RE: AE Land and AI Issues

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: AE Land and AI Issues

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 >> RE: AE Land and AI Issues

Page: << < prev 54 55 [56] 57 58 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 7:42:27 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

If you have enough supply Chungking can be built beyond 6.

The game design (and hopefully prevented by code from patch 2) is intended that restricted unitys should be bought out via PP's - restricted units are not supposed to cross borders.

AEC Matador makes allied arty units slower and bigger and use more supply.

Heavy Arty against forces without even 1 or 2 forts will be extremely nasty - thats why forts 1 and 2 are so easy to build

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1651

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 9:42:53 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: vaned74

Hi there - I'm Bill's opponent in the PBEM - I was thinking about posting in here that bombardment casualties seem way out of whack. I had been running a few head to head games vs myself (yes I know I am sick...) and found out that the heavy arty is deadly, particularly to un-entrenched units. So, I have spent just about every PP point (up to 4,500 at this point) pulling the heavy art bns and regiments out of Manchuria and into China - some are cheaper than others, I can't tell why.

I think my opponent kinda let China slip by unnoticed for a little while (and I think he will admit this) assuming it to be a morass - I was able to concentrate my armor (including many regts shipped in from Hainan/Formosa) and drive into Nanyang, cutting the Chinese northern forces into in half and isolating a large pocket of about 13 corps between Sinyang and Nanyang. As opposed to finishing off the corps, I started concentrating forces and headed for Sian (which was partly my plan as I had been prepping units there for a while - there is no easy road route from Chengchow, Loyang back to Sian so those forward deployed forces are in trouble if not pulled back early).

The rest is just opportunity - I suppose it is no secret but the PI heavy arty and the heavy arty deployed with 38th division have taken the south road. Given the enemy's withdrawals into fortress Singapore, Soerbaja, Batavia, and Manila (2 of which I have no idea how to crack - Singapore will be a bloody shock attack across the straits from Johore...) this has freed up a lot of specialist assets and about 4 divisions worth of troops to reinforce a drive from Hanoi and Canton up behind the center Chinese forces.

Once on top of the game in China I opted to slow all other advances up and just take advantage of the opportunity to secure my interior and seize all probably Chinese airfields that could hurt the home islands later. May or may not be a mistake. The fact that units die so readily when retreating and never recover if you stay after them (pursuit or not, doesn't matter, you can catch them easily before they recover b/c their fatigue/disruption is too high to prevent fast movement after a retreat from combat) also has resulted in recognition that once the enemy is down, keep on top of him. As RE Lee said at Chancellorsville - "we must press those people..."

Strategy aside, I think land combat has been perhaps overly tweaked.

(1) artillery bombardments are downright lethal, Bill is right - I have been wasting 3,000 to 5,000 troops per day by two bombardments of about 8 regiments/bns at each location. I think WitP's original artillery model wasn't far off although with slow/large bombardments killing a few hundred troops/day even though I know many folks complained about how static land combat was. Even if FOW is on, concentrations of 70,000 to 80,000 troops in cities in China are too easy to kill off as Japan in AE.

(2) when units retreat - they die in droves; I noticed that leaving a retreat path open for units is a far more efficient way to kill them off; you simply fight them with a pair of units having one pursue from reserve while the other attacks - once the stack is broken the losses are deadly. There seems to be no way to screen retreats.

On the supply question - I have had little issue supplying my forces in China; partly this is due to consolidation of road and rail lines and moving hq assets/supply convoys into the interior to pull supplies from coastal drop-offs. Partly also though we have captured a lot of resource/light industry. A 40 pt light industry center will produce 1,200 supplies a month or enough to sustain a division in normal operations. May or may not be accurate.

Thoughts or observations by others would be appreciated. I can't dispute Bill's probable frustration on this one at all and my pending frustration as late war US formations are loaded for bear with firepower.

Look at the version 4.0.1 OCS rules for an idea of how artillery should function. It does do most of the killing, but at the cost of most of the supply. In addition, the real advantage of artillery is in suppression.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to vaned74)

Post #: 1652

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/21/2009 11:35:40 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

Sounds like bombardment might need a look, but your opponent has reinforced China fairly heavily. When the Japanese made a serious effort in China historically, the Chinese were quite incapable of stopping them from doing as they pleased.

