DaBabes - Comment Call

[JWE]

We are getting down to the really, really, short strokes now, and would like to have some informed comment from experienced players.

The basic Support paradigm is:
US gets ~ 85-90% of unit device totals as Sup - divided up between Sup and MotSup for load hardness.
Japan gets ~ 75-80% of unit device totals as Sup - divided up between Sup and MotSup for load hardness.

So nobody gets 100% and everybody will eventually sink into the depths without an assist from a Corps HQ, or a BF, or something. We are thinking of removing all nominal LCU BFs and replacing them with actuals. This will remove about 700 Sup sources and replace them with a very limited number of Corps, Army, Area Army, and War Area BF Units. No more BFs everywhere. Combat units must be supported by a higher echelon, and that echelon needs to be in a Base hex in order to assist. This means the Marines on Guad in mid '42 may well have to go back to some permanent base in OZ to rest, recover, reconstitute.

It means that everybody goes hungry and decreases over time, unless they can go home to Mom; wherever Mom is.

We believe this will slow the ops tempo considerably, for both sides. While not looking at China in depth, we believe this will be major factor in regulating the op tempo, and alleviate the 'death star' proclivities.

Comments welcome.

[witpqs]

John,

Just to clarify - you are talking about eliminating BF's only insofar as the big extra chunks of support in BF's, right? I mean you already covered a lot about how actual base-forces/air-naval-support-units/whatever-you-want-to-call-them have been redone.

You are saying "Organic support for combat units will be less than 100%, so you better bring HQ's to make up the difference."

Have I got it?

[Blackhorse]

If I understand correctly, JWE is proposing to eliminated all of the (land/army) base forces, except for a small # tied to actual Corps/Army commands. So the only support to keep LCUs up to full strength will come from a limited number of Headquarters BFs. . . and those BFs can only provide support to a unit co-located at a friendly base.

With all that, the natural state for a unit in the field will be decay. (Do the units just decay to 75%-90% of their strength? Or do support squads in the undersupported unit also decay, causing a constant cycle of decline?).

An LCU garrisoning a base, with a HQ, could maintain its strength, while attacking LCUs in the hex would slowly shed strength until they could take it. So the clock is ticking for the attacker during long sieges, or for long hikes down the Kokoda trail. Hmmm . . . good history. good gameplay. I like it. [8D]

I think you'd also want to have adequate support at fixed rear-area ports of embarkation and training instalations (for the US - Ft Lewis; Camp White; Ft. Ord; Camp Luis Obispo and San Diego / Pendelton, San Francisco, Seattle and Pearl Harbor.)

[Blackhorse]

But what about independent garrisons? You shouldn't need to put a Corps Headquarters on Midway to keep a Marine Defense Battalion from decaying away.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

If I understand correctly, JWE is proposing to eliminated all of the (land/army) base forces, except for a small # tied to actual Corps/Army commands. So the only support to keep LCUs up to full strength will come from a limited number of Headquarters BFs. . . and those BFs can only provide support to a unit co-located at a friendly base.

Yes - but currently those base forces also have other things in them (AA, radar, aviation support, and so on). So what I mean is those "other things" will be provided by their own small (& historically correct) units, while the extra Support squads (and Motorized Support) squads that base forces currently supply are getting whacked.

And some of the Support squads and Motorized Support squads in combat units are also getting whacked.

That's what I think he means.

EDIT to Add: I should mention that I am reading between the lines based upon John's other posts about cubs, lions, and so on.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

If I understand correctly, JWE is proposing to eliminated all of the (land/army) base forces, except for a small # tied to actual Corps/Army commands. So the only support to keep LCUs up to full strength will come from a limited number of Headquarters BFs. . . and those BFs can only provide support to a unit co-located at a friendly base.

With all that, the natural state for a unit in the field will be decay. (Do the units just decay to 75%-90% of their strength? Or do support squads in the undersupported unit also decay, causing a constant cycle of decline?).

