AE Land and AI Issues [OUTDATED]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Broadly a lot of small company sized forces exist at start especially in SOPAC - i..e 1st BN NGVR is spread out over NG and New Britain

Aus Ind Companies are also spread out.

Small units and independent forces tended to be formed because there were insufficient full TOE properly constituted forces at Bde and Div level. On the allied side they are a function on the allied inadequate preparations and will probably for th emost part be run over

Wren Force, Heron Garrison, RM Viper Force, Black Force various NZ small garrisons and forces are all scattered because the allies dont have proper forces.

The only real independent forces that arrive later in the war are the Chindit Bdes (5 of them) and the Commando Bde.

I dont like having to many sub Bde sized forces later in the war it leads to issues and exploits and they are not really required so we tend not to add them

There is a new book - Australian Special Forces - and it appears that small forces - small enough to be delived by submarine on occasion - were a factor later in the war. And farther afield than I would have imagined. Similarly, an older book, The Alamo Scouts, indicates the US used such forces with effect in the MarArthur area. [They were modeled on the Eskimo Scouts, who during the war were special recon elements: today two different kinds of units claim their liniage: Alaska National Guard claimed all but one of its battalions were "Eskimo Scouts" until they were required to reform as support battalions - but a few small elements were retained anyway; The Alaska State Defense Force - which stills wears the ATG (Alaska Territorial Guard) patch - claims its three light infantry battalions are also of the same liniage (a fourth battalion - newly formed up - is Military Police).] The Aleutians campaign involved a lot of learning - including why you should NOT send in a landing without current assets on island. In a strange battle, US and Canadian forces landed on opposite ends of a valley - but the enemy was not present - so when they met - in the near perpetual fog of the area - they engaged each other - somewhat vigorously! The other big land battle didn't go so badly - because the enemy was actually there - although they did spook us by a kamakaze charge at the end that nearly overran a firebase.
The engine seems to work well if you put ANY small unit in the hex - you get good intel.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Here is another little challenge for you all

ABDA has 4 subordinate commands in AE can you name them (3 land and 1 air)

1.
2.
3.
4.

My guesses based on the attached map file:

1. ABDA Air
2. Wesgroup
3. Cengroup
4. Easgroup

Jim



Edit:
Or perhaps this structure:

1. ABDA air command
2. KNIL command
3. Malaya command
4. USAFFE command

[el cid again]

A primitive first pass way to workaround this has been developed at Panama City for RHS. If port damage exceeds 90%, we change the pwhex file, and both the Panama Canal, and the Panama City rail line, are disabled. [The rail line is a trail] When port damage falls below 10%, we restore the original pwhex file.

Another related concept - only just implemented - is that on a certain date in 1943, four rail lines are upgraded - 3 Allied and one Japanese (the date is the date the golden spikes were driven on the Burma-Siam RR - but all were operational at capacity about that time).

A different - and not implemented - concept was to form up 3 seasonal files - spring/fall being what we now have - monsoon and winter.

What could be done - and Matrix has decided NOT to do it for WITP I or AE - but of course WITP II is a different story -

is to integrate a set of pwhex files. On certain dates, they are changed - by hand or by a utility until the game itself does this. Thus, you start in Winter (4 months long) - go to Spring (2 months long) - go to Monsoon (4 months long) - go to Fall (2 months long) - and so on until 1943 - when you go to a different set - these having the RR upgrades - so from then on you use the later pwhex family - changing seasonally.

A completely different approach would be NOT do do it this way - it involved a gigantic amount of work to generate 6 pwhex files (having done ten I can testify to that). There is also a need for art.

Instead, players could make rules like we have for Panama City - and then - when some place suffers more than 90% damage of whatever infrastructure is chosen - I can make you a custom phwex file - for that one hex. You revert to the original one if it is fixed. To change one hex would require - a minute?

