Restricted units

[vettim89]

As I process some thoughts for a mod, one of my goals is to put the brakes on early Allied offensives that would be beyond what was historically feasible. One of the issues the game does not address is some of the political and strategic issues RL commanders faced. Many of the US Inf Div were tasked to specific tasks in defensive postures during the first few months of the war. I had some thoughts and wanted to run them by the forum.

While I have as much disdain for teleporting units from off-map or the west coast to forward positions as anyone, the use of this feature does provide for some help in this area. Here is what I am thinking:

1. Have the Aussies that arrive at Aden instead arrive at Perth in a restircted command with a suitable delay. These units were brought out of the Mid East specifically to defend Oz

2. Create a new US command "Australian Defense Command" that would be attached to SWPac. This command would be restricted. The 41st and 33rd ID would arrive at Sydney not WCUSA and attached to this new command. Arrival dates would be historical. These units were sent to Oz at the request of the Australian PM.

3. The 27th ID would arrive in the HI assigned to Hawaiian Dept broken down in RGT's and placed on the approriate islands if it can be verified. This division was tasked to Hawaiian defense until after Midway

There may be a few others that should be similar assigned. How do people feel about this?

[topeverest]

Not sure of your goal. The slippery slope we play with when modding is applying the assumption of historical Empire aggression targets when placing units. As soon as the game starts, most salty Empire players will move far faster than historical. As I am sure you are aware, incremental restriction serves to further charge the Empire batteries. I would expect that if the empire player knew these new restrictions he or she might accelerate NZ and other places where it would be known the allies cant defend in force.

Let me suggest that if your goal is to slow the allied counterpunch, delaying BB, CV, CVL, CVE as well as any division that arrives after April 1 by up to six months. This would allow the allied player the flexibility to attempt action, just with a smaller force pool. Restricted units are offensively useless until released, unless the enemy attacks that land mass. They also limit any mobile defense / counterinvasions the player may attempt.

Anyway, my 2cents.

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Not sure of your goal. The slippery slope we play with when modding is applying the assumption of historical Empire aggression targets when placing units. As soon as the game starts, most salty Empire players will move far faster than historical. As I am sure you are aware, incremental restriction serves to further charge the Empire batteries. I would expect that if the empire player knew these new restrictions he or she might accelerate NZ and other places where it would be known the allies cant defend in force.

Let me suggest that if your goal is to slow the allied counterpunch, delaying BB, CV, CVL, CVE as well as any division that arrives after April 1 by up to six months. This would allow the allied player the flexibility to attempt action, just with a smaller force pool. Restricted units are offensively useless until released, unless the enemy attacks that land mass. They also limit any mobile defense / counterinvasions the player may attempt.

Anyway, my 2cents.

Those are excellant points and they are the major influence I am grappling with as I mull it over. Still the point is not what the Japan player will/can do but what the RL strategic concerns were. Australia was considered more important than any other geographic area by all the involved parties. This move would force the Allied player to attend to that need. Keep in mind there would be similar restraints placed on the Japan player including an economic mod similar to Treespider's mod. Those two USA divisions would eventuallly be able to be bought out for deployment elsewhere. Likewise the Aussies could eventaully be sent elsewhere also.

[Bradley7735]

For whatever my opinion is worth,

I agree with your point #1, but agree with Top re #2 & #3.

The Aussie div's should not be used in India/Burma. Most players will use them there. They should be tasked with defence of Aus. That land mass is large enough that keeping them restricted won't be a significant obstacle for the allied player, assuming an attack on Aus mainland.

I would think that the other 3 US divisions would be sent to the location that needed them most. IRL, they weren't needed to defend Hawaii, Alaska, NZ or Aus. In game, they would probably be needed to defend any of those places, and should be available.

I don't read a lot of AARs, so I don't fully understand the 'early offensive allied player' syndrome. I would assume that since the Allied player doesn't have many ships (CV, BB, and more importantly, LST and APA ships) they couldn't really go on the offensive much before fall of 42. Unless they whack the IJN CV's early.

I think I understand the India/Burma issue, though. That's a result of the Aussie divs that shouldn't be there, and the troops that IRL surrendered at Singers not being at Singers. I think your point #1 would go a LONG way to correcting that problem.

anyway, my 2 cents.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

... one of my goals is to put the brakes on early Allied offensives that would be beyond what was historically feasible. One of the issues the game does not address is some of the political and strategic issues RL commanders faced. Many of the US Inf Div were tasked to specific tasks in defensive postures during the first few months of the war...

Hmm, do you really think your proposed changes would put the brakes on talented players such as Nemo.[;)]

IMHO placing shackles on the logistical front is a much more promising route to take to achieve your objective. What you decide to do regarding the economy is the key. For example, making Allied industry start off largely damaged requiring the importation of substantial supply to repair it and thus not available to support combat operations, seems to be a better restraint.

