Quesions about possible HQ rearrangement in CHS

[Andrew Brown]

Hi all,

I am considering doing a rearrangement of the US top level HQs in CHS, to make them more realistic. I don't really know whether this is a good idea, though. I might break all sorts of things by doing this.

I would be very interested to know if anyone thinks this is a good idea, or a bad idea, or a waste of time, or what will break if it is implemented.

My idea (based on suggestions by others) is to do the following:

• Rename the Central Pacific HQ to Pacific Fleet
• Rename the North Pacific HQ to Alaska Def[ense] Command
• Set the SWPAC HQ to arrive on 411222 (creation date of its predecessor HQ - USAFIA (US Army Forces in Australia) - in Brisbane under Gen. Brett)
• Make the North Pacific, Central Pacific and South Pacific HQs arrive in about April-May 1942, when they were historically formed.
• At start, all of the US Naval forces and bases in the North/Central/South Pacific areas would be allocated to Pacific Fleet HQ.
• Appropriate LCUs would be set to convert to their respective new HQs after they arrive as reinforcements.
• As air units can not be set in this way, the Allied player will need to be provided with an additional "bank" of PPs to allow the correct reallocations.
• To make room for these HQ changes, as well as being able to add in the US 8th AF HQ, two Soviet Corps HQs that arrive in 1945 would be "sacrificed". The command radius of some or all of the remaining Soviet Corps HQs COULD be extended to compensate.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Hi all,

I am considering doing a rearrangement of the US top level HQs in CHS, to make them more realistic. I don't really know whether this is a good idea, though. I might break all sorts of things by doing this.

I would be very interested to know if anyone thinks this is a good idea, or a bad idea, or a waste of time, or what will break if it is implemented.

My idea (based on suggestions by others) is to do the following:

• Rename the Central Pacific HQ to Pacific Fleet
• Rename the North Pacific HQ to Alaska Def[ense] Command
• Set the SWPAC HQ to arrive on 411222 (creation date of its predecessor HQ - USAFIA (US Army Forces in Australia) - in Brisbane under Gen. Brett)
• Make the North Pacific, Central Pacific and South Pacific HQs arrive in about April-May 1942, when they were historically formed.
• At start, all of the US Naval forces and bases in the North/Central/South Pacific areas would be allocated to Pacific Fleet HQ.
  
• Appropriate LCUs would be set to convert to their respective new HQs after they arrive as reinforcements.

This is where it may start to break things

[*]As air units can not be set in this way, the Allied player will need to be provided with an additional "bank" of PPs to allow the correct reallocations.

But what if they use them for other things?

[*]To make room for these HQ changes, as well as being able to add in the US 8th AF HQ, two Soviet Corps HQs that arrive in 1945 would be "sacrificed". The command radius of some or all of the remaining Soviet Corps HQs COULD be extended to compensate.
[/ul]

You may be able to 'eliminate some Chinese HQ's, which would further limit their 'offensive' potential now that there will be fewer static units.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider
But what if they use them for other things?

That would be their choice. The player would gain additional flexibility elsewhere for the loss of flexibility of deployment in the Pacific.

If this additional flexibility is considered to be too much of an unfair advantage, then an overall PP reduction could be applied as well, so that the additional PPs provided to the Allied player do not quite add up to the amount required.

Andrew

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: treespider
But what if they use them for other things?

That would be their choice. The player would gain additional flexibility elsewhere for the loss of flexibility of deployment in the Pacific.

If this additional flexibility is considered to be too much of an unfair advantage, then an overall PP reduction could be applied as well, so that the additional PPs provided to the Allied player do not quite add up to the amount required.

Andrew

Now that I've had my first cup of coffee...I see the logic.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

If you are asking about my opinion:

Rename the North Pacific HQ to Alaska Def[ense] Command

- Bad Idea. This HQ represents offensive possibilities in this theatre. So naming them "Defence" seems quite wrong to me.

As air units can not be set in this way, the Allied player will need to be provided with an additional "bank" of PPs to allow the correct reallocations.

- This is the worst idea of these. PP are to LIMIT flexibility especially early in the war. This would give allies flexibility they hadnt this early. Please don't do this!!!

- About others: first check it during the test, before implementing them. For me these are to radical changes.

[treespider]

- This is the worst idea of these. PP are to LIMIT flexibility especially early in the war. This would give allies flexibility they hadnt this early. Please don't do this!!!

Ahhh...but you are first further limiting the Allies by taking away some of the early HQs. To compensate you give more PP and if the players opt not to use them on the as now limited air units so be it.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Well you can improve daily income but please NO starting pool!!!

