Hierarchy Module Document

[Lobster]

Seems to me these special units should be able to ignore zones of control while exerting none of their own.

[Curtis Lemay]

Seems to me these special units should be able to ignore zones of control while exerting none of their own.

To do SEALs right, at a minimum they would need five icons: Amphibious, Mountain, Airborne, Airmobile, and Guerrilla. Guerrilla probably should have some of the above. Someday.

But, just for this disembarkment in Deep Water feature, Amphibious and Mountain will suffice.

[Curtis Lemay]

I've been stuck on this problem for a while: I found that the last version I posted couldn't read most older files. (Shown as bug #13 below). I've now got this fixed so that it can. Now I can finally get back to the legacy bugs.

Moral: Making scenario files backwards compatible is a real pain!

[joey]

I've been stuck on this problem for a while: I found that the last version I posted couldn't read most older files. (Shown as bug #13 below). I've now got this fixed so that it can. Now I can finally get back to the legacy bugs.

Moral: Making scenario files backwards compatible is a real pain!

I would keep number 13 bug handy, as it may show up again, as you continue to fix bugs.

[Curtis Lemay]

I've been stuck on this problem for a while: I found that the last version I posted couldn't read most older files. (Shown as bug #13 below). I've now got this fixed so that it can. Now I can finally get back to the legacy bugs.

Moral: Making scenario files backwards compatible is a real pain!

I would keep number 13 bug handy, as it may show up again, as you continue to fix bugs.

It certainly hasn't been exhaustively checked out. But, mainly, I need to stop fiddling with the scenario file format!!.

[Ratbag55]

Apologies if this has been covered.

Will we be able to control 'subordinate' units with events while they are internalised to their superior?
For example, could an HQ unit have let's say 3 internalised subordinate units with one of them entering through event activation while the other two subordinate units are present att scenario start.

Thanks

[Curtis Lemay]

Apologies if this has been covered.

Will we be able to control 'subordinate' units with events while they are internalised to their superior?
For example, could an HQ unit have let's say 3 internalised subordinate units with one of them entering through event activation while the other two subordinate units are present att scenario start.

Thanks

That's probably an issue. Withdrawn subordinates may remain as subordinates. They may then be both "there" and "not there" at the same time with unknown consequences.

So I need to make sure that any subordinate unit that is withdrawn is first detached from its superior unit. I'll put that on the "to do" list.

Now, the other direction is up to the designer to address. When you build the unit, the subordinates have to be on the map. If the superior is on the map they are all assumed to be present. If you want one of them to arrive as a reinforcement, you put it into the superior then detach it (that creates a slot for the unit to use when it arrives). Once detached, then remove it from the map and set its arrival turn. Upon arrival in the game, the player will have to make the subordinate attachment manually. The PO will be out of luck. There are no event effects to attach or detach subordinates and they would be too complex to implement in my judgement.

[Ratbag55]

Apologies if this has been covered.

Will we be able to control 'subordinate' units with events while they are internalised to their superior?
For example, could an HQ unit have let's say 3 internalised subordinate units with one of them entering through event activation while the other two subordinate units are present att scenario start.

Thanks

That's probably an issue. Withdrawn subordinates may remain as subordinates. They may then be both "there" and "not there" at the same time with unknown consequences.

So I need to make sure that any subordinate unit that is withdrawn is first detached from its superior unit. I'll put that on the "to do" list.

Now, the other direction is up to the designer to address. When you build the unit, the subordinates have to be on the map. If the superior is on the map they are all assumed to be present. If you want one of them to arrive as a reinforcement, you put it into the superior then detach it (that creates a slot for the unit to use when it arrives). Once detached, then remove it from the map and set its arrival turn. Upon arrival in the game, the player will have to make the subordinate attachment manually. The PO will be out of luck. There are no event effects to attach or detach subordinates and they would be too complex to implement in my judgement.

Thanks for clarifying - so I understand fully: if I create a subordinate that enters through sn event later in the game (as described above) will it have to be adjecent to its superior unit in order for it to be re-integrated? Or can it be re-integrated once it enters on the map, through "teleportation"? I am thinking of cases where a brigade has 4 manouver battalions, three of them active and one of them mobilized later through event. It the unit/superior unit has moved a far distande, possibly even by rail or shipping, does the subordinate have to move to its superior unit in order to re-integrate?

