AE Land and AI Issues [OUTDATED]

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Sorry guys no can do . . .

Thanks for the reply Andy. Would have been cool, but somehow life will go on [:D]

[castor troy]

The problem for someone like me is the fact that I don´t know the historic names of the different regiments so if I would split up a div into it´s regiments, then bring the regiments to different places, I could never recombine them as I don´t know what regiment number belongs to what div... [:D]

for me 2nd Div / A / B / C works best! [:D]

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The problem for someone like me is the fact that I don´t know the historic names of the different regiments so if I would split up a div into it´s regiments, then bring the regiments to different places, I could never recombine them as I don´t know what regiment number belongs to what div... [:D]

for me 2nd Div / A / B / C works best! [:D]

If you look at the dialoge box that was shown two pages ago and quoted on the last page, apparantly ingame you can see the different components of a unit onmap. So all you would have to do is open it up and see where the units are if you need to recombine.

Can we add this to the list of things to add for WITP MK II? [;)]

[Andy Mac]

There is a fairly early TOE upgrade that removes the Div Cav as they are subsumed elsewhere into the HQ's of the Ind Coys and inf replacements

I dont want to strip them totally because they start at Aden

9th Div I am less worried about as I was planning on starting it with the Jungle TOE its pointless having it on map with a ME TOE and then a week later upgrading it easier just to have it arrive correct with whatever holes in its toe it needs.

Its the balance between pragmatism and minimising the opportunity for Mr Cock up to stike.

I have still not decided finally on 9th Div whether to have it arrive at Aden or Melbourne yet

At present its Aden as with the rest of I Corps but unlike 6th and 7th there was never any debate about 9th Div going elsewhere so I will probably keep it simple and set it to Melbourne.

Andy

ORIGINAL: JeffK

re Aust Div Cav Rgts

6 Div Cav left its Mk VII Lt Tanks in the ME, it only took its carriers back to Aust.  In Aust after leave it only operated in the traditional role for a short time before retraining as Infantry (To the Green Fields Beyond - Unit History)

Aust Field Rgts - speed of movement.
2/7 Fd Rgt (9 Div) left its Guns and Transport in Egypt.
Left Ismailia 1/2/43 on Nieuw Amsterdam
Refuelled Addu Atoll 10/2/43
Arrived Fremantle 18/2/43
Convoy was Queen Mary, Nieuw Amsterdam, Aquitania, Queen of Bermuda, Isle de France and carried to entire 9th Div.
Arrived Melbourne 23/2/43

Division reformed Atherton Tablelands 17/4/43

2/7 Fd Rgt received its first guns on 11/4/43

[JeffroK]

Andy,
 
Can 9th Aust Div arrive with its ME TOE, its always possible that it will be defending Adelaide or Sydney from the ravenous japanese.
 
Then its up to the Allies to decide if it changes to the jungle TOE.

[Andy Mac]

Aye I have it arriving at Aden with a ME TOE at present 1/1/43 to allow time for the transit it is slightly depleted and disrupted from its heroic efforts at Alamein

[ctangus]

Currently, if you lose a portion of a divided division, you can no longer recombine the division. E.g. if I lose the 24th/A US ID, I'll never be able to re-form the full 24th ID.

Will that be the same with these new starting TOEs? If, for example, I lose the 2nd Marines on Samoa, I'd still like to be able to later form the full 1st USMC Div. (Of course, without the troops of the 2nd Marines.)

[Andy Mac]

That is the way it works at present but I am toying with changing it back to the stock method.
 
It an all or nothing issue so either we allow it for all units or remove it for all.
 
The issue is take 9th Indian Div - do I want the ability to reform the Div from a fragment of a single Bde that is rescued even if it has 20 squads and needs to fill up 1500 devices to get back to full strength and will have its xp gutted..
 
Currently the penalty in time, limited devices and xp hit are probably enough to make me comfortable from an allied perspective (filling up 9th Indian Div will stop the allies building 7th or 19th Div - if they want to do it fine all it means is 2 understrength Divs, not enough replacements in the pool or a full strength Div with a different name) but the Japanese production system make me think it might be safer to turn it off as there will be no restriction on device production.
 
p.s. just to be 100% clear this is all or nothing and the same rule applies to both sides we don't have the time or ability to set it up for one side only.
 
So I am toying with making it back to stock - if I leave it as is we may end up with to many LCU's
 
Andy

[ctangus]

Thanks. [:)]

For what little it may be worth my vote is to allow it. Rebuilding of allied units will be limited by device replacement rates. Rebuilding of Japanese units (should) be limited armament points, which are relatively expensive.