Good point Mynok. Now then, why play the game? If you can take out China totally by the end of March or early April then Australia or India should be a breeze. In my PBEMS as Japan it has always taken me to the end of 43 to take Australia. I think that it is now doable by August with this new model of bombardment, followed by retreat and then the destruction of the retreating ground forces by the reserves in hot pursuit. Fortified cities are small speed bumps. Incidentally, I can't build the fort in Chungking beyond 6. Those that read Sneers AAR can recall his frustration with the land combat model. I bet Sneer is really looking forward to a rematch with RaverDave.

There are zero similarities between China and India. A Japan that reinforces China is going to be less aggressive elsewhere. You'll have to give him cause to reconsider his commitment.

And I do not buy the 'take out China totally' thing at all. That's just hyperbole.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1653

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 12:10:59 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Sounds like bombardment might need a look, but your opponent has reinforced China fairly heavily. When the Japanese made a serious effort in China historically, the Chinese were quite incapable of stopping them from doing as they pleased.

Except that Japan's #1 war goal was to force China to surrender. And they had been trying in earnest from 1937-41. If they could have defeated China without attacking the Western Allies, they would have.

Much of the trouble the Japanese had (unsurprisingly) was due to stretched supply lines in a hostile country. Ichi-Go worked, in part, because the main advance ran across Southern China, roughly parallel to the Coastal ports. When the Japanese tried to advance too far inland (the three battles of Changsha) they often got a bloody nose.

So even with the impressive Japanese reinforcements, if AE truly allows the Japanese to roll through Chungking -- and more examples would be helpful before we all jump to that conclusion -- then some rebalancing may be in order.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 1654

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 12:40:46 AM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

quote:

f you have enough supply Chungking can be built beyond 6.

The game design (and hopefully prevented by code from patch 2) is intended that restricted unitys should be bought out via PP's - restricted units are not supposed to cross borders.

AEC Matador makes allied arty units slower and bigger and use more supply.

Heavy Arty against forces without even 1 or 2 forts will be extremely nasty - that's why forts 1 and 2 are so easy to build

Lets start at the top,

1) No one is not going to have enough supply to build Chungking beyond lvl 6 fort for a long time.

2) My opponent spent the PPs to buy out the Arty Batts. He has sent his save game files to kereguelen for review. To my knowledge he has not done anything gamey and is just playing the game as designed by Matrix. Perhaps I am a crummy.

3) No comment about the AEC Matador. I don't have any in this game yet.

4) My forts are at lvl 3 in Sian and lvl 4 in Loyang. Losses are much heavier in Loyang, consistently in the 5000+ range. Perhaps I shouldn't have raised them to 4? Now that the forces are getting wiped out, that number is between 3000-5000 per bombardment. All forces are in combat mode.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1655

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 3:47:41 AM

witpqs

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

Slot 5668 - 1st USMC Air Wing Base Force is shown as being a US Army unit.

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 1656

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 4:05:03 AM

witpqs

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

Andy,

In addition to other comments earlier about AI behavior with carriers, I'm also seeing the AI run carriers back and forth through minefields in my bases.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1657

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 7:44:40 AM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Do you have a save with it running through a minefield

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1658

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 7:56:35 AM

witpqs

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

Not sure. It's been done so many times this game at Merak, and once at Batavia. The AI is running plenty of ships into those minefields without - so far as I can tell - any attempt at mine clearing. Didn't clear my mines out of Bataan after capture either. Well, it cleared them the hard way. When it came to carriers I figure they don't belong in the hex at all.

If I can find one, do you want a save before combat so you can run it or afterward so you can see the report?

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1659

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 10:47:04 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

Noted. Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Slot 5668 - 1st USMC Air Wing Base Force is shown as being a US Army unit.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1660

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 5:40:50 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Do you have a save with it running through a minefield

I've been checking and no, I don't. I save one game-week of save games and cycle through them. Luckily the code now saves all the combat reports so I have those. The most recent example is:

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 162 encounters mine field at Merak (48,97)

Japanese Ships
DD Usugumo, Mine hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Akigumo
CVL Shoho, Mine hits 2, heavy damage
CL Nagara, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DD Sanae, Mine hits 1, heavy damage

4 mines cleared

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are quite a few others. I can find them if you want them, but I realize a save must be what you really need.

