LCU Headquarters Question (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

wadail -> LCU Headquarters Question (8/24/2012 9:36:12 PM)

I've read the manual and searched the threads here, and while I have found information that tells me the benefit of having air units near their parent HQ, I cannot find anything that indicates there is a benefit to having LCUs near their parent HQ, or justifies spending PPs on moving all those LCUs from Pacific Areas to one of the Corps HQs, such as 1st Amphib or 10th Army.

The only exception would be when sub-units are attached to different HQs and you want to combine the units back into the larger formation (1st Marine Div, for example). Everything in the manual just points to the benefits of being within the control range of a Corps HQ, but it does not say the Corps HQ has to be the parent of the LCU. Is this correct?

If so I am sick at how many PPs I spent putting LCUs into Corps HQs, but think Burma and China just became much easier to manage.


Also, is there any benefit to having a ship belong to a HQ? Such as moving ships from Pacific Ocean Areas to South Pacific? I see no penalty for having too many LCUs or naval units attached to a particular HQ.



Empire101 -> RE: LCU Headquarters Question (8/25/2012 10:37:11 AM)

This is from the manual:-


Command - Helps in several ways. They help in giving a bonus to ground
combat. If no Corps HQ is in range of a ground unit, 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
within range of the battle, and the Command HQ is within 2 times its command
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 leaderships rating of the commander of the HQs. Command HQs are also
important for air replacements and upgrades (see section 16.2.3 for details).

»» Army - Helps with ground combat. Ground units in range can gain up to
a 10% bonus to their Assault Value (whether attacking or defending).

»» Corps – Helps with ground combat. Ground units in range can gain up to
a 10% bonus to their Assault Value (whether attacking or defending).

»» Amphibious – Helps amphibious invasions suffer fewer losses.

»» Naval – Helps to speed ship repair time.

»» Air – Helps by allowing more aircraft to fly and allows more air units
to be based at a base with this type of HQ, coordinating aircraft
replacement/upgrades and supporting more groups at a base.



All HQ's have their use's and all will assist with combat if in range.
The exception to this is Naval HQ's, which only seem to affect ship repair rates, and Air HQ's which affect support and co-ordination.


LCU HQ's will ( I think! ) assist any unit within its range by adding combat modifiers to its attack/defence

Hope this helps.



wadail -> RE: LCU Headquarters Question (8/28/2012 3:46:15 PM)

OK, thanks.. that's pretty much what I thought. Having gone from the defensive to the offensive I have come to the personal conclusion that, for the most part, it is not worth spending PPs to move LCUs to different HQs, with the following exceptions (Air units not discussed):

1) To activate a unit that is currently assigned to a [R] or [S] HQ, and that unit must board a transport to make it to combat. For example, an Indian unit [R] in Madras can still march to combat in Burma, so there may be no need to spend the PPs to get it into combat, whereas a [R] unit attached to West Coast will need to board a transport to go to combat, so spending the PPs is mandatory (hrm, I wonder if it can board a transport that is assigned to West Coast? Must try that this evening).

2) The parent HQ has been destroyed (ADBA) and the unit is in combat. For instance, a unit of Australian I Corps retakes Mandalay. That brings Mandalay under the control of AUS I Corps. I am not sure if this causes supply issues.. anyone know? I don't *think* it does, but it offends my sense of order :)

3) 2 Sub-units are attached to different HQs and you want to rejoin the larger unit. Aus. divisions attached to ADBA are a good example. Many sub-units will be destroyed in the initial fall of SE Asia, if you bring the destroyed sub-units back, most likely they will come back attached to whatever HQ Aden is under, while the old units will still be attached to ADBA. If you plan to keep the units at the BDE and BN level this is not an issue. I personally prefer the "oomph" of a combined arms division.

4) Your style of play mandates that you attach ground units to a Corps HQ. I started out here but am quickly finding I'd rather spend the PPs on activating [R] and [S] LCUs and Air units, and combining existing divisions from their components.



Empire101 -> RE: LCU Headquarters Question (8/28/2012 8:28:19 PM)

I've always been of the opinion that the Japanese PP allocation of 60 is too low for a military dictatorship ruled by a divine living 'God'.

The Japanese should have an allocation of around 100 per day IMHO



wadail -> RE: LCU Headquarters Question (8/28/2012 9:59:48 PM)

And then the army and navy should have to fight for them to see which will get their way :)



wadail -> RE: LCU Headquarters Question (9/4/2012 4:56:01 PM)

This is an interesting tidbit I found on section 11.0 of the manual, that plainly states that a unit with its HQs nearby is more efficient than one with its HQ thousands of miles away. Is this just "rhetoric" and "any old HQ will do" if it is nearby? This statement implies that being attached to that nearby HQ has benefit.

Some units need to be reattached to different HQ’s as the game moves on. A unit operating under an HQ that is thousands of miles away is not nearly as efficient in its operations as it would be were it attached to an HQ in the same hex (or a nearby one).



TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum -> RE: LCU Headquarters Question (9/4/2012 5:10:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wadail

This is an interesting tidbit I found on section 11.0 of the manual, that plainly states that a unit with its HQs nearby is more efficient than one with its HQ thousands of miles away. Is this just "rhetoric" and "any old HQ will do" if it is nearby? This statement implies that being attached to that nearby HQ has benefit.

Some units need to be reattached to different HQ’s as the game moves on. A unit operating under an HQ that is thousands of miles away is not nearly as efficient in its operations as it would be were it attached to an HQ in the same hex (or a nearby one).


Despite what section 11.0 of the manual says, it appears the only time HQs assignment is critical is in regards to Air HQs. If the Air HQ is assigned to the same command as the base it is present in, it will provide a full administrative bonus to the aircraft there, if the HQ is not under the same command, then it will provide half of the bonus.

As far as land combat goes, merely having an HQ prepped for the target within the command radius of the units participating in the attack is needed, AFAIK there is no bonus by ensuring that the units participating in combat are in fact under the same command structure as the HQ that is in range.



Alfred -> RE: LCU Headquarters Question (9/5/2012 8:28:35 AM)

I said a long time ago that HQ attachment benefits are subtle. Just because the benefits occur mainly under the hood, unseen by the player, most people just assume they don't exist and merrily play on, saving the PPs for use on more "sexy" subjects.

Everything in this game is a trade off. Players may or may not consider the expenditure to be worthwhile. My advice is to never assume that any game feature is totally redundant.

Alfred



rms1pa -> RE: LCU Headquarters Question (9/5/2012 2:12:45 PM)

" HQ attachment benefits are subtle."

i would disagree with you on almost nothing about this game.

your sentence is a mastery of understatement.

rms/pa



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875