Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Question regarding US Marine units

 
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 >> The War Room >> Question regarding US Marine units Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Question regarding US Marine units - 7/21/2010 4:59:16 AM   
Chryse

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 6/11/2010
Status: offline 		Having trouble wrapping my head around the early command structure for US Marine units.

I have the 8th Marine regiment which is attacjhed to Pacific Fleet.
I have the 2nd Marine regiment which is attached to West Coast (R).
Looking ahead, in 5 months the 6th Marine regiment arrives and will also enter the game as attached to Pacific fleet.
These units are all part of the 2nd Marine Div, btw.

So at first blush it appears prudent to to pay the PP to attach the 2nd Marine regiment to Pacific Fleet. However I also have the 1US Amphib Corps, Corps HQ sitting at San Diego which is attached to Pacific Fleet as well. Looking at the reinforcement schedule no units ever enter the game attached to the 1 US Amphib Corps.

So basically I am confused. Should all these Marine regiments be attached to the 1US Amphib Corps instead of Pacific Fleet? If not, what exactly is the role of the 1US Amphib Corps, Corps HQ. Who would they be headquarters of since they never get any units assigned to them by default.

Any help in steering this old brain of mine in the right direction would be appreciated.
Post #: 1
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/21/2010 5:12:06 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		No units ever arrive attached to any corps HQ, and there's no reason whatsoever to waste PPs to do so. By all means switch 2nd Marines to Pacific Fleet, though.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Chryse)
Post #: 2
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/21/2010 12:09:01 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Do the LCU's attached to restricted HQ's ever automatically switch to an unrestricted one?  Or do you have to pay the PP's to do it yourself?

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/21/2010 8:09:54 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Do the LCU's attached to restricted HQ's ever automatically switch to an unrestricted one?  Or do you have to pay the PP's to do it yourself?


If you change an HQ from restricted to Non-restriced, ALL subordinate units then become Non-Restricted. An example of this is the IJA 2nd Air Division; change it to non-restricted, and most air units in Machuria also become non-restricted.

Most Restricted HQs, though, cannot be changed to a non-restricted, so this does limit what you can do with it. I can't think of an example besides 2nd Air Div that can, but there's probably one out there.

_____________________________


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 4
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/24/2010 2:40:13 AM   
bigred


Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
no reason whatsoever to waste PPs to do so. By all means switch 2nd Marines to Pacific Fleet, though.


I strongly disagree. As time goes by the allies gather many units into each area command(sopac, swpac, cenpac, etc.) Each of these general HQs recieve subordinate corp HQs as the game progresses. The rulebook says a Corp HQ adds 20% to the attack strengh of attached units adjacent and in the same hex. In addition, at some point these corps will have 2 to 3 divisions, armor--- main attack units. In addition if the corp HQ is w/in double the range of the major command and the intire chain from major-corp- division has the same objective the attack strengh can be adjusted upwards to 80%.

If a need arises to move a complete corp from Sopac to SWpac then all you have to do is pay the political points for the corp HQ and the whole corp is part of a new command. Might make a difference for replacements and attack bonus if in range of area HQ.
I found early in the game the allies will grab whatever is available to stop the yellow peril. I had three regiments from three different divisions defend Pago and all got pushed into the sea. As time goes by you will get a feel for command organization and the decision prcess will get easier.


< Message edited by bigred -- 10/15/2010 1:34:48 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 5
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/24/2010 8:36:33 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
no reason whatsoever to waste PPs to do so. By all means switch 2nd Marines to Pacific Fleet, though.


Terminal- you should be more explicit in your advice to newbies.



I guess his nickname is TermiNUS...

_____________________________


(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 6
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/24/2010 2:35:00 PM   
eloso


Posts: 335
Joined: 5/28/2006
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No units ever arrive attached to any corps HQ, and there's no reason whatsoever to waste PPs to do so. By all means switch 2nd Marines to Pacific Fleet, though.


I disagree as well. Switch the I Amphib Corps to West Coast(R) early in the game and then tranfer your desired units attached to the West Coast(R) command into the Corps HQ for a fraction of the cost.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 7
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/24/2010 5:06:33 PM   
bigred


Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: OSO


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No units ever arrive attached to any corps HQ, and there's no reason whatsoever to waste PPs to do so. By all means switch 2nd Marines to Pacific Fleet, though.


