Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Actually - I do agree.

I think all brigades/regiments should be present - and maybe divisions should be broken into them.

I think battalions of significance should be present - but it is my preferred minimum unit.

I think unusual detachments that were successful should also be in the package - particularly early - and that is what you seem to have done. I dispute that these were not important later in the war - but I don't disagree with any of your stated principles - not a bit.

It had to happen!!

I agree, but been told it takes up too many slots.

This should be at Bde/Rgt level, with the ability to combine the units up to Divisions. So much of this war was fought at the mid-level until later years. Even then , say in Burma, Divs would be split and march in 1-2 Bdes and have the 3rd flown in to an airhead.

I would see the "special forces" performing a task similar to coastwatchers, being dropped or shipped in and, for a short time, send intel.
Add to the units mentioned already, Z Special, AIB etc

Maybe, the option should be to create them or not, then they get used, then can "re-sporn" after X days to signify training a new team.

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Over course of late 42 early 43 the 6 independent LH Bn sized forces disband (de facto some of these moved into the Bdes above and other regts were merged or disbanded)

Hi Andy,

With all the mandatory disbandment’s in game now, is there some note on the unit info display to warn players of the disbandment date? If not players will need to memorize all the organizational changes, a feat I doubt can be achieved. I can already hear the complaints piling up, “I lost Noumea because the entire defending force disbanded right as the Japanese began their attack”.

Jim

Can answer this: You can see the disbandment date in the unit screen (something like 'withdraw in 550 days'). Btw., not really a problem for the Japanese player. If I remember correctly, only two IJA units are set to disband (but some SNLF are set to convert to Naval Garrison Units).

Excellent. Will we also be able to see what units can be combined to form a larger LCU?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

There are some IJA reinforcements that are part of the Kwantung Army that appear in Japan. There's no way to move them to Manchuoko without changing their HQ. Will this problem be rectified?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Well guys I hate to say it but I disagree.

There are plenty of slots to do what you want so modders feel free but while some Divs arrive as Bdes that can be recombined the ethos we are following is that Divisions are the base unit unless there is a good reason to split them i.e. initial deployments. Despite the new map scale AE is still a Divisional level game not a smaller unit one like UV - you may disagree with that premise and I am sure modders will move everything to Bde level but that is not what we are doing nor do I believe it to be appropriate - but feel free to disagree

The scale of the game is Divisional we only go lower when we have to for main combat formations - ok principal disagreement explained

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


I'm off on holiday travel to China.

To Harbin. In the winter. (Why? Because I'm an idiot.) I'll be gone about 2 weeks. Fortunately, only the last two days are in Harbin for the Ice Festival.

So please save any US land OOB questions until I return and thaw out.

In the meantime, feel free to pepper Andy Mac with questions on how he plans to handle the shape-shifting OOBs of the Commonwealth forces and the time will just fly by. Whenever I get frustrated trying to pin down the US Marine Corps' changes, I just take a quick glance at the issues Andy has been wrestling with, and i know better than to complain.

Merry Christmas, everyone!

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Well guys I hate to say it but I disagree.

There are plenty of slots to do what you want so modders feel free but while some Divs arrive as Bdes that can be recombined the ethos we are following is that Divisions are the base unit unless there is a good reason to split them i.e. initial deployments. Despite the new map scale AE is still a Divisional level game not a smaller unit one like UV - you may disagree with that premise and I am sure modders will move everything to Bde level but that is not what we are doing nor do I believe it to be appropriate - but feel free to disagree

The scale of the game is Divisional we only go lower when we have to for main combat formations - ok principal disagreement explained

Well - this theater is so vast - it is hard to say anything that is true for all of it.

I myself think that divisions should be the scale in Siberia/Manchuria - and I think that Corps ("armies") of 2 or 3 divisions should be the rule for Chinese forces (which behave a good deal like other divisions do).

But out in the oceanic theater as such - this is mainly a game of regiments/brigades and battalions - with occasional utility for even smaller elements. A division scale landing is a pretty big deal - and too big a deal for more than a few locations even to handle.

Even so, there were divisions that always stayed together - so perhaps the best route would be to have those units appear in that form?

Also, since the engine remains as is, and since the design theory was it is a divisional engine, we might be wise to stay with that for AE?

But in theory, game theory, simulation theory, operations theory, if you are not talking some major campaign in China or on the mainland, there are not very many regimental sized units involved, and that should be the coin of the realm for a good simulation of the vast naval portion of this theater - particularly as the scale drops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norm3

Sorry to throw couple questions your way, well not reallly.

