Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Montrose -> Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 2:58:29 PM)

Hi fellas, got back into WitP after a long break thanks to CHS & am enjoying it more than ever.

I have a mate who is also taking the CHS mod for a spin and he was showing me how he has managed to hold on to Rabaul as Allies (against the AI of course [:D]). He has placed all kind of LBUs in there ranging from Canadians to Kiwis and most of them are nothing to do with the HQ area that is in charge of Rabaul. Many of them are 1,000s of miles from their assigned commands.

I'm trying to use LBUs and aircraft only in their correct areas, and saving political points for changing base assignments. I figure it might help the AI a bit, and as it is still trying to take Hong Kong after six months help is probably needed [:D].

So I'd like to ask A) are there any significant penalties for using LBUs (or aricraft) way out of their area (he seems to think not), and B) do you consider it 'gamey'.



Sardaukar -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 3:07:05 PM)

Well..against AI it is bit gamey, but it won't hurt it's feelings. Competent human IJ player will take those bases no matter what Allied player tries to throw into them.



Feinder -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 3:15:29 PM)

So I'd like to ask

A) Are there any significant penalties for using LBUs out of their area - None that are documented. Nothing in the manual indicates any -penalty- for being out of assigned area. However, there does appear a beneift where, it has been by -observation- (I've never formally tested it), that an LCU stacked with it's parent HQ at a base assigned to that HQ will be more likely to "convert" to it's "extended TOE". For example, a US RCT is usually 125 squads. If stacked with it's parent a base where all are assigned to the same HQ, the RCT will eventually convert to the "extended TOE" of 175 squads. This TOE jump is not listed on the "display TOE" screen, but it happens. I don't know if it's a bug, or the usual conversion of units over time. It works for both sides so it's not really a problem.

(or aricraft) way out of their area (he seems to think not), - Nothing significant. I don't feel like posting the rules for drawing aircraft replacements. But a sqdn that operates from bases of the HQ to which it is assigned, will have a slightly -easier- time drawing replacements. But it's not that major. If you need to redeploy a group, don't I wouldn't let the HQ assignment stop you.


B) do you consider it 'gamey'. No. It is in fact -imperative- that the Allied player very quickly break out of the mold of NoPac units to NoPac, or SWPac to SWPac. Japan cares nothing for their HQ assignments. The AI doesn’t care. And PBEM most definitely doesn’t care. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not so much a deliberate “I wanna screw my opponent” thing. It’s just as much that the “boundaries” for what is Southern Area what is 5th Fleet what is whatever for the IJA formations. Folks don’t even know. And what does Japan do with the units after PI falls? As grognards, we know the boundaries of the Allied HQs, and but rest assured there is no constraint for either the AI or a human opponent. If you want to play with a house rule that says units must remain in their assigned HQs, that’s great. But otherwise, esp as Allies, you –should- break out of the “This LCU is assigned to CentPac, so it needs to go to a CentPac base”. You need to deploy troops to where they are needed.

• I believe in CHS however, there was considerable thought put into the HQ assignments. I believe that scenario was intended to be played with LCUs within their assigned HQs, so you might consider that when playing.

-F-





Sardaukar -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 3:20:05 PM)

I think only penalty there is to use units far away from their Command HQ is getting less replacements & supply..but I think it occurs every time unit is out of Command HQ command range (9 usually..meaning 8 hexes) anyway...AFAIK.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 3:38:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder
I believe in CHS however, there was considerable thought put into the HQ assignments. I believe that scenario was intended to be played with LCUs within their assigned HQs, so you might consider that when playing.


Actually, I think most of the US LCU HQ assignments in CHS are the same as in the stock scenarios.

There is a set of recommended house rules in the CHS documentation. One of them is for the Canadians, as follows:

quote:

Canadian restrictions:

Canadian land and air units can only be deployed in North America, including Canada, the USA, Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. This restriction is permanent, even if the units are reassigned to a HQ other than Canada Command.

This house rule simulates the fact that most of the Canadian armed forces deployed in Western Canada were home defence units that were not expected to operate outside of North America.


I am guessing that not many people use the recommended CHS house rules, but I believe they reflect the "spirit" of the scenario.