An LCU garrisoning a base, with a HQ, could maintain its strength, while attacking LCUs in the hex would slowly shed strength until they could take it. So the clock is ticking for the attacker during long sieges, or for long hikes down the Kokoda trail. Hmmm . . . good history. good gameplay. I like it. [8D]

Or it could be the death knell of the Japanese early advances...in my game with Przemek I am into mid March at Singapore with more than the historical forces attacking...with 25th Army HQ and Southern Army HQ in the hex...and no end in sight. My last few deliberate attacks have been at 1:6 with daily aerial bombardment from 100+ Sally's.

I like the idea...but not sure the game can handle it.

I think you'd also want to have adequate support at fixed rear-area ports of embarkation and training instalations (for the US - Ft Lewis; Camp White; Ft. Ord; Camp Luis Obispo and San Diego / Pendelton, San Francisco, Seattle and Pearl Harbor.)

[oldman45]

As you well know, the US forces had a huge trail assigned to them, perhaps not as much in the pacific as Europe. None the less early war may be an issue but by mid war the US really would be unstoppable. The Japanese would be in dire straights I am afraid. It might make the Japanese unable to sustain an advance into 42. How would all the various Japanese landing detachments get their support? I know they suffered in real life from a lack of supplies but this would be a double whammy I think.

I agree with Treespider that the idea is great but can the game handle it?

[Kereguelen]

Post relocated

[JWE]

First, having less than the required amount of Support doesn’t mean that units automatically slide down the tubes. It does mean that when they “do” something (combat, etc..) it is much more difficult to recover fatigue, disruption, etc.. This is why combat units were rotated out of combat and into a rear area for RRI&I.

Second, combat units are not getting whacked. They will have exactly the same % of Support they do right now. Treespider will have exactly the same amount of Support (with 25th and South Army HQs) as he does now.

The idea is to remove BF “units” per se, and aggregate their stuff into other, more actual, units. The further idea is to have the numbers of these other units represent a particular actuality. The number of supporting LCUs will be more limited, yes, but both sides can still put in big pushes. It just means that a big push has to be organized in scope as well as scale. One will need appropriate HQs, and specifically designated supporting units, to be able to herd the cats. There was a reason why Watchtower was called Shoestring.

As the war progresses, and these things arrive, it will become easier, but there was also a reason why there were so few staging bases for operations, and why early staging bases were left in maintenance mode while the capability was “advanced” to the next designated spot. Too many arbitrary BFs just means this operational imperative is lost, and makes it too easy.

There are units called BFs, and other units called Eng, that have some Sup functionality. Port Maintenance and Air Base Maintenance Bns have extra Sup over requirements, but only enough for some extra AA or Arty Bns. A Navy Port Bn is not expected to have hospitals, chowhouses, bunkhouses, outhouses, cathouses, and doghouses to recover a MarDiv.

AAF BFs are now Airbase Groups and Airbase Squadrons, each of which have an increment of Sup over requirements in order to help support appropriate combat units (AAA, fx). Some of the Construction Bns (Navy and Army) have an increment of Sup over requirements in order to help support appropriate combat units (AAA, fx), while they are at work building stuff. Some garrison-type units (USMC Def Bns, fx) have just enuf Sup (barely) to keep them alive while fighting, but don’t forget that combat preferentially target devices with the biggest “number”, so Sup is gonna get whacked, and disabled Sup squads don’t hep ya none.

Point is, this is like a game of cards. Japan has lots of cards on opening day (way more than the Allies and way enuf to go hog wild for a while), but every place she targets, she has to lay down a card. Sooner or later, she runs low on cards, and either ops go to hell, or combat units go to the hospital. She gets more cards as the game goes on, but for a big op, she either has to wait, or grab some discards; i.e., leave her butt hanging somewhere while she boogies somewhere else.

Lots of “permanent” BFs in certain cities and towns with gobs of RRI&I. Paradigm for Japan is a bit different, but she has these too, for her island bases (Truk, Palau, fx). Were a bit more gentle with Japan because of her historical disadvantages in every dimension. Tried to make mid ’43 the break point in the Pacific. China/Burma was a whole different can of worms.