I disagree as well. Switch the I Amphib Corps to West Coast(R) early in the game and then tranfer your desired units attached to the West Coast(R) command into the Corps HQ for a fraction of the cost.


25% to be exact.

(in reply to eloso)
Post #: 8
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/24/2010 7:52:33 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I agree, and when I Corps arrives in late July 42 you can then payout all those deployable US Divisions and support units on the West Coast.

Attach it to West Coast Command, and start saving PP's in early June 42 for the expenditure.
Then swap it back to a non restricted command.

Then it's payback time, providing you haven't squandered your fleet.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 9
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/24/2010 9:25:40 PM   
Chryse

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 6/11/2010
Status: offline 		Thanks guys. Apparently there is a lot more to consider than I originally thought.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 10
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/25/2010 11:04:43 AM   
RUDOLF


Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I agree, and when I Corps arrives in late July 42 you can then payout all those deployable US Divisions and support units on the West Coast.

Attach it to West Coast Command, and start saving PP's in early June 42 for the expenditure.
Then swap it back to a non restricted command.

Then it's payback time, providing you haven't squandered your fleet.




Good thing is that Japan can do the same,
add 10 Divisions + Engeners to 2nd Air Division in Manchuria , then transfer the 2nd Air Division to Southern Area Army. Your "new" Army will be formed already by April 1942. The AV in Manchuria will then only be 8800 of 8000 required so keep an eye on it. You can also take 4-5 Divisions from Japan Home Defence. I did this to invade India for a few games ago but opponent quit after he lost India.

< Message edited by RUDOLF -- 7/25/2010 11:09:36 AM >

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 11
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/25/2010 2:33:50 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I agree, and when I Corps arrives in late July 42 you can then payout all those deployable US Divisions and support units on the West Coast.

Attach it to West Coast Command, and start saving PP's in early June 42 for the expenditure.
Then swap it back to a non restricted command.

Then it's payback time, providing you haven't squandered your fleet.




Good thing is that Japan can do the same,
add 10 Divisions + Engeners to 2nd Air Division in Manchuria , then transfer the 2nd Air Division to Southern Area Army. Your "new" Army will be formed already by April 1942. The AV in Manchuria will then only be 8800 of 8000 required so keep an eye on it. You can also take 4-5 Divisions from Japan Home Defence. I did this to invade India for a few games ago but opponent quit after he lost India.



now the question: why did he do that? Perhaps because you "managed" to get 15 additional divisions in mid 42?

_____________________________


(in reply to RUDOLF)
Post #: 12
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/25/2010 7:23:20 PM   
RUDOLF


Posts: 261
Joined: 4/29/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy



now the question: why did he do that? Perhaps because you "managed" to get 15 additional divisions in mid 42?



No, my opponent back then insisted to play a game without House Rules, I advised against it but he insisted.
So, well then why not?
If you are willing to do it as the Allies then why should not Japan do it?

< Message edited by RUDOLF -- 7/25/2010 7:32:39 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 13
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/26/2010 10:31:27 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy



now the question: why did he do that? Perhaps because you "managed" to get 15 additional divisions in mid 42?



No, my opponent back then insisted to play a game without House Rules, I advised against it but he insisted.
So, well then why not?
If you are willing to do it as the Allies then why should not Japan do it?



I wouldn´t have a hr on it because I couldn´t even think about something like 15 additional divisions for the Japanese in early 42. And I as the Allied wouldn´t do it either btw.

_____________________________


(in reply to RUDOLF)
Post #: 14
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/27/2010 6:32:10 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		I never quite understood why it requires the full amount of PPs to switch LCUs between different HQs within the same command (or for the transfer from one unrestricted command to another). Attaching units to different HQs within a command should be simply a matter of military administration but not a political issue.  And once unrestricted, transfer of units between unrestricted commands should not require the same amount of PPs than "unrestricting" a unit in the first place. Changing air units within a command costs only 25% of PPs compared to moving them to a different command. The same principle should apply to LCUs. With only so many (or few) PPs around, it is impossible to unrestrict all the units which got unrestricted historically (i.e. 41st Inf Div), switch commanding officers AND assign units to lower HQs in order to keep a semblance of hierachy within the commands. I'd be ready to accept a reduction of daily PP allocation if it would less costly to switch unrestricted LCUs between different HQs. My 2 Euro cents.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 15
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/27/2010 1:20:52 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I never quite understood why it requires the full amount of PPs to switch LCUs between different HQs within the same command (or for the transfer from one unrestricted command to another). Attaching units to different HQs within a command should be simply a matter of military administration but not a political issue.  And once unrestricted, transfer of units between unrestricted commands should not require the same amount of PPs than "unrestricting" a unit in the first place. Changing air units within a command costs only 25% of PPs compared to moving them to a different command. The same principle should apply to LCUs. With only so many (or few) PPs around, it is impossible to unrestrict all the units which got unrestricted historically (i.e. 41st Inf Div), switch commanding officers AND assign units to lower HQs in order to keep a semblance of hierachy within the commands. I'd be ready to accept a reduction of daily PP allocation if it would less costly to switch unrestricted LCUs between different HQs. My 2 Euro cents.



