Russ (aka Mogami) versus Tris (aka TJ)

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]Later in the day this same Allied naval force was caught unawares in the Admiralty Islands by Japanese torpedo bombers from Truk. Two cruisers were damaged in the ensuing battle, and the Allies retired.[/font]

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]At the port of Talasea on New Britain, two Australian crusiers cut into an enemy landing force and sank one troop carrier, the Shuko Maru.[/font]

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]As the year 1941 draws to a close, free people everywhere celebrate the coming of a new year, and wonder what it might portend.[/font]

[center]

[Tristanjohn]

[center][font="Times New Roman"]1 January 1942[/font]

[mogami]

Hi

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]1 January 1942

An Australian destroyer caught a Japanese auxiliary vessel in the Bismarck Sea and sank it.[/font]

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]Japanese Imperial Army troops stormed Naga on Luzon Island, threatening the capital of Manila. The defense held, but United States Army officials said they were worried about the long-term prospects of holding out in the Philippines.

"It doesn't look good at the moment," said one ranking officer. "We need everything here, but especially we need more men under arms."[/font]

[mogami]

Hi, What is the point of dividing a LCU and then putting all the parts in the same hex? I understand sometimes you need more then 1 unit so you split a division or a Brigade but why split a unit and keep it in the same hex? Is this some kind of attempt to get extra replacements or something? I see a lot of people alsosplit airgroups and then fly them all from the same base on the same missions. I could see splitting a fighter group because you only have 1 group but several TF require CAP. I can even see setting 1 part to CAP 100 percent and another to escort but I don't undertsand spltting a group and thern sending all the parts on the same mission. Once again is this an attempt at circumventing something? I'm not really addressing this question specifically at TJ. I see this a lot and just wonder what thought process is occuring here.
There are a lot of valid reasons for splitting units and airgroups. The part I am missing is where these units are split when leaving them whole would work just as well.

[Mike Solli]

The only thing I can see it used for is to deceive the enemy. A division would show up as 1 unit, but if it were divided, it would show up as 3 units.

[tabpub]

There is also a theory out there that one or two LCUs out of a group suffer the most damage during attacks. Therefore, some believe that splitting up is a good thing, so that only one subunit takes the "hit" and the others still have some utility.

Ex. One PA division AS = 100. It gets beat up in a defense and suffers all the damage taking it to AS 66, disrupt 50.

Same division split into 2 parts. one part beat to 16 AS disrupt 50; the other still at 50 AS and only 10 disrupt. Beat up one can then try to move out to regroup while the other holds the line.

Talk to irrelevant; I last saw him holding to this theory and he might be able to expound/correct my statements on it. Personally, I rarely do it; prefer to use whole units. It is easier to find one good commander for a unit than 2 or 3 and its easier to keep track of stuff. But, if you don't have a regiment for a regiment job, sometimes you have to break down a division. But, I try to regroup that division as soon as a regiment(RCT) comes available.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, What is the point of dividing a LCU and then putting all the parts in the same hex? I understand sometimes you need more then 1 unit so you split a division or a Brigade but why split a unit and keep it in the same hex? Is this some kind of attempt to get extra replacements or something? I see a lot of people alsosplit airgroups and then fly them all from the same base on the same missions. I could see splitting a fighter group because you only have 1 group but several TF require CAP. I can even see setting 1 part to CAP 100 percent and another to escort but I don't undertsand spltting a group and thern sending all the parts on the same mission. Once again is this an attempt at circumventing something? I'm not really addressing this question specifically at TJ. I see this a lot and just wonder what thought process is occuring here.
There are a lot of valid reasons for splitting units and airgroups. The part I am missing is where these units are split when leaving them whole would work just as well.

I assume you got this from my thread on stock versus mod scenarios that I directed you to, but wherever it was written in the forum . . . I remember clearly saying that the unit in question was originally divided because it was to be assigned more than one mission. The only way to train one unit for different missions is to divide it. So I divided it, and I trained one part to go here, another part to go there, and like that.

What other people do in their games I've no idea, but I expect the worse.

As for the extra reinforcement of this unit: this was my first clue that such a bug existed. And I still wouldn't know about it if I hadn't finally recombined that division at Pearl--the Americal--and the only reason I did so was that Joe and I had agreed to a stand-down while the Japanese get their act together--otherwise there wouldn't be any fight left in that game, because the Allies are just too far ahead.