Hope this helps explain the philosophy a bit.

[mikemike]

I've long thought that flying units should have specific aviation support units (call them fx 31st FG Ground Echelon) that they would have to use in preference to any other Av support. Clearly, this would have to be done by house rule; I don't think the devs would relish putting in the code to enforce this. That would model reality a bit better, a flying unit wouldn't be able to sustain operations unless its ground echelon was in place, so no more transferring B-24s or Betties across the map and have them fly combat missions at once unless you use air transport to bring the ground echelon along. There would have to be a certain amount of unspecific Av support to model fx maintenance depots and cater for transfers or emergency operations.

Imagine a B-26 BG sitting in Northern Australia fitfully operating a handful of their planes while waiting for their maintenance guys to arrive by ship. AFAIK, something like that happened in 1942.

Another thing about Av support that bugs me is that an Av support squad can maintain exactly one Ki-27 or one B-29, which sounds ludicrous. I guess that code won't happen, either, but an individual support rating per aircraft would be a nice thing. A unit with 60 Av support squads could then support, say, 60 P-40 or 40 P-38/C-47 or 30 A-20 or 24 B-25 or 15 B-24 or 6 B-29. Datawise, that would be one additional field; what that would mean codewise, I have no idea, maybe just an additional multiplication when computing the Av support needed.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

I've long thought that flying units should have specific aviation support units (call them fx 31st FG Ground Echelon) that they would have to use in preference to any other Av support. Clearly, this would have to be done by house rule; I don't think the devs would relish putting in the code to enforce this. That would model reality a bit better, a flying unit wouldn't be able to sustain operations unless its ground echelon was in place, so no more transferring B-24s or Betties across the map and have them fly combat missions at once unless you use air transport to bring the ground echelon along. There would have to be a certain amount of unspecific Av support to model fx maintenance depots and cater for transfers or emergency operations.

Imagine a B-26 BG sitting in Northern Australia fitfully operating a handful of their planes while waiting for their maintenance guys to arrive by ship. AFAIK, something like that happened in 1942.

Another thing about Av support that bugs me is that an Av support squad can maintain exactly one Ki-27 or one B-29, which sounds ludicrous. I guess that code won't happen, either, but an individual support rating per aircraft would be a nice thing. A unit with 60 Av support squads could then support, say, 60 P-40 or 40 P-38/C-47 or 30 A-20 or 24 B-25 or 15 B-24 or 6 B-29. Datawise, that would be one additional field; what that would mean codewise, I have no idea, maybe just an additional multiplication when computing the Av support needed.

The JAAF used airfield battalions to maintain its flying units, that is, there was no direct relationship between flying units and ground echelons as found in the USAAF and the RAF. Or, in other words, their maintenance units were not part of the flying units. Sometimes those airfield battalions moved along when a flying unit changed its base, sometimes not.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: JWE

First, having less than the required amount of Support doesn’t mean that units automatically slide down the tubes. It does mean that when they “do” something (combat, etc..) it is much more difficult to recover fatigue, disruption, etc.. This is why combat units were rotated out of combat and into a rear area for RRI&I.

Second, combat units are not getting whacked. They will have exactly the same % of Support they do right now. Treespider will have exactly the same amount of Support (with 25th and South Army HQs) as he does now.

The idea is to remove BF “units” per se, and aggregate their stuff into other, more actual, units. The further idea is to have the numbers of these other units represent a particular actuality. The number of supporting LCUs will be more limited, yes, but both sides can still put in big pushes. It just means that a big push has to be organized in scope as well as scale. One will need appropriate HQs, and specifically designated supporting units, to be able to herd the cats. There was a reason why Watchtower was called Shoestring.

