TF Commander KIA

[patrickl]

In my earlier thread, I asked whether TF commander can be killed in action. Well the answer came after nearly 2 years of playing - Norman Scott was KIA when leading a 8-destroyer TF and encountered a Japanese sub off Noumea in my most recent game against the computer AI.[8|]

[Damien Thorn]

Was he also the captain of one of the ships?

[crsutton]

I have lost Chin Lee before and just lost Tanaka. I had not been paying attention and the dang computer assigned Tanaka to a three ship transport TF which the Americans caught from long range and plastered. He went to a watery grave. Serves him right. The sumbitch managed to lose every battle he was in. My own personal Jonah. [:@]

[patrickl]

Hi Damien,

Nope, I assigned Norman Scott as the Surface Action TF commander (I normally assign Scott for ASW TF duties). I think a rear admiral would not normally be selected by the computer as a ship's captain.

[mogami]

Hi, Scott was killed because the TF flagship was the ship sunk by the submarine. I always give at least a CL to any TF I am going to assign a leader to command. (I aways change leaders assigned by AI to the senior ship captain for TF's I do not want a Flag officer commanding)

[patrickl]

Hi Mogami,

It is nice to hear from you despite your busy work testing WITP. You are spot on [8D]- the flagship Scott was on - USS Fletcher - sank after torpedoed. I mourned his death as he was my favourite ASW TF commander.[:(] I don't know whether the captain of Fletcher survived as I did not keep track of it.
Rgds

[mariovalleemtl]

[center]

I aways change leaders assigned by AI to the senior ship captain for TF's I do not want a Flag officer commanding

[/center]

That is what the computer SHOULD automatically do. [:-]

mv

[DJAndrews]

The computer does make an attempt preserve fleet officers, if there is an opportunity. I have have had several instances of task force commanders returning to the pool after their TF was mauled in batlle. You can often end up with say, three remnant TFs, each commanded by a captain, while the original TF commander disappears. The only time I've lost fleet officers is when the flagship is sunk outright in the engagement.

[mogami]

Hi, In WITP the AI assigns the senior ship captain to command your TF. If you want a flag officer you have to assign one. It costs a few PP to assign a new leader.

[mariovalleemtl]

In WITP the AI assigns the senior ship captain to command your TF

Good. Hope to see that also in the next U.V. patch.

mv

[pasternakski]

Here we are with another PP incursion where it doesn't belong. I am glad that WitP fixes the problem from UV where flag officers are automatically assigned to command of TFs (creating the "trivial waste of Tanaka" blunder if you don't catch it in time). Considering, however, that precious PPs are so crucial to major decisions like re-assigning units to other commands or retaining ships in theater that have been ordered by higher command to be withdrawn (yes, I am still a suicide bomber looking for a target on that one), I can't see the justification for requiring use of PPs for something as routine as assigning a flag officer to command of a TF (yes, Ching, we are going to give you these two BBs with which to complete your mission, but it will cost us two genuflects in front of King and three kisses on FDR's butt to get it done).

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, In WITP the AI assigns the senior ship captain to command your TF. If you want a flag officer you have to assign one. It costs a few PP to assign a new leader.

[mogami]

LOL. It also costs PP to change Flag officers. You just can't relieve one leader for another willy nilly. Since in reality you cannot look at a person and see "Leadership 50 inspiration 50" and compare to another mans "Leadership 75 inspiration 75" Without the PP cost there would be no "bad" leaders used by players. Since we do not want to prevent players from change of commanders we need some abstract method of showing it is not simply a matter of the player picking a leader. Often leaders gain command though connections and they are hard to change.
I can't imagine an American Civil War game without rules for assigning leaders. The same conditions existed in WW2. Some times it was not how good you were but who you knew. The PP costs reflect this reality. (You do need to sometimes live with a bad leader until you garner enough clout to have him removed. This system also encourges maintaining a TF since you do not want to have to pay a PP cost every time you form a new TF.)
Also it reflects the reality that the act of forming a TF (getting ships to assign to one leader or mission at the expense of another mission or leader) takes clout. You can form a TF without a Flag leader but to trust it to combat without one is risky. So forming a TF and assigning ships requires some approval and costs PP. But forming the same TF for simple movement from one base to another (or other non combat missions) does not require a Flag officer and thus no PP.