Changing LCUs within the same command costs only 25% compared with changing them to a different command. This is the same as air units.






(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 16
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/27/2010 2:07:38 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		Now slap me silly...

I have just fired up stock GC.

Since there are only 100 PPs for the Allies on turn 1, I have selected a small cheap unit.

Changing the 2nd USMC Para from West Coast Command to Pacific Fleet Command costs 35 PPs.

Leaves 65 PPs.

The costs for changing same unit from Pacific Fleet Command to the I Amphib Corps which is subordinate to Pacific Fleet (thus changing within command) are indicated on screen as 35 PPs .

BUT - executing the change leaves 57 PPs.

I have never notived that before... - I always took the indicated costs for true.


Ok, before I leave to hide in shame, I have to modify my rant: why the heck changing HQs for LCUs does not use the same system like changing air units - where they actually SHOW the difference in PPs charged for changes within and outside a Command?



_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 17
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/27/2010 2:20:19 PM   
ckammp

 

Posts: 756
Joined: 5/30/2009
From: Rear Area training facility
Status: offline 		100% agree, the LCU screens should show the difference just like the air unit screens.

I only figured out the difference through luck.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 18
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 7/27/2010 4:42:03 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

100% agree, the LCU screens should show the difference just like the air unit screens.

I only figured out the difference through luck.


+1

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to ckammp)
Post #: 19
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/22/2010 10:57:27 PM   
bigred


Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RUDOLF

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy



now the question: why did he do that? Perhaps because you "managed" to get 15 additional divisions in mid 42?



No, my opponent back then insisted to play a game without House Rules, I advised against it but he insisted.
So, well then why not?
If you are willing to do it as the Allies then why should not Japan do it?



I wouldn´t have a hr on it because I couldn´t even think about something like 15 additional divisions for the Japanese in early 42. And I as the Allied wouldn´t do it either btw.


Castor, the question becomes--> Should HQs be able to change major command to facilitate a discount(25% of regular cost) for restricted units? Or should the whole cost be paid?
Massive argument...back to house rules and player experience.

< Message edited by bigred -- 8/22/2010 10:58:40 PM >

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 20
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/23/2010 1:44:10 AM   
Mistmatz

 

Posts: 1399
Joined: 10/16/2005
Status: offline 		Is this 'getting LCUs the cheap way by reattaching' thingy wad or is this a cheesy exploitation? To me it appears to be the latter...

_____________________________

If you gained knowledge through the forum, why not putting it into the AE wiki?

http://witp-ae.wikia.com/wiki/War_in_the_Pacific:_Admiral%27s_Edition_Wiki


(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 21
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/23/2010 2:30:02 AM   
Central Blue

 

Posts: 695
Joined: 8/20/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Is this 'getting LCUs the cheap way by reattaching' thingy wad or is this a cheesy exploitation? To me it appears to be the latter...


your point of view assumes that the devs couldn't foresee the consequences of their choice to begin with, and that it was never kicked around by anyone during the process that led to release of the game or its subsequent patches.

This topic has been kicked around for a while, and I haven't seen any devs step in, so. . . what do you think they intended by including this feature?

Or is it a bug?



_____________________________

USS St. Louis firing on Guam, July 1944. The Cardinals and Browns faced each other in the World Series that year

(in reply to Mistmatz)
Post #: 22
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/23/2010 6:20:05 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz
Is this 'getting LCUs the cheap way by reattaching' thingy wad or is this a cheesy exploitation? To me it appears to be the latter...

your point of view assumes that the devs couldn't foresee the consequences of their choice to begin with, and that it was never kicked around by anyone during the process that led to release of the game or its subsequent patches.