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Well you can improve daily income but please NO starting pool!!!

Actually I think it is better to do the reverse. An increase in daily income would result in more and more PPs for the Allies throughout the war.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

If you are asking about my opinion:

Rename the North Pacific HQ to Alaska Def[ense] Command

- Bad Idea. This HQ represents offensive possibilities in this theatre. So naming them "Defence" seems quite wrong to me.

The name is only a text string. It does not affect what the player can do in any way. The command was called "Alaska Defense Command" as far as I am aware, so it is an accurate name. Note that after North Pacific HQ arrives in may 1942 there are TWO command HQs for the area.

[el cid again]

My idea (based on suggestions by others) is to do the following:



Rename the Central Pacific HQ to Pacific Fleet

Rename the North Pacific HQ to Alaska Def[ense] Command

Set the SWPAC HQ to arrive on 411222 (creation date of its predecessor HQ - USAFIA (US Army Forces in Australia) - in Brisbane under Gen. Brett)

Make the North Pacific, Central Pacific and South Pacific HQs arrive in about April-May 1942, when they were historically formed.

At start, all of the US Naval forces and bases in the North/Central/South Pacific areas would be allocated to Pacific Fleet HQ.

Appropriate LCUs would be set to convert to their respective new HQs after they arrive as reinforcements.

As air units can not be set in this way, the Allied player will need to be provided with an additional "bank" of PPs to allow the correct reallocations.

To make room for these HQ changes, as well as being able to add in the US 8th AF HQ, two Soviet Corps HQs that arrive in 1945 would be "sacrificed". The command radius of some or all of the remaining Soviet Corps HQs COULD be extended to compensate.

I think that Pacific Fleet (renamed Central Pacific) can represent the North Pacific and Central Pacific commands. I favor NO new HQ - there are no slots - just reshuffeling the existing ones better. The former North Pacific - as Alaskan Command - has the power to allow transfers to islands and isolated points (e.g. Juneau). There is no need for a Central Pacific or North Pacific to form - they are just part of Pacific Fleet.

As for South Pacific, the earlier date is better - since the command existed - and the existing name may be better - since it was for most of the war.

I am much more worried about what to do about USAFFE and Asiatic Fleet? Asiatic Fleet does NOT report to USAFFE - and the President issued direct and secret orders to Adm Hart - who didn't even keep Mac informed! [If you must have a command relationship, it should be the other way around - but Mac would come back from the dead if you do!]
Asiatic Fleet should report to itself = independent command (unrestricted) but have no land units other than 4th Marines (which can be transferred to USAFFE - as it was - or not - player's choice).

In general, I like the ideas you propose - or which AKWarrior proposed and we have been kicking around - and I like thinking it through.

As for political points, I feel they are far too restrictive. They do not permit real things the allies did (or the japanese did) to be done. I feel they should be increased one way or another - but on a limited basis - until we see what the impact is. Remember - if you don't think they are right no one forces you to use them! Give power to the players - I say.

[Andrew Brown]

Given that this idea is untried, I think it might be best for me to add these changes to my "experimental" CHS, along with the A2A mods, and leave the current HQ arrangement as is for the "standard" CHS. Just in case something does break.

Andrew

[el cid again]

Given that this idea is untried, I think it might be best for me to add these changes to my "experimental" CHS, along with the A2A mods, and leave the current HQ arrangement as is for the "standard" CHS. Just in case something does break.

In which case it would appear the Allies do not get any true Naval HQ - so their repair rates must suffer accordingly. Which does not seem correct.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Hi all,

I am considering doing a rearrangement of the US top level HQs in CHS, to make them more realistic. I don't really know whether this is a good idea, though. I might break all sorts of things by doing this.

I would be very interested to know if anyone thinks this is a good idea, or a bad idea, or a waste of time, or what will break if it is implemented.

My idea (based on suggestions by others) is to do the following:

• Rename the Central Pacific HQ to Pacific Fleet
• Rename the North Pacific HQ to Alaska Def[ense] Command
• Set the SWPAC HQ to arrive on 411222 (creation date of its predecessor HQ - USAFIA (US Army Forces in Australia) - in Brisbane under Gen. Brett)
• Make the North Pacific, Central Pacific and South Pacific HQs arrive in about April-May 1942, when they were historically formed.
• At start, all of the US Naval forces and bases in the North/Central/South Pacific areas would be allocated to Pacific Fleet HQ.
• Appropriate LCUs would be set to convert to their respective new HQs after they arrive as reinforcements.
• As air units can not be set in this way, the Allied player will need to be provided with an additional "bank" of PPs to allow the correct reallocations.
• To make room for these HQ changes, as well as being able to add in the US 8th AF HQ, two Soviet Corps HQs that arrive in 1945 would be "sacrificed". The command radius of some or all of the remaining Soviet Corps HQs COULD be extended to compensate.

