Changing Base HQs

Changing Base HQs (Full Version)

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

Message

vonK0tze -> Changing Base HQs (2/16/2021 10:07:53 AM)
Hi, just getting into the game and love it. In tutorial videos I saw that people change the HQ of their bases sometimes (eg Noumea from French to US Command). What's the advantage of that, considering it costs quite a bit of political points?

GetAssista -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/16/2021 11:37:48 AM)
Would need it under very rare circumstances IMO, there are always cheaper workarounds. 1. PT boats can be generated from some nation's bases but not others. But you can use supply laden TFs for that 2. Switch a base to a restricted HQ to make airlifting of related restricted units possible. But that's costly, and probably cheaper to unrestrict units instead. 3. Specifically for Soviet bases, other allied planes cannot base out of them. But that need happens rarely.

Trugrit -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/16/2021 12:42:13 PM)
+1 vonKotze, Welcome to the game. This is not a vital issue in the game. Mostly it is about moving restricted air units. It is not something players really need to worry about. There are more important things to spend political points on and you can successfully play the entire game without changing a single base headquarters. Many Base Headquarters can’t be changed. Most of the Headquarters changes you will make is changing restricted units to Unrestricted commands. That is the main thrust. But….It is a natural question for new players to ask when they see for instance that in scenario 1 Port Moresby starts the scenario under Australian command but in the Coral Sea scenario 3 Port Moresby starts the game under American command. If you search you will find a few threads on this topic but not a lot because if it was a critical issue there would be lots of threads and opinions about it. https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4500858 https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2204963 About the Soviets….By the time they enter the game changing out the headquarters of a Soviet captured base is of very little concern.

vonK0tze -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/16/2021 6:12:16 PM)
Cool, thanks both! I thought it would be more important - the PT thing is good to know though!

Ian R -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/17/2021 8:16:50 AM)
HQ affiliation of air bases becomes important for the allies later in the game when assembling large strategic bombing raids. For example, your B29s are assigned to a bomb division of 20th AF, Therefore, you want your 20th AF bases (meaning were you have your B29s, eg the Marianas) set to the same theatre HQ as 20th AF. Therefore if, say, Guam was liberated and under SOPAC ownership (whose AF is the 13th) it can be worth it to pay to make Guam CENTPAC. The benefit is in better air strike co-ordination from multiple bases. Alfred has indicated that during the air-strike operations phases, the HQ affiliation of air-groups, and their physical bases, does play a role. How big that role is, is uncertain. I can say that in the end-game, when I have the 8th AF and Tiger Force flying out of Korea, I pick a command HQ (SWPAC), change all the bases in southern Korea to that, and put the command HQ in the middle to attract supplies. I also assign the Air HQs to that Command HQ as far as necessary, re-assign any extra fighter groups going to Pusan to 8th AF and so-forth. Strike co-ordination is not bad.

GetAssista -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/17/2021 9:49:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R The benefit is in better air strike co-ordination from multiple bases. You are mixing HQa affiliation and base affiliation. Tying airgroups to the former helps with coordination. For the latter - I for one never heard of anything ever.

RangerJoe -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/17/2021 11:18:02 AM)
The Air Mission Coordination Guide v2.1 https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2382494

Ian R -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 1:17:52 AM)
Am I? Post #24 https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2693781 quote: ORIGINAL: michaelm75au Here is a list of things that go towards determining if groups are 'grouped' together in the same raid/attack: Group attack mission is similar to the raid's mission (not a TF and a base attack) Sweeps, recon and search missions are not used in co-ordination Escorts need to be at same altitude as raid itself and have the same target to imporve chances Groups from same base have better chance to fly together; further apart group bases are, lessen the chance Groups belonging to same theatre command have increased chance; groups in range of their Air Hq are further increased IJA and IJN groups have a lessen chance to co-ordinate Group experience and leader's AIR increases chance Groups need to be within 20% of the raid's speed or time to target for the raid and group within 30 minutes to participate in raid Escorts targeted to same target as bombers have a better chance than un-target escorts

GetAssista -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 6:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R Am I? Point us specifically where you think it says what you think it says?

Ian R -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 6:57:00 AM)
Theatre command thing - that has two chains it can run down. Things aren't always obvious. Put it this way, have you ever seen a statement that base affiliation does not matter? It's a bit like having more AV support than you need.