Andrew



niceguy2005 -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 5:57:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

[B) do you consider it 'gamey'. No. It is in fact -imperative- that the Allied player very quickly break out of the mold of NoPac units to NoPac, or SWPac to SWPac. Japan cares nothing for their HQ assignments. The AI doesn’t care. And PBEM most definitely doesn’t care. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not so much a deliberate “I wanna screw my opponent” thing. It’s just as much that the “boundaries” for what is Southern Area what is 5th Fleet what is whatever for the IJA formations. Folks don’t even know. And what does Japan do with the units after PI falls? As grognards, we know the boundaries of the Allied HQs, and but rest assured there is no constraint for either the AI or a human opponent. If you want to play with a house rule that says units must remain in their assigned HQs, that’s great. But otherwise, esp as Allies, you –should- break out of the “This LCU is assigned to CentPac, so it needs to go to a CentPac base”. You need to deploy troops to where they are needed.


I am still coming to terms with Feinder's statement. I think historically the US did mix and match units from different commands. I tend to be a little more rigid about it myself, but I'm getting better. [:D]

I think the only thing to keep in mind in terms of gameyness is nationality and political issues. Chinese units defending Karachi would be gamey. Lots of UK Division in China would be gamey. I also think pulling lots of Canadian Bdes to Rabaul is a tad gamey. Major WC cities, including those in Canada should maintain a garrison throughout the war.



Feinder -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 6:37:37 PM)

You could argue that the HQ assignments of units in-game, are exactly that, merely the historical references.

If historically Japan had posed a serious threat to Noumea, the arrival of some of the formations that were historically assigned to NoPac, would surely have been diverted, and not assigned to NoPac. It would have been more fluid historically, just as it is in my game(s).

Frankly, I see the restricted HQs such as Canadian/NZ/Oz units as militia type units (not sure if they were all historically), and that's exactly the case when they PPs must be spent to convert them.

But basically as Allies, if you staunchly keep units within their general area, your defense will -very- quickly become off balance by a Japanese attack where their units are -not- from the assigned area.

To each his own.

That being said, I would -love- to play a game where units stayed in their assigned area (no PPs at all, no conversions, you just throw with what you've got, and units Japan and Allied stay within their zones). But I don't have time for another game.

-F-



Jim D Burns -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 6:50:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

A) Are there any significant penalties for using LBUs out of their area - None that are documented.


Well there is the fact that land combat units within range of their command HQ receive a combat bonus if they are stacked with a Corp HQ. Units alone with a Corp HQ get 10%, but if they are also within range of their command HQ they can get up to another 90% depending on the command HQ's leadership ratings.

I have no idea if mixed commands can or cannot benefit from this, so this might be a consideration or not when sending units to theatres outside their normal command.

In other words if you have Central Pacific, South Pacific and Southwest Pacific units all stacked in the south Pacific with a South Pacific Corp HQ and within range of a South Pacific command HQ, do all units get the extra 90% or just the South Pacific combat units?

Jim




Feinder -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 7:10:48 PM)

Actually Jim,

The manual is not specific that it must be the actual parent HQ.

quote:

8.1.1

Command - Help in several ways. They help in giving a bonus to ground combat. If no Corps HQ is in range, of a ground unti, the Command HQ can give a bonus like a Corps HQ if it is in range of a ground unit. If there is a corps hq withing range of the battle and the command hq is withing 2x the commmand range of the battle, it can add up to an additional 90% bonus to the assault value of an attacking force for odds calculations. the bonuses are impacted by the leaserhips rating of teh commander of teh HQs. Command HQ are also importat for air replacents and upgrades (see those sections for details).


However, it does not specify that the bonus is only applied to units assigned to that HQ. It has been my observation (not formally tested), that the 2x bonus is for any unit in range, HQ affialiation is not important.

That's sort of what I meant by "no penalties", as in, an LCU won't suffer any detriment. It might not garner all bonuses (maybe thre is additional bonus if you are assigned to same HQ, altho I haven't seen it, but I'm not saying it doesn't exist).

-F-



Feinder -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 7:24:50 PM)

It got me thinking.

