Matrix Games Forums

Has TankerAce done the no-respawn version as yet? I know he said he would once he freed up some time. I've got Zilch and my PC is not on the web as I'm now in between homes pending my move.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Has TankerAce done the no-respawn version as yet? I know he said he would once he freed up some time. I've got Zilch and my PC is not on the web as I'm now in between homes pending my move.

Not that I'm aware of. Although I'm just functioning as a database entry grunt (and China guy)..I was under the impression that the the respawns were hard-coded into the game.

If you add a blank ship (ie, one that has a delay of 9999) into every slot that doesn't have a ship, then no ship will respawn. You can add all the historic hulls, then fill up the empty slots with blank ships, and nothing will respawn. (no MSW's, CV's or CA's)

I'm not the final arbiter on this just one voice in the crowd ....

After spending 10 minutes brushing my teeth I'm going to argue against changing the game as is concerning respawns and here is my justification:

First I understand that the hulls were already being built. However the game design presupposes that players will play historically and thus place the US carriers in harms' way.

The what-if's - what if (as some people do) the US fleet decided to hide in the back of the bear cave until 1943. I'm sure a number of Admirals probably would have lost their jobs, but in addition to that wouldn't some of those already being built hulls or later ones have been cancelled? A number of vessels were cancelled IRL, would more have been cancelled if the US hadn't had as many vessels sunk?

ORIGINAL: treespider

I'm not the final arbiter on this just one voice in the crowd ....

After spending 10 minutes brushing my teeth I'm going to argue against changing the game as is concerning respawns and here is my justification:

First I understand that the hulls were already being built. However the game design presupposes that players will play historically and thus place the US carriers in harms' way.

The what-if's - what if (as some people do) the US fleet decided to hide in the back of the bear cave until 1943. I'm sure a number of Admirals probably would have lost their jobs, but in addition to that wouldn't some of those already being built hulls or later ones have been cancelled? A number of vessels were cancelled IRL, would more have been cancelled if the US hadn't had as many vessels sunk?

It has always been the intention that if a "no respawn" version is made it will be as an alternative. This is because there has never been a unanimous agreement about whether "respawning" shoule be removed. I, for one, much prefer that it be retained, for example.

In my view if anyone wants to make a "non respawn" version of CHS they are free to take the scenario and modify it. That way another alterative will be available for those who want it.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: treespider

A number of vessels were cancelled IRL, would more have been cancelled if the US hadn't had as many vessels sunk?

I doubt it because of the timing involved. They might have if the Allies were kicking butt way ahead of historical, but that's inconsistant with keeping carriers out of harm's way. And if the allies did place ships at risk and were way ahead, getting more carriers is irrelevant anyway.

My personal preference is to do away with respawning. I never liked the concept. In my mind play balance is achieved by the point system, and certainly augmented by Japanese abilities to tune production.

Now, I realize that when it comes to CHS I am a beggar, not a chooser! I appreciate whichever way it goes - just offering my opinion for your consideration.

[8D]

What is the background of some US regimental units being called "Regiment" and others "RCT" while having essentially the same TOE?

It was a switch of designation that was made during the war. I forget when...[&:]

ORIGINAL: Xian

What is the background of some US regimental units being called "Regiment" and others "RCT" while having essentially the same TOE?

A US Infantry Regiment is an Infantry Unit formed from 3 battalions of infantry and one field weapons battalion.

A US Infantry Division is a unit formed from three Infantry Regiments, four Artillery Battalions, one Engineer Battalion, a recon troop, HQ support units and assorted other units temporarily or permanently attached. The attached units may include a tank battalion, an anti-aircraft battlion, and/or a tank destroyer battalion.

A Regimental Combat Team (RCT) is an infantry regiment reinforced with a share (about 1/3) of the Divisional Units. The difference between a Regiment and a RCT is not always properly represented in WITP, but the terms have distinct meanings.

For those more familiar with British formations, the equivalent terms are Brigade and Brigade Group.