Alfred

[vettim89]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

For whatever my opinion is worth,

I agree with your point #1, but agree with Top re #2 & #3.

The Aussie div's should not be used in India/Burma. Most players will use them there. They should be tasked with defence of Aus. That land mass is large enough that keeping them restricted won't be a significant obstacle for the allied player, assuming an attack on Aus mainland.

I would think that the other 3 US divisions would be sent to the location that needed them most. IRL, they weren't needed to defend Hawaii, Alaska, NZ or Aus. In game, they would probably be needed to defend any of those places, and should be available.

I don't read a lot of AARs, so I don't fully understand the 'early offensive allied player' syndrome. I would assume that since the Allied player doesn't have many ships (CV, BB, and more importantly, LST and APA ships) they couldn't really go on the offensive much before fall of 42. Unless they whack the IJN CV's early.

I think I understand the India/Burma issue, though. That's a result of the Aussie divs that shouldn't be there, and the troops that IRL surrendered at Singers not being at Singers. I think your point #1 would go a LONG way to correcting that problem.

anyway, my 2 cents.

Well in non-enhanced Japan scenarios we are seeing Allied offensives in Burma starting often in the fall of 1942. While it is a rarity, we will sometimes see moves into the DEI in late 1942 to early 1943. Logistically the Allies were barely able to do the Guadalcanal operation and Buna in late 1942 and these were mutually supporting. Perhaps you are correct, the key is in the economics for both sides not the units

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Well in non-enhanced Japan scenarios we are seeing Allied offensives in Burma starting often in the fall of 1942. While it is a rarity, we will sometimes see moves into the DEI in late 1942 to early 1943. Logistically the Allies were barely able to do the Guadalcanal operation and Buna in late 1942 and these were mutually supporting. Perhaps you are correct, the key is in the economics for both sides not the units

I think part of this, at least, is due to RL versus game. RL, the backbone of the supply system was built up, and that consumed a lot of supply not only in construction but also in stockpiles. What I mean is that before 8/42 offensives in the Solomons, the allies had built up considerable stockpiles of supply in Pearl, Noumea, and Brisbane (amoung a host of other locations). Many players will accept higher risk and start offensive operations prior to having a good supply network in place.

So, I would be cautious in your changes. Tightening the economics will force ALL players to make higher risk operations as getting the historical stockpile levels will take too long... Am I making sense here? A bit too tired and feel like I am blathering badly ... but I have good intentions. Do those count? [:)]

[Smeulders]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

For whatever my opinion is worth,

I agree with your point #1, but agree with Top re #2 & #3.

The Aussie div's should not be used in India/Burma. Most players will use them there. They should be tasked with defence of Aus. That land mass is large enough that keeping them restricted won't be a significant obstacle for the allied player, assuming an attack on Aus mainland.

I would think that the other 3 US divisions would be sent to the location that needed them most. IRL, they weren't needed to defend Hawaii, Alaska, NZ or Aus. In game, they would probably be needed to defend any of those places, and should be available.

I don't read a lot of AARs, so I don't fully understand the 'early offensive allied player' syndrome. I would assume that since the Allied player doesn't have many ships (CV, BB, and more importantly, LST and APA ships) they couldn't really go on the offensive much before fall of 42. Unless they whack the IJN CV's early.

I think I understand the India/Burma issue, though. That's a result of the Aussie divs that shouldn't be there, and the troops that IRL surrendered at Singers not being at Singers. I think your point #1 would go a LONG way to correcting that problem.

anyway, my 2 cents.

Well in non-enhanced Japan scenarios we are seeing Allied offensives in Burma starting often in the fall of 1942. While it is a rarity, we will sometimes see moves into the DEI in late 1942 to early 1943. Logistically the Allies were barely able to do the Guadalcanal operation and Buna in late 1942 and these were mutually supporting. Perhaps you are correct, the key is in the economics for both sides not the units

Don't look at the Burma front when reading early AARs. I'm attacking there in late 42', but only because I'm not bound by the supply restrictions from patch 2. There is no way I could be supplying the force I have there now if I was limited to a couple 100 supply per day through the jungle.

In other areas the main limitation is attack transports. My Baker invasion (Mid-42), with only about 2 regiments worth of troops, took up nearly every available attack transport I had. If the Allies have control of the seas they can of course use slower unloading x-class ships or load more troops on the attack transports so they unload in multiple days.

Personally I'd suggest not restricting additional units, unless there is a serious PP bonus for the Allies. Otherwise restricting units so they will defend the 'right' places in the early game will end up as units never leaving at all.