Breaking apart bomber groups is quite normal for me. I might not want all of my B-25s at one base, or maybe all of them won't legally fit in one base, but will in two bases, so breaking down the group allows me to disperse the squadrons more effectively.

There are also times when a bomber group can be used more efficiently broken apart. For example, you might one one squadron on Naval Attack, another on ASW patrol, another on Naval Search (if it were a B-17 squadron or B-24 squadron). Or perhaps more than one target needs to be hit that turn and there's only the one Group available for service.

Gary screwed up big time by not providing enough slots. Huge mistake.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: tabpub

There is also a theory out there that one or two LCUs out of a group suffer the most damage during attacks. Therefore, some believe that splitting up is a good thing, so that only one subunit takes the "hit" and the others still have some utility.

Ex. One PA division AS = 100. It gets beat up in a defense and suffers all the damage taking it to AS 66, disrupt 50.

Same division split into 2 parts. one part beat to 16 AS disrupt 50; the other still at 50 AS and only 10 disrupt. Beat up one can then try to move out to regroup while the other holds the line.

Talk to irrelevant; I last saw him holding to this theory and he might be able to expound/correct my statements on it. Personally, I rarely do it; prefer to use whole units. It is easier to find one good commander for a unit than 2 or 3 and its easier to keep track of stuff. But, if you don't have a regiment for a regiment job, sometimes you have to break down a division. But, I try to regroup that division as soon as a regiment(RCT) comes available.

From what I've seen Irrelevant is dead right about his theory--it's a combat-model quirk. Not good.

A hit to leadership is the penalty usually paid for splitting units. While it's possible to get as good or even a better leader when the split occurs, my experience tells me that 99% of the time you get dregs. That doesn't make much sense, by the way, as these new leaders would be flying/fighting veterans picked directly from that same unit, but whatever, that's how the game handles it. And having two parts of the former unit with bad leaders doesn't help.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, What is the point of dividing a LCU and then putting all the parts in the same hex? I understand sometimes you need more then 1 unit so you split a division or a Brigade but why split a unit and keep it in the same hex? Is this some kind of attempt to get extra replacements or something? I see a lot of people alsosplit airgroups and then fly them all from the same base on the same missions. I could see splitting a fighter group because you only have 1 group but several TF require CAP. I can even see setting 1 part to CAP 100 percent and another to escort but I don't undertsand spltting a group and thern sending all the parts on the same mission. Once again is this an attempt at circumventing something? I'm not really addressing this question specifically at TJ. I see this a lot and just wonder what thought process is occuring here.
There are a lot of valid reasons for splitting units and airgroups. The part I am missing is where these units are split when leaving them whole would work just as well.

I assume you got this from my thread on stock versus mod scenarios that I directed you to, but wherever it was written in the forum . . . I remember clearly saying that the unit in question was originally divided because it was to be assigned more than one mission. The only way to train one unit for different missions is to divide it. So I divided it, and I trained one part to go here, another part to go there, and like that.

What other people do in their games I've no idea, but I expect the worse.

As for the extra reinforcement of this unit: this was my first clue that such a bug existed. And I still wouldn't know about it if I hadn't finally recombined that division at Pearl--the Americal--and the only reason I did so was that Joe and I had agreed to a stand-down while the Japanese get their act together--otherwise there wouldn't be any fight left in that game, because the Allies are just too far ahead.

Breaking apart bomber groups is quite normal for me. I might not want all of my B-25s at one base, or maybe all of them won't legally fit in one base, but will in two bases, so breaking down the group allows me to disperse the squadrons more effectively.

There are also times when a bomber group can be used more efficiently broken apart. For example, you might one one squadron on Naval Attack, another on ASW patrol, another on Naval Search (if it were a B-17 squadron or B-24 squadron). Or perhaps more than one target needs to be hit that turn and there's only the one Group available for service.

Gary screwed up big time by not providing enough slots. Huge mistake.