As the war progresses, and these things arrive, it will become easier, but there was also a reason why there were so few staging bases for operations, and why early staging bases were left in maintenance mode while the capability was “advanced” to the next designated spot. Too many arbitrary BFs just means this operational imperative is lost, and makes it too easy.

There are units called BFs, and other units called Eng, that have some Sup functionality. Port Maintenance and Air Base Maintenance Bns have extra Sup over requirements, but only enough for some extra AA or Arty Bns. A Navy Port Bn is not expected to have hospitals, chowhouses, bunkhouses, outhouses, cathouses, and doghouses to recover a MarDiv.

AAF BFs are now Airbase Groups and Airbase Squadrons, each of which have an increment of Sup over requirements in order to help support appropriate combat units (AAA, fx). Some of the Construction Bns (Navy and Army) have an increment of Sup over requirements in order to help support appropriate combat units (AAA, fx), while they are at work building stuff. Some garrison-type units (USMC Def Bns, fx) have just enuf Sup (barely) to keep them alive while fighting, but don’t forget that combat preferentially target devices with the biggest “number”, so Sup is gonna get whacked, and disabled Sup squads don’t hep ya none.

Point is, this is like a game of cards. Japan has lots of cards on opening day (way more than the Allies and way enuf to go hog wild for a while), but every place she targets, she has to lay down a card. Sooner or later, she runs low on cards, and either ops go to hell, or combat units go to the hospital. She gets more cards as the game goes on, but for a big op, she either has to wait, or grab some discards; i.e., leave her butt hanging somewhere while she boogies somewhere else.

Lots of “permanent” BFs in certain cities and towns with gobs of RRI&I. Paradigm for Japan is a bit different, but she has these too, for her island bases (Truk, Palau, fx). Were a bit more gentle with Japan because of her historical disadvantages in every dimension. Tried to make mid ’43 the break point in the Pacific. China/Burma was a whole different can of worms.

Hope this helps explain the philosophy a bit.

Crystal clear...me likey.

[witpqs]

mikemike,

I grant that you can not swap out a bad B-24 engine with a shiny brand new P-51 engine, but your proposal would make it impossible for those carrier planes that landed on and operated from Guadalcanal to do so.

Even as far as the points you raise (like having the right parts on hand to fix that plane), the problem is using fewer abstractions means more complexity for the player, more time to play, more code, more chance of bugs, more time/memory/cpu power to run the code, and so on.

Nice ideas but just biting off too much to chew.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

The JAAF used airfield battalions to maintain its flying units, that is, there was no direct relationship between flying units and ground echelons as found in the USAAF and the RAF. Or, in other words, their maintenance units were not part of the flying units. Sometimes those airfield battalions moved along when a flying unit changed its base, sometimes not.

Good point. I didn't know that. Did the IJNAF operate in the same way? Luftwaffe units, too, had their integrated erks.

I grant that you can not swap out a bad B-24 engine with a shiny brand new P-51 engine, but your proposal would make it impossible for those carrier planes that landed on and operated from Guadalcanal to do so.

Even as far as the points you raise (like having the right parts on hand to fix that plane), the problem is using fewer abstractions means more complexity for the player, more time to play, more code, more chance of bugs, more time/memory/cpu power to run the code, and so on.

Nice ideas but just biting off too much to chew.

No, I wouldn't want to go as far. Generalized Av support is fine. I merely thought that inducing the player to let air units preferentially be supported by Av units associated to them by name would cut down on those wild transfers all over the map. This could be done by house rule. Note that technically all Av support units would still be completely equivalent. There would still have to be a proportion of non-dedicated AV support around to cater for transfers and emergencies. Concerning carrier units being forced ashore, they would just have to share the Av support that was in place at the base they are using, just as in reality.

The other issue is that I find it too generalized that an Aviation Company with eight Av support squads could just as readily handle eight E8N as eight G8Ns. I don't mean there is a need for different types of Av support squads; I'd just prefer that you would need more of them to keep a four-engined bomber flying than a string-and-canvas biplane. Say that this eight-squad Aviation Company might be able to keep only two G8N operational (or perhaps only one?), the increased maintenance effort necessary for larger and more complex aircraft being expressed by a higher manpower need. But this would clearly need code and data modifications to work, unlike the other stuff.

