Cadres

[DrewMatrix]

There is a discussion about growing small cadres in the Asiatic Fleet HQ thread.

I am starting a new thread since the topic isn't obvious from the title.

The point is that some people think it unrealistic/cheap/unfair to take a tiny cadre out of the PI or DEI (generally by sub) and then over months to a year or so, grow that up to a full sized unit again from pool replacements after the original parent unit is killed off.

Mr. Frag has proposed a "15% solution" which he should explain but which as I understand it means that tiny units or fragments, less that 15% of TOE will not be able to draw units from the pool (they are too damaged to ever recover).

Other possible (using the term loosely) solutions would be:

a) ignore it. If the pool has those units, you can use them
b) shrink the rate of adding some items to the pool (PI and Dutch particularly). Where are all those Dutch squads coming from? This would work for Dutch and Phillipine, but not for US or Brit units and most importantly not for Air Support which is what seems to annoy people the most (and air support is an air support, whether in a US or a Dutch base)
c) Massively raise the PP costs to change bases for some (or all) units
d) Change the PP cost to reflect the TOE not the current size of the unit. In other words, to change a Dutch Bde to SWPAC would not depend on the current size of the unit (which might get teensy after a battle or two) but would be "cost to change a Bde"

Anyhow, I am sure everyone has (fervent conflicting) opinions so join in.

[byron13]

You're darned right I have fervent conflicting opinions!!!!

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

There is a discussion about growing small cadres in the Asiatic Fleet HQ thread.

I am starting a new thread since the topic isn't obvious from the title.

The point is that some people think it unrealistic/cheap/unfair to take a tiny cadre out of the PI or DEI (generally by sub) and then over months to a year or so, grow that up to a full sized unit again from pool replacements after the original parent unit is killed off.

Mr. Frag has proposed a "15% solution" which he should explain but which as I understand it means that tiny units or fragments, less that 15% of TOE will not be able to draw units from the pool (they are too damaged to ever recover).

Other possible (using the term loosely) solutions would be:

a) ignore it. If the pool has those units, you can use them
b) shrink the rate of generating some units (PI and Dutch particularly). Where are all those Dutch squads coming from? This would work for Dutch and Phillipine, but not for US or Brit units and most importantly not for Air Support which is what seems to annoy people the most (and air support is an air support, whether in a US or a Dutch base)
c) Massively raise the PP costs to change bases for some (or all) units
d) Change the PP cost to reflect the TOE not the current size of the unit. In other words, to change a Dutch Bde to SWPAC would not depend on the current size of the unit (which might get teensy after a battle or two) but would be "cost to change a Bde"

Anyhow, I am sure everyone has (fervent conflicting) opinions so join in.

This discussion is a riot.

If Frag wants to "fix" the game in this manner, let him. This particular "exploit" (if in fact that's what it is) will still be fried. However, if any such change in the routines were made then at the least such miniscule fragments evacuated via submarines should have a way to be returned to their respective pools for future displacement. The little snag in this case is that there is no way to return such assets, it would need to be invented, and guess what? Such assets (if and when) returned to the pool would be generic, not specific, so in effect there'd be no way to save engineers and mechanics, i.e., trained personnel. You would save the "manpower" but it wouldn't be coming back as "specialists." A kind of penalty, no doubt looked upon as a good deal by support.

No matter. Here's the biggie: it won't be at all difficult to extract more than 15% of a given unit on APs/AKs from the DEI at least, and in fact, if the Allied player wanted to badly enough he could also extract more than 15% of a unit from the PI through submarine transit alone, depending on how quickly the Japanese move--and of course we all know they can move much faster in the game than they could historically. Also, given the woeful state of Allied subs at the start the war, wedded to a flawed ASW model, I'm not at all sure doing so would represent a mistake on the part of the Allied player. Neither could it reasonably termed an exploit given that circumstance.

This is a good llustration of how convoluted the thinking of some people around here is on some fairly important points. It's been stated how many times? that the fundammental problem with this game system isn't the system itself but the abuse of players of an otherwise perfectly viable game system. Right? Yet here we have before us a perfect example of a bad system indeed not only causing questionable play but begging for "abuse" from the get-go.