BTW, in this case it was a CVL that cruised into an enemy base, but in almost all the previous cases it was one or more full sized carriers. Basically the big KB was sailing into my base.

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 1661

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 6:38:55 PM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

Unit 10028 - 26 Indian Bde has PIATs in 1942 - oops - they weren't available till mid 43...

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1662

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 6:42:14 PM

rjopel

Posts: 614
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Status: offline

The 1st Ussurii Tank Bde (Scen 1 unit#6908) has a rename to the 204th Tanks Bde but no date is given for the name change.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1663

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/22/2009 7:06:31 PM

rjopel

Posts: 614
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Status: offline

Scen 1:
147th/155th PVO is duplicated with no withdrawal and returns for either unit. UnitNumbers 7185 and 7225.

(in reply to rjopel)

Post #: 1664

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/22/2009 7:55:21 PM

Jo van der Pluym

Posts: 834
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Valkenburg Lb, Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

Hi

1. The KNIL Mariener Brigade must be Mariniers Brigade and is not a KNIL unit.

2. The 1st KNIL (T) Brigade must be T Brigade and is also not a KNIL unit. It's raised in the Netherland from Dutch Volunteers.

3. I miss Korps Insuline a Dutch para-trained commando unit raised from volunteers from the Princess Irene brigade in 1942 on Ceylon,

4. The only new raised KNIL units in war where the 1st KNIL Battaljon in Australia and after liberation of some parts of DEI /Prison Camps (Tarakan) the 2nd KNIL Battaljon and 3rd KNIL Battaljon and how more parts are liberated how more KNIL battaljons.

5. From spring 1946 arrives more Dutch units in the DEI from the Netherlands

Here some dates and locations

Korps Insuline Raised 16 May 1942 as NSO renamed 01-08-1942 in Korps Insuline in Laksapatiya Colombo
In 1945 the strength is increased from about 1 company to more then 2 companies

KNIL I - Raised 01-06-1944 "Victoria Camp" Australia - 04-10-1945 Batavia
KNIL II - Raised 08-1945 Balikpapan - 16-10-1945 Batavia
KNIL III
KNIL IV - Raised 09-1945 Singapore - 08-10-1945 Batavia
KNIL V - Raised 02-11-1945 Tjihapitkamp""
KNIL VI - Raised 15-04-1946 Medan

T-Brigade 15-01-1946 Malacca - 09-03-1946 Semarang
V-Brigade 27-01-1946 Malacca - 29-03-1946 Batavia
W-Brigade 15-02-1946 Malacca - 30-03-1946 Batavia
X-Briagde 23-02-1946 Malacca - 29-03-1946 Soerabaja
U-Brigade 01-03-1946 Batavia
Y-Brigade 20-07-1946 Bali (X, XI, XII KNIL)
Z-Brigade 21-11-1946 Medan

DST Raised from Korps Insuline and Dutch No 2 Troop 10 Inter Allied Commando on 15 june 1946

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
Crazy

Dutch

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)

Post #: 1665

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/22/2009 10:07:44 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Q1: Why is 2nd Area Army HQ with subordinated 2nd Army HQ attached to Southern (Expeditionary) Army? Shouldnt they be at Manchuria for the whole war?
Q2: Why did you used Western, Eastern, Northern Army as HQ? Too few General Armies and too many Area Armies?

_____________________________

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)

Post #: 1666

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/23/2009 3:18:51 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Guys I had to draw the line some stuff made it for patch 1 some stuff didnt I will revisit for patch 2 so FROM This post I am gathering data for PATCH 2 on the list for pathc 2 at present

1. Spelling Ghurka right
2. Hopefully some town moves for Aussie forces
3. Possibly Jo's dutch stuff but I need to dig out some evidence before I go to the effort of amending 91 AI scripts for a couple of Bns
4. Another look at tiger force

None of this stuff falls into the worth holding upt he patch for camp so I am going with what I have.

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 1667

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/23/2009 4:18:59 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

Q2: Why did you used Western, Eastern, Northern Army as HQ? Too few General Armies and too many Area Armies?

