Formation 0

[Rommel3]

(i'm not good at english.)

Japanese Div, IMB's actual OOB is vary. Especially IJA Div's Arty Rgt. It looks like to make a LCU formation = 0 (Editor Location page two, LCU ONLY) means the LCU get same formation.
So It allow to make any varried LCU formation. (japanese TE&O slot is 901-977)

But I'v worried about whether making a LCU formation=0 Ruin replacement issue or not. Please sombody make this clear.

[VSWG]

Hi,

from the editor manual (p. 32):

Formation is the location number for the TO&E that this unit attempts to match by taking replacements.
The unit will attempt to build up the same number of elements in each weapon slot to match the number
in the TO&E. If the device or device type of the item in the weapon’s slot of the unit matches the device or
device type of the item in the same slot in the TO&E, the unit will accept replacements in order to build up
to the number of elements in the TO&E. If these do not match, the program will assume that the starting
number of elements in the weapon’s slot for the unit is the full strength allotment for the unit and will try to
keep this number of elements in the unit (taking replacements to make up losses). If this field is left 0,
then the unit will assume that its starting strength is the standard TO&E for the unit, so it will only take
replacements when it falls below this starting strength.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Rommel3

(i'm not good at english.)

Japanese Div, IMB's actual OOB is vary. Especially IJA Div's Arty Rgt. It looks like to make a LCU formation = 0 (Editor Location page two, LCU ONLY) means the LCU get same formation.
So It allow to make any varried LCU formation. (japanese TE&O slot is 901-977)

But I'v worried about whether making a LCU formation=0 Ruin replacement issue or not. Please sombody make this clear.

By giving a LCU a formation = 0 you define the TOE of this formation to its starting TOE (the TOE always remains the same, the unit will always try to build up to this TOE after losses). The equipment will still upgrade (37mm AA to 40mm Bofors AA etc.) and it will receive replacements.

Hope this helps!

K

[el cid again]

The formation is the creature the logic uses to try to rebuild a unit towards. If it is in supply, the unit will move reapidly (in a few days) to these values.

If there is zero in the formation field, the unit NEVER tries to rebuild at all.
It will lose squads - forever - until there are none I guess. Anyway, it has no target to build towards.

I use both systems - and so does everyone else - at least sometimes.
I have a standard heavy artillery formation - with 15 cm howitzers -
but some units have a few 15 cm guns. For a few units, these are put in a line which is MISSING from the formation - but the number of howizters is understated by the same amount. [If the formation had 24 howitzers, a special unit might have 8 guns and 16 howitzers] Now it should lose the guns continuously and build up the howitzers until it reaches 24. A surprising thing is that it seems to be smart - but that I do not understand - if it loses 1 gun it gains 1 howitzer! If it is as stupid as I thought, it should build and lose without regard for each other.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If there is zero in the formation field, the unit NEVER tries to rebuild at all.
It will lose squads - forever - until there are none I guess. Anyway, it has no target to build towards.

This is in complete contradiction to

1. the editor manual - see my post above
2. my (and obviously Kereguelen's) experiences: I have seen several units with no formation regain squads
3. common sense, as (for instance) most major HQs have no formation. Why should they be designed to starve away?

[el cid again]

Well- I hope you (and the manual) know what you are talking about. It is not what I was told - and I was told by people who should know. It also is not what tests seem to indicate - although there are so many "ifs" it is possible something else is preventing the rebuilding.

Sometimes we WANT something to "starve away" - and I do that with two Japanese heavy arty regiments with 15 cm guns. You will gradually lose the guns - and never get them back - but the number of 15 cm howitzers will build up to replace them. This works - and astonishingly - on a one for one basis!

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If there is zero in the formation field, the unit NEVER tries to rebuild at all.
It will lose squads - forever - until there are none I guess. Anyway, it has no target to build towards.

This is in complete contradiction to

1. the editor manual - see my post above
2. my (and obviously Kereguelen's) experiences: I have seen several units with no formation regain squads
3. common sense, as (for instance) most major HQs have no formation. Why should they be designed to starve away?

Hi,

Sid is wrong. Formations with a "0" TOE do rebuild (because they have a TOE, as explained above).

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Well- I hope you (and the manual) know what you are talking about. It is not what I was told - and I was told by people who should know. It also is not what tests seem to indicate - although there are so many "ifs" it is possible something else is preventing the rebuilding.

Simply test it, then you don't have to rely on information sources like "what I was told".

Sometimes we WANT something to "starve away" - and I do that with two Japanese heavy arty regiments with 15 cm guns. You will gradually lose the guns - and never get them back - but the number of 15 cm howitzers will build up to replace them. This works - and astonishingly - on a one for one basis!

Units will starve away if they have an empty TOE (by assigning a TOE that contains nothing). That's different from the "0" TOE.

Don't understand your 15cm gun example. Units will loose equipment only if (a) they don't have enough supply or (b) if they're in a malaria zone (not talking about combat losses here). Ostensibly a unit will not get any replacements if the above conditions are still in effect.

K

[pry]

If there is zero in the formation field, the unit NEVER tries to rebuild at all.
It will lose squads - forever - until there are none I guess. Anyway, it has no target to build towards.