I see your concern but as long as the Japanese economy ends up plausible I don't think it would be an issue. In other words - if in the average game Japan wants to greatly build armament points and reinforce LCUs they should be able to. As long as it forces them to cut back production in other areas.

My two cents...

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

That is the way it works at present but I am toying with changing it back to the stock method.

It an all or nothing issue so either we allow it for all units or remove it for all.

The issue is take 9th Indian Div - do I want the ability to reform the Div from a fragment of a single Bde that is rescued even if it has 20 squads and needs to fill up 1500 devices to get back to full strength and will have its xp gutted..

Currently the penalty in time, limited devices and xp hit are probably enough to make me comfortable from an allied perspective (filling up 9th Indian Div will stop the allies building 7th or 19th Div - if they want to do it fine all it means is 2 understrength Divs, not enough replacements in the pool or a full strength Div with a different name) but the Japanese production system make me think it might be safer to turn it off as there will be no restriction on device production.
p.s. just to be 100% clear this is all or nothing and the same rule applies to both sides we don't have the time or ability to set it up for one side only.

So I am toying with making it back to stock - if I leave it as is we may end up with to many LCU's

Andy

Yet another argument to fix the Japanese add water and stir production model.[8D]

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Andy,

Can 9th Aust Div arrive with its ME TOE, its always possible that it will be defending Adelaide or Sydney from the ravenous Japanese.

Then its up to the Allies to decide if it changes to the jungle TOE.

I agree this is definitely possible (and probably desirable). The only issue would be the transport of vehicles and heavy equipment back from the ME. All the returning divisions left their British supplied equipment in the ME and re-equipped from Australian stocks.

[Andy Mac]

Its irrelevant as the Div is under strength when it arrives in heavy equipment it has the TOE but its not fully filled up.
 
It needs AT Guns/Arty and AA Guns especially - these exist but are not deployed with the Div at start

[el cid again]

In game terms, as in HQ which units can be transferred to or which control and coordinate operations,
the USSR did NOT use a Theater Command approach.

Not, that is, before 30 July, 1945 (which probably should be the hard code date of Soviet activation in a
Soviet passive scenario). Until then, there was NO theater command, anywhere, ever. When it DID form,
the Soviet Far East Command formed at Chita. Stock has this completely wrong - locating the Far East command
at Vladivostok in 1941 - a place it never was - and at the wrong end of the game (except it may be required).
On the other hand, does a unit EVER need to CHANGE HQ to the Soviet command?

EDIT: Supplimental: by 1945 the Soviets had split the Far Eastern Front into two parts: First Far Eastern Front
directed operations from Vladivostok and 2nd Far Eastern Front from Khavarovsk. Sometime after its formation
at Chita the Far Eastern Command - the first theater HQ in Soviet Red Army history - moved to Khabarovsk.


What the Soviets DID have was "Front" commands - and something special as well for a place too far from
one of those. There were two different Fronts in the Far East: Trans Baikal (location uncertain in 1941, but
likely near Lake Baikal) and Far Eastern (Location Khabarovsk). In addition, there was the Coastal Group of
Forces for the Kamchatka Penninsula - because it was "too far from the Front HQ or the Soviet Far East Fleet"
- and this was a NAVAL command that included all forces, regardless of service.

It is not easy to know what to do about this because of game code issues: the code is not likely to be changed
even for AE - and the Soviets really should NOT be treated as if there is a unified command for the entire
on map area. Nor indeed can any single HQ have the command radius required to cover the vast front
and do justice to the problem the Soviet defense (or offense) poses: protect Amur Province and protect
the vital Land LOC back to Central Asia. The real Soviet solution - with two HQ - one east and west - and a
HQ for support purposes (for land ops) at Khabarovsk makes more sense. Lacking naval units as designed,
there was no need for naval HQ. Now this has changed, we should indeed have two Naval HQ - a main one
(Soviet Far East Fleet) and a secondary one (the Coastal Group of Forces). We can do that - but does code
use Soviet naval HQ? If not - should they be air HQ in game terms (so at least they control some operations)?
Or even land HQ (since a local HQ to protect Vladivostok and Kamchatka makes sense in game terms)?

We could make the Soviet Command be located "off the map" (at Krasnyarsk) - since all units assigned to it arrive
assigned to it - and no other unit should ever be assigned to it. Then we could make two Front commands
(and two naval commands which might be naval, air or land, depending on wether or not code will use a Soviet
naval HQ) - NONE of which have the reach of a strategic HQ - but say one hex less (8???).

This problem is complex, technical, and structural to WITP - and reality must compromise with what will work
with code. Suggestions for WITP as it is are solicited. And we should notify AE developers in case they want to
do something to mitigate it.

[Andy Mac]

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.
 
We need Far East Command for the AI so it stays.
 