[pasternakski]

I agree with what you say completely, Mog, but I am not talking about the "replace McClellan" situation. I am thinking of creation of a new TF that is, by default, led by the senior ship captain in the group. Let's say that this is an important invasion group that needs flag officer direction. Why should I have to expend PPs to order Barbey to take command of the TF and execute its mission? Surely LTC Bumfrick did not expect to be chosen to lead the invasion of Saipan. CPT Weirdknuckles surely doesn't expect to lead a multi-CV air combat TF against Nagumo and company.

[mogami]

Hi, Well a TF that does not require a Flag Officer costs no PP to make. One that does requires a few PP to assign a leader. A TF that is commanded by a Flag Officer requires PP to appoint a new Flag Officer. I guess is takes PP to convince who ever that the TF needs a particular leader or a replacment. (although I cannot see why you would appoint a leader yourself and then later replace him)
The Japanese get 100 PP per day. The most expensive leader costs 12 points. Changing the HQ of a full division costs around 2500 changing a fighter daitai costs around 100. I usally have over 2200 by the end of the first 30 days. I've never not been able to make any change I wanted when I wanted.

[denisonh]

Relief of leaders and assigning leaders to choice assignments has serious political considerations.

There is the justification up to the political authorities and the beauracracy that runs most modern military establishments for major command postings and reliefs. (spend some time in vicinity of the Pentagon, and you will see what I mean).

Frank Hunter's Civil War game represented this best, with some leaders being harder to replace than others due to their political influence.

Relieving a politically connected ship commander to be the Chief of Sanitation Engineering for Dutch Harbor would draw interest in the terms of quantifiable justification for relief.

Or appointing a talented nobody to a choice command when a "successfull" idiot is available to command.

Those were major concerns for Chester Nimitz. His time as the Chief of the Bureau of Navigation (Navy Personnel) served in him in great stead during his time as CINPAC. He mad a habit of interviewing every skipper of every boat that passed through Pearl enroute to the Pacific.

But even he could and would only make an effort to replace so many, particularly the politically connected.

Changing commanders ain't quite like changing your shorts, it requires justification to the powers that be, even as the CINC.

[pasternakski]

1. A requirement that some odd thing like "political points" be expended in order to do something as routine as assign a commander to a task force is ridiculous. I can see that there is some administrative difficulty in replacing a commander already appointed, but I don't see this as rising to the level of being "political." Maybe you should just be required to live with the commanders you have appointed until their TF gets to the home base - as it is now in UV.

2. If you always have enough "political points" to do whatever you want to do, what is the "point?"

I don't understand this game mechanic at all, I guess. I thought that it was useful, though misnamed, in connection with limiting transfer of units from their historical subordinations, but this just leaves me saying, "There's something going terribly wrong here."

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, Well a TF that does not require a Flag Officer costs no PP to make. One that does requires a few PP to assign a leader. A TF that is commanded by a Flag Officer requires PP to appoint a new Flag Officer. I guess is takes PP to convince who ever that the TF needs a particular leader or a replacment. (although I cannot see why you would appoint a leader yourself and then later replace him)
The Japanese get 100 PP per day. The most expensive leader costs 12 points. Changing the HQ of a full division costs around 2500 changing a fighter daitai costs around 100. I usally have over 2200 by the end of the first 30 days. I've never not been able to make any change I wanted when I wanted.

[mogami]

If it helps don't think of them as "political" points. Think of them as "action" points. I'm sure there will be both Allied and Japanese players who never have enough.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

If it helps don't think of them as "political" points. Think of them as "action" points. I'm sure there will be both Allied and Japanese players who never have enough.

Please don't get me wrong, kemo sabe. I think that this was the best possible solution to the "free transfer of units" problem, no matter what kind of points you call them. I just don't want to see this complicate the game any more than it has to. Why, oh why, when you yank 15 ships out of harbor and form them up as a TF do you have to expend "points" of some kind to assign an available commander to that TF? The senior ship captain has no expectation of leading an important effort. The admiral comes aboard the ship he has chosen to be his flagship, hoists his flag, and says, "let's get 'er done."

I think the biggest problem is the "teleporting admiral" phenomenon that held over from PacWar into UV and apparently persists in WitP. Ching Lee might be in Pearl one day and be able to lead a surface combat TF out of Brisbane harbor the next.

But, who am I to complain?