Oops! Just goes to show what I know...[:(]

RCT's came into being in the US Army before Pearl Harbor, and went into practice with divisions when they went to "triangular" units, (in lieu of the Brit practice of 4 sided divisions.
)..
American NG units went triangular sooner than "active" units..
There were only 1 or 2 divisions that did not have "RCT's"
An RCT had its' own arty, armor,engineers,flak,etc, and were the equivelent of a German "Kampfgruppe"...(Before, infantry RGT's were purely infantry units.)
History books still get it wrong and invariably use the old term "regiment", regardless of nationality, or TOE..
[8D]

Yes, but why are they inconsistantly named in CHS or are they indeed consistent with history?
BTW I don't think an RCT could do combined weapons. They had typically an Inf Rgt, Art Bn, and some Recce, but typically not a Tank Bn under the command of the RCT commander. Normally, the smallest unit for combined weapons is the brigade.

ORIGINAL: Xian

Yes, but why are they inconsistantly named in CHS or are they indeed consistent with history?
BTW I don't think an RCT could do combined weapons. They had typically an Inf Rgt, Art Bn, and some Recce, but typically not a Tank Bn under the command of the RCT commander. Normally, the smallest unit for combined weapons is the brigade.

In a sense the (R)egimental (C)ombat (T)eam was an all arms entity, but calling it a Battlegroup would not be too far off on overall concept. They were a flexible composition in the assets assigned to them, being "mission" configured for whatever assets were needed to accomplish their mission, up to and including armor, with the base being that if the Regiment and its supporting Artillery BN.

Well, a KG was much more varied. It ranged from a battalion to corps in size. Take a hodgepodge of disrupted units, strip out the supply column, integrate command and control and slap a new name on it. Way more ad hoc and more similar to a Combined Task Force in the US military. RCTs were planned, KGs just happend.

DE's are completed. My change list is so big at the present that it is giving me difficulty extracting this bit to post...the details will be included with the final change list that accompanies v1.06

Also updated Allied Type 8 LCU's -(armoured units) by deleting engineers if present and converting support to motorized support.

Added 50 point shipyard to Vancouver.

Next up three Dutch subs and some fast tranports and DM's...Then a test or two to make sure the changes took hold.

I should have Scenario 155 to Andrew in about 56 hours. Then he will run his script on 155 to convert it to 154.

Added Japanese Indian National Army Units in slots as follows:
Converted Japanese Leaders 1033, 1015, 682, 526 as follows:

1033 - Azad Brigade: Col. M. Z. Kiani.
Overall: 55 Inspir: 50 Naval: 0 Air: 25 Land: 65 Admin: 50 Aggress: 50
Kiani was the First Division commander,and he was considered the best of the INA commanders by Bose and his peers. Kiani oversaw the Azad brigade during the Imphal campaigns, so I have substituted him for the actual brigade commander (Col Gulzara Singh).

1015 - Gandhi Brigade: Col. B.J.S. Garewal
Overall: 30 Inspir: 10 Naval: 0 Air: 10 Land: 40 Admin: 50 Aggress: 40
Garewal defected to the British after the Imphal campaign.

682 - Nehru Brigade: Col. Shah Nawaz (aka Shahnawaz Khan)
Overall: 50 Inspir: 60 Naval: 0 Air: 20 Land: 40 Admin: 60 Aggress: 60
Nawaz, was Bose’s Chief of Staff, and commanded ad hoc detached one-or-two battalion sized task forces. He was named Second Division commander, and often oversaw the Nehru Brigade and its actual commander, Col G.S. Dhillon.

526 -Subhas Brigade : Col. Thakur Singh
Overall: 40 Inspir: 40 Naval: 0 Air: 15 Land: 50 Admin: 35 Aggress: 70
The “elite” brigade of the INA, Subhas was almost completely destroyed by the fighting in Imphal, and the subsequent retreat.