[starsis1]

While following this thread, I have noticed several references to LCU withdrawal. Could someone please shed more light on how this will work? If I have a unit scheduled for withdrawal engaged against enemy, would it just disappear on a pre-set date? Thank you

[Andy Mac]

You were both close [:D][:D]

1. KNIL Army Command (Dutch)
2. Malaya Command (British)
3. Northern Command (Australian Military District)
4. Air Command Java (British Air Command)

Andy

[Andy Mac]

USAFFE was supposedly subordiante to ABDA but I dont think Wavell was taken to seriously by MacArthur so I chose not to make it subordiante to ABDA

[Andy Mac]

There are some small units out there we chose as a deliberate policy not to go nuts in this area - after initial opening deployments units tended to need to be Bn sized to be represented.

And if possible we set them up as Bdes as a minimum.

However if you dont agree you will have 1,000s of slots to play with !!!

The Australian get about 9 Coy Sized Commando Units (Ind Companies) which can form up into Bns if the player chooses and a Para Bn

The British get 5 Chindit Bdes, a Commando Bde, a Parachute Division (1 Bde 41, 2 in 45) and an Independent Para Bde (5th British) add to to that lot Lushai Bde, RM Viper Force (Disbands 42) and various other forces.

NZ gets several Bn sized forces and a Force N detachment.

US gets various forces USMC Raiders etc etc

Small 'special' force detachments are not uncommon its just that we tried to keep them to a minimum size after the beginning of the game

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Broadly a lot of small company sized forces exist at start especially in SOPAC - i..e 1st BN NGVR is spread out over NG and New Britain

Aus Ind Companies are also spread out.

Small units and independent forces tended to be formed because there were insufficient full TOE properly constituted forces at Bde and Div level. On the allied side they are a function on the allied inadequate preparations and will probably for th emost part be run over

Wren Force, Heron Garrison, RM Viper Force, Black Force various NZ small garrisons and forces are all scattered because the allies dont have proper forces.

The only real independent forces that arrive later in the war are the Chindit Bdes (5 of them) and the Commando Bde.

I dont like having to many sub Bde sized forces later in the war it leads to issues and exploits and they are not really required so we tend not to add them

There is a new book - Australian Special Forces - and it appears that small forces - small enough to be delived by submarine on occasion - were a factor later in the war. And farther afield than I would have imagined. Similarly, an older book, The Alamo Scouts, indicates the US used such forces with effect in the MarArthur area. [They were modeled on the Eskimo Scouts, who during the war were special recon elements: today two different kinds of units claim their liniage: Alaska National Guard claimed all but one of its battalions were "Eskimo Scouts" until they were required to reform as support battalions - but a few small elements were retained anyway; The Alaska State Defense Force - which stills wears the ATG (Alaska Territorial Guard) patch - claims its three light infantry battalions are also of the same liniage (a fourth battalion - newly formed up - is Military Police).] The Aleutians campaign involved a lot of learning - including why you should NOT send in a landing without current assets on island. In a strange battle, US and Canadian forces landed on opposite ends of a valley - but the enemy was not present - so when they met - in the near perpetual fog of the area - they engaged each other - somewhat vigorously! The other big land battle didn't go so badly - because the enemy was actually there - although they did spook us by a kamakaze charge at the end that nearly overran a firebase.
The engine seems to work well if you put ANY small unit in the hex - you get good intel.

[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.

[Andy Mac]

OK Starsis I will try to explain.
 
There are three circumstances under which a unit dissapears.
 
1. MANDATORY Disbandments - in these you have no choice they are defined in the editor and typicically occur to units that are either detachments of larger forces i.e. BlackForce or are units for whom on breakup subordinate units were sent to other formations e.g 267th Armoured Bde
 
If a unit is disbanded under this rule 100% of the ready devices are returned to the pool and may be redeployed to other units. 50% of disrupted devices are returned.
 
2. MANDATORY Withdrawals these are units (British or US normally) who are leaving the theatre i.e. 5th British Division, 7th Armoured Bde, various US West Coast Divs.
 
In these circumstances the unit and its devices leave the game and are NOT returned to the pool.
 
