Japanese ORBATs

[mind_messing]

the devs research on TOE was thorough and they used a combination of documents to settle upon one. You can search the threads and this topic was discussed at length and depth. The devs gave a GREAT deal of specific info on this and many forum members contributed to the final result.

Got a link? Searching TOE and OOB turns up a lot of chaff...

[RangerJoe]

If you are referring to unit's composition at the beginning of the game, especially if the are the only unit at the base, they may be different than what they would normally have but they reflect what was at the base.

As far as the date of the TOE change showing near the unit name, that is to tell you the TOE organization at that time.

If you don't like the way that the game is presenting the information, as Alfred wrote, write your own game.

In the game, there is no ORBAT chart. Some units with the same name and size designation actually can have vastly different strengths.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

the devs research on TOE was thorough and they used a combination of documents to settle upon one. You can search the threads and this topic was discussed at length and depth. The devs gave a GREAT deal of specific info on this and many forum members contributed to the final result.

Got a link? Searching TOE and OOB turns up a lot of chaff...

you need to search the threads, and most was NOT online at the time. These were rigorous searches, academic level, not simply sitting in your office type. As in go to Naval Archives and LoC to read original documents. IIRC, one of the devs was in Japan at the time and got access to IJA records.

Again, some of this is now available on the internet (a fair amount released in the last 2 years, I'm still reading Nimitz' communiques), but at the time it was NOT available electronically.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: LGKMAS

16. I suggest you look at the TOEs for 106th RN Base Force and 111th RN Base Force and tell me if the titles are the same why the TOEs are different. If it was a DEV fix, I am happy to live with that but it does invalidate your post about all titles being a key pointer to the size of the unit.

Because they were different. Not sure why you are not understanding this. It isn't a fix, it is what it was. That simple.

I suspect you are thinking that someone at the top of command created a nice little chart and said all Base forces will have this, all Inf Div will have that.

Sorry. not real life then. not real life today.

Each and every unit will have a string of communiques about their TOE. It changes with assignment. Assets are attached and removed, sometime voluntarily, but in war it also happens involuntarily. Yes there is a "wished for TOE" of what an Inf Div should be, but that is not what an actual unit has, nor can you ever assume that it ever had or will have that.

This is my second response to the same question. Like Alfred, I am getting frustrated. green button comes next …

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Each and every unit will have a string of communiques about their TOE. It changes with assignment. Assets are attached and removed, sometime voluntarily, but in war it also happens involuntarily. Yes there is a "wished for TOE" of what an Inf Div should be, but that is not what an actual unit has, nor can you ever assume that it ever had or will have that.

I'd venture it's even truer with such abstractions as aviation support squads, and ground echelons totally separate from the squadrons...

As far as I know, "numbered" base forces didn't exist IRL, and are only a tool to cover the lack of organic ground-echelon to the air units of the game.

I would also guess Baah Baah Black Sheep would be a good watch to see how the squadron commander was also responsible to get all the necessary ground equipment to service his unit...[;)]

[Lowpe]

Even the TOE title, label, is not a guide on actual unit strength as there exists many units above or below their TOE guideline for a variety of reasons. Pictured is one such unit.

It is these nuts and bolts that make the game great imo.[:)] If every division was the same toe that would be exceptionally boring and bland.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Even the TOE title, label, is not a guide on actual unit strength as there exists many units above or below their TOE guideline for a variety of reasons. Pictured is one such unit.

It is these nuts and bolts that make the game great imo.[:)] If every division was the same toe that would be exceptionally boring and bland.

And more important to the serious grognards here (I am NOT a member of that stodgy group, thank goodness) is that it is accurate. The start of all of the official scenarios, AFAIK, have the unit actual and TOE as accurate as was possible to determine.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador



... I'd venture it's even truer with such abstractions as aviation support squads, and ground echelons totally separate from the squadrons...

As far as I know, "numbered" base forces didn't exist IRL, and are only a tool to cover the lack of organic ground-echelon to the air units of the game...

