USN Fleet HQ's

[el cid again]

I am still unclear about what you are thinking. Does this mean that the only HQ's should/will be command (type 10)?

Not at all. That is not the game design. Instead, I think that the MAJOR HQ of ALL types need to be present. Thus, you need the "theater commands" (not easy to tell by name - 4th Fleet is one in Japan for example - it looks like other minor naval HQ but it isn't) - Air HQ, Land HQ and Naval HQ. In Japan I settled on two levels of Air HQ -
Air Divisions and Air Brigades (JAAF)
Air Fleets and Air Flotillas (JNAF)

There is one level of naval HQ - but some "naval HQ" in name are strategic HQ.

Land HQ are area armies (those that are not strategic HQ), armies and (I may get rid of them) "groups" (sort of ad hoc armies) - these only on Luzon.

There is also a wierd Army Airborne Group HQ. It actually has a function - the way Japanese airborne work from 1944 on.

Things called "air sector HQ" are not really HQ at all - but the air brigade non-flying elements - and that is their historical name.


YOU decide what makes sense in terms of theater HQ. IF you rename many of the theater HQ as naval HQ - you need OTHER theater HQ - probably. Thus, Pacific Fleet might be Theater HQ and Central Pacific might be a Naval HQ. Think about this and advise me: I am unable to investigate every topic microscopically - and you do good work - and you are interested - it is your thread! So give me a comprehensive recommendation using the same total number of Allied HQ - since all the slots are full.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

So I give you advice: don't do this "revolution" if you cannot do it correctly. So leave it as it is.

[el cid again]

So I give you advice: don't do this "revolution" if you cannot do it correctly. So leave it as it is.

OK - how to do it correctly? The thread starter is correct: USN seems devoid of proper HQ at the start. And the Allied HQ slots are full. Deciding which to change ought to be based on a comprehensive review IMHO. Go ahead - tell us how to do it "correctly" - I am trying to listen. He seems to have a point. Does he not? A USN unable to efficiently repair hardly seems historical.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

I am saying YOU can't do it correctly. Neither I. Neither someone else.

I am not talking about what is historical what is not - only talking about code limitations.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
...None of the other regional commands were in existence till early 1942. The hq's was not a operational hq's like the Central Pacific or the SW Pacific where the caoomaner oversaw operations on in their regions. It was a true Fleet Command HQ's. BTW, Nimitz was first appointed as the CINCPAC before any of the other HQ's were created, then subsequently he was informed that he would also be CINC of Pacific Ocean Area (POA) which would be divided into four operational regions: North Pacific, Central Pacific, South Pacific, and Southeast Pacific. He chose to retain operational control of the Central and North Pacific.

One problem with delaying the arrival of, say, South Pacific and SWPAC HQs, is that there are several bases and units that begin the game attached to these HQs. We could reassign all of these to another HQ, but then we would also need to give the Allied player extra PPs so that they can allocate the appropriate units to the HQs when they do appear. If we did that though, players may decide to spend those extra PPs on other things, rather than setting up the new HQ areas.

Although it is an interesting idea to have these HQs appear when they were historically formed, I am not sure if it is the best thing to do, given some of the practical difficulties such as this.

Andrew

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
...None of the other regional commands were in existence till early 1942. The hq's was not a operational hq's like the Central Pacific or the SW Pacific where the caoomaner oversaw operations on in their regions. It was a true Fleet Command HQ's. BTW, Nimitz was first appointed as the CINCPAC before any of the other HQ's were created, then subsequently he was informed that he would also be CINC of Pacific Ocean Area (POA) which would be divided into four operational regions: North Pacific, Central Pacific, South Pacific, and Southeast Pacific. He chose to retain operational control of the Central and North Pacific.

One problem with delaying the arrival of, say, South Pacific and SWPAC HQs, is that there are several bases and units that begin the game attached to these HQs. We could reassign all of these to another HQ, but then we would also need to give the Allied player extra PPs so that they can allocate the appropriate units to the HQs when they do appear. If we did that though, players may decide to spend those extra PPs on other things, rather than setting up the new HQ areas.

Although it is an interesting idea to have these HQs appear when they were historically formed, I am not sure if it is the best thing to do, given some of the practical difficulties such as this.

