Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

You asked why Cadres are such an issue. You answered your own question. Players can take fragments and clone them into the orig unit with exp intact. Citing the historical issue is misleading as has been explained to you in the past. Men were evacuated by subs to save lives and those men would be re-integrated into the overall military structure. They were not evacuated to preserve the LCU structure and create a duplicate unit.

Thats why i wont use the tactic. Thats why I think its a bigger deal than you do.

Since we can't reintegrate squads into the various squad pools and do not have the ability to reform disbanded units, we need the ability to rebuild existing units. As someone said earlier, this is doubly so because of the forknowledge of players and game mechanics which allow gamey play such as first turn opening moves designed to kill off base units etc.

We need to adress the problem, not the symptom.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

We need to adress the problem, not the symptom.

A routine to reduce exp was asked for. If it could not be provided then you have to live with it. But that wasn't what you asked me. You asked "why is it a big deal" and for the last time i've explained my thoughts on it. If you wish to retain the ability and justify it that is your business of course though dont expect me to accept "historical" arguments when we both know the real reason why players do it in the game.

I agree with Ron on this one, with the following comments:

1. Submarines should not be able to carry anything but people.
2. Reconstitution of base forces from cadres should be limited to American, British, and Japanese units only.
3. The experience level of these units is not a problem. If they were combat units, it would make a difference, but that is a different matter. Here, we are discussing base forces.

In short, I think that, in this respect, the game is pretty much all right as it is, but, as always, could use some small changes. I hate to recommend any changes at all, however, because, as the new outcry concerning Pearl Harbor attacks demonstrates, we have reached the point where every "tweak" screws something else up - at least, in many people's opinion.

Despite my legal training, where I learned the lawyer's axiom that "more is better," where more modifications to WitP are concerned, I believe that "less is better."

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I agree with Ron on this one, with the following comments:

1. Submarines should not be able to carry anything but people.

I disagree. Submarines are a primary source of two kinds of abuse. First, they can rescue five privates from a hopeless situation, and these five dirt bags will later be used as the experienced cadre around which to build an entire division. Crapola. Second, submarines allow the player to take these same five privates and capture entire islands and bases. Double crapola. I don't dispute that subs were used to carry people, but not for the purposes that we see them in the game. I would limit subs to carrying only supply.

ORIGINAL: byron13

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I agree with Ron on this one, with the following comments:

1. Submarines should not be able to carry anything but people.

I disagree. Submarines are a primary source of two kinds of abuse. First, they can rescue five privates from a hopeless situation, and these five dirt bags will later be used as the experienced cadre around which to build an entire division. Crapola. Second, submarines allow the player to take these same five privates and capture entire islands and bases. Double crapola. I don't dispute that subs were used to carry people, but not for the purposes that we see them in the game. I would limit subs to carrying only supply.

I disagree strongly with your points.

First - the subroutine for adding units together is already in the game, i think. If you combine previously divided units together, i don't think the units have the experience of their most experienced subdivision.

The units experiences are combined and averaged AFAIK. However, the experience of replacements is taken as that of the experienced cadre. It has been suggested NUMEROUS times in the past that this be done as an average (or something similar). They said it couldn't be done, yet it seems to be done on recombining sub-units. Yes it would take some reprogramming, but isn't that what we are talking about anyway?

As for a few guys taking an undefended base - well, at least one sub attack took place in the actual war against a defended base. I guess that was gamey.

It is gamey to leave bases without ANY garrisons, imho. So, is it unwholesome to use gamey tactics against a gamey tactic? If so, why?

ORIGINAL: byron13

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I agree with Ron on this one, with the following comments:

1. Submarines should not be able to carry anything but people.

I disagree. Submarines are a primary source of two kinds of abuse. First, they can rescue five privates from a hopeless situation, and these five dirt bags will later be used as the experienced cadre around which to build an entire division. Crapola. Second, submarines allow the player to take these same five privates and capture entire islands and bases. Double crapola. I don't dispute that subs were used to carry people, but not for the purposes that we see them in the game. I would limit subs to carrying only supply.