This topic has been kicked around for a while, and I haven't seen any devs step in, so. . . what do you think they intended by including this feature?

Or is it a bug?

It's both wad and cheesy. 98% of the time it works just how it's supposed to. In order to have the desired flexibility, there will always be an open window for the last 2%. People who enjoy being oh so clever will always find that cheesy 2%. There is no desire to ruin the game's flexibility in order to toast a few pieces of mouldy cheese. This is a game for grognards who should know the smell of a rancid Stilton when they come across it.

Being cheesy against the AI is not so bad because the AI gets pretty cheesy itself. Being cheesy against a human opponent may well result in a dumped game and a reputation. Not having HRs is no excuse, because the game can be played very adequately without any HRs at all - except for the one and only HR that truly matters, and which I have never seen in any HR list, and that is:

Don't Cheat. One can wiggle and jiggle, on occasion, because armys did that, on occasion. But Don't Cheat.

The solution to the Kwantung issue is simple; it's not in code, it's in how the HQ dependencies are structured and how the restriction switches (for both HQs and units) are set in the scenario data. If there's ever a full data update that includes this tweak, then Katy bar the door. It's coming in the next Babes update, btw, if ya want a preview.

realize some of the text is rather harsh - no reflection at all on Central Blue. He's one of our a-list people and knows how it works. He just happened to be the last poster.

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/23/2010 6:35:41 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Central Blue)
Post #: 23
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/23/2010 10:19:29 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline 		What he said

(and what happened to the smiley face holding the sign that says that?)

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 24
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/23/2010 11:08:11 PM   
Cad908

 

Posts: 1333
Joined: 10/9/2009
Status: offline 		As a practical matter, unlike air units, the command structure of land units means nothing for ground combat. (This was discussed some months ago, and please correct me if I my memory is wrong on this point) For example you could have a Corps HQ from Pacific Fleet aiding SWPAC ground units and suffer no penalty. You can mix and match, an infantry division for SWPAC, one from Pacific Fleet and artillery units from South Pacific could be attacking, or defending, the same hex with no command penalties. The would fight just the same as if all units were with the same command. (I would perfer cleaner ground chain of commands, but it is just not necessary.)

The real necessity is changing to an unrestricted command so you can move units from the continental US or Australia. One of the devs detail their rational some months ago, but offhand I cannot find the thread.

In my Allied v Japanese AI, I ran the game until January 1945. I had somewhere around 20,000 points still available. Where I spend them freely:
Land/Air units to unrestricted;
Air group leaders;
Task force leaders;
Ground unit leaders.

The best bang for the buck is with air group and task force leaders. I change air units command to Air HQ's in range on a regular basis. Makes big difference for coordination.




(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 25
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/23/2010 11:12:07 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		I hadn't thought of attaching 10 Kwantung Army Divisions to an AIR HQ, then buying it out, but I'm glad I hadn't. I might have been tempted, but that smells to me.

I would rather just play it straight-up and do "retail" buys the "old fashioned" way, which IMO frees up units fast enough as it is.



_____________________________


(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 26
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/23/2010 11:19:01 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cad908

As a practical matter, unlike air units, the command structure of land units means nothing for ground combat.


I've seen posts where players talk about it, but I have never seen the developers confirm that air units assigned to certain HQ's perform better (because that HQ has the right target set, etc.). It would be great if the developers could confirm or deny the point, because PP's in AE are way more precious than in WITP.

(in reply to Cad908)
Post #: 27
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/23/2010 11:20:21 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

What he said

(and what happened to the smiley face holding the sign that says that?)


How about this one?




(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 28
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/24/2010 12:02:51 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Air units perform better when flying from a BASE that has an AIR HQ, and maybe within the Command Radius of the AIR HQ, but I don't think it helps to be ATTACHED to the Air HQ

Could be wrong though

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 29
RE: Question regarding US Marine units - 8/24/2010 12:05:01 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Air units perform better when flying from a BASE that has an AIR HQ, and maybe within the Command Radius of the AIR HQ, but I don't think it helps to be ATTACHED to the Air HQ

Could be wrong though


Thanks - that's what I thought was the case.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Question regarding US Marine units Page: [1] 2   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

2.437