Hi, I said I understood splitting units for multiple missions. The question was why split them and then assign the same mission (for airgroups) or keep in same hex (for LCU)
I didn't get it from another thread I got it from your screen shot of 2 PI divisions split into 6 parts sitting in Naga.
As for the leaders assigned when you split I suppose you'd be happier if they assigned the best leaders you had and made you spend more PP to select the one you want.
When you split a unit you can use the leader assigned for free or pay for a better one. I prefer it as it currently is. If these veterans were already able to command a unit they would already be in command. The design assumes that untill they prove otherwise a leader who moves up is less able at his new job then he was at his old job. (A Bn CO might be a 50 as Bn commander but when you give him a Regt or Bde he drops a bit into the 40's untill he has exercised command in actual combat or been in command for a while)
My personal ratings are 39 and below he is a bum. 40-49 he is your normal leader 50+ the guy knows what he is doing better then most. It is a lot easier to find good leaders in WITP then in real life. In real life you know if he talks the talk but you don't know if he can walk the walk before he actually gets into combat. There are ways of finding real bums in real life before you commit them to combat. You vist their unit and look around.
A bad camper is normally also a bad fighter. However a good camper can still suck in battle. (applies only to officers. There are plenty of examples of enlisted men being the reverse. Some troops are only good in action and others are only good in parades. but even in these cases the officers in charge can get Sad Sack to make his bunk and stay in step the ones that can't are bums)
So what we are saying is there is a known loophole (or exploit) and it is ok to use it and just blame the combat routine for it being there.
There are enough slots for me.
Again the question is not about airgroups sent to more then one base or flying more then one mission or LCU split to cover more then one hex. It is groups flying the same mission on the same day and LCU sitting in the same hex. (and not preparing for multiple objectives)

[tsimmonds]

Dividing an LCU moves its parts to the bottom of the stack. As units on the top of a stack are hit hardest with disablements in ground combat, and as IRL it would be possible to have some control over which LCU was in fact most exposed to receiving casualties, it seems reasonable to be able to do this. As for the leader issue, yeah, you need to replace the leaders of the /B and /C. I seem to have plenty of PP.

Why would you divide an air unit and keep the parts together? I haven't needed to do it, but it would allow you to have part on naval search at one (relatively long) range while keeping the remainder on naval strike at a shorter (within escort) range (this could be useful). It would allow you to have some fighters on LRCAP and some on CAP/escort (so could this). It would allow you to stack CAP at various altitudes (should you decide that this was important). You could recon multiple hexes with one air unit. Etcetera.

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, What is the point of dividing a LCU and then putting all the parts in the same hex? I understand sometimes you need more then 1 unit so you split a division or a Brigade but why split a unit and keep it in the same hex? Is this some kind of attempt to get extra replacements or something? I see a lot of people alsosplit airgroups and then fly them all from the same base on the same missions. I could see splitting a fighter group because you only have 1 group but several TF require CAP. I can even see setting 1 part to CAP 100 percent and another to escort but I don't undertsand spltting a group and thern sending all the parts on the same mission. Once again is this an attempt at circumventing something? I'm not really addressing this question specifically at TJ. I see this a lot and just wonder what thought process is occuring here.
There are a lot of valid reasons for splitting units and airgroups. The part I am missing is where these units are split when leaving them whole would work just as well.

I assume you got this from my thread on stock versus mod scenarios that I directed you to, but wherever it was written in the forum . . . I remember clearly saying that the unit in question was originally divided because it was to be assigned more than one mission. The only way to train one unit for different missions is to divide it. So I divided it, and I trained one part to go here, another part to go there, and like that.

What other people do in their games I've no idea, but I expect the worse.

As for the extra reinforcement of this unit: this was my first clue that such a bug existed. And I still wouldn't know about it if I hadn't finally recombined that division at Pearl--the Americal--and the only reason I did so was that Joe and I had agreed to a stand-down while the Japanese get their act together--otherwise there wouldn't be any fight left in that game, because the Allies are just too far ahead.

Breaking apart bomber groups is quite normal for me. I might not want all of my B-25s at one base, or maybe all of them won't legally fit in one base, but will in two bases, so breaking down the group allows me to disperse the squadrons more effectively.

There are also times when a bomber group can be used more efficiently broken apart. For example, you might one one squadron on Naval Attack, another on ASW patrol, another on Naval Search (if it were a B-17 squadron or B-24 squadron). Or perhaps more than one target needs to be hit that turn and there's only the one Group available for service.

Gary screwed up big time by not providing enough slots. Huge mistake.