Are we having fun yet? [8D]

[Bradley7735]

I have thought from day one that PP costs to change HQ should be based on the TOE of the unit, not the current size. And, I'm an allied fan boy. I also think they should up the cost for changing the HQ on air groups. Just my opinion, but they can be more powerful than LCU's and function a bit less efficient when not at a base with their HQ (replacements)

[DrewMatrix]

I have thought from day one that PP costs to change HQ should be based on the TOE of the unit, not the current size

You might also argue the the political cost (the heat the man in the street generates when he hears about it) will be based on the unit. If the papers report "2nd Aus Division leaves Oz for points unknown" that will have more effect than "the only 4 remaining squads in the (formerly large) 2nd Aus Division just bugged out"

[doktorblood]

I don't think rescuing cadres matters that much... just not that much of a priority. I can live with it either way. If it is changed and it's important to you ... don't upgrade to 1.6.

[Halsey]

Since there is no combat penalty for units with different HQ subordination operating together, why bother changing them.
As long as you have enough supply available it doesn't matter for airgroups either.

That leaves PP's for the restricted command units and changing officers.
So, if they're going to lock in the restricted command they might as well do away with PP's. They become a useless feature.

Officer swapping and keeping the RN around is all they will be good for.

As far as it stands now with fragments being withdrawn. I say again, so what! If a player wants to spend 600 PP's to get out a couple of squads from a good unit for rebuilding, I say more power to ya. It still takes 6-12 months before that unit is good for anything.

As far as abusing the mechanics of the game, it's kind of hard not to.
What one player sees as abuse, the other sees as tactics.
Then it becomes tit for tat. No matter what houserules that may have been implemented.

It seems to me that WITP was designed to have players game the mechanics.
How can you avoid NOT doing it? It's just the way the game is.

[byron13]

While I've agreed with TJ on some other problems, I don't think this cadre issue is a game flaw. It could have been easily foreseen - at least in theory - but I'm not sure anyone would have guessed that this hole would cause such heartache. The question is whether this hole requires patching or should just be subject to house rules.

I agree with TJ that the problems in having the withdrawn cadres revert to the replacement pool is worth the re-coding required. You're talking about less than 15% of whatever unit; adding these meagre units to the pool probably isn't worth the effort.

One problem I saw on the other thread was the issue of the 15% rule on air units. The aircraft and pilots in a squadron or group is just the tip of the spear. If the number of aircraft in a group or squadron dropped below 15% for any reason - bad day in the air combined with an opportune bombing of the airfield upon arrival - there is no way that the group or squadron would be disbanded. The entire logistical and administrative body of the group is still present; you're just a few aircraft short. To the extent the 15% rule would, in effect, force a group or squadron to disband when the number of a/c drops below 15%, the rule doesn't work (at least under these facts).

The corallary doesn't work too well either. In the PI scenario, you've got 6 (or, what the hell, 24) P-40s winging their way from the hell that is Clark Field to paradise in Melbourne. There's a good chance that this squadron would be disbanded and parceled out to other units. After, while you've saved 24 pilots and aircrew, but the entire ground support crew and all maintenance equipment and parts were left in Manila. I think it's more likely that the a/c would be parceled out than an entirely new unit of hundreds of men and substantial equipment would be formed around 24 pilots and airplanes.

In short, I'm not sure the 15% rule works for aircraft units.

[Hornblower]

My thoughts- for what its worth. Personally I don’t move/rescue parts of a unit as Cadres. If it’s worth expending the PP and weakening the “host” unit, then it’s worth moving the whole darn thing. It just never made sense to me. I’ll spend 600 PP to save a company of Philippine scouts???? [:-]

If I am spending the 600 points (or whatever it is) I’m going to save/move the entire unit. Now if parts are lost in transit and it needs to be fleshed out that’s a different story. I’ve rescued 7 units from the PI/DEI. The two Australian brigades in Sing; (Those I moved to Timor and they actually repelled a landing attempt a few moths later- but I digress. ) 3 USN/USA base units from the outlying islands in the PI, the 81st PA Division- yes the whole thing, and a PS regiment. The PS regiment and the PA division were to take advantage of the replacements, truth be told. But I move the entire body of these troops, not bits to rebuild themselves. And I only moved them once the position couldn’t be held. Also, I moved “south” 2 Dutch regiments and 2 air base units from Java once it was obvious Java was lost. Have to make the Japanese pay for the DEI and in my opinion removing parts from units isn’t the way to go. But again I think I might be digressing.