Andrew

Okay, what happens to the units if they are assigned and SoPacCom is not in play? This also begs a another question, just who were the units controlled by before the war? Obviously there are Naval, Land, and Air assets not assigned to these later HQ's present before they showed up that are presently the game are assigned to them. Would one advocate that any other HQ's be given the same treatment? Maybe SoWesPac should show up also on 12/7/41 since it also was a product of the same conference that divided the Pacific?

Fortunately there are not many units that need to be changed and those that do can be shuffled to the USN Pacific Fleet command that should replace the Central Pacific as the primary US Pacifc navy command HQ's. Since most of these are LCU's I can easily make the change for both SoPacCom and NorPacCom. Army/Army Air in Alaska were under the control of the West Coast Hq to well after the the start of the war I will find the cite and provide a rock solid argument for this). Come to think of it this also plays well historically. No way historically anyone in the United States goverment in 1942 would dream of moving units from the Alaska theatre. With the mid-term Congressional elections the last anyone would want to do was advocate removal of troops from threatened US territory. Talk about political suicide....and this is what PP are for, sometimes I feel that historical events get pushed aside.

I personnally see no problems with the PP points as they stand. For most of the war the units involved are really not going to make that much of a hill of beans PP wise. Players will and do relocate units with out much concern in this regard. I would rather have the historical start dates. Enough has been sacrificed to the altar of expediency and compromise.[:-]

Of the British 1944/1945 naval AA enhancement upgrades I have completed the CA's and have discerned a pattern. I need to get the CL's done before I say more. Well time for bed...

[el cid again]

Army/Army Air in Alaska were under the control of the West Coast Hq to well after the the start of the war I will find the cite and provide a rock solid argument for this)

Brig Gen Simol Bolivar Buckner (US Army) got the command pretty early.
He personally surveyed most of the airfield and base sites, and otherwise commanded operations, until late in the war, when he went and got himself killed in a Western Pacific battle (having been replaced by another general). He built a considerable air force of US and Canadian units (often getting more help from Canada than Washington) and it was pretty much a very independent command area. His methods were used in other theaters later, and in the Berlin airlift after the war (modeled on the Nome airlift during an invasion scare).

[el cid again]

what happens to the units if they are assigned and SoPacCom is not in play?

Essentially they will be "too far from HQ" and suffer efficiency accordingly.
This is the same as if they are commanded by Central Pacific - if they are more than 100 hexes from the strategic HQ controlling they are more or less too far from HQ for many purposes. This affects how many planes fly, how well land units do in battle, etc.

[el cid again]

No way historically anyone in the United States goverment in 1942 would dream of moving units from the Alaska theatre. With the mid-term Congressional elections the last anyone would want to do was advocate removal of troops from threatened US territory. Talk about political suicide....and this is what PP are for, sometimes I feel that historical events get pushed aside.

This is not how I view the history. The tiny Alaska National Guard (a whole battalion of four companies) WAS transferred to California early in 1942 - never to return! [My regiment - the Alaska Territorial Guard - was formed to provide some sort of replacement - and also some coastal defense - tiny squads were formed from natives along the coast as well as three battalions of light infantry - which did things like guard the Federal Courthouse in Anchorage.] The NG was NEVER allowed to guard anything nor to fight - it was always used to train other units headed to the war!

More than that, troops, planes and ships were NOT sent TO Alaska. Buckner had to beg, and often got very little, and had not Canada listened, he might have got nothing at all several times. I think Alaska was expendable - and Ike felt that so strongly he made it become part of the Statehood Act. [Alaska is the only state where the President can force evacuation and is not required to defend US territory upon invasion!] It was a condition of his support of Alaska becoming a state. The attitude was that it is mostly empty and we can return when it is convenient for us.

[el cid again]

I would rather have the historical start dates. Enough has been sacrificed to the altar of expediency and compromise.

I think there is more than one subject related to your ideas.

1) The HQ you are talking about are STRATEGIC HQ right now.

2) You want to reclassify some of them as NAVAL HQ - a different thing.

Re Naval HQ - you are right - their not being around matters to repairs in our system. So why not use another of your ideas - create Naval District HQ and use them as repair resources from game start? That addresses your concern well. The only problem is what HQ to sacrifice due to slot limits? I think there are lots of possibilities there.