El Cid, this is not correct, Units with the formation set to zero will use their starting composition as their TOE and always try to rebuild to that composition and number of devices. (Normal device upgrades will always apply)

Units set to one of the templete TOE's will starve away or built towards that assigned TOE... Except for the AI controled units which is another story...

It's been that way since the beginning...

[el cid again]

Kergeguelen seems to have missed

a) I am a test technician

b) I do test - continuously - to find out the truth - which often is not what the manual says OR what "I was told"

c) I began to do OB work under supervision - and was guided by a professional

d) I have been able to create ob's where desired slots do indeed "wither away"

This last is easy to understand - even if your interpretation of the way things work is right
it SHOULD work.

IF we assign (in this case) an artillery regiment a formation
but we do NOT put the device we wish to "wither" into that formation
AND we DO put it in the unit (in a line that is not used by the formation
slot)

that unit HAS a formation to build towards - with nothing in that line - so
it does not try to regenerate the device listed in that line.

Note that software that generates nominal "error" reports does not like it
if the formation is not identical to the unit pointed at - so many of these errors
are not really errors - provided you INTENDED the two records to be different.

Also note this is mostly academic: any differences between a unit and its formation
(other than extra things not in the formation) will tend to disappear almost instantly.
The code regenerates units far too quickly if there is ample supply and production -
and there is some question if production is real or bogus? It may be you get far too many guns, tanks, name it, and it may be that the "inventory" of these things reported is just chrome: at least one person with lots of games thinks this is the case. I suspect
that the system is complex and just appears to be "bugus" - because it is almost incomprehensible to simplistic analysis. I suspect it really matters if you have (or can) produce the guns - but IF you can - you DO - very fast - quote "in less than a week"
and "in a few days" - so differences in the OB are not really very meaningful for very long.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: pry

If there is zero in the formation field, the unit NEVER tries to rebuild at all.
It will lose squads - forever - until there are none I guess. Anyway, it has no target to build towards.

El Cid, this is not correct, Units with the formation set to zero will use their starting composition as their TOE and always try to rebuild to that composition and number of devices. (Normal device upgrades will always apply)

Units set to one of the templete TOE's will starve away or built towards that assigned TOE... Except for the AI controled units which is another story...

It's been that way since the beginning...

I believe you. I also think it is a good system. And I agree there do seem to be cases where certain units are controlled by code in ways invisible to us - a dangerous thing since we don't know exactly which these are - so we may or may not get in trouble with it.
But I suspect all Russian units in stock are this way - should stay in their slots - and not be pointed at other formations. Or maybe the latter does not matter - maybe it would work - until a certain date - and maybe that would be good? But what OTHER units are like this?

[Bliztk]

Russians for 100% sure should not moved. Onwards 1/1/45 their TOE changes from divisions/brigades to Corps or Mech corps.

I guess that this is hardcoded into the game

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

d) I have been able to create ob's where desired slots do indeed "wither away"

This last is easy to understand - even if your interpretation of the way things work is right
it SHOULD work.

IF we assign (in this case) an artillery regiment a formation
but we do NOT put the device we wish to "wither" into that formation
AND we DO put it in the unit (in a line that is not used by the formation
slot)

that unit HAS a formation to build towards - with nothing in that line - so
it does not try to regenerate the device listed in that line.

The above is all true and good, but Rommel3 had asked what happens to units without formation:

But I'v worried about whether making a LCU formation=0 Ruin replacement issue or not. Please sombody make this clear.

To this question, the answer you gave was wrong. That you are indeed able to create a unit which "withers away" using the device slots is interesting, but rather circumstantial.

Sorry for being so persistent, el cid again, it's not that I have a bone to pick with you - just trying to avoid confusion. It seems to me that you are talking about zeros in the formation's device slots, while the the question was about a zero in the unit's formation slot.

Cheers,
VSWG

[pry]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: pry

If there is zero in the formation field, the unit NEVER tries to rebuild at all.
It will lose squads - forever - until there are none I guess. Anyway, it has no target to build towards.

El Cid, this is not correct, Units with the formation set to zero will use their starting composition as their TOE and always try to rebuild to that composition and number of devices. (Normal device upgrades will always apply)

Units set to one of the templete TOE's will starve away or built towards that assigned TOE... Except for the AI controled units which is another story...

It's been that way since the beginning...

I believe you. I also think it is a good system. And I agree there do seem to be cases where certain units are controlled by code in ways invisible to us - a dangerous thing since we don't know exactly which these are - so we may or may not get in trouble with it.
But I suspect all Russian units in stock are this way - should stay in their slots - and not be pointed at other formations. Or maybe the latter does not matter - maybe it would work - until a certain date - and maybe that would be good? But what OTHER units are like this?

Never and I mean never move any Russian land or Air units from the stock data base assigned slots, The upgrades are hard coded to the slot not the units placed there and most of the Russians have a drastic change upon activation or date stamp upgrade.