1- I don’t know if Frag’s remark was Legit or just off the cuff. 2- Also, I presume that this discussion is only regarding land units as apparently no one has an issue with saving squadrons or parts of squadrons to be reconstituted later. I think that any attempt to stop the cloning via a patch would only cause more issues then its worth. I had posted this on the Asiatic Fleet thread:
“If frag isn't pulling our leg with this 15% thing, there is another wrinkle. For instance I had a RN base unit get kicked out of Rangoon and it had to enjoy a nice little walk in Burma. Once it finally got to a friendly base and back in supply it was down to @210 men. At least 90% casualties. Its built back up now, but its moral and exp are in the crapper. How would this "rule" affect that? Same for parts of a unit that go down with the ship. Digging a little deeper lets suppose I have a BG of B-25's broken up into squadrons. Each squadron is on a different AK.. 2 of the AK's sink, but the 3rd one makes it to say Lunga. I've lost 66% of the Bomb Group, would that also fit into the 15% thing?” These are the types of problems that could happen if the “15% rule” is imposed. Also, if you airlifting a unit, at one point some part of its going to be 15% at one location, what happens then?

Comes down to how you want to play “your game” If it’s against the AI, you govern yourself. If it’s PBEM you establish the house rules up front... Cadres On? Cadres Off? If we’re taking a vote on this, I’m against the “15% rule” [:-]

[DrewMatrix]

If we’re taking a vote on this

If we are taking a vote on this (or variable upgrade paths or a whole lot of other ideas) my vote will likely always be

Give the players the option to do things.
Make that optional with a switch so you don't have to.

I like lots of things, but other people like lots of other things, and we didn't all come to play the game for the same reason. Me, I am a tinkerer and I like seeing what would happen if I attack in New Guinea and forget about the Solomons etc.

Or what would happen if I eschew Nates and put all my effort into Oscars even though Japan didn't do that on 12/7/41.

Vive la difference as my French buddies are always saying [:D]

[DrewMatrix]

As a confirmed cadre-rebuilder here is what I usually get by about March 1943:

A lot of Dutch air units. The problem is they are lousy (in pilot quality) because I have vastly exceeded the pool of Dutch pilots. And I have all the air units I could want. So I keep the Dutch somewhere in Oz where they won't die and lose Victory Points.

More US and Brit air units (by whatever I manage to get out of Singapore and PI). No problem with pilot quality there.

A few (maybe 6 or 8) combat units, half Dutch and half Filipino that are reasonable size and quality. These I use for "revenge missions" not taking out major Japanese bases but for small actions here and there. I enjoy watching a few Dutch take on a minor base in the DEI.

More Base Units (which is I gather the main thing that irks people). Maybe 10 or 15 more on a guess. They tend to be large, because the ones with large TOEs for Air Support are the ones I rescue. So I can have a Dutch baseforce (I think there are two from memory) with 200 or so Air Support instead of just a 30 air suport bae in several places.


The advantage I am getting (in return for not using the ships and transport aircraft and subs that did the evacuating) is the ability to spread out more. I have no more Air Support squads. But I have "more pieces of cardboard" to spread them between so I can tailor my forces to the map better.

Any Japanese Fanboys use subs to evac needed baseforce cadres from cut off islands? That is what I will be doing in my new game just started under v1.5 as Japan.

[Knavey]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

As a confirmed cadre-rebuilder here is what I usually get by about March 1943:

A lot of Dutch air units. The problem is they are lousy (in pilot quality) because I have vastly exceeded the pool of Dutch pilots. And I have all the air units I could want. So I keep the Dutch somewhere in Oz where they won't die and lose Victory Points.

More US and Brit air units (by whatever I manage to get out of Singapore and PI). No problem with pilot quality there.

A few (maybe 6 or 8) combat units, half Dutch and half Filipino that are reasonable size and quality. These I use for "revenge missions" not taking out major Japanese bases but for small actions here and there. I enjoy watching a few Dutch take on a minor base in the DEI.

More Base Units (which is I gather the main thing that irks people). Maybe 10 or 15 more on a guess. They tend to be large, because the ones with large TOEs for Air Support are the ones I rescue. So I can have a Dutch baseforce (I think there are two from memory) with 200 or so Air Support instead of just a 30 air suport bae in several places.


The advantage I am getting (in return for not using the ships and transport aircraft and subs that did the evacuating) is the ability to spread out more. I have no more Air Support squads. But I have "more pieces of cardboard" to spread them between so I can tailor my forces to the map better.

Any Japanese Fanboys use subs to evac needed baseforce cadres from cut off islands? That is what I will be doing in my new game just started under v1.5 as Japan.

I thought it...but you wrote it. Good post.

