Assigning Units to non-command HQs

[Don Bowen]

In scanning the output from WITPCHK I noticed that several Japanese Land Units are scheduled for automatic change to a non-command HQ.

An example of this in Scenario 15 is Location 1176 (17th Division) which changes in 15 months to the 8th Area Army (HQ 11).

This brings up the question of assignment of units to "command" and "non-command" HQs. The Command HQs are those that show up on the HQ Change screen (don't have a list handy). Non-command HQs are all the other Army and Corps (etc) HQs. As an example:

Souteast Asia (HQ 105) is a command HQ and has 4.6 billion units assigned.
Malaya Army (HQ 109) is not and has no units assigned.

It would be great is those units that historically reported to Malaya Army could be assigned to HQ 109. This would make the lists of bases/units/airgroups "with same HQ" much more meaningful and easy to use.

I seem to recall that there is some problem or limitation with units assigned to a non-command HQ (other than loss of "restricted"). However, if it is done in Scenario 15 it might be OK. So, my question:

Will there be problems if bases, land units, and airgroups are assigned to non-command HQs???

[Bradley7735]

I'm taking a guess here, but maybe having units assigned to a non-HQ will hurt the AI? Bases are hardcoded to what HQ they are (you can change them, but I bet the AI doesn't). If a unit isn't assigned to one of the main HQ's, then I bet the AI will not use it (move it, attack with it, etc)

Just a guess.

bc

[pad152]

Will there be problems if bases, land units, and airgroups are assigned to non-command HQs???

1. The AI will only provide orders for the HQ commands listed but, Many of the HQ air force commands are really non-command HQ's but they have no sub-units assigned to them.

[Captain Cruft]

I believe, upon re-reading Section 8.1.1. of the manual, that a unit must be attached to an actual Command HQ for it to receive a potential "long-range" combat benefit from that HQ. If this is true then the other land HQs are all de facto Corps HQs and can only exert a combat benefit if in the same hex as the fighting unit(s).

Of course the manual is not hugely clear, and could be lying. This sort of thing is difficult to test too. In the face of such uncertainty I would recommend that most LCUs remain attached to Command HQs.

As for the reason why some units get attached to non-Command HQs in the stock scenarios, I can only guess. If there is a good and concrete reason perhaps someone could kindly let us know what it is ...

[michaelm75au]

I remember reading something here a while back that these "re-assignments" were for the benefit of the AI player.

Most of the smaller scenarios start out with Japanese occupied bases attached to "non-command" Hqs. [Historical Hqs I think..might be a carryover from UV days]
I thought this was in error when I saw all the errors in witpchk. But apparently it is okay. If the Japanese side is being played by a human, they don't have to change the base Hq (spend PPs) as the only "real" reason for a base Hq is for air replacement fragments.

IIRC, air replacements for groups at such bases will appear where that HQ is located rather than the "command Hq" that the base Hq reports to.

Confusing... but the AI (and I have to assume human players) are working okay.

Michael

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

I believe, upon re-reading Section 8.1.1. of the manual, that a unit must be attached to an actual Command HQ for it to receive a potential "long-range" combat benefit from that HQ. If this is true then the other land HQs are all de facto Corps HQs and can only exert a combat benefit if in the same hex as the fighting unit(s).

Of course the manual is not hugely clear, and could be lying. This sort of thing is difficult to test too. In the face of such uncertainty I would recommend that most LCUs remain attached to Command HQs.

As for the reason why some units get attached to non-Command HQs in the stock scenarios, I can only guess. If there is a good and concrete reason perhaps someone could kindly let us know what it is ...

Yes - I see what you mean. The manual does seem to say that the "long range" benefit is based on the HQ being a Command HQ and not on the editable value of Command Range.

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I remember reading something here a while back that these "re-assignments" were for the benefit of the AI player.

Most of the smaller scenarios start out with Japanese occupied bases attached to "non-command" Hqs. [Historical Hqs I think..might be a carryover from UV days]
I thought this was in error when I saw all the errors in witpchk. But apparently it is okay. If the Japanese side is being played by a human, they don't have to change the base Hq (spend PPs) as the only "real" reason for a base Hq is for air replacement fragments.

IIRC, air replacements for groups at such bases will appear where that HQ is located rather than the "command Hq" that the base Hq reports to.

Confusing... but the AI (and I have to assume human players) are working okay.

Michael

Interesting - I kind of like the aircraft fragment/replacement effect. I may run some tests and see how assigning units in Malaya to Malaya Army (HQ 109) works out. Not for CHS (yet).

[Captain Cruft]

Good luck with that testing. I wouldn't fancy it, too difficult to isolate variables in land combat ...