - Unit History)

Aust Field Rgts - speed of movement.
2/7 Fd Rgt (9 Div) left its Guns and Transport in Egypt.
Left Ismailia 1/2/43 on Nieuw Amsterdam
Refuelled Addu Atoll 10/2/43
Arrived Fremantle 18/2/43
Convoy was Queen Mary, Nieuw Amsterdam, Aquitania, Queen of Bermuda, Isle de France and carried to entire 9th Div.
Arrived Melbourne 23/2/43

Division reformed Atherton Tablelands 17/4/43

2/7 Fd Rgt received its first guns on 11/4/43

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

That is the way it works at present but I am toying with changing it back to the stock method.

It an all or nothing issue so either we allow it for all units or remove it for all.

The issue is take 9th Indian Div - do I want the ability to reform the Div from a fragment of a single Bde that is rescued even if it has 20 squads and needs to fill up 1500 devices to get back to full strength and will have its xp gutted..

Currently the penalty in time, limited devices and xp hit are probably enough to make me comfortable from an allied perspective (filling up 9th Indian Div will stop the allies building 7th or 19th Div - if they want to do it fine all it means is 2 understrength Divs, not enough replacements in the pool or a full strength Div with a different name) but the Japanese production system make me think it might be safer to turn it off as there will be no restriction on device production.
p.s. just to be 100% clear this is all or nothing and the same rule applies to both sides we don't have the time or ability to set it up for one side only.

So I am toying with making it back to stock - if I leave it as is we may end up with to many LCU's

Andy

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Andy,

Can 9th Aust Div arrive with its ME TOE, its always possible that it will be defending Adelaide or Sydney from the ravenous Japanese.

Then its up to the Allies to decide if it changes to the jungle TOE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In game terms, as in HQ which units can be transferred to or which control and coordinate operations,
the USSR did NOT use a Theater Command approach.
Not, that is, before 30 July, 1945 (which probably should be the hard code date of Soviet activation in a
Soviet passive scenario). Until then, there was NO theater command, anywhere, ever. When it DID form,
the Soviet Far East Command formed at Chita.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Stock has this completely wrong - locating the Far East command
at Vladivostok in 1941 - a place it never was - and at the wrong end of the game (except it may be required).
On the other hand, does a unit EVER need to CHANGE HQ to the Soviet command?
What the Soviets DID have was "Front" commands - and something special as well for a place too far from
one of those. There were two different Fronts in the Far East: Trans Baikal (location uncertain in 1941, but
likely near Lake Baikal) and Far Eastern (Location Khabarovsk).

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
In addition, there was the Coastal Group of
Forces for the Kamchatka Penninsula - because it was "too far from the Front HQ or the Soviet Far East Fleet"
- and this was a NAVAL command that included all forces, regardless of service.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It is not easy to know what to do about this because of game code issues: the code is not likely to be changed
even for AE - and the Soviets really should NOT be treated as if there is a unified command for the entire
on map area. Nor indeed can any single HQ have the command radius required to cover the vast front
and do justice to the problem the Soviet defense (or offense) poses: protect Amur Province and protect
the vital Land LOC back to Central Asia. The real Soviet solution - with two HQ - one east and west - and a
HQ for support purposes (for land ops) at Khabarovsk makes more sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Lacking naval units as designed,
there was no need for naval HQ. Now this has changed, we should indeed have two Naval HQ - a main one
(Soviet Far East Fleet) and a secondary one (the Coastal Group of Forces). We can do that - but does code
use Soviet naval HQ? If not - should they be air HQ in game terms (so at least they control some operations)?
Or even land HQ (since a local HQ to protect Vladivostok and Kamchatka makes sense in game terms)?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
We could make the Soviet Command be located "off the map" (at Krasnyarsk) - since all units assigned to it arrive
assigned to it - and no other unit should ever be assigned to it. Then we could make two Front commands
(and two naval commands which might be naval, air or land, depending on wether or not code will use a Soviet
naval HQ) - NONE of which have the reach of a strategic HQ - but say one hex less (8???).

This problem is complex, technical, and structural to WITP - and reality must compromise with what will work
with code. Suggestions for WITP as it is are solicited. And we should notify AE developers in case they want to
do something to mitigate it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.