For Strategic HQ you need to think about the game as designed. The NAMES are getting you hung up - you want the unit to form when it did.
But does that make sense? In Alaska, maybe it is possible to have a regional HQ from the start. IN South Pacific maybe it SHOULD NOT EXIST because (a) it did not exist and (b) there is NOTHING to command anyway. Maybe your idea makes sense - there - create SOPAC when it was created - and assign units to it AFTER it is created. Reinforcements are no problem - and otherwise use political points. But you need to insure there is a strategic HQ where there needs to be one at the beginning - at least one in Hawaii - by whatever name. I think Hawaii needs a strategic and a naval HQ - different game function - even if they are really sections of the same staff IRL.

[witpqs]

As far as the strategic level HQ's go, there might be some game emchanic issue with them being absent at the beginning. The only way to know is to test (or get a Matrix statement). What I mean is: will they actually function correctly after introduction? Under current conditions, when you go to reassign a unit or a base to a new HQ, you get a list of all strategic level HQ's (for bases some are greyed out). Would this feature even work for a strategic level HQ introduced after game load?

AW,

I appreciate your comments from a reality point of view, but what you suggest poses problems with game mechanics. For example, if Alaska based units and bases reported to West Coast HQ at game start, then forget about moving those units by ship to say, reinforce Dutch harbor. Or Juneau for that matter. It's the same problem as the PI and DEI, only much more serious to the flow of the game after the first 6 to 8 months.

[el cid again]

As far as the strategic level HQ's go, there might be some game emchanic issue with them being absent at the beginning. The only way to know is to test (or get a Matrix statement). What I mean is: will they actually function correctly after introduction? Under current conditions, when you go to reassign a unit or a base to a new HQ, you get a list of all strategic level HQ's (for bases some are greyed out). Would this feature even work for a strategic level HQ introduced after game load?

Regretfully, this appears to be similar to Japanese plane engines: some of the options are hard coded. It is not that you cannot create a real strategic HQ - I think you can. It is not that the HQ will not work - I don't know but the way they are distributed is different than plane engines (which are all together) - maybe they will work if you soft code them 109?
But the transfer routine and some reports will ignore them - pure and simple. Worse, if it is like engines, it will also ignore names you change! I can test to see if this is correct - but in general WITP uses hard code in the format of certain change screens and reports. So there are two different issues in a technical sense: (1) the routine uses slots 3, 5, 15 and 85 AND it assumes they are named as in stock and reports the original name EVEN IF you change it in those slots! Thus, for example, renaming Central Pacific as Pacific Fleet may well work in the sense that it often shows up as Central Pacific (and will on the map or if you click on the unit itself), but it may not work in terms of certain reports, or the transfer screen. I need to do some analysis testing and get back to you - it may be Monter is right - better not change the strategic HQ at least - unless we understand the way they work and work inside the limits of the code.

[el cid again]

I appreciate your comments from a reality point of view, but what you suggest poses problems with game mechanics. For example, if Alaska based units and bases reported to West Coast HQ at game start, then forget about moving those units by ship to say, reinforce Dutch harbor. Or Juneau for that matter. It's the same problem as the PI and DEI, only much more serious to the flow of the game after the first 6 to 8 months.

I think this is incorrect. That is, the manual states that you can transfer to ANY place reporting to the same restricted command. IF we change Alaska locations to report to West Coast, then West coast can assign things to go to them.

This causes me to wonder: what if we reshuffel the restricted commands?
The game "cheats" in some technical cases: Portugese West Timor is a neutral territory, not Dutch, yet it is treated as part of Dutch East Indies merely by assigning it to that command. This means we can do that for ANY location. Since units inside a restricted command cannot move to another island even of their own territory (which I find nuts and wholly ahistorical), we could create even a command that included Malaya, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies and maybe Darwin - and NO UNIT could EVER move off its island UNLESS reassigned (except a unit at Darwin could march overland to Australia, as it were - but units in Australia could not then fly TO Darwin unless assigned to that command). This is a brainstorm - not yet thought through. I only mean we can use the commands as we want - in case there is something better than the present system. I find it frustrating I cannot transfer planes between Malaya and Sumatra as was really done. And I hope to be able to ferry between Sumatra and Java soon.