Byron, I'm surprised at you. The submarine would not "rescue" "dirt bags." The people we have been talking about in this thread are experienced aircraft servicers and mechanics. Their skills are difficult to replace, and these people would serve as the basis for reconstitution of the full unit, under new leadership and with new equipment (which, in the American scheme of things in WWII, was not difficult to come by).

I ask that you please not be insulting in responding to my posts. Groundless labeling of what I have to say as "Crapola" is not invective that advances any reasonable position of yours at all.

And some of you wonder why I quit posting here. I'm beginning to wonder why I ever started again.

Pasternakski there is a lot of people who really appreciate your presence on the boards and Byron13 even 5 infantry privates should never be called dirt bags.

ORIGINAL: madmickey

Pasternakski there is a lot of people who really appreciate your presence on the boards and Byron13 even 5 infantry privates should never be called dirt bags.

Hehe, well, I wouldnt use as many words as Byron did but I have to admit that whenever anyone brings up sub transport I get a mental picture of W.E.B. Griffin's USMC saga. (Someone please tell me you know what I'm talking about). [:D]

Gen. Fertig certainly believed in submarine transport, didn't he?

Wasn't there the situation of a single Japanese pilot who captured on of the Hawaiian Islands right after Pearl Harbor? I forget how long it was (a few days) before the locals tricked him out of his guns and retook their island.

I can live with whatever choice is made, though I think that Frag deciding unilaterally that he's going to fix this problem is a little presumptive. In all the WITP games I have played, I have only twice resorted to submarine rescue of units. I pulled as much of the Asiatic Fleet HQ out of Manila as I could before Manila fell, because I wanted to give it a try. I am in the process of trying to save the Brunei RN (RAF?) Base Force that retreated to Jeselton (sp?) and has been ignored by the Japanese in the ensuing months. It has just seemed cruel to leave them there starving, so I have been sneaking subs in there when I can to withdraw some of htem. It's a slow process, and I suppose that the Japs will finally grab the base before I can get the whole group.

Is this a gamey move on my part? I think that it is what I would have tried to do if I had been the commander IRL. In fact, I will continue to do this even if Frag institutes his anti-gamey option because I think that it is the right thing to do.

BTW: Pasternakski, please don't leave the board again (other than sabbaticals). We need your presence. While there are still some people here who can't seem to discuss things without getting personally abusive, on the whole it is the most courteous web forum in which I have participated. I'd hate to think that a few unthinking posters can drive away one of the boards icons...

Wasn't there the situation of a single Japanese pilot who captured on of the Hawaiian Islands right after Pearl Harbor? I forget how long it was (a few days) before the locals tricked him out of his guns and retook their island.

The battle of Ni'ihau, i think. This was (still is) a VERY isolated island near Kaui'i, and the one place in the world where Hawaiian is still spoken as the primary language. It is owned by one family (the Robinsons, iirc).

The Battle of Ni'ihau happened after an IJN pilot went down there. In one of the few instances where Japanese living in the US actually did act against US interests, a Japanese family living there sided with the crashed pilot and they more or less took over the island. There was no radio, phone, cars, or electricity on the island. Attempts to contact/reach Kaui'i failed (at first, anyway).

They tried to trick the Japanese pilot, but that didn't work so well. He shot one guy three times, which p1ssed off the Hawaiian who (iirc) picked up the IJN flier and smashed his brains out against a stone wall. The Japanese who sided with the flier were arrested.

Just play scen #13, evacing units out of SRA won't be a problem then [:D]

I gather the objection (best expressed by Nikademus and Mr. Frag) is a repugnance at the concept of taking a tiny fragment of a unit and regrowing it from Pool Replacements to generate a usable unit.

I don’t personally think you can fix this by coding to prevent replacements from being added to tiny units (the original “15% rule”) without causing all sorts of worse problems with loading/unloading/marching through the jungle and who knows what else?

People have suggested “don’t let subs load non-squad items” (ie no radar or engineering equipment) but I don’t see how that addresses the question. One support or inf squad can regrow an entire base force or division.