Maybe you could try and put up incentives to defend the 'right' places. For example, more air production on map that can be captured, maybe even convoys arriving in Australia with devices like 25-Pounders, if Oz falls that production is lost. VPs can also be changed, why not make an auto-victory feasible in scenario 1? Of course, you should be careful there, auto-victory should only be gotten by taking areas that should be easily defensible if the Allied player commits to it. For example, a full OZ should be impossible in scenario 1, provided the Allies send a couple of good divisions there. If they want to attack the Marshalls early ? Well they should be prepared to lose thousands of victory points when Sydney and Melbourne fall.

[topeverest]

Alfred,

Love the Nemo comment...so true!

Actually, I like your approach to damage industry as well. In a mod I made, I significantly reduced all allied ports and airfield sizes down to an average of 2. That definately works too for 3-6 months until the allies build their bases up.

In the same mod, I was looking to step up the off-board allied supply and fuel awards for places like Abadan and Eastern USA, but I never figured out how to do it. Is there a way?

[noguaranteeofsanity]

Agree with the intention of restricting Australian units to the defence of Australia, as this was a huge and very important issue for the Australian government at the time.  One problem I see, if trying to recreate history a little more accurately with the restricted command for Australian units, is the problem of defending New Guinea and other islands, to the north of Australia.  The strategy employed by the Australians was one of forward defence, using New Guinea and the other islands as a buffer to try and prevent an attack on the Australian mainland, to the point where the Battle of the Coral Sea and Kokoda campaigns were often referred to as the battles that saved Australia.  Although they were part of Australia at the time, which is reflected in the game, the allied player would not be able to transport these units to say Port Moresby, if they were assigned to a restricted command.  Although the difficulty in holding Port Moresby in the game, in comparison to history, would probably make this less of an issue.  A similar problem might arise if trying to defend Darwin or other Northern Territory bases, which do not have a rail line or road connections to the rest of Australia, with transport via ship, the only effective way to move units into these bases.

[drw61]

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Alfred,
In the same mod, I was looking to step up the off-board allied supply and fuel awards for places like Abadan and Eastern USA, but I never figured out how to do it. Is there a way?

Are you talking about the Daily Supply and Fuel? If you are, then you can change or remove them in the editor.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

As I process some thoughts for a mod, one of my goals is to put the brakes on early Allied offensives that would be beyond what was historically feasible. One of the issues the game does not address is some of the political and strategic issues RL commanders faced. Many of the US Inf Div were tasked to specific tasks in defensive postures during the first few months of the war. I had some thoughts and wanted to run them by the forum.

While I have as much disdain for teleporting units from off-map or the west coast to forward positions as anyone, the use of this feature does provide for some help in this area. Here is what I am thinking:

1. Have the Aussies that arrive at Aden instead arrive at Perth in a restircted command with a suitable delay. These units were brought out of the Mid East specifically to defend Oz

2. Create a new US command "Australian Defense Command" that would be attached to SWPac. This command would be restricted. The 41st and 33rd ID would arrive at Sydney not WCUSA and attached to this new command. Arrival dates would be historical. These units were sent to Oz at the request of the Australian PM.

3. The 27th ID would arrive in the HI assigned to Hawaiian Dept broken down in RGT's and placed on the approriate islands if it can be verified. This division was tasked to Hawaiian defense until after Midway

There may be a few others that should be similar assigned. How do people feel about this?

1.Neither 6th or 7th Divisions were certain to go back to Australia, it took a big battle for Curtin to convince Churchill to get them sent home, As it was 6th Div spent some months in Ceylon before making it to Australia. Churchill hoped to get 7th Div sent to Burma and some Corps troops went to Java. As the Divs needed British transports, it was neccesary to get British approval.
2. Only 1 US Division was tasked for Australia, agreement was made for the 9th Div to remain in the mid east and a 2nd US Division was added.

These plus point 3 from Vettim make us follow IRL too closely, while I'm one of the 'historical approach' fan boys, this is constraining players too much. Making the AIF arrive in Oz gives the JFB certain knowledge they will not be available for India. If the JFB blitzes the South Pacific, how does the 32 & 41 Divs get to Oz??

[vettim89]

I am leaning away from this move but the RL political realities should be relevant in game IMO. That was the only point I was making

[JeffroK]

Understood, but the fortunes of war are so variable that to restrict players to reality on one hand but allow totally ahistorical moves on the other probably wouldnt work.

Maybe some incentive to do as you propose, but not force players into those moves (cheaper PP??)

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I am leaning away from this move but the RL political realities should be relevant in game IMO. That was the only point I was making

Alas, noble as this objective is, I feel the game engine will ultimately frustrate you.[:(]

The PP system should have gone a long way to maintaining RL political realities but we all know it really doesn't. Too many players complain of having too few PPs, others find ways to abuse them with ways to avoid full retail.