I would also suggest that the SWPac and SoPac start at about 90% disabled, as indeed should most of the early reinforcment HQ's. This represent the fact that these HQ's had to be built up from scratch with competing demands...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
I would also suggest that the SWPac and SoPac start at about 90% disabled, as indeed should most of the early reinforcment HQ's. This represent the fact that these HQ's had to be built up from scratch with competing demands...

Yes, I intend to set them up something like that.

Andrew

[el cid again]

Rename the Central Pacific HQ to Pacific Fleet

Rename the North Pacific HQ to Alaska Def[ense] Command

Set the SWPAC HQ to arrive on 411222 (creation date of its predecessor HQ - USAFIA (US Army Forces in Australia) - in Brisbane under Gen. Brett)

Make the North Pacific, Central Pacific and South Pacific HQs arrive in about April-May 1942, when they were historically formed.

I adopted proposal one.

I adopted proposal two with the slightly modified name Alaskan Command (the present name, and one used often, but not always)

I adopted proposal three.

I adopted proposal four ONLY with respect to South Pacific HQ - having renamed North Pacific and Central Pacific.

All these commands remain type 109 - strategic. NO attempt was made to fix the lack of Naval HQ yet.

Asiatic Fleet is made aubordnate to ABDA rather than USAFFE.

[JeffroK]

To make a complete change:

All US reinforcements arrive as allocated to the West Coast (Or relevant new name)

Therfore all Units must be alloted to a HQ (Increasing PP by either process mentioned above, or can PP be allocated each day to support the reinforcements recived?)

The same can be done to the Japanese, except for those which arrive in-theatre (China etc)

Make the penalties for distance from HQ & "inter-HQ" co-operation stiffer.

Let the Allies, or the Japanese do as they wish.

I'm happier at fiddling with the strategic level rather than worrying about who is commanding 5 Sqn RNZAF.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

To make a complete change:

All US reinforcements arrive as allocated to the West Coast (Or relevant new name)

Therfore all Units must be alloted to a HQ (Increasing PP by either process mentioned above, or can PP be allocated each day to support the reinforcements recived?)

Interesting ideas, but I have tried to minimise the number of additional PPs that have to be given to the Allied player, to minimise the additional flexibility they would gain.

I have reallocated the appropriate LCUs to the Pacific Fleet HQ, and with automatic transfers to the appropriate new HQ when it arrives. Now I need to test this to see whether it actually works, and also work out how many extra PPs the Allies need if using such an arangement.

Make the penalties for distance from HQ & "inter-HQ" co-operation stiffer.

I agree - that would be very nice. It is on my wish list, along with a requirement that a HQ hierarchy be used (Corps - Army - Region/Front). Maybe WitP 2...

Andrew

[el cid again]

To make a complete change:

All US reinforcements arrive as allocated to the West Coast (Or relevant new name)

Therfore all Units must be alloted to a HQ (Increasing PP by either process mentioned above, or can PP be allocated each day to support the reinforcements recived?)

The same can be done to the Japanese, except for those which arrive in-theatre (China etc)

Make the penalties for distance from HQ & "inter-HQ" co-operation stiffer.

Let the Allies, or the Japanese do as they wish.

I'm happier at fiddling with the strategic level rather than worrying about who is commanding 5 Sqn RNZAF.

A worthy topic, it probably is in the wrong thread: Andrew and I are modders - and we cannot write code. We have no control over "penalties for distance from HQ" or other such things.

Joe proposed a "Japanese enhansed scenario" which I will probably do if RHS is not a total flop: In that I propose to do something like this re political points. But it is a very controversial topic and needs to be an option rather than one forced on everyone.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

How you can do "automatic transfers"?

[witpqs]

I would also be in favor of a mod that had reinforcements arrive as West Coast or Home Island (or whatever the IJ HQ is), with an appropriate amount of PP added to move them to an appropriate (in the mind of the player) HQ. The same should apply to various other Allied units - some NZ and Aussie untis come to mind - that are currently part of the general allied effort. Instead of coming in for say, SoPac, they should come in to NZ and Aus respectively, with PP's available to reassign tehm to an appropriate command.

There should be some PP's available beyond those amounts, but perhaps less than today? Also, as noted some units begin in theater and that should remain the same.

Just voicing my agreement to show interest.