[witpqs]

Sid, I only said that you cannot load those units (that report to restricted commands) onto ships (and you cannot transfer them by air either - air units can, but LCU's in restricted commands cannot transfer via air). Yes, you can march overland. In the 'lower 48' that's fine, but in Alaska you give up reinforcing any islands without spending PP. I think this would make the game situation worse rather than better. Just my opinion.

And, with Andrew's excellent map, Alaska and Australia both take eons to traverse by land movement.

I agree with your frustration about being unable to move certain units without spending PP. I think this is the big weakness with restricted commands. It is obviously a trade-off that was made in the design. It would be nice if the restriction code was more intelligent. Such is life.

[el cid again]

[quote]Sid, I only said that you cannot load those units (that report to restricted commands) onto ships (and you cannot transfer them by air either - air units can, but LCU's in restricted commands cannot transfer via air). Yes, you can march overland. In the 'lower 48' that's fine, but in Alaska you give up reinforcing any islands without spending PP. I think this would make the game situation worse rather than better. Just my opinion.

And, with Andrew's excellent map, Alaska and Australia both take eons to traverse by land movement.

Finally I understand your point. I tried to propose unrestricting commands - and people don't like it. Just WHY being unable to fly or sail is regarded as "historical" is a mystery to me? Who is in charge? No one I guess - I cannot reinforce Java - or Palembang - or Jolo - or whatever.
And in the Philippines no less than three of the militia divisions WERE moved - to Luzon. Someone said "giving the Allies free movement makes them too flexable - and Japan could never take Surabaja" - which I find amazing. I think this is a bad design decision in priniciple. But I also think it will take careful thought to come up with a better system.As for Alaska, I think it should be a separate, and unrestricted command. I favor renaming North Pacific as Alaska Command. As far as I know, it is not restricted.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sid, I only said that you cannot load those units (that report to restricted commands) onto ships (and you cannot transfer them by air either - air units can, but LCU's in restricted commands cannot transfer via air). Yes, you can march overland. In the 'lower 48' that's fine, but in Alaska you give up reinforcing any islands without spending PP. I think this would make the game situation worse rather than better. Just my opinion.

And, with Andrew's excellent map, Alaska and Australia both take eons to traverse by land movement.

I agree with your frustration about being unable to move certain units without spending PP. I think this is the big weakness with restricted commands. It is obviously a trade-off that was made in the design. It would be nice if the restriction code was more intelligent. Such is life.

Hmm I seem to have forgotten about the Kodiak and other isolated Islands and reinforcement. So you are right and West Coast would not be a good choice, then the only choice is some kind of independent Alaska Command. Okay, cannot do that because there are no slots. This is getting to be crazy patchquilt of competing demands for finite resources. Some how I feel that this is not worth it and should step aside and let others continue on with flawed historical deployments.

[witpqs]

It's almost full circle on this one - because North Pac command more or less is Alaska command in the game. I know it can be more if the Allied player invades via the northern route, but mostly it just covers Alaska mainland and the Aleutians.

[el cid again]

Hmm I seem to have forgotten about the Kodiak and other isolated Islands and reinforcement. So you are right and West Coast would not be a good choice, then the only choice is some kind of independent Alaska Command. Okay, cannot do that because there are no slots. This is getting to be crazy patchquilt of competing demands for finite resources. Some how I feel that this is not worth it and should step aside and let others continue on with flawed historical deployments.

North Pacific appears to be a naval HQ - the word "Pacific" misleads - it is really a strategic command. I think calling it "Alaska Command" makes more sense - but there does then obtain the question of "where should it be located?" There always was an Alaska Command of some sort at Fort Richardson/Elmendorf AAF Alaska - it is still there - but THAT historical command did not control naval units of the sort we usually think about as Pacific Fleet assets - and still does not. North Pacific Command in our game does, however, and in effect it is BOTH North Pacific naval HQ and Alaskan Command. These were historically not in the same location - and also historically did not cooperate well - possibly a not unrelated fact.
Since the game software is going to coordinate naval and air perfectly if assigned to the same command, our only realistic option is:

put Alaska Command (renamed North Pacific) in charge of land, air and minor naval forces in Western Canada, Alaska and the Aleutians under it.

put major naval assets under Pacific Fleet (renamed Central Pacific).

That causes the historical divided command issue to obtain for things like aircraft carrier task forces. It also makes the naval HQ be too far from the units in many situations - which it was!