You could, I suppose, prevent subs from loading any non-supply cargo. I don’t recommend that, I am just pointing out that is the only way to keep subs from rescuing cadres.

I don’t think you can prevent air units from rescuing cadres (which for some reason no one has objected to, even though that is how I get most of the Dutch out) without making transport units much less useful (I use transports for an enormous part of my moving of units in New Guinea and Burma where the roads are so excreble. You can’t stop the cadre thing without also eliminating the air-transport of troops that I can see).

And obviously I can’t see preventing ships from moving troops. (I would gladly lose 10 4500 ton AKs early in the war to get 3-4 cadres of base units out.). I gather from what people have said that AK rescue of cadres doesn’t seem to bother people because there is risk of loss of the AK (it sounds to me like one complaint against sub resuce of cadres is that it has low risk of loss of the sub).

The only solution I do see, if people think this needs fixing, would be to massively reduce the rate of production of LCU pool units. If you go that route, you need to decide if you want to reduce the Allied pool replacement rates (which seem enormous to me) or both the Japanese and Allied rates (necessitating risky tinkering with the Japanese production model.)

Does anyone find it objectionable for the Japanese to rescue cadres from Rabaul, say, once it is cut off by Allied LBA, taking out single squads by Japanese sub and then regrowing the units back at the Home Islands?

Does anyone find it objectionable for the Japanese to rescue cadres from Rabaul, say, once it is cut off by Allied LBA, taking out single squads by Japanese sub and then regrowing the units back at the Home Islands?

I would find it just as objectionable for Japan to do it just as much as I find it for the Allies. An exploit is an exploit to both sides of the coin.

The difference is really in the level of impact. By the time Japan gets around to trying this stunt, they will be so backlogged in units that they will never get them anyways.

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

ORIGINAL: byron13

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I agree with Ron on this one, with the following comments:

1. Submarines should not be able to carry anything but people.

I disagree. Submarines are a primary source of two kinds of abuse. First, they can rescue five privates from a hopeless situation, and these five dirt bags will later be used as the experienced cadre around which to build an entire division. Crapola. Second, submarines allow the player to take these same five privates and capture entire islands and bases. Double crapola. I don't dispute that subs were used to carry people, but not for the purposes that we see them in the game. I would limit subs to carrying only supply.

Byron, I'm surprised at you. The submarine would not "rescue" "dirt bags." The people we have been talking about in this thread are experienced aircraft servicers and mechanics. Their skills are difficult to replace, and these people would serve as the basis for reconstitution of the full unit, under new leadership and with new equipment (which, in the American scheme of things in WWII, was not difficult to come by).

I ask that you please not be insulting in responding to my posts. Groundless labeling of what I have to say as "Crapola" is not invective that advances any reasonable position of yours at all.

And some of you wonder why I quit posting here. I'm beginning to wonder why I ever started again.

Sorry you took offense. I respect your experience and previous postings too much to intentionally offend you. I hope you were genuinely surprised, because the offensiveness of my comments was not intentional at all.

I was addressing, generally, your comment about subs carrying men in point 1. I gather in re-reading your post that your issue with cadres is to try and counter the gamey knock off of base units. I, on the other hand, meant to crapola-ize stuff like saving a Filipino squad for rebuilding into the 1st Free Filipino Division and the capture of islands as big as Oahu with an infantry squad. In any event, I'm clearly in the wrong considering how many people reacted to my comments. Funny: my innocent gaffs (and there have been a few) seem to always raise more ire than what I consider to be very abusive and certainly intentional comments. Oh well. I do sincerely apologize to you and the forum.

That being said, I still have a big problem with subs carrying troops for the reasons I said. Whether you're withdrawing five privates or five skilled machinists, you simply don't rebuild a unit around five people or five squads. There has to be enough critical mass there to build around, and I don't think the subs carry sufficient critical mass.