Will there be allied guerilla forces in the DEI and Phillipines?  Judging from what I read above, it seems that they might be to small of a unit.  My arguement would be that although small they did tie down large numbers of troops in garrisons and pacification efforts.

How are the Chicom soldiers treated?  Will they be able to deal with both National and Japanese forces?

How about Thai Army and other Japanese puppet formations are they to be included?

Thanks again for all your work and the time you have taken to answer everyone's questions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Charbroiled

Are CD units going to be handled differently?

An example: My opponent (Japan) landed troops at PH taking a beating from CD guns. After his troops were landed, and even though he didn't take the base, he was able to unload an unlimited amount of supply without any repercussion from the CD guns.

quote:

Will there be allied guerilla forces in the DEI and Phillipines? Judging from what I read above, it seems that they might be to small of a unit. My arguement would be that although small they did tie down large numbers of troops in garrisons and pacification efforts.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Will there be allied guerilla forces in the DEI and Phillipines? Judging from what I read above, it seems that they might be to small of a unit. My arguement would be that although small they did tie down large numbers of troops in garrisons and pacification efforts.

I doubt the DEI would warrant any anti-Japanese guerilla units (though I guess some Ozzies operated as such on Timor and/or Dutch New Guinea for an extended time). But the Philippines certainly had a pretty active anti-Japanese guerilla movement that provided good intel on Japanese dispositions and imposed a drain on Japanese resources. I

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

N guerrillas or at momnet garrison requirement in PI Japanese would be silly to leave it ungarrisoned though - need to think about this

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

N guerrillas or at momnet garrison requirement in PI Japanese would be silly to leave it ungarrisoned though - need to think about this

Agreed...it would be silly to leave PI ungarrisioned. But the Japanese Player is unlikely to do any "non-productive" thing that the game engine does not require him to do regardless of how practical considerations in RL might demand.

Perhaps a look at what the Japanese actually had involved in "pacification" in the PI at various times could act as a guide. PI ORBATS for the times following:
Summer 42?
Winter 43?
Summer 43?
Winter 44?

I don't know what they had or even if decent ORBATS for those times are available but if we could get a handle on this data then the answers regarding guerillas and garrisons might well become self-evident.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

N guerrillas or at momnet garrison requirement in PI Japanese would be silly to leave it ungarrisoned though - need to think about this

Agreed...it would be silly to leave PI ungarrisioned. But the Japanese Player is unlikely to do any "non-productive" thing that the game engine does not require him to do regardless of how practical considerations in RL might demand.

Perhaps a look at what the Japanese actually had involved in "pacification" in the PI at various times could act as a guide. PI ORBATS for the times following:
Summer 42?
Winter 43?
Summer 43?
Winter 44?

I don't know what they had or even if decent ORBATS for those times are available but if we could get a handle on this data then the answers regarding guerillas and garrisons might well become self-evident.

Well,

I was able to track down the movements of nearly every brigade-sized or larger IJA unit between 1941-45. Most of the units located in the PI in the 1942-43 timeframe were garrison units with a TOE similar to certain Japanese garrison forces in China which were mainly occupied with anti-guerilla warfare.

But it seems that it was not deemed neccessary by the IJA to move 'real' combat formations to the PI before there any threat of an US invasion of the PI manifested itself in 1944.

K

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

N guerrillas or at momnet garrison requirement in PI Japanese would be silly to leave it ungarrisoned though - need to think about this

Agreed...it would be silly to leave PI ungarrisioned. But the Japanese Player is unlikely to do any "non-productive" thing that the game engine does not require him to do regardless of how practical considerations in RL might demand.

Perhaps a look at what the Japanese actually had involved in "pacification" in the PI at various times could act as a guide. PI ORBATS for the times following:
Summer 42?
Winter 43?
Summer 43?
Winter 44?

I don't know what they had or even if decent ORBATS for those times are available but if we could get a handle on this data then the answers regarding guerillas and garrisons might well become self-evident.

Well,

I was able to track down the movements of nearly every brigade-sized or larger IJA unit between 1941-45. Most of the units located in the PI in the 1942-43 timeframe were garrison units with a TOE similar to certain Japanese garrison forces in China which were mainly occupied with anti-guerilla warfare.

But it seems that it was not deemed neccessary by the IJA to move 'real' combat formations to the PI before there any threat of an US invasion of the PI manifested itself in 1944.

K

In my current game with Moses (see AARs) I've kept a minimum of about 10 BF/Eng units in the PI the whole game. There is a "whole lotta building" that needs to get done in the P.I. and you sure can't do it all at the last minute!