Historically, where -did- the Japanese divisions that were committed to conquering the Philipines go, after it fell? Did they just sit out the war in PI until he who shall remain nameless "returned". Or where were they otherwise committed. It would give some perspective on what happened historically about LCUs operatining out of theater.

-F-



Montrose -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/2/2006 11:01:44 PM)

Great reading, thanks everyone. I'd forgotten how helpful this board was [:)].



Knavey -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 1:48:03 AM)

I am sort of doing this in one of my PBEM games.  I imposed a limit on the troops and aircraft in China proper of having to be Chinese Command prior to entry and being swapped back prior to exit. 

I am going to evaluate this effect on the game for a while to see if it makes a decent house rule.



tabpub -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 2:06:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

It got me thinking.

Historically, where -did- the Japanese divisions that were committed to conquering the Philipines go, after it fell? Did they just sit out the war in PI until he who shall remain nameless "returned". Or where were they otherwise committed. It would give some perspective on what happened historically about LCUs operatining out of theater.

-F-

Off the top of my head, I recollect that 2 of the 3 went to DEI; one left before the end in PI, and was replaced by some crummy brigade, like the 65th "Summer" Brigade or something like that.



el cid again -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 4:07:54 AM)

There is this penalty: Such an air unit will refuse to upgrade. You will get an error message "not enough supplies or unit too far from command."

I never consider using a unit out of area. I pay the PP cost BEFORE it transfers. On principle. I suspect AI uses command assignments in some decisions - but I cannot prove that.



dtravel -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 6:39:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is this penalty: Such an air unit will refuse to upgrade. You will get an error message "not enough supplies or unit too far from command."


Note that this is based on the base's distance from its HQ. The HQ of the air unit is irrelevant.



el cid again -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 8:09:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is this penalty: Such an air unit will refuse to upgrade. You will get an error message "not enough supplies or unit too far from command."


Note that this is based on the base's distance from its HQ. The HQ of the air unit is irrelevant.


If you play as I do - and never allow a unit to a base it is not assigned to the same command as - it is academic. I think it is wrong not to have units in area under the area command and I assign the unit BEFORE it transfers in - if possible - or immediately otherwise. It may be the base that matters - but I think of it as both - and it should be both - and for me it always will be both. If the base is too far - so is the air unit - and if not, not - because they always have the SAME command. I think messing with that principle is what others call "gamey." I only do what I think would be done IRL. Period. Otherwise it is not simulation.



dtravel -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 8:30:51 AM)

I am simply noting how the program works.  How people play or use the program is up to them.



bradfordkay -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 8:34:32 AM)

"I am sort of doing this in one of my PBEM games. I imposed a limit on the troops and aircraft in China proper of having to be Chinese Command prior to entry and being swapped back prior to exit.

I am going to evaluate this effect on the game for a while to see if it makes a decent house rule."

The only problem with this one is that it places all your troops in China under Peanut's command. I'm on Vinegar Joe's side in this argument...



rockmedic109 -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 10:24:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder
I believe in CHS however, there was considerable thought put into the HQ assignments. I believe that scenario was intended to be played with LCUs within their assigned HQs, so you might consider that when playing.


Actually, I think most of the US LCU HQ assignments in CHS are the same as in the stock scenarios.

There is a set of recommended house rules in the CHS documentation. One of them is for the Canadians, as follows:

quote:

Canadian restrictions:

Canadian land and air units can only be deployed in North America, including Canada, the USA, Alaska and the Aleutian Islands. This restriction is permanent, even if the units are reassigned to a HQ other than Canada Command.

This house rule simulates the fact that most of the Canadian armed forces deployed in Western Canada were home defence units that were not expected to operate outside of North America.


I am guessing that not many people use the recommended CHS house rules, but I believe they reflect the "spirit" of the scenario.

Andrew



Not only do I use the recommended CHS house rules, I add a few of my own. I personally do not transfer units outside their command area without paying the PP, but I play the AI. Playing the AI, I don't think I have to worry about Pearl Harbor/Karachi being invaded and I know I don't have to worry about Panama or Aden.