[packerpete]

Agree with everthing you said, but would an acceptable half measure be something all less generic like:
1. allow only naval type single engine aircraft be serviceable by Navy or Marine maint. units?
2. Army Aircorp single engine etc.
3. Army Aircorp 2 engine bomber etc.
4. Army Aircorp 4 engine bomber etc.
5. All Maintenance units able to repair only lightly damaged aircraft( insert percentage here____). This would allow for only the most basic of servicing and light repair of aircraft in a transfer status but not a sustainable combat operation.

Note. The lack of specifically trained Japanese aircraft mechanics was a weakness that dogged Japanese aircraft serviceability through out the war. Not to mention poor supply, facilities, and often poorly maintained runways and taxiways that contributed to ops losses.

If this is not possible due to hard coding or a general pain the Assets. [:D] I will understand.

[Dili]

I had the idea of making city support points for the Med. A city inherently should have support to units: medical, food, housing, mechanics are available etc. But that city support LCU needs to be fixed, some militia units are part of it but support should be in excess. There should be also some mobile militia units(AAA, cd guns, some artillery etc) that can move between cities to reinforce places that are being attacked and that should have zero own support, that way they cannot be employed in field except at too much cost. Also non militia units heavy units like siege artillery and other heavy artillery should lack much of support since their use is at Army level, the higher level the unit, the more lack of support it should have to force bring the HQ.

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

The JAAF used airfield battalions to maintain its flying units, that is, there was no direct relationship between flying units and ground echelons as found in the USAAF and the RAF. Or, in other words, their maintenance units were not part of the flying units. Sometimes those airfield battalions moved along when a flying unit changed its base, sometimes not.

Good point. I didn't know that. Did the IJNAF operate in the same way? Luftwaffe units, too, had their integrated erks.

I grant that you can not swap out a bad B-24 engine with a shiny brand new P-51 engine, but your proposal would make it impossible for those carrier planes that landed on and operated from Guadalcanal to do so.

Even as far as the points you raise (like having the right parts on hand to fix that plane), the problem is using fewer abstractions means more complexity for the player, more time to play, more code, more chance of bugs, more time/memory/cpu power to run the code, and so on.

Nice ideas but just biting off too much to chew.

No, I wouldn't want to go as far. Generalized Av support is fine. I merely thought that inducing the player to let air units preferentially be supported by Av units associated to them by name would cut down on those wild transfers all over the map. This could be done by house rule. Note that technically all Av support units would still be completely equivalent. There would still have to be a proportion of non-dedicated AV support around to cater for transfers and emergencies. Concerning carrier units being forced ashore, they would just have to share the Av support that was in place at the base they are using, just as in reality.

The other issue is that I find it too generalized that an Aviation Company with eight Av support squads could just as readily handle eight E8N as eight G8Ns. I don't mean there is a need for different types of Av support squads; I'd just prefer that you would need more of them to keep a four-engined bomber flying than a string-and-canvas biplane. Say that this eight-squad Aviation Company might be able to keep only two G8N operational (or perhaps only one?), the increased maintenance effort necessary for larger and more complex aircraft being expressed by a higher manpower need. But this would clearly need code and data modifications to work, unlike the other stuff.

As you realize, this would be fine but would truly need to be coded at some point. Essentially it would mean differentiated aviation support units like the differentiated infantry units (is this a runaround?).

JWE has a great idea to slow down the pace of ops. It's too bad, though because of coding, that its not possible to also introduce differentiated supply (which would really slow ops too).

[oldman45]

Your explanation JWE makes more sense. Sounds like a winner.

[chesmart]

Love It

[Dili]

As you realize, this would be fine but would truly need to be coded at some point.

Coding always need to be made. One way is to connect the already existing airplane repair index to a specific number of air support teams.