Bingo, we have a winner. Give the man an all expenses paid 14 day trip to Liege.[:)]

Alfred

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ambassador



... I'd venture it's even truer with such abstractions as aviation support squads, and ground echelons totally separate from the squadrons...

As far as I know, "numbered" base forces didn't exist IRL, and are only a tool to cover the lack of organic ground-echelon to the air units of the game...

Bingo, we have a winner. Give the man an all expenses paid 14 day trip to Liege.[:)]

Alfred

Thanks, but I'm already leaving for Southern France for three weeks, in less than 72 hours.[:D]

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

the devs research on TOE was thorough and they used a combination of documents to settle upon one. You can search the threads and this topic was discussed at length and depth. The devs gave a GREAT deal of specific info on this and many forum members contributed to the final result.

Got a link? Searching TOE and OOB turns up a lot of chaff...

you need to search the threads, and most was NOT online at the time. These were rigorous searches, academic level, not simply sitting in your office type. As in go to Naval Archives and LoC to read original documents. IIRC, one of the devs was in Japan at the time and got access to IJA records.

Again, some of this is now available on the internet (a fair amount released in the last 2 years, I'm still reading Nimitz' communiques), but at the time it was NOT available electronically.

Even though PaxMondo is correct in his response, it still underplays what the devs did.

JWE/Symon paid for out of his own pocket, for the professional translation from Japanese to English, of original Japanese source documents. So even if those original documents were to be located on the internet, your average AE forumite who loves to demonstrate just how superior their knowledge is compared to that of the devs, would still be none the wiser because they can't read the documents.

IIRC, it cost JWE something in the vicinity of $USD 100 per translated page. He used a professional Tokyo translation firm who regularly did his legal translation work as required.

Then there was the additional work done by the devs of directly corresponding with Japanese academics who held expertise in the area. Again a degree of professional thoroughness never undertaken by the AE internet know alls, legends in their own minds only whose only qualification is a working index finger.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ambassador



... I'd venture it's even truer with such abstractions as aviation support squads, and ground echelons totally separate from the squadrons...

As far as I know, "numbered" base forces didn't exist IRL, and are only a tool to cover the lack of organic ground-echelon to the air units of the game...

Bingo, we have a winner. Give the man an all expenses paid 14 day trip to Liege.[:)]

Alfred

Thanks, but I'm already leaving for Southern France for three weeks, in less than 72 hours.[:D]

What, you prefer to look at the blue of the Mediterranean rather than the industrial landscape of Liege. What if I threw in as an extra Namur.[:)]

Alfred

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



Got a link? Searching TOE and OOB turns up a lot of chaff...

you need to search the threads, and most was NOT online at the time. These were rigorous searches, academic level, not simply sitting in your office type. As in go to Naval Archives and LoC to read original documents. IIRC, one of the devs was in Japan at the time and got access to IJA records.

Again, some of this is now available on the internet (a fair amount released in the last 2 years, I'm still reading Nimitz' communiques), but at the time it was NOT available electronically.

Even though PaxMondo is correct in his response, it still underplays what the devs did.

JWE/Symon paid for out of his own pocket, for the professional translation from Japanese to English, of original Japanese source documents. So even if those original documents were to be located on the internet, your average AE forumite who loves to demonstrate just how superior their knowledge is compared to that of the devs, would still be none the wiser because they can't read the documents.

IIRC, it cost JWE something in the vicinity of $USD 100 per translated page. He used a professional Tokyo translation firm who regularly did his legal translation work as required.

Then there was the additional work done by the devs of directly corresponding with Japanese academics who held expertise in the area. Again a degree of professional thoroughness never undertaken by the AE internet know alls, legends in their own minds only whose only qualification is a working index finger.

Alfred

WOW! [&o][&o][&o]

And I don't pretend to know it all and I know that I don't know it all. Every question answered just leads to more questions.

