Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

quote:

US refers only to the nation.

That is my whole point. I am not saying that if ONLY United States Divisions are in whether we should use US or USA. If that were the case, I'd say leave it out.

In War in the Pacific, the only reason the US, AUS, UK, etc are in are to distinguish nationality, not branch of service. In this context, US is more appropriaite than USA.

For American units (at least in most sources I've read) the only distinguishment was put on Marine units. I.e., to tell the 1st Infantry Division and the 1st Marine Division appart, is the Army division has a type of unit (infantry, cavalry, armored, etc), whereas the Marine unit is simply a Marine divisison.

I am speaking from the context of nationality (which is why the US, AUS, and UK is used). In that since, US is more approriate than USA.

quote:

This is not my logic, so please don't say it is. This is something you came up with, and I agree that what you came up with is nonsense.

The reason I said its your logic, is I brought this issue up as nationality, not service. However, in your post you said nothing about distinguishing US from any other nation, only as branch of service (Army vs Marine, NOT US from British). Thus, my counter to that was to do other nations as such.

If people don't want to do this that is fine. Usually, the only time I have ever heard a US unit called USA is by a translation of a non English language in which they spell out the whole country's name.

EDIT: Oops, I guess I could have made the fact that I was targeting nationality a bit more clear. I guess I assumed that since other nations Divisions had UK, AUS, Chinese, etc it would be plain. Apologies for any confusion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

thanks for responding.

I realize game is different scale but it still includes divisions and regiments. And it still depicts number of combat squads, support squads, and heavy weapons. But why have incorrect counts of combat squads, tanks, heavy mortars, heavy machine guns, wrong caliber AT guns, and artillery which are part of what is counted in Matrix TOE?

Seems to me that odds and ends (anyone not in a combat squad or on a crew served weapon) would be included in support squads.

What I'm trying to figure out is if all those numbers in the TOE are meaningless. Are they just sort of window dressing on the way to some sort of abstracted combat strength/movement point number like an old Avalon Hill cardboard counter?

I realize you are probably to far along to want to redo your own efforts. I'm trying to figure out if it would be completely pointless to actually work out historically correct numbers of tooth to tale for units depicted in the game. Is there some known reason from Matrix that says accurate numbers of combat and support squads -- not to mention correct numbers and calibers of howitzers -- would break the game?

THis was the point of my first question in this thread, which did not get a response. Would accurate numbers break the game?

BTW, while the game doesn't model individual firearms, it seems to make certain assumptions about something when it goes to determine the firepower of various squads. From a brief once-over US Army squads consistently have more firepower than USMC squads despite army squads topping out at 10 men, 2 BAR, and USMC squads evolving to 12 men 3 BAR.

How does Japanese artillery stack up in game terms to Soviets? Does it really track what we know from history?

Could more accurate TOE's actually have an impact on ahistorical Japanese success against Soviets in WITP?

Anyway, so long as it wouldn't break the game for any known reason... I would be willing to work on this for my own amusement, and I would be willing to share my efforts (starting with USMC, Soviets, and Japanese in Manchuria) with anyone that is interested. Given the amount of work you guys are doing on the other details, any additional work I would want to do would neccesarrily want to build on your own efforts. But I don't want to plagiarize or butt in if people would get upset about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Hi

from Loyalty&Honour vol2

115th Indian Inf. Bde [training]
formed sept 1943 as Gurka training Bde under 39th Indian training Div.
disbanded 31st march 1946

14th Gurkha Rifles
38th Gurkha Rifles
56th Gurkha Rifles
710th Gurkha Rifles
NB These units were joint training units ie 1st & 4th Gurkha Rifles , 7th & 10th Gurkha Rifles etc.

Armoured Units
As with all British and Indian Bde's and Div's they changed there composition on a regular basis and its very difficult to to come up with a spot on OOB .
At present I've identified 16 Armoured Regt's that served in India/Burma
In the game there are 2 Arm. Bde's 255,254 and 3 Regts[?] that accounts for 9 of the Regts
should be in the game 50 Ind. Tk. Bde acounts for another 3 Regts
'I think' should be in the game 251 Tk Bde accounts for another 3 Regts
this leaves 1 Arm Regt outstanding which could be 11th Pavo [Prince Albert Victor's Own[11th Frontier Force]
Total Arm Regt's = 16
All the 16 Arm/Cavalry Regt's served in at least two if not all the Arm/Tank Bde's at some point.