Ambassador -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 9:48:08 AM)
quote: Groups belonging to same theatre command have increased chance; groups in range of their Air Hq are further increased Has nothing to do with base HQ, it only refers to groups.[&:]

Ian R -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 11:12:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador quote: Groups belonging to same theatre command have increased chance; groups in range of their Air Hq are further increased Has nothing to do with base HQ, it only refers to groups.[&:] You are, possibly, being too literal. Alfred is always precise, but never overly literal. He may care to clarify this. It may be that literal is correct here. But English is more nuanced than technical. This is the fault of the French, of course [:D]

RangerJoe -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 12:20:55 PM)
The Air HQ is relevant to the base HQ as far as stacking limits go, the base ownership has no relevance for air operations otherwise other than maybe the Soviet Union and Allied Air Operations. quote: Air Headquarters - 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. Air Group stacking at a base is improved by Air HQ. The best Air HQ of the same command as the base which is within range can add its command radius to the number of groups that can be administrated, or if not in the same command, the nearest HQ will add ½ its command radius to the number of groups. Level bombers not located within an air HQ’s Command Radius will have their number of planes flying reduced by 25% for Offensive Missions. All other air strike Missions by units outside an air HQ’s command radius will have the flying planes reduced by 10%. Not sure if any of the leader qualities matter... http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2350468

GetAssista -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 1:25:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R Theatre command thing - that has two chains it can run down. Things aren't always obvious. It does not have anything to do with base affiliation, the statement is about groups affiliation Put it this way, have you ever seen a statement that base affiliation does not matter? It all does not work that way. Else one can make all kinds of statements, like e.g a version of Windows affecting turn resolution etc, and sit on ones butt waiting for someone else to do the work to produce the rebuttal. Nope, if you make some statement that is not common knowledge you provide the evidence first yourself

Ian R -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 2:08:53 PM)
Are you 100% sure?

Ambassador -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 4:19:37 PM)
Nothing to do with reading a statement literally or not. Burden of proof is the same in legal or scientific fields : the one making the statement has to provide the proof. Alfred is always careful to tell not to infer too much from what is said, and he’s often rebuked wrong ideas inferred from an extensive interpretation of a Dev’s statement. The statement by michaelm looks very clear, he only refers to group’s affiliation, not base’s. His only statement relating to bases is about better coordination odds for groups flying from the same base compared to groups from different bases. So, he spoke both about theater command affiliation and about bases, but not in the same statement. Which is more probable : that he would have forgotten to state that base affiliation mattered, or that it doesn’t matter* ? * beyond the base administration limit

Chris21wen -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 4:28:16 PM)
Two things not mention here. When a base is captured it is placed under the same command as the unit that captures it. You can therefore avoid, or try to, the requirement to change a base if you don't use units outside of their combat area. Ie. don't use SOPAC to capture SWPAC etc. You can only change base command if the base already has a unit based there already under that command.

ITAKLinus -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/18/2021 5:09:58 PM)
As far as I know, base hq change is very useful for the administration bonus it gives in presence of an air hq. Still, it might be better or cheaper to change the HQ affiliation rather than the base one. Generally, i found the issue for bases i conquered with a force coming from a command HQ which has no other bases around; otherwise, I've always preferred to change the HQ affiliation rather than the base one.

Alfred -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 3:30:04 AM)
Hmm, wondering if perhaps post #21 from Yaab in this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4131332&mpage=1&key=coordination&#4131583 has perhaps been recalled incorrectly as emanating from me. Succinct, direct, bullet style, in style could easily be mistaken for being a post of mine.[;)] In other threads I have commented that same attached bases are useful for other aspects of the air war. Alfred

Ian R -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 5:43:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador Burden of proof is the same in legal or scientific fields. It isn't really the same - scientific proof is 100% proven no doubt whatsoever. Legal allows for a level of doubt, varying with the subject matter (criminal or civil) and the systematic approach (common law adversarial, or civil law inquisitorial, or authoritarian show trial, to name a few possibilities). Anyway, this is neither a laboratory nor a court. We have been told this: "In game terms, coordination has a very specific purpose which is limited to auto synchronising bombers to get to target. Altitude is the specific code key to start the process which is then dependent on numerous variables. " [https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3947953&mpage=1&key=cooperation%26%2365533%3B] We know what at least some of those numerous variables are. No developer has ever said that any published list is exhaustive, to my knowledge. So it's just my interpretation of incomplete information. Perhaps it's a less direct benefit. Edit: Has anyone ever tested the following as a potential influencing factor? quote: Currently I tend to think the preparation for a certain target by the HQ has no influence on strike coordination, but my experience in testing this is far too limited to be sure. - LoBaron

Ambassador -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 11:18:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador Burden of proof is the same in legal or scientific fields. It isn't really the same - scientific proof is 100% proven no doubt whatsoever. Legal allows for a level of doubt, varying with the subject matter (criminal or civil) and the systematic approach (common law adversarial, or civil law inquisitorial, or authoritarian show trial, to name a few possibilities). Anyway, this is neither a laboratory nor a court. We have been told this: Burden of proof is not « how many elements of proof you must bring to prove your point », but « who has to bring the elements ». It is the same in both fields : the one making the assertion has to provide the elements to prove his point. The fact that the contradictors can’t prove you wrong, doesn’t mean you’re right. If I say « I’m a Martian », the fact you can’t prove I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m really an alien. It is even the same in all forms of debate. Discussing the game’s mechanics is much closer to scientific and legal debates as you’d think, since we rely on 1) a game engine which applies some « natural rules » we’re often in the process of discovering and 2) those « natural rules » are defined by people (the Devs) who have provided statements in the past, thankfully often referenced by Alfred, and me have to interpret those insights. And, by the way, scientific proof is not always 100% either, it may be enough to prove 99% (or 99,99%, or whatever as long as it it infinitely more probable).