Hi, I said I understood splitting units for multiple missions. The question was why split them and then assign the same mission (for airgroups) or keep in same hex (for LCU)

That I can't answer. I only know how I play, and I've given you my reason for splitting the Americal Division originally, then recombining it. That's all I know about that.

I didn't get it from another thread I got it from your screen shot of 2 PI divisions split into 6 parts sitting in Naga.

I don't remember doing that and can't recall why I did that. It wasn't to get more men. If that were the case I'd have recombined them in that attempt, right? Besides, it would be pretty obvious if all of a sudden a PI division showed up an AV value in the thousands. It's possible I split the unit to leave only a fragment to slow you a day or so--first make you bombard, then attack, etc. But I just can't recall.

As for the leaders assigned when you split I suppose you'd be happier if they assigned the best leaders you had and made you spend more PP to select the one you want.

I've no idea what you're talking about. I said what I said and it made sense to me. I never mentioned PPs, I only said that as a rule the leaders assigned to the new unit fragments are less qualified.

When you split a unit you can use the leader assigned for free or pay for a better one. I prefer it as it currently is. If these veterans were already able to command a unit they would already be in command.

Many of the best leaders in war come up through the ranks so to speak and are, by and large, younger men. That's what Napoleon referred to when he remarked that a marshal's baton was carried in every soldier's knapsack. Look at the way the silent service was culled of deadwood at the start of the war, check out how fast the Navy rid itself of many of the old admirals and replaced them with better men. This was most especially true with the air services, where by definition these people were younger men--old men don't normally fly planes in combat.

War has a way of finding the best leaders, at least for the winners.

The design assumes that untill they prove otherwise a leader who moves up is less able at his new job then he was at his old job.

That's a bad assumption. This game makes lots of bad assumptions. I wonder why.

(A Bn CO might be a 50 as Bn commander but when you give him a Regt or Bde he drops a bit into the 40's untill he has exercised command in actual combat or been in command for a while)

My personal ratings are 39 and below he is a bum. 40-49 he is your normal leader 50+ the guy knows what he is doing better then most. It is a lot easier to find good leaders in WITP then in real life. In real life you know if he talks the talk but you don't know if he can walk the walk before he actually gets into combat. There are ways of finding real bums in real life before you commit them to combat. You vist their unit and look around.

A bad camper is normally also a bad fighter. However a good camper can still suck in battle. (applies only to officers. There are plenty of examples of enlisted men being the reverse. Some troops are only good in action and others are only good in parades. but even in these cases the officers in charge can get Sad Sack to make his bunk and stay in step the ones that can't are bums)

So what we are saying is there is a known loophole (or exploit) and it is ok to use it and just blame the combat routine for it being there.

Well, that you think these foibles of men apply only to officers and not enlisted men is unfortunate. You could stand to learn more about your fellow man, I think.

Re leader ratings: I never touch anything less than a 60 if I can help it, and I spend a lot of PPs throughout the course of play upgrading leaders all over the board.

There are enough slots for me.

Again the question is not about airgroups sent to more then one base or flying more then one mission or LCU split to cover more then one hex. It is groups flying the same mission on the same day and LCU sitting in the same hex. (and not preparing for multiple objectives)

There may be enough slots for you but there are not enough slots to cover the needs of players during the course of the game. That much ought to be clear. If you're going to allow players to split air units, fine, but then give them enough slots to do so as they please.

[Oznoyng]

In the PH attack, splitting the Kate's tends to get you more of an "average" attack. By that I mean you tend to get a situation where you get at least a few torps dropped. It also makes the fantastic results less likely, but I'd rather bag 1 or 2 BB's most of the time than bag 4+ rarely and 0 most of the time. You can still get the 0 and 4+ result with splitting, but it is rarer.

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]2 January 1942

Commonwealth Hudson bombers based on Port Moresby attacked enemy shipping around the island of New Britain. The first attacks during the morning hours went in at the port of Gasmata along the southern coast.[/font]

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]"We socked them good today," said a Royal Australian Air Force officer. "At Gasmata we caught a fat Nip transport and gave it the stick. The boys said they also dinged a smaller craft while they were at it."[/font]

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]"About an hour later we surprised the Japs again at Sag Sag," he said.[/font]

[Tristanjohn]

[font="Times New Roman"]"One of their big troop ships got away, I'm afraid, but we stuck another proper and punched some holes in a minesweeper."[/font]