The new CHS version that has the SouthPac units arriving as under CentPac command is going to give me a headache trying to switch everything over after SouthPac shows up.



herwin -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 12:14:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Not only do I use the recommended CHS house rules, I add a few of my own. I personally do not transfer units outside their command area without paying the PP, but I play the AI. Playing the AI, I don't think I have to worry about Pearl Harbor/Karachi being invaded and I know I don't have to worry about Panama or Aden.

The new CHS version that has the SouthPac units arriving as under CentPac command is going to give me a headache trying to switch everything over after SouthPac shows up.


I'm running CHS 2.0.7 159 against the AI on hard and have reached late January. My main area commands are SEA controlling Ceylon and Sabang with the southern Malaya evacuees currently seconded to ABDA in Java to stiffen the defense. India Command in Delhi is responsible for Burma and Port Blair. SWPac is in Darwin, with assets holding Timor, Amboina, and northern Australia. Australia command is holding New Guinea and Rabaul with rear bases around Townsville. CenPac is in Hawaii controlling the sea lines of communication to Australia. NorPac is in Anchorage. I'll switch the CenPac assets south of Baker to SouPac when it arrives. All four US carriers are in the Solomons area, while the two RN carriers are supporting Port Blair against massive Japanese air raids. Three surface TFs are operating against the Japanese advance, one based near Batavia, a second on Kendari, and the third on the Shortlands. The Japanese have an intact KB which is currently in the Southern Philippines and a mini-KB built around CVLs supporting the Manado landing.

The Japanese have taken Rangoon and Malaya with a small landing on Sumatra and another at Kuching on Borneo. Hong Kong is holding out, as are Clark Field, Manila, Bataan, and Cagayan in the PI. The Japanese have landed at Manado in the Celebes. There was a landing attempted in the Solomons, but the USN has five TFs operating out of Tulagi and the Shortlands and a major USMC presence at Rabaul, so that went absolutely nowhere. Wake fell on 8 December, and the Japanese have advanced in the Marshalls, but the sea lines of communication to Australia are intact.

The reduced experience levels of the Allied air units show--although there have been perhaps 100 airstrikes on Japanese vessels in 50 days, I think there have been a total of 10 Japanese ships hit. The Allied submarine force has been more effective than the air forces.

My usual strategic approach of creating a strait-jacket for the Japanese isn't as effective as usual, but the Japanese advance is slower than in stock or CHS 1.0, so there hasn't been a major naval battle yet.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 12:26:42 PM)


quote:

8.1.1
an additional 90% bonus to the assault value of an attacking force for odds calculations.



AARRGGHH!!!

Does this mean only attacking units get the bonus? I hadn't read the rule as closely before (I assume you've copied it verbatim), but as written it appears that command HQ's only benefit the attacker when it comes to the possible extra 90%.

If so I think it is bogus and totally not justified to only effect the assaulting force. It was far easier to defend in WWII, but this rule almost doubles the attacker in a battle with all other factors being equal.

So let's assume we have two identical forces both with 100 PP and equal leadership and no forts. Say their AV start at 100, the attacker would jump to 190 almost giving him a 2-1 victory just due to this one sided rule. No way should this be the case. I hope I'm wrong and it's just poorly written.

Jim



Feinder -> RE: Land Based Units out of their assigned HQ areas (8/3/2006 3:01:45 PM)

Jim, I had to type it, I can't seem to get the dang thing to copy.

It says "attacking" units, but the bonus does apply to defending units as well. I know this points back to my previous comment of "it doesn't explicitly say that HQ assigment matters", just as it does not explicity say "attacking and defending units recieve the bonus".

All I can say is "obvservational evidence" in my games (and thus subject to interpretation), indicates that a unit will recieve the bonus whether it is attacking or defending, and regardless of it's HQ affiliation.

But that's just "observational". If you want to sure to get all the bonuses, then yes keep your units at bases assigned to their HQ, within range of their parent HQ, and that should cover you. But as far as the actual question regarding if there are penalties, no I do not believe there are any "you get a -20% because you're out of theater" or whatever.

Either way, if I've got an IJN opponent who wants to drop 7 Divisions on Noumea (ain't sigint grand?), reinforcing the current defenders with the 6th and 7th Oz Divisions seems like a pretty good idea...

-F-



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.875