Ian R -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 11:32:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador If I say « I’m a Martian », the fact you can’t prove I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m really an alien. It would however be good evidence for a factual proposition, other than to prove the truth of what was said. Is that an exception to hearsay exclusion rules in the civil system?

Ambassador -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 11:32:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Hmm, wondering if perhaps post #21 from Yaab in this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4131332&mpage=1&key=coordination� has perhaps been recalled incorrectly as emanating from me. Succinct, direct, bullet style, in style could easily be mistaken for being a post of mine.[;)] In other threads I have commented that same attached bases are useful for other aspects of the air war. Alfred A very interesting string of links, thanks. Reminded some things I had forgotten. While you’re here, when you say that you have commented « that same attached bases are useful for other aspects of the air war », could we infer that the same factor has indeed no effect, or that you can’t provide a definitive answer ?[;)]

Ambassador -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 12:00:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R quote: ORIGINAL: Ambassador If I say « I’m a Martian », the fact you can’t prove I’m wrong doesn’t mean I’m really an alien. It would however be good evidence for a factual proposition, other than to prove the truth of what was said. Is that an exception to hearsay exclusion rules in the civil system? « Evidence » is the word that eluded my memorial grasp earlier, thanks. I’m not familiar enough with the common law systems to answer with certainty on such a comparison, but our evidence rules (as in most civil law systems) are more open (i.e., you may present many more evidences to the judge, who will have a greater freedom to ascertain whether they convince him or not). As such, if witness Anna told that she heard Brigitte say she (Brigitte) saw Charlie steal a car, the evidence would be allowed, but it’ll usually only prove that Brigitte said that, not that Brigitte’s statement was true. It may be part of an array of presumptions though.

Ian R -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 12:55:30 PM)
In any event, you may choose to disregard my visceral sensation that paying the PP to line up the geographic command HQ of the bases is worth it. The situation remains that no one with any real clout has said I'm wrong.

Ambassador -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 1:36:51 PM)
Well, no one with any real clout said you’re right either.[;)] Nobody contradicts the fact aligning bases to theater command HQ is useful, as RangerJoe said (and Alfred confirmed), it does have effect on other aspects. There just isn’t any evidence of it having an effect on strike coordination.[sm=00000436.gif]

RangerJoe -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 2:25:36 PM)
That just shows that using units from commands all over the map in a campaign can cause problems for the air war since the captured bases may have many different higher commands. But if you capture a relatively undeveloped base with the intent of using it in another command for their air units, switch it to the other command before it gets built up since the cost of switching commands raises for the more developed bases. So it is actually beneficial for the commands to capture bases in certain areas where their air units will function. Once captured by a certain command, the support units can be from anywhere. Yes, most long term players should know this but newer players may not which is the reason for my stating it.

GetAssista -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 2:26:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred In other threads I have commented that same attached bases are useful for other aspects of the air war. Alfred Interesting. But cryptic as usual [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista 2. Switch a base to a restricted HQ to make airlifting of related restricted units possible. This one does relate

Ambassador -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 3:28:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista quote: ORIGINAL: GetAssista 2. Switch a base to a restricted HQ to make airlifting of related restricted units possible. This one does relate Yep, depending on the house rules you agreed upon (or self inflict if playing the AI). If it is to circumvent the usual rules about restricted units not crossing borders before being bought by PP’s, I’d check with the opponent to see whether he considers the move is in good faith or merely circumvents the HR. Other issues, like PT boats, upgrades, administrative stacking limits, I find no risk of contention, but moving restricted units may be a touchy subject.

Ambassador -> RE: Changing Base HQs (2/19/2021 3:29:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RangerJoe That just shows that using units from commands all over the map in a campaign can cause problems for the air war since the captured bases may have many different higher commands. But if you capture a relatively undeveloped base with the intent of using it in another command for their air units, switch it to the other command before it gets built up since the cost of switching commands raises for the more developed bases. So it is actually beneficial for the commands to capture bases in certain areas where their air units will function. Once captured by a certain command, the support units can be from anywhere. Yes, most long term players should know this but newer players may not which is the reason for my stating it. You do well, there are a lot of new players around since the last purchase availability. EDIT : and the same caution should be put for a lot of other aspects, like turning replacements on for restricted units you plan to buy out. Sometimes, even letting a unit rest and recover from disabled devices may cost a lot more (for example, there is an Indian tank brigade costing nearly nothing if bought out right on day one).

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.671875