Both 1 and 2 are listed on a special withdrawal/disbandment schedule available on the intel screen and each unit has a countdown clock on the unit screen telling the player when a unit is being removed. THE PLAYER HAS NO CONTROL OVER THESE REMOVALS YOU CANNOT STOP THEM and the cost no VP's.
 
3. If a unit is in a key base (Delhi, Sydney, Aukland, San Francisco, Tokyo, Osaka and Vladivostock) OR a base has > 100,000 supplies then units may at the players discretion be disbanded manually.
 
a. Doing this allows 100% of ready devices and 50% of disabled devices to be returned to pool;
b. It costs the player some VP's (still playing with exact numbers and whether it should be any if in a key base as opposed to a 100k supply base);
c. The player gets the option to have the unit return in 90 days with 10 support squads (administration staff) or be totally disbanded.
 
The point of 3. is to allow players to clean up rear areas and small cadres that they dont want anymore

[Andy Mac]

It was a route we debated especially for Canada but as so many of the Aus Militia served overseas it was not practical for the Australians

Which is why we sorted Canada via static units and not through hard coding

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Is there any way to prevent them from being transferred to another HQ, thereby making them a permanent garrison of Australia or Canada?

[starsis1]

Andy, thank you for the prompt response. I hate to say this but it feels that the current WiTP handles withdrawals of British ships a bit better. It gives you the freedom to withdraw any BB/CA/DD/etc. Have you given any thought to giving a player an option to withdraw any US Inf Div/etc instead of forcing him to remember that a particular division is to be withdrawn at a certain time? I am against paying PP for keeping the units and if I don't withdraw another LCU, you should take the one that was scheduled for withdrawal. I realize that this is not a critical thing and I would much rather see the effort spent on AI.
Thank you once again

[Andy Mac]

Short answer is we thought about it but it was just too hard - it takes about 20 minutes to go through and remove all disbandments - it would be fantasy war in the pacific and a lot harder for the Japanese but it could be done (I luurve the new editor [:D][:D][:D])
 
The forces that withdraw or disband are almost all forces that 'should' only be used in defence anyway.
 
Andy

[Andy Mac]

Sorry guys postings from me will slow down for a while I need to go run through Malaya/HK/PI and China a few hundred times over the holidayes checking mechanics
 
Its a hard job but someone has to do it ....... [:D][:D][:D]

[Hortlund]

Andy, I need to ask you in here.
 
Will AE change the efficiency of units out of supply. If I have understood the current model correct, they are fighting at x0,25 regardless of whether they have been out of supply for a day or a month or a year. Please change that in AE. The combat efficiency should drop considerably over time.

[Andy Mac]

No plans to change that for AE potentially a huge change to the land model and balance of the game and a change like that would only be considered as part of a total rewrite of the land model and that unfortunately despite what we would all wish is not in scope 
 
Sorry [:@][:@]

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Sorry guys postings from me will slow down for a while I need to go run through Malaya/HK/PI and China a few hundred times over the holidayes checking mechanics

Its a hard job but someone has to do it ....... [:D][:D][:D]

As long as it gives Chez more time for turns in our game, you'll get no complaint from me...[;)]

[Hortlund]

I understand.
 
Last straw, can we change the out of supply-modifyer from 0,25 to something else then? Like 0,10?
 

[Andy Mac]

We could but again its the knock on impact in other areas it would require massive testing and probably end up leading to a rewrite of ground combat and that is out of scope.
 
Rightly or wrongly and I have my own views on this the game mechanic is set up for .25 and it works unless high fort and rough terrain are present i.e. Manila, Chungking, the Marianas, Iwo and Okinawa.
 
Recognising this is the issue we have chosen not to affect the interaction between forts and terrain or the impact of supply both of which have huge knock on impacts in game terms but we have taken the simplest option which was make forts harder to build at high levels.
 
We are not even increasing the ability of engineers to knock forts down.
 
It has to be the smallest least intrusive change possible to avoid breaking the whole land model and we have chosen to do this via forts construction.
 
If after testing this does not work then we may reconsider but it has to be small inch like changes.
 
We all wich land combat could be redone but that just wasnt possible 

[JeffroK]

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.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

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?