Maybe our disagreement is over the wealth of materiel and men. I agree that the Allies - or at least the Americans - had a wealth of supplies and materiel. But I disagree that they had a wealth of trained men. My general contention is that for the entire war, the Allies only formed enough major combat units that they believed they could keep at full strength with replacements. It took 18 months to two years (from enlistment) to form a combat unit (ground or air) and have it deployable. If they lost an entire division (except for the five privates), they did not have enough slack in the system to divert 12,000 men to reconstitute it. If they would have, it would have been doing nothing more than re-designating a division that was going to be formed anyway. As it was, they didn't have enough trained people to keep the existing divisions at full strength, and the tanks in Europe were short-crewed and manned with cooks and clerks by the fall of '44. British strategy and tactics began to be driven by shortages of replacements. Where would they find an additional 12,000 trained men to reconstitute an entire division? I think the U.S. even de-flagged units during train-up and sent everyone to the replacement depot. Regardless of what period of the war you're talking about, General Smith would not suck thousands of troops out of the replacement depot to reconstitute a regiment or division around five squads. Formation and round-out of units was planned long in advance of anything more than a skeleton staff being assigned to it. To suggest that, just because five guys from the destroyed XX division get back to the States, the Army is going to decide to, in effect, add another division to the force pool, completely change its allocation of trainees, and build a new base to house them that was not in the expansion plan is completely, uh, unsound in my mind. Even if the five guys are the division commander, his assistant division commanders, and his regimental commanders, they're not going to reconstitute an entire division around them; they would be reassigned to other duties. But that is what the cadre thing allows people to do. Submarines are, in my opinion, the worst (or best) example of this problem because they necessarily carry an insufficient number of people around which to reconstitute a unit.

Now, of course, this is the extreme example because I'm using five squads to build an entire division. And when the five privates are Filipinos and you somehow manage to reconstitute a Filipino division around them even though the Philippines are occupied and two thousand miles from the nearest Allied base . . .

The problem, as in all things WitP, is that no one fix is perfect. If the problem is that gamey play can leave the Allies with too few base units - at least early in the war - I don't have an answer. Maybe respawn some of them and the engineer regiments. But in general, the fix to a gamey tactic is not to add (or keep) a separate gamey feature.

Tell you what. I have no idea whether the units that surrendered in the Philippines were ever reconstituted. If, historically, any of them were, then I'm wrong and I'll shut up. If they weren't, I think that's a strong indication that it should not be done in the game. Or another test: what happened to the 106th Infantry Division after the Battle of the Bulge? I don't know, but I would be interested.

As for the sub assaults, they just carry too few men to "capture" an island. As rtrapasso referenced, we leave bases ungarrisoned. Considering the scope of WitP, and the amount of supplies, fuel, and other stuff that may be at an "ungarrisoned" base, I think the game assumes that there are some people there - just not enough to fend off a battalion of SNLF or Raiders. But probably enough to prevent five squads from capturing (as opposed to destroying in a commando raid, which the game doesn't account for because of its scope) an oil tank farm here, the supply depot there, the port facilities over there, and the airfield two miles away. (I would also say that you should garrison bases. Not providing rear-area garrisons is part of the reason we see hyper-accelerated play)

Bottom line: I believe the subs carry numbers of men too small to have an impact of any kind in a game of this scale. Therefore, I believe that subs should not be able to carry anything but supply.

Bottom bottom line: the 15% rule is a good start, but there are a lot of problems that would need to be worked out. Better to not do anything than to do it half-baked and cause more problems.

Reading the posts, it looks like there are two different issues.

One is the cadre issue of saving a fragment and growing it into a full-sized unit. At least for the Allies, I think this would have placed too much strain on the personnel system and can lead to more units running around than is realistic.

The other is the Japanese knocking off CW and US base units early in the war through foreknowledge.

I think Beezle has good ideas on the first issue. Reduce Dutch and Filipino replacements to next to nothing. As he asks: where are they coming from? That prevents unrealistic cadre building of Filipino and Dutch forces.