Many of the Area Commands morphed into combat commands (or would have, in the event of an invasion). They really have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

In Australia, for example, the Southern Command became the I Corps, and the Eastern Command became the II Corps in April of 1942 -- both Corps eventually commanded Australian troops overseas. The Western Command became the III Corps, responsible for the defense of Western Australia, and never deployed.

_____________________________

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 1668

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/23/2009 4:51:45 PM

EasilyConfused

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline

I accidentally posted this in the Naval OOB forum originally. I apologize if this has already been noted:

quote:

I've been noticing more invalid date entries in the database. The convoy disbandings are often given as the 31st of months that only have 30 days. If you want I can list them, but I don't know if they would disband anyway.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 1669

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/23/2009 6:03:59 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

It falls into the annoying camp they disband after 3 days anyway so the ones with disband dates are a carryover from a precvious system - we will adjust for patch 2

(in reply to EasilyConfused)

Post #: 1670

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/23/2009 7:03:20 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

Q2: Why did you used Western, Eastern, Northern Army as HQ? Too few General Armies and too many Area Armies?

Many of the Area Commands morphed into combat commands (or would have, in the event of an invasion). They really have to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

In Australia, for example, the Southern Command became the I Corps, and the Eastern Command became the II Corps in April of 1942 -- both Corps eventually commanded Australian troops overseas. The Western Command became the III Corps, responsible for the defense of Western Australia, and never deployed.

Actually I was asking about Japanese General Defence commands :)

< Message edited by Barb -- 8/23/2009 7:17:43 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 1671

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/23/2009 7:15:46 PM

Jzanes

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

Jan. 17th, 1942 Allied player vs. japanese AI. I decided to concentrate my forces at Manila on Luzon. The AI pushed my forces out of Clark Field and they retreated to Bataan. The AI then moved it's army on to invest Manila. The problem is that it didn't move any forces to besiege or take Bataan and it didn't leave any forces at Clark. I moved a unit into Clark from Bataan and took back the now empty base.

Update on this issue.

Now up to Jan. 23. The AI still has made no move to retake Clark. The troops that had been trapped in Bataan (11 units with 260 AV) have moved to Manila. A tank battalion is ravaging the AIs rear areas having taken the empty bases of Cabanatuan and Bayombong.

A further update on this issue. It is now March 6, 1942. The AI moved about 3 engineer units and 5 artillery units into Clark around Feb. 1. They eventually pushed my tank battalion to Bataan and recaptured Clark. They then moved on to reinforce the seige of Manila. I promptly moved back in and retook Clark. Around 2/25 they moved into Clark with 3 infantry units. This time they moved into and captured Bataan after retaking Clark. I still have one tank battalion bouncing around North Luzon but it's pretty ineffectual. Everyone else is bottled up at Manila.

I am ignorant as to how the AI works, but I would suggest setting it to capture Bataan or at least to guard Clark after taking it the first time.

(in reply to Jzanes)

Post #: 1672

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/23/2009 8:46:27 PM

rjopel

Posts: 614
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Status: offline

SCEN 1:

UnitNumbers 7452 and 7454 are both named 1917th AA Rgt and both arrive on the same day.

(in reply to Jzanes)

Post #: 1673

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/23/2009 9:24:20 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Q1: Why is 2nd Area Army HQ with subordinated 2nd Army HQ attached to Southern (Expeditionary) Army? Shouldnt they be at Manchuria for the whole war?

2nd Area Army was formed in Manchuria but relocated to command the IJA forces in the Moluccas and (later) the western half of New Guinea (the 'North of Australia Area'). It (historically not correct) starts (in the game) at Tokyo to make things easier (it never did anything in Manchuria before it was transferred). 2nd Army was formed under 1st Area Army in Manchuria but later transferred to 2nd Area Army and based at Celebes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Q2: Why did you used Western, Eastern, Northern Army as HQ? Too few General Armies and too many Area Armies?

I don't understand this question.

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 1674

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/23/2009 9:26:06 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

SCEN 1:

UnitNumbers 7452 and 7454 are both named 1917th AA Rgt and both arrive on the same day.

