Dr. Duh
Posts: 35
Joined: 9/21/2004 Status: offline
|
v1084 scen1 - It looks like proper behavior of the ground withdrawal schedule requires that units that are split into subunits at scenario start (whether already on-map or listed as subunits on the reinforcement schedule) must be enumerated in the withdrawal schedule both as the listed subunits and as the parent units (inactive) that they constitute. There are 4 anomalies in the allied ground withdrawals that can be seen on the first turn (haven't looked at JPN): 1. The 28th, 38th, and 39th New Chinese Divisions at Chungking are not marked for withdrawal, either on their unit cards or in the Ground Withdrawal schedule, yet the 66th Chinese Corps (inactive) is marked for withdrawal in the schedule. If the divisions are recombined into the 66th Corps, that unit is then marked for withdrawal on its unit card. The three divisions should be marked for withdrawal on 15 Feb 43. 2. The 119th, 5th Prov, and 93rd Chinese Divisons at Tuyun are marked for withdrawal both on their unit cards and on the withdrawal schedule, but the 6th Chinese Corps (inactive) is not listed in the withdrawal schedule. If the divisions are recombined into the 6th Corps, that unit is not marked for withdrawal. The 6th Chinese Corps (inactive) should be listed for withdrawal on 16 Jun 45. 3. The 3rd Heavy AA Rgt (inactive) is listed for withdrawal on 1 Jun 44, but the 3 constituent batteries near Singapore are not marked for withdrawal nor are they on the withdrawal schedule. The subunits should be listed in the withdrawal schedule. 4. The Black Force is listed for withdrawal on 1 Oct 42, yet none of the other constituent subunits of the 7th Australian Division on the reinforcement schedule or the 7th Australian (inactive) itself are listed for withdrawal. Perhaps this is OK if the intent is to force withdrawal of Black Force unless the 7th Australian is reconstituted?
< Message edited by Dr. Duh -- 9/16/2009 1:58:43 PM >
|