AE Land and AI Issues [OUTDATED]

[Smeulders]

RAAF OTU Canberra has NZ Militia, rather than CMF Militia.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

The absence of partisans on Hainan island could be an issue.  I read that partisan activity there was extensive.  I found a map of Japanese objectives in China for December 1941 that includes operations on Hainan Island on a par with the Hong Kong area.

Interesting. Thanks.

Andrew

[loricas]

two AI stupid action: Wake: they unload here unit unit and again unit without attack\bombard: it' s mid april 42 and allied defense are only civil worker: i pick out the marine defence to see this help AI

Mandalay: i tried a surronding action (first time in this game)allied entrnched in city. Huge Japan AI army (four japan 1 thai division plus indipenden artillery 60000men) siege: a burma battalion (250 men) turn around cutting supply: no reaction for the main japan army and the few rear troop (a thai division) that go away from enemy

(i have save if needed)

[Oliver Heindorf]

Device # 322 USA Engeneer Squad is the only inf squad which has the option to be build switched YES.

That doesnt seem to be right becasue all other inf squads have the option selected NO.


version 1084e

[John Lansford]

I can verify that a HQ's naval support is not being counted on the base display screen.  I've got a HQ at Pearl with naval support and it isn't included in the total, and another at Aden and not counted there either.
 
Also, the AI landed a division (!!) at Koumac but never 'took' the base.  It's still listed as Free French and this has been several weeks after the landing.  I did sink a pile of the ships in the invasion TF but my recon says the bulk of the division is ashore, although probably with scarce supply levels.  Why haven't they taken the base yet?  I have no LCU's there at all.

[BigJ62]

If they don't have supplies then it will not attack. Also is naval support in cbt mode.

[John Lansford]

Yes all my HQ's are in combat mode; the one at Pearl Harbor has been there since the game began.
 
As for the division not attacking due to loss of supplies, it's hard to imagine that no supplies made it ashore if the entire unit did before I sank the TF.  It's done nothing at all and so far the AI's made no effort to evacuate or resupply it either.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

del

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Yes all my HQ's are in combat mode; the one at Pearl Harbor has been there since the game began.

Some naval HQs aren't providing support correctly. I posted a save in the tech support and Don Bowen confirmed it was a known issue and will be fixed. If I understand correctly, it's command HQs that are affected.

Here's the link
tm.asp?m=2243783

[AvG]

1rst Campaign.
Most of Japanese landunits have understaffed Support.
Is this meant to be ?
The manual states that the new AE-support unit are bigger in size, but the program does NOT understand that and seems not to be able to work correctly with that statement.

AvG

[AvG]

1rst Campaign.
Land bombardment.
It happens very often that the bombarding party suffers more losses than the enemy does.
It happened even that the bombarding side was the only one with losses.
Can anyone explain this?

AvG

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: AvG

1rst Campaign.
Most of Japanese landunits have understaffed Support.
Is this meant to be ?

Yes

ORIGINAL: AvG

The manual states that the new AE-support unit are bigger in size, but the program does NOT understand that and seems not to be able to work correctly with that statement.

AvG

Please, could you be more specific (which para of the manual are you referring to?).

[EasilyConfused]

ORIGINAL: AvG

1rst Campaign.
Land bombardment.
It happens very often that the bombarding party suffers more losses than the enemy does.
It happened even that the bombarding side was the only one with losses.
Can anyone explain this?

AvG

Presumably counter-battery fire.

[AvG]

Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red.

It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system.

AvG

[Andy Mac]

Guys I am in Victoria BC at present on vacation will try to look when I get back K knows more (a lot more) than me about Japanese OOB's anyway

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys I am in Victoria BC at present on vacation will try to look when I get back K knows more (a lot more) than me about Japanese OOB's anyway

Well have fun in BC ( that is a looong way from Scotland [:)] )

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: AvG

Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red.

It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system.

AvG

I would suspect that peacetime staffing isn't the same as war footing staffing.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: AvG

Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red.

It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system.

AvG

Well, the functionability of the Japanese supply system would be a tale of its own. But Japanese infantry divisions had far less organic 'support' assets than comparable Allied formations (with the exception of the Chinese, of course), especially when it comes to trucks (most divisions used carts). Due to the limited availability of motor transport, the IJA tended to pool MT in transport battalions and regiments under Army (Corps) or Area Army (Army) control (it is quite interesting that British India produced more trucks during WW2 than Japan).

Anyway, we tried to represent the defeciencies of the Japanese support/supply system by giving IJA divisions less organic support than comparable Allied formations. But you'll notice that certain IJA HQ's (25th Army etc.) start with more support squads than Japanese armies that arrive later. This represents the attachment of additional support units to these units during the early campaigns.

[Barb]

16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right:
1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only?
33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det.
Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec.
(while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi)

Source:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... h6.htm#p89

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Barb

16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right:
1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only?
33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det.
Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec.
(while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi)

Source:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... h6.htm#p89

"I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work.