I am also a relative newcomer to the game. I went from Pacwar to AE.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


...WOW! [&o][&o][&o]

And I don't pretend to know it all and I know that I don't know it all. Every question answered just leads to more questions.

I am also a relative newcomer to the game. I went from Pacwar to AE.

I don't know just how much it ultimately cost JWE but it definitely ran into the thousands of dollars. Nor whether, as a partner, he was able to defray the cost to his law firm. IOW did he say to the translators "as you are translating this legal document, would you mind adding to the bill this additional WWII Japanese document?" What I can say is that the AE devs were not paid for their AE work.

Plus of course we have to remember the destruction of many Japanese source documents, so there will always be some gaps in our knowledge.

Alfred

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

ORIGINAL: Alfred




Bingo, we have a winner. Give the man an all expenses paid 14 day trip to Liege.[:)]

Alfred

Thanks, but I'm already leaving for Southern France for three weeks, in less than 72 hours.[:D]

What, you prefer to look at the blue of the Mediterranean rather than the industrial landscape of Liege. What if I threw in as an extra Namur.[:)]

Alfred

Too close to home, actually. Plus, there's the age-old rivalry between Brussels and Liege, so better not to venture too much there. But I see you seem to have a first-hand knowledge of Liege...[;)]

And by the way, I won't be in the vicinity of the Mediterranean for more than 3-4 days, as my circuit will take me through the Pyrénées mountains then up through the Guyenne. I probably won't approach the blue waters closer than a couple of kilometers, and then only because the highway is not much further away.[:D]

[LGKMAS]

Paxmondo
You are not understanding what I am trying to say.
I have never said I don't like what has been done.
I have never suggested that the DEVs were wrong.
I have never said they screwed up.
I appreciate all the hard work done to get things working in the game.

I have looked at the ORBATs and TOEs under the editor and am satisfied I have a handle on what they are. That was fine and I worked out my rough guide as to what a IJN constr Coy could do and so on. That is what I was originally after, a basic understanding of the Japanese forces such that a landing Det consisted of what? Did I need a Bn or a Regt or even a Division to go up against it?

What I said, as a simple aside, with no criticism implied, was that the various unit titles , although looking the same, did not always give you the same TOE.

Alfred then stated that the full title was what was necessary to understand the TOE and that if the titles were the same then the TOE, not the list of current devices, would be the same.

He further stated within the last 24 hrs that there are separate Base force TOEs for USArmy, USN and US Airforce. each under their own service title. Yes, I agree with that.

I understand that an Engineering Aviation Bn is different from a Field Engineer Bn is different from a Combat engr Bn etc. The title gives that away.

He then stated rather bluntly if I looked at non-USA base Forces, I would find the same thing.

I suggested that in the case of the RN Base Forces this was not so and I quoted 106th RN Base Force and 111th RN Base Force. My post 20.
To date all I have had in reply to that is explanations from other than Alfred that this is wrong and that each TOE was developed at great cost etc.
That is not my point.

Apparently, no-one has looked at the RN Base Forces I have quoted and said, Oh sorry, even though they have the same title, which according to Alfred means they are organised the same, they are actually different.
I did not see this difference as a problem as I have been making notes to remind myself to check the RN base Force TOEs before I do anything with them.

I repeat, I did not say the Devs had screwed up or the game needed to be changed or anything similar. I have not attacked anyone or suggested they are arrogant know-it alls. Those who suggest I did are putting words in my mouth.

A simple, "let's have a look at this" would have been a more polite way of answering the question rather than the various different approaches to tell me I am wrong. If the answer had been that the Devs needed to compress some units because of the way the code worked, and that is why they were different although labelled the same, I would have been happy with that.
Instead I get told off and made to feel unwelcome.
I really don't understand you people.

[RangerJoe]

A simple, "let's have a look at this" would have been a more polite way of answering the question rather than the various different approaches to tell me I am wrong. If the answer had been that the Devs needed to compress some units because of the way the code worked, and that is why they were different although labelled the same, I would have been happy with that.