So the Russian corps units will arrive as reinforcements now? Instead of the old upgrade system?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Some comments, as I'm in charge of the Soviet OOB for the AE:

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In game terms, as in HQ which units can be transferred to or which control and coordinate operations,
the USSR did NOT use a Theater Command approach.
Not, that is, before 30 July, 1945 (which probably should be the hard code date of Soviet activation in a
Soviet passive scenario). Until then, there was NO theater command, anywhere, ever. When it DID form,
the Soviet Far East Command formed at Chita.

Correct, but Far Eastern Front acted de facto as Theater Command even in 1941 and it acted quite independent from STAVKA. And, as Andy has already explained, we need the Far Eastern Command for the AI.


REPLY: I stated in my original post I believed that hard code would require the existence of a theater command. But in principle it could be split into two commands - sort of like the NEI and USAFFE are different commands - the area is large enough to do that. Such a concept would only apply when/if code is rewritten. I assume we need some sort of command for functional reasons - even if we don't call it Command. I am renaming it a Front - but I am sure it still functions in the original way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Stock has this completely wrong - locating the Far East command
at Vladivostok in 1941 - a place it never was - and at the wrong end of the game (except it may be required).
On the other hand, does a unit EVER need to CHANGE HQ to the Soviet command?
What the Soviets DID have was "Front" commands - and something special as well for a place too far from
one of those. There were two different Fronts in the Far East: Trans Baikal (location uncertain in 1941, but
likely near Lake Baikal) and Far Eastern (Location Khabarovsk).

This is a very interesting statement: I never found any source that stated where Far Eastern Front HQ was located. I always suspected that it was located at Khabarovsk but had no proof for this (and thus left it at Vladivostok). Can you name any good source for this? This would be really welcome!

REPLY: In the Russian I found a description of its date of formation (30 July 1945), its commander, and its location (Chita), along with some details (e.g. the creation of a Political Committee organic to the command). In English in Nomanhan I found a map giving the location as Khabarovsk after the beginning of August Storm - only a few days later. It may have formed and then moved by rail.

Trans Baikal MD HQ was either at Ulan-Ude or at Chita in 1941. Sources disagree about its actual location. Have placed it at Ulan-Ude.

REPLY: I think Ulan-Ude is a good guess too - and I think we need such a HQ - so I am going to sacrifice something to get one. It can be a 109 type HQ without being a theater HQ.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.

So the Russian corps units will arrive as reinforcements now? Instead of the old upgrade system?

Yes, that is: The forces that were transferred from Europe in 1945 for Autumn Storm arrive in 1945. Forces that were formed in the Far East 1942-45 arrive as reinforcements at the dates they were formed (and forces that were transferred to Europe 1942-45 are withdrawn at the historical transfer dates).

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Query: IJA intel believed that four of the "infantry divisions" in the Soviet Far East were "motorized." One - the 36th - had been identified as motorized in Mongolia before 1938. Any idea what the others were? Or if the intel appreciation was correct? Also - what does "motorized" mean? I assume artillery and support are motorized - but the infantry walks. Does it ride? Similarly - in 1941 there are three armored divisions (later disbanded) - in the Far East. By breaking them into armored brigades and infantry regiment, it does not matter they didn't stay one formation. But is that motorized infantry a riding formation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.

So the Russian corps units will arrive as reinforcements now? Instead of the old upgrade system?

Yes, that is: The forces that were transferred from Europe in 1945 for Autumn Storm arrive in 1945. Forces that were formed in the Far East 1942-45 arrive as reinforcements at the dates they were formed (and forces that were transferred to Europe 1942-45 are withdrawn at the historical transfer dates).

Can the date of withdrawal be set using the editor?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.

So the Russian corps units will arrive as reinforcements now? Instead of the old upgrade system?

Yes, that is: The forces that were transferred from Europe in 1945 for Autumn Storm arrive in 1945. Forces that were formed in the Far East 1942-45 arrive as reinforcements at the dates they were formed (and forces that were transferred to Europe 1942-45 are withdrawn at the historical transfer dates).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Supply is more important than ever now we have broken the link between resources and supply generation and with LCU's (especially Allied ones) having more devices they consume about 50% more supply than stock so you need to devote more of the AK's to supply movement. (Allied Divs take a LOT of supply now especially British and US ones)

Created by the amazing Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Land Units and Support

Why does every land unit have less than it's required support?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
(and forces that were transferred to Europe 1942-45 are withdrawn at the historical transfer dates).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
(and forces that were transferred to Europe 1942-45 are withdrawn at the historical transfer dates).

Any chance these withdrawals are cancelled if Japan has attacked? Seems kind of silly to have half your armies vanish off the map if Japan has troops storming half your bases.

Jim