To the best of my memory except for the slots reserved for the Japanese Milita units no other nations would be restricted or affected by hard coded upgrades (There are also two air slots, The AVG and Nuke group that have hard coded features)

[Iron Duke]

Pry,
Do you know what the features for the AVG hard coded slot are?

Cheers

[pry]

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Pry,
Do you know what the features for the AVG hard coded slot are?

Cheers

IIRC that slot is immune from the effect of the early war Zero combat bonus.

My personal preference is if you disagree with that (Which I do), just place a search plane or bomber squadron in that slot instead.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Russians for 100% sure should not moved. Onwards 1/1/45 their TOE changes from divisions/brigades to Corps or Mech corps.

I guess that this is hardcoded into the game

I added new Russian units. But I wonder if blank slots are safe to add them? I suspect there may be some blank slots in which new units appear. So I put the NEW Russian units in slots NOT in the Russian section. Otherwise, I left Russian units in their stock slots - after reports from a CHS team about this phenomena. I added some Russian air groups and ships too - and then had to invent a way for them to work - because they are not in the original system and there are real problems. We had to disable Russian subs in Russian passive scenarios - the AI wants to treat them as USN. And we had to define Russian ports and ships as French in Russian active scenarios - and NOT let them report to the Far East Command - they report instead to the Soviet Pacific Ocean Fleet. That works fine - but IF you let AI run Allies (you never should do that - AI cannot run Allies properly according to Joe) - you may find - say - US subs transfer to Russian ports on occasion.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: pry



El Cid, this is not correct, Units with the formation set to zero will use their starting composition as their TOE and always try to rebuild to that composition and number of devices. (Normal device upgrades will always apply)

Units set to one of the templete TOE's will starve away or built towards that assigned TOE... Except for the AI controled units which is another story...

It's been that way since the beginning...

I believe you. I also think it is a good system. And I agree there do seem to be cases where certain units are controlled by code in ways invisible to us - a dangerous thing since we don't know exactly which these are - so we may or may not get in trouble with it.
But I suspect all Russian units in stock are this way - should stay in their slots - and not be pointed at other formations. Or maybe the latter does not matter - maybe it would work - until a certain date - and maybe that would be good? But what OTHER units are like this?

Never and I mean never move any Russian land or Air units from the stock data base assigned slots, The upgrades are hard coded to the slot not the units placed there and most of the Russians have a drastic change upon activation or date stamp upgrade.

To the best of my memory except for the slots reserved for the Japanese Milita units no other nations would be restricted or affected by hard coded upgrades (There are also two air slots, The AVG and Nuke group that have hard coded features)

I confirm all of this is correct - some of it learned at great pain (both by me and by a group who did a lot of Russian work). However, there is one thing that is misleading: the statement "upon activiation" is actually NOT true UNLESS it is after a certain date ( a date I do not know ). I have mods - 4 in fact - with Russians active and NO UNIT EVER has changed - yet. When we learn the date we will publish it. But I think the date will be in summer 1945. I have been told that as a guess and it seems reasonable. Apparently the Russian units are in the game in the early form in case of early combat - and only change for the final campaign - which is probably good simulation. The build up in 1945 was awesome.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Pry,
Do you know what the features for the AVG hard coded slot are?

Cheers

IIRC that slot is immune from the effect of the early war Zero combat bonus.

My personal preference is if you disagree with that (Which I do), just place a search plane or bomber squadron in that slot instead.

There are more than one AVG squadron slots in CHS and RHS. Three in CHS, two in RHS - but only ONE of these has the bonus. FYI. RHS has a limit of 48 planes per unit - so it could not put them all in the same slot.
CHS used to divide it into squadrons. It has recombined the bombers into groups - RHS did not - and I don't know if AVG also combined or not?
I didn't notice that in the notes for CHS 177. IF 177 is the same as 155, only the first squadron will have the bonus.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Russians for 100% sure should not moved. Onwards 1/1/45 their TOE changes from divisions/brigades to Corps or Mech corps.

I guess that this is hardcoded into the game

I added new Russian units. But I wonder if blank slots are safe to add them? I suspect there may be some blank slots in which new units appear. So I put the NEW Russian units in slots NOT in the Russian section. Otherwise, I left Russian units in their stock slots - after reports from a CHS team about this phenomena. I added some Russian air groups and ships too - and then had to invent a way for them to work - because they are not in the original system and there are real problems. We had to disable Russian subs in Russian passive scenarios - the AI wants to treat them as USN. And we had to define Russian ports and ships as French in Russian active scenarios - and NOT let them report to the Far East Command - they report instead to the Soviet Pacific Ocean Fleet. That works fine - but IF you let AI run Allies (you never should do that - AI cannot run Allies properly according to Joe) - you may find - say - US subs transfer to Russian ports on occasion.

Someone did a list which Russian units appear in 1945 and which slots they use. If I remember correctly, it's actually keyed to specific slots and not to the "Soviet Section" in the location database. Propably you can find the slot list with the forum search engine. Btw., it seems that when the hardcoded Soviet slots are left empty, the hardcoded reinforcements will not appear in 1945.

[el cid again]

That is interesting. I am inclined to run a 1945 scenario, look at the units - and then kill any that are horribly wrong - if there are any. Thanks.