Reread what I posted.

I don't think that I will even attempt to answer any of your questions ever again.

[LGKMAS]

Ranger Joe
You have been agreeing with me. You stated that there may have been devices folded in at the original base. That would mean the TOE would be different. That is what I have been saying all along.
Alfred stated that the full title would show that same TOE. Unless the term "Full Title" means something different to what I understand it to be. As I attempted to point out to someone earlier, I have never heard of a unit having the TOE as part of it's title.
I pointed out that at least two RN Base forces , despite having the same title of XXth RN Base Force, had different TOEs, which you gave a good explanation for and which I have no trouble accepting. I have never had any problem with different TOEs. it is war, after all.
Then Alfred came back with a rather rude post that stated that anything that had the same title had the same TOE, which you have previously pointed out may not be so and gave likely reasons for this.
I fail to see where I have been wrong if I agree with you and you with me.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: LGKMAS


Apparently, no-one has looked at the RN Base Forces I have quoted and said, Oh sorry, even though they have the same title, which according to Alfred means they are organised the same, they are actually different.

I did, and they have different TOE descriptors. The only reason I didn't take a picture of it was I don't have a game where both units are active.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: LGKMAS

Ranger Joe
You have been agreeing with me. You stated that there may have been devices folded in at the original base. That would mean the TOE would be different. That is what I have been saying all along.
Alfred stated that the full title would show that same TOE. Unless the term "Full Title" means something different to what I understand it to be. As I attempted to point out to someone earlier, I have never heard of a unit having the TOE as part of it's title.
I pointed out that at least two RN Base forces , despite having the same title of XXth RN Base Force, had different TOEs, which you gave a good explanation for and which I have no trouble accepting. I have never had any problem with different TOEs. it is war, after all.
Then Alfred came back with a rather rude post that stated that anything that had the same title had the same TOE, which you have previously pointed out may not be so and gave likely reasons for this.
I fail to see where I have been wrong if I agree with you and you with me.

I'm starting to be fed up with your attitude towards the knowledgeable people of the forum, so I fired up the game.

106th RN Base Force, LCU ID #6661, located at Kuching, has 16 AV at the start of the game, with TOE #2861 ("Advanced base force"), which has a max AV of 16. For the most important aspect of the game (IMVHO, and I'm not alone on that), it's full, and can support 16 aircrafts.
109th RN Base Force, LCU ID #6655, located at Kuala Lumpur, has 16 AV at the start of the game, with TOE #2830 ("RN Port 43 base force"), which has indeed a max AV of 32. So, you're right (are you happy yet ?), TOE for 109th RN is bigger than for 106th RN.

However, it doesn't matter. At the start of the game, those base forces are dead anyway. Unless you play the AI (and even so, it's not sure...). You really shouldn't worry about allowing replacements to fill 109th RN, as the IJA steamroller is coming down the Malaya peninsula, and you're only giving more VP to your opponent. So, you get the same 16 AV from each of them, which is their primary contribution to the war effort.

Besides, as "I pointed out" earlier (I'm quoting you, indeed), base forces are abstractions, with no IRL existence, and reality was even more diverse than the handful of discrepancies.

By the way, if you're worrying about those two BF now, you'll probably be overwhelmed in 1943, once you'll swim amid the LCU. And you'll see then that the handful of starting LCU were not so important in the grand scheme of things. And if you bother to recall them, you'll promptly park them somewhere back to service training squadrons anyway...


TL/DR : there are 2547 LCU in scenario #1 alone, stop whining about two of them.[8|]

[Kull]

Way back in the day I was arguing with my girlfriend over some incredibly esoteric point, and the longer it went on, the angrier she got. At which point a friend intervened, and gave me a piece of advice that has withstood the test of time (for damn near half a century): "You may be right, but you'll sleep alone"

Successfully annoying the relatively small number of truly knowledgeable AE experts, to the point that they make use of the green button? Congratulations, you are now playing alone!