Thanks

[Curtis Lemay]

Apologies if this has been covered.

Will we be able to control 'subordinate' units with events while they are internalised to their superior?
For example, could an HQ unit have let's say 3 internalised subordinate units with one of them entering through event activation while the other two subordinate units are present att scenario start.

Thanks

That's probably an issue. Withdrawn subordinates may remain as subordinates. They may then be both "there" and "not there" at the same time with unknown consequences.

So I need to make sure that any subordinate unit that is withdrawn is first detached from its superior unit. I'll put that on the "to do" list.

Now, the other direction is up to the designer to address. When you build the unit, the subordinates have to be on the map. If the superior is on the map they are all assumed to be present. If you want one of them to arrive as a reinforcement, you put it into the superior then detach it (that creates a slot for the unit to use when it arrives). Once detached, then remove it from the map and set its arrival turn. Upon arrival in the game, the player will have to make the subordinate attachment manually. The PO will be out of luck. There are no event effects to attach or detach subordinates and they would be too complex to implement in my judgement.

Thanks for clarifying - so I understand fully: if I create a subordinate that enters through sn event later in the game (as described above) will it have to be adjecent to its superior unit in order for it to be re-integrated? Or can it be re-integrated once it enters on the map, through "teleportation"? I am thinking of cases where a brigade has 4 manouver battalions, three of them active and one of them mobilized later through event. It the unit/superior unit has moved a far distande, possibly even by rail or shipping, does the subordinate have to move to its superior unit in order to re-integrate?

A unit has to be in the same hex as its future superior to be made a subordinate to it. The event can't know where the superior unit will be when it triggers, so it is unlikely to be returned to the map in such location. That just means it will have to be moved to that location by the player. Note that where a returned unit arrives is determined by the reconstitution procedure (see 9.1.8, 17.10.4, and 17.11.3).

[Lobster]

Why does a unit have to be in the exact same place as the superior unit it's going to become part of? Divisions were attached to armies hundreds of miles away and then sent there.

[Curtis Lemay]

Why does a unit have to be in the exact same place as the superior unit it's going to become part of? Divisions were attached to armies hundreds of miles away and then sent there.

Subordinates are incorporated into the superior unit and removed from the map. The strengths of the subordinate-to-be will appear in the strengths of the superior - so they have to be located in that superior's hex before incorporation.

Notice that it is completely different for a detached unit being added to a formation. It can be anywhere because its incorporation into the formation is just bookeeping by the formation commander.

[Lobster]

Oh, I see. As in a unit that was divided and it's now being reformed. I was thinking of it as a separate unit in a formation.

[Curtis Lemay]

That's probably an issue. Withdrawn subordinates may remain as subordinates. They may then be both "there" and "not there" at the same time with unknown consequences.

Turns out this is exactly the case: Withdrawn subordinates are withdrawn but still in the unit. And can then be returned and be in two places at once (until you try to use the returned units, when you get a CTD).

Edit: Let me add => good catch by Ratbag55!

So I need to make sure that any subordinate unit that is withdrawn is first detached from its superior unit. I'll put that on the "to do" list.

Yep. And now I've done that, fixing issue #14

[Curtis Lemay]

In this test scenario, two subordinates are withdrawn. Yet they remain shown in the superior unit, including in its strengths:

[Curtis Lemay]

While they appeared in the Unit Report, they are shown as withdrawn in the Formation Report:

[Curtis Lemay]

Next, the two withdrawn units are returned by event. Now they are shown as non-subordinates on the Formation Report (but note the strength of the superior unit):

[Curtis Lemay]

And here is the Unit Report: Note that the returned units are shown as still subordinates to the superior unit. BUT they are also on the map (see bottom of map)! When the on-map versions are selected, the game has a CTD. Clearly a problem that must be fixed.

[Curtis Lemay]

Now I run the same test after the fix. Here is the Unit Report and the withdrawn subordinates are now detached and the superior is reduced in strength:

[Curtis Lemay]

And here is the Formation Report after the fix:

[Curtis Lemay]

And here is the Formation Report after the units are returned (see the bottom of the map):