As for the U.S. and Brits, the two major problems are cadres from the PI and Singapore. Eliminating submarine and maybe air transport of cadres (other than cargo a/c) would go a long way toward fixing this. If you can get an AP or an AK out of either place, (i) you deserve the cadre and (ii) you may have pulled out enough of the unit to realistically warrant reconstitution. The Brits and Indians may face situations on the continent where they could lose entire combat units, but their infantry replacement rate is slow enough to make cadre building a properly expensive and time-consuming proposition - at least for combat units. Common air support squads makes this a difficult fix for base forces. As for the Americans, I agree with Beezle that the U.S. gets way too many personnel replacements making cadre building way too easy. Cut it back; heck, it should be cut back anyway. Other than the PI, the U.S. won't be in too many situations where they're likely to lose a major combat unit anyway, so it's not much of a problem.

That leaves the Japanese. Given the hyper-acceleration of the game, I can see where Japan may not have enough "cardboard pieces" in '44 to do much or absorb all the replacements in the pool. Britain could have a similar problem if things go Wobbly in India. In a way, this is a similar problem to the base force issue in that the issue is not having enough cardboard pieces. I don't know whether it's possible to implement in a patch, but maybe some kind of respawning would work. If the number of each kind of unit for the U.S., UK, or Japan drops below a certain amount, that type of unit is respawned in X months at minimal strength and is filled out by replacements from the pool. If the U.S. loses too many base forces in the beginning, they will get some back, subject to having sufficient pool resources (by mid-'42 the U.S. will receive enough reinforcements of all types that the rule would probably never be implemented after the first six months). Same for the Japanese later in the war. It provides some cushion for hyper-accelerated games; the player will have enough pieces on the board even if his force pool isn't sufficient to fill them out completely (and you could always have the option to turn replacements off to keep other units at full strength). Then the problem is the realistic one of not having enough bodies as opposed to the artificial one of not being able to create a new division in which to place abundant replacements.

Brief reply to what Byron13 said:

Eliminating submarine and maybe air transport of cadres (other than cargo a/c)

I presume you mean "eliminate movement of anything other than cargo by a/c". That would mean you can't use C-47s to move troops around in Burma or New Guinea (and would _massively_ slow down combat in those areas which I gather is what people want). Did they move units by Air Transport in Real Life? I do it a lot (to flank people) but it may not be realistic.

I can see where Japan may not have enough "cardboard pieces" in '44 to do much or absorb all the replacements in the pool.

Thinking a bit more about the late war Japanese (which I have never played to the late war) I see a difference. In early '42 the Japanese eliminate the parent units of the Dutch and PI garrison, so the cadre regrows. In the late war the Allies (Real Life and how I play them) tend to bypass the Japanese. How soon before the parent unit is completely off the map, so the cadre can regrow?

-----------

The solution that seems best to me (or part of the solution) is an enormous reduction in production of Air Support and Engineering units for the allies ("Enormous" means "reducing them to about 15% of current levels") and reducing Filipion and Dutch squads to about 1 per month.

All that can be done in the Editor.

All we need now is some chump (oops) "stalwart fellow" to edit those values and play the game out to about mid 1943 . . .

(Another solution is to "gimick" the PI and Dutch units by giving their base forces "Hard-to-Get-Air-Support" (a new kind of squad) and setting "Hard-to-Get-Air-Support to some ultra low level of replacement.)

OK my tuppence worth on this issue..

Combat Units British/CW/ Indian/Australian rescuing cadres just aint worth it from Singapore unless you are rescuing the majority of the unit.

Its not just the low rate of inf replacements other critical heavy equipment i.e. 3" morters are in short supply for these forces. Unless you are gettign a large proportion of the unit out c 25% or more it aint worth rebuilding you have to many other units needing the limited replacements. Even at 80 squads Indian replacements are not going to be easy to spare with 5 Divisons requiring brought up to strength.

In the Phillipines tanks cannot be loaded on subs and the only other units worth saving are the US RCT and the USMC Regt plus possibly the 2 Art Regts all of which require mega PP's. I tend to evac the USMC Regt by sub or air and the US RCT sometimes if I have the points to do it normally these go to India to rebuild but they take a long time.