OOB error

(in reply to rjopel)

Post #: 1675

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/23/2009 9:31:05 PM

rjopel

Posts: 614
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

SCEN 1:

UnitNumbers 7452 and 7454 are both named 1917th AA Rgt and both arrive on the same day.

OOB error

I agree but is it a duplicated number for two different AA Rgts or is it one AA Rgt list twice?

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 1676

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/23/2009 9:41:15 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

SCEN 1:

UnitNumbers 7452 and 7454 are both named 1917th AA Rgt and both arrive on the same day.

OOB error

I agree but is it a duplicated number for two different AA Rgts or is it one AA Rgt list twice?

Will have to look at this (that is, consult my notes), probably one AA Rgt listed twice.

(in reply to rjopel)

Post #: 1677

RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 8/23/2009 10:29:32 PM

rjopel

Posts: 614
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Status: offline

Scen 1:

UnitNumber 6280 Rename delay date is listed as 43101. I assume it's either 430101 or 431001.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 1678

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/23/2009 11:32:02 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
Q1: Why is 2nd Area Army HQ with subordinated 2nd Army HQ attached to Southern (Expeditionary) Army? Shouldnt they be at Manchuria for the whole war?

2nd Area Army was formed in Manchuria but relocated to command the IJA forces in the Moluccas and (later) the western half of New Guinea (the 'North of Australia Area'). It (historically not correct) starts (in the game) at Tokyo to make things easier (it never did anything in Manchuria before it was transferred). 2nd Army was formed under 1st Area Army in Manchuria but later transferred to 2nd Area Army and based at Celebes.

thanks - i had some conflicting informations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
Q2: Why did you used Western, Eastern, Northern Army as HQ? Too few General Armies and too many Area Armies?

I don't understand this question.

There were two command structures in Japan towards the end of war:
1. General Defence Army - Eastern/Western/Northern/Central Army as home guards, militia, ...
2. 2 General Armies - 6 Area Armies as "normal armies"

Why was home guard preferred as command structure over "regular" one?

_____________________________

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 1679

RE: Dutch OOB Errors - 8/24/2009 9:43:55 AM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
Q1: Why is 2nd Area Army HQ with subordinated 2nd Army HQ attached to Southern (Expeditionary) Army? Shouldnt they be at Manchuria for the whole war?

2nd Area Army was formed in Manchuria but relocated to command the IJA forces in the Moluccas and (later) the western half of New Guinea (the 'North of Australia Area'). It (historically not correct) starts (in the game) at Tokyo to make things easier (it never did anything in Manchuria before it was transferred). 2nd Army was formed under 1st Area Army in Manchuria but later transferred to 2nd Area Army and based at Celebes.

thanks - i had some conflicting informations.

2nd Area Army was the most troublesome IJA command organisation for me when doing the AE OOB. Not much information available because it had been disbanded before the end of the war and because General Anami, its long-time commander was not questioned after the war by US interrogators (because he had committed suicide by seppuku).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
Q2: Why did you used Western, Eastern, Northern Army as HQ? Too few General Armies and too many Area Armies?

I don't understand this question.

There were two command structures in Japan towards the end of war:
1. General Defence Army - Eastern/Western/Northern/Central Army as home guards, militia, ...
2. 2 General Armies - 6 Area Armies as "normal armies"

Why was home guard preferred as command structure over "regular" one?

Eastern/Western/Northern/Central Armies are renamed Area Armies later in the war (you can see this by looking into the editor; same with Korea and Formosa Armies). Btw., then Armies under GDA were always 'regular' (even if largely administrative) commands. Japan did not have a home guard or militia until 1945 (when the mobilisation of the whole adult population started).

The General Armies are not in the game because (a) they were raised quite late (in April 1945) and (b) this would have lead to problems because (c) most units subordinate to them were formed earlier and (d) we had to permanently assign HQ's under GDA to GDA to prevent misuse (in short: this would have screwed up the whole political point system).

Effectively, there is no real use for the General Armies in the game. Nevertheless, I considered to add them and the Air General Army (and left editor slots #9, #15 and #38 empty) for the sake of history. But GDA, being the 'root' command for the Home Islands, fulfills the function that 1st and 2nd General Armies fulfilled in real life.

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 1680