[rtrapasso]

I have REAL problems with this proposed rule. I have stated my opinions in other threads, but i will state them again.

Frag has stated in the past that he is against withdrawing units from the DEI as it speeds up the game to much.

I perceive this as the underlying reason to this proposed rule. I really don't think that a few extra Philippino units and maybe a few US units that are fleshed out in 1943 are going to affect things much.

So, if the real reason is the Dutch base forces, will this rule affect it? Not much, i think, as you can withdraw the Dutch Base Forces at >15% in most cases if you want.

And is the real reason the game moves too fast the Dutch Base Forces? No - the reason (i think) is the model for logistics. Too much shipping, too much supply and too much ability of the ports to handle stuff. There are other reasons, too, but i think that the logistics are the most important thing.

I think the proposed rule is 1) contrary to the spirit of the game to allow player(s) to make their own decisions; 2) contrary to historical events; and 3) gamey.

But - is this moot? Earlier it was proclaimed that there would be no more programming changes after 1.5. Now Frag is saying that apparently there will be. So, either 1) 3x5 and Matrix have changed their mind; or 2) Frag is pulling our legs; or 3) maybe the rumored release of the code is real. So, what gives?[&:]

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I have thought from day one that PP costs to change HQ should be based on the TOE of the unit, not the current size. And, I'm an allied fan boy. I also think they should up the cost for changing the HQ on air groups. Just my opinion, but they can be more powerful than LCU's and function a bit less efficient when not at a base with their HQ (replacements)

What PP cost was there in real life to lift Doug out of the PI with a few chosen staff members? I doubt any at all. And wasn't this HQ reconstituted, albeit as a redesignated SWPAC HQ? What are we talking about here?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Beezle

I have thought from day one that PP costs to change HQ should be based on the TOE of the unit, not the current size

You might also argue the the political cost (the heat the man in the street generates when he hears about it) will be based on the unit. If the papers report "2nd Aus Division leaves Oz for points unknown" that will have more effect than "the only 4 remaining squads in the (formerly large) 2nd Aus Division just bugged out"

It's more like "brought safely home" not "bugged out."

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Since there is no combat penalty for units with different HQ subordination operating together, why bother changing them.
As long as you have enough supply available it doesn't matter for airgroups either.

That leaves PP's for the restricted command units and changing officers.
So, if they're going to lock in the restricted command they might as well do away with PP's. They become a useless feature.

Officer swapping and keeping the RN around is all they will be good for.

As far as it stands now with fragments being withdrawn. I say again, so what! If a player wants to spend 600 PP's to get out a couple of squads from a good unit for rebuilding, I say more power to ya. It still takes 6-12 months before that unit is good for anything.

As far as abusing the mechanics of the game, it's kind of hard not to.
What one player sees as abuse, the other sees as tactics.
Then it becomes tit for tat. No matter what houserules that may have been implemented.

It seems to me that WITP was designed to have players game the mechanics.
How can you avoid NOT doing it? It's just the way the game is.

May I please repeat that?

     It seems to me that WITP was designed to have players game the mechanics. How
     can you avoid NOT doing it? It's just the way the game is.

Thanks. It's good to hear that said correctly (i.e., not backward) once in awhile.

[madmickey]

If sufficient men/equipment are in the pool I would like to see new units formed. The removing the cadre is one way of allowing use of excess replacement pool. I also have a hard time believing that for evacuation purposes PP are needed. I would like a system that if a units is evacuated there is no PP charged but all the unit is deemed ineffective for a period of time (2 months).

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

If sufficient men/equipment are in the pool I would like to see new units formed. The removing the cadre is one way of allowing use of excess replacement pool. I also have a hard time believing that for evacuation purposes PP are needed. I would like a system that if a units is evacuated there is no PP charged but all the unit is deemed ineffective for a period of time (2 months).

That might or might not make more sense. I hadn't thought of it before now. But what about air support squads? Wouldn't these likely be put directly to use? Would you have a bunch of otherwise capable mechanics sitting around on their bums just because their entire unit hadn't been reformed yet?

[madmickey]

I am evacuating american soldier from Phillipine, I have to pay PP which I do not have, for that. I agree troops move to fast but as Tristan and Ron have pointed out that is because of the unrealistic loading and unloading model.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: madmickey

I am evacuating american soldier from Phillipine, I have to pay PP which I do not have, for that. I agree troops move to fast but as Tristan and Ron have pointed out that is because of the unrealistic loading and unloading model.

Don't forget the unrealistically rapid GROUND movement.....