A Brief History of the Indian National Army

When Singapore fell, the Japanese had captured 67,000 Indian soldiers serving in the British army. Some 40,000 of the captives, either willingly or under duress, joined the Indian National Army (or Azad Hind Fauz), organized to liberate India from British rule. Mistrust between the Indian military leaders and their Japanese patrons prevented the effective organization of the INA until the charismatic and respected Indian nationalist Netaji (“Great Leader”) Subhas Chandra Bose reached Tokyo from Germany in May, 1943. Bose was one of the pre-war leaders of the Indian independence movement. He opposed Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violent resistance, (while, ironically, admiring him enough to name a brigade after him) and fled India to escape arrest by the British.

With the approval of the Japanese Cabinet, Bose established the Provisional Government of Azad Hind (“Free India”), raised funds and additional volunteers for the army from the ethnic Indian communities in Japan and Southeast Asia, and reorganized the INA. On October 21st, 1943, at a public rally in Singapore, Bose was declared Head of State and Supreme Commander of the INA, based in Singapore.

Bose intended to build an army of 50,000 men. The Japanese agreed to arm only 30,000, however, and that seems to have been the effective strength of the INA. Although the INA had a division structure on paper, in practice the units fought as separate brigades, or with the battalions dispersed to support Japanese units. Japanese field commanders in Burma bitterly opposed the creation of an independent INA, and their prejudice and resistance reduced the effectiveness of the INA when it joined them in combat.

Bose overrode local Japanese military opposition by winning the support of Field Marshall Count Terauchi, and the Japanese government in Tokyo. The INA was subject to its own military justice – not Japan’s – and Bose’s government was to administer any ‘liberated’ portions of India. Japan transferred the Andaman and Nicobar Islands to the Azad Hind’s administration.

By December of 1943 the Japanese agreed that the INA was well-enough trained and equipped to be committed to battle. In January, headquarters and the First Division were shifted to Rangoon, and brigades were sent forward to participate in the 1944 Arakan and Imphal campaigns. The INA fought against the British advance in Burma until the war’s end.

With Japan’s surrender, the British captured 23,000 INA survivors. As Bose had died in a plane crash in the waning days of the war, the British tried three of his subordinates for treason. To the surprise of both the British and the pro-independence Indian Congress party the “Red Fort” trials revealed mass support for the INA veterans as Indian patriots. After many protests, a widespread mutiny within the Royal Indian Navy, and a sit-down strike within the Air Force, the trio were acquitted in 1946.

ORIGINAL: Xian

Yes, but why are they inconsistantly named in CHS or are they indeed consistent with history?
BTW I don't think an RCT could do combined weapons. They had typically an Inf Rgt, Art Bn, and some Recce, but typically not a Tank Bn under the command of the RCT commander. Normally, the smallest unit for combined weapons is the brigade.

Xian,

In US Army service the Brigade was dropped pre WW2 and came back into usage after Korea.

My understanding is that an RCT is more of an Independent command, usually with dedicated support units. A Regiment is a part of a Division, but can have support attached to it, and occaisionally performs an independent mission. Armour could be attached to either unit.

Of course, being different, the Marines had independent Regiments and the 1st Provisional Marine Brigade which at Guam 1944 had 4th & 22nd Marine Rgts plus supporting units.

Out of curiosity, when will with CHS 1.06 mod approximatley be available... are we talking days or weeks?
TIA[8D]

derek

ORIGINAL: ragtopcars

Out of curiosity, when will with CHS 1.06 mod approximatley be available... are we talking days or weeks?
TIA[8D]

derek

I am practically finished with the database updates for Scenario 155. Andrew is away for the weekend. When he returns he should have Scenario 155 in his inbox. He then will execute a nice little script on the Scenario and convert it to Scenario 154 (non-extended map version) and will hopefully have them posted on his site within a few days after that. I would hope that v1.06 will be posted by this time next week.

As a last final request are there any other bugs or tweaks out there that any one can think of that have not been covered in this thread...
By the way US Fast transports have been updated.

Dutch Subs O-21 O-23 and O-24 have been updated

US DM's have been updated.

Thanks for the fast response! looking forward to it!

derek