17th Indian Div.
from L & H

48th Bde appears to be with 17 Div from 1942 to 1947
63rd Bde march 42 to 1947
99th Bde oct 44 to 1946

note: May 1942 17th Div was reorganized and equiped as a Light Division with 48th and 63rd Bde's
jan 1945 reorganised to consist of 2 Motorized Bde's [48th and 63rd] and one air transportable[99th]
For my money I'd remove 17th Div and replace with it's Bde's .[iN my small mod thats what i've done]
Also means you can have a Gurkha Bde [48th] [somewhere to put those Gurkha squads]

Don if you have any more questions I can dig the info out for you [have all three vols of L & H ]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Hi Don,

When your happy with India , I've got a copy of Rays Of The Rising Sun - Armed Forces of Japan's Asian Allies 1931-1945 Vol 1 China and Manchukuo - how about putting an extra 600,000 chinese troops under japanese command

Cheers

quote:

ORIGINAL: Central Blue

Tristanjohn,

thanks for the encouragement. I've been otherwise engaged lately. Waiting for 1.5, taxes, work, vacation, life, playing other games as "research."

Interesting site here for British artillery OOB, TOE, weapon detail, etc:

http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/regtintro.htm

The guy who put it together really deserves better than a tripod.com website.

I hope to re-engage on my efforts in the near future. [broken record]I can't help but wonder if the Japanese could blitz through India or the Soviet Union if they were facing accurate arty TOE's with accurate arty TOE's.[/broken record] And it's hard to believe that a game that tracks individual details on aircraft down to "who" flew the plane, there's some larger reason why this game can't handle 60mm mortars, or MG's as anti-personnel weapons when placed on the ground -- especially when the games promises: "individual vehicles, aircraft, guns and squads."


We shall see how far I get -- and when!

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

In looking through this thread it isn't clear to me who "owns" the IJA OB ... I thought it was Lemurs .. but not sure ...

Anyway, several folks [ incluing moi ] are looking to work on China some more ... terrain and cities and resources ... and also OB .. for Chinese .. but when we find mistakes in IJA OB we will need a POC.

For example, starting locations ... the Pakhoi-Nanning IJA troops should not be in these locations - this area was completely evacuated Nov 40 ... the 19 Mx Bde should start in Canton not Nanning. Also the 4th Division, 21st Division, 33rd Divisions all start in the incorrect locations ... I think in the case of the 4th Division it is being confused with the 4th DEPOT Division. The 4th [ Infantry ] Division should start in Shanghai. The 4th Division was under direct control of the IGHQ thus I can be assigned to an unrestricted HQ ... also the 21st and 33rd Divisions had been assigned to SAA thus no PP need to be paid for any of these divisions ( good news for IJA ) but they need to be in the right places.

So, to whom do we pass such data ? And is this the right place to do it ?

quote:

The only thing i can say on India is be careful! These troops existed but Britain did not trust them. They would have fought to defend India but most units would never have left India.
We do not want to 'fix' this so Britain can overrun Burma in late '42.
Remember, even in '44 with air superiority the British had major difficulties in Burma.

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

The only thing i can say on India is be careful! These troops existed but Britain did not trust them. They would have fought to defend India but most units would never have left India.
We do not want to 'fix' this so Britain can overrun Burma in late '42.
Remember, even in '44 with air superiority the British had major difficulties in Burma.

I agree. Perhaps we should seriously consider doing what pry has done - add some garrison forces to Indian base forces and making them static. I have actually made the suggestion of doing something similar for the Chinese, but didn't get much support for the suggestion at the time (and I still don't know if it is a good idea).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Don/Andrew,

Here is everything in one place regarding the 6 new cities from my perspective.
Base Tuyun (41,35)
Airfield: 1(4) * Note: We still thinking about the airbase size on this one
Garrison: 10

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

...

Lastly, I am considering adding a new base to Malaya, in hex (23,47), so that there is not an unimpeded railway line from Kota Bharu to Johore Bahru. For those who have playtested CHS or my map - do you think that this is a good idea? Is it even necessary? The base would be an airfield of, say, value 0(1).

Andrew

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

My Japanese sources show the 4th Division back in Japan in November.
This is 'Japanese Army history 31-45'.

Ah Ha! The 4th Yasen Hojutai was sent back to Japan to receive replacements from the 4th Depot Division. The majority of the division did stay in Shanghai.

quote:


Frank Dorn's Sino-Japanese war is helpfull.

quote:


I still am leaving 21st division in Indo China and 2nd division in Kanazawa as i have 4 different sources placing the division there on Dec 8th.
Mike