Philipine Units I may rescue 1 Divioisn bt its only really worth it if you are rescuing a large chunk of the unit.

Dutch combat units I rescue as much but only rebuild the bigger units i.e. a regt that I can get out in good size will be rebuilt but normally if I am pulling them out it is a large unit. (In one game I pulled out most of the Dutch army intact and faced an Indian Invasion in April as a result)

Overall I just don't think combat units are a major imbalance small cadres are fine if you want to rebuild with limited replacements and heavy equipment. The only units that are genuinelly easy to rebuild is the US RCT/ USMC Regt and the two Art Regts from the PI all of which require hefty PP costs.

Now non combat units are a different ball game.

Malaya HQ I rescue normally as a cadre to allow me to manipulate the supply model (normally to suck supply out of Rangoon to Mandalay)

Asiatic Fleet I rescue to replace the missing Eastern Fleet

USAAFE and ABDA I rescue because I can and 2 extra command HQ's are usefull for resting troops/ moving supplies. (In my game against Sveint I tried to concentrate PI/ US and ABDA troops on Java so in that game my plan was clear and I rescued large chunks of units so I make no apologies for it)

Singapore BF's yup its gamey rescuing fragments but I do it as I think India is short of support troops not going to apologise for it I dont build them as combat forces I dont want them getting infantry but I do pull em out to use as rear area airfield and fort builder in the Indian interior.

Dutch BF's again I pull out some especially the big AF units and again use them in the Interior of India or even Northern Australia I would support a minor nation's air support troop type but I normally try to rescue large chunks of units.

US BF's in PI again I rescue what I can these are probably the most gamey of my normal rescues I have no hope of getting a sizable chunk out so these are definitely fragments that I use to reinforce Nomou or the LOC accross CentPac theyt take a long time to rebuild but probably provide ahistorical air support on atolls accross Centpac in May - Sept 42

To me the real issue is in support units and of these its the US PI Baseforces and some of the Dutch ones that are a problem but I dont think its a huge one.

Andy

ORIGINAL: Beezle

Brief reply to what Byron13 said:

Eliminating submarine and maybe air transport of cadres (other than cargo a/c)

I presume you mean "eliminate movement of anything other than cargo by a/c".

Heck, no. I meant keep submarines and aircraft - except cargo aircraft - from carrying people. I have no problem with cargo a/c ferrying units, though the C-47 seems to be able to carry a surprising amount of heavy equipment.

ORIGINAL: Beezle

I can see where Japan may not have enough "cardboard pieces" in '44 to do much or absorb all the replacements in the pool.

Thinking a bit more about the late war Japanese (which I have never played to the late war) I see a difference. In early '42 the Japanese eliminate the parent units of the Dutch and PI garrison, so the cadre regrows. In the late war the Allies (Real Life and how I play them) tend to bypass the Japanese. How soon before the parent unit is completely off the map, so the cadre can regrow?

I know you're a confirmed cadre-ite. It's too bad that a Japanese player would have to resort to a fragment snatch early in the war to guarantee having enough pieces later in the war. (I am envisioning Sasebo being overrun by a bazillion battalion-sized /1 units that are assigned to the 1st Unit Farm Command. "Your mission is to act as the seed for tomorrow's Armies!") Anyway, the respawn would eliminate the need. Probably too complicated for a patch, though.
-----------

The solution that seems best to me (or part of the solution) is an enormous reduction in production of Air Support and Engineering units for the allies ("Enormous" means "reducing them to about 15% of current levels") and reducing Filipion and Dutch squads to about 1 per month.

All that can be done in the Editor.

All we need now is some chump (oops) "stalwart fellow" to edit those values and play the game out to about mid 1943 . . .

(Another solution is to "gimick" the PI and Dutch units by giving their base forces "Hard-to-Get-Air-Support" (a new kind of squad) and setting "Hard-to-Get-Air-Support to some ultra low level of replacement.)
[/quote]