Then there is the problem of proper chain of command not being fully present. Units attached to HQs of other nationalities with no penalties to conducting efficient operations. Multi nation task forces where there are no penalties for different national doctrines, language diffiulties. Units having no difficulties in getting their ammunition from a different national supply depot.

And of course, RL simply not applying to Japan from day 1.

IMHO the only way to approach your goal is to tweak things away from their historical basis, with primary focus directed towards logistics/the economy. Do that and you can imagine the howls of protest which will arise.

The bottom line is that many players say they want an historical approach but by their very actions and complaints clearly demonstrate they are simply not prepared to put up with the considerable restraint on the freedom of action which would result from any scenario which really incorporates RL political constraints. How many Allied players would willingly accept they cannot move a single man from Malaya and yet that is exactly what the RL political constraints would require.

Alfred

[inqistor]

Actually, if it would be possible to do in editor, the SIMPLEST solution would be to put GARRISON requirements all around Australia, so Allies have almost NO free units to toss around.
Now, if those GARRISONS are working, like China in old WITP (so requirements actually increase, when player upgrades port/airfield), that will work as intended. If Allied player wants to upgrade bases, he will be forced to send additional units to Australia to fulfill garrison requirements. Especially putting large demands on bases, which Allies need to upgrade (like coast opposite Port Moresby, or North Australia in later war).
Of course, there is problem, that units will eventually recover, so they will be much stronger, so another solution is putting Garrisons on so much bases, that Allies will have to keep original forces split all the time.

[Dobey455]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Actually, if it would be possible to do in editor, the SIMPLEST solution would be to put GARRISON requirements all around Australia, so Allies have almost NO free units to toss around.
Now, if those GARRISONS are working, like China in old WITP (so requirements actually increase, when player upgrades port/airfield), that will work as intended. If Allied player wants to upgrade bases, he will be forced to send additional units to Australia to fulfill garrison requirements. Especially putting large demands on bases, which Allies need to upgrade (like coast opposite Port Moresby, or North Australia in later war).
Of course, there is problem, that units will eventually recover, so they will be much stronger, so another solution is putting Garrisons on so much bases, that Allies will have to keep original forces split all the time.

Yes but you're missing the bigger point that has been made above. Basically what this does is force restraints on the allies while the japanese are not burdened by any of their complication (such as naval and army in-fighting, or the grotesque over-abundance of aerial torpedoes in game.)

Also its worth noting that defending Australia, historically, was not that huge a draw of resources after about Apr 1942. Historically the AIF formed the majority of combat troops in the SW pacific theater until 1944, with almost all militia units also doing at least one rotation overseas during the war.
No matter what happens, in game,you will very rarely see the Japanese stopped in their tracks by April 42 and starting to roll back by jun -jul 1942......now THAT is realty - if you want it.

[erstad]

Here's a degree of freedom that could be considered in scenario design w.r.t. restricted LCUs. Specifically, the feature that allows restricted units to be transferred "laterally" to an adjacent unrestricted command at 1/4 the PPs. So you really have four classes of units that could be handed the player:
- Unrestricted
- Loosely restricted - can be freed at 1/4 the pps
- strongly restricted - can be freed at regular pps
- Hard restricted - can't be freed

So, for example, if the Aussie divisions were changed to magically appear in Oz as restricted units as a representation of the political realities, one has several options to choose from as to the ease with which they can be freed up.

Just a thought. Note the scenario notes would have to explicitly state this as an intent, given all the discussion/debate as to what is/is not gamey in stock.

[topeverest]

The delicate balancing act here is...well...impossible to perfect. IRL, a battle or enemy move could cause forces to be released. The only mechanism in the game is PP. Short of activating emergency reinforcements, there is no mechanism to mimic RL.

That said, further restricing or delaying entry of certain major allied land forces may be the right thing to do, as there are many instances of accelerated allied victory. I hesitate to us incremental restriction. Rather, I prefer delayed entry of follow-on units.

[JeffroK]

Random reinforecements turned on.

Randomness dependent on VP's.

Someone elese can work out how to make it happen!

From Erstad
- Unrestricted
- Loosely restricted - can be freed at 1/4 the pps
- strongly restricted - can be freed at regular pps
- Hard restricted - can't be freed

Looking at Australian units, similar restraints could be put on US & CW units. In Malaya most movement was forced by the IJA, not planned by the Higher ups.  Get correct Australian at start set up.
The AIF would be Unrestricted and Divs arrive in Aden.
Select "2" (select a relevant number) of Militia Div Eqiv as Loosely Restricted.
Select "2"(select a relevant number) of Militia Div Eqiv as Strongly Restricted.
Remainder is Hard Restricted, using garrison squads is this works. the Loosely & Strongly restricted units have similar squads until April 42 when there version of garrison squad upgrade to a mobile squad.