I am pretty sure we added more HQ's below that (I say pretty sure because I am neck deep in CW AI stuff at present and Soviets are way down the list to be looked at)
 
Andy

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.

So the Russian corps units will arrive as reinforcements now? Instead of the old upgrade system?

[Kereguelen]

Some comments, as I'm in charge of the Soviet OOB for the AE:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In game terms, as in HQ which units can be transferred to or which control and coordinate operations,
the USSR did NOT use a Theater Command approach.
Not, that is, before 30 July, 1945 (which probably should be the hard code date of Soviet activation in a
Soviet passive scenario). Until then, there was NO theater command, anywhere, ever. When it DID form,
the Soviet Far East Command formed at Chita.

Correct, but Far Eastern Front acted de facto as Theater Command even in 1941 and it acted quite independent from STAVKA. And, as Andy has already explained, we need the Far Eastern Command for the AI.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Stock has this completely wrong - locating the Far East command
at Vladivostok in 1941 - a place it never was - and at the wrong end of the game (except it may be required).
On the other hand, does a unit EVER need to CHANGE HQ to the Soviet command?
What the Soviets DID have was "Front" commands - and something special as well for a place too far from
one of those. There were two different Fronts in the Far East: Trans Baikal (location uncertain in 1941, but
likely near Lake Baikal) and Far Eastern (Location Khabarovsk).

This is a very interesting statement: I never found any source that stated where Far Eastern Front HQ was located. I always suspected that it was located at Khabarovsk but had no proof for this (and thus left it at Vladivostok). Can you name any good source for this? This would be really welcome!

Trans Baikal MD HQ was either at Ulan-Ude or at Chita in 1941. Sources disagree about its actual location. Have placed it at Ulan-Ude.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
In addition, there was the Coastal Group of
Forces for the Kamchatka Penninsula - because it was "too far from the Front HQ or the Soviet Far East Fleet"
- and this was a NAVAL command that included all forces, regardless of service.

This is wrong. Coastal Group was located at Vladivostok and later (in 1945) became 1st Far Eastern Front. It originally had 1st Red Banner and 25th Army under command. The region around Vladivostok is the 'Primorskiy' (= Coastal) region.

But I don't know exactly when Coastal Group HQ was formed (probably somewhen between July 1943 and January 1944).

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It is not easy to know what to do about this because of game code issues: the code is not likely to be changed
even for AE - and the Soviets really should NOT be treated as if there is a unified command for the entire
on map area. Nor indeed can any single HQ have the command radius required to cover the vast front
and do justice to the problem the Soviet defense (or offense) poses: protect Amur Province and protect
the vital Land LOC back to Central Asia. The real Soviet solution - with two HQ - one east and west - and a
HQ for support purposes (for land ops) at Khabarovsk makes more sense.

Transbaikal Front is an Army-level command under Far Eastern Command in the AE. It starts with 17th and 36th Armies under command.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Lacking naval units as designed,
there was no need for naval HQ. Now this has changed, we should indeed have two Naval HQ - a main one
(Soviet Far East Fleet) and a secondary one (the Coastal Group of Forces). We can do that - but does code
use Soviet naval HQ? If not - should they be air HQ in game terms (so at least they control some operations)?
Or even land HQ (since a local HQ to protect Vladivostok and Kamchatka makes sense in game terms)?

Soviet Pacific Fleet HQ is in the game.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
We could make the Soviet Command be located "off the map" (at Krasnyarsk) - since all units assigned to it arrive
assigned to it - and no other unit should ever be assigned to it. Then we could make two Front commands
(and two naval commands which might be naval, air or land, depending on wether or not code will use a Soviet
naval HQ) - NONE of which have the reach of a strategic HQ - but say one hex less (8???).

This problem is complex, technical, and structural to WITP - and reality must compromise with what will work
with code. Suggestions for WITP as it is are solicited. And we should notify AE developers in case they want to
do something to mitigate it.

There are many more Soviet HQ's in the AE than in WITP. And HQ's will have some additional functions in the AE (we're still working on this aspect).

K

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.

So the Russian corps units will arrive as reinforcements now? Instead of the old upgrade system?

Yes, that is: The forces that were transferred from Europe in 1945 for Autumn Storm arrive in 1945. Forces that were formed in the Far East 1942-45 arrive as reinforcements at the dates they were formed (and forces that were transferred to Europe 1942-45 are withdrawn at the historical transfer dates).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Some comments, as I'm in charge of the Soviet OOB for the AE:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In game terms, as in HQ which units can be transferred to or which control and coordinate operations,
the USSR did NOT use a Theater Command approach.
Not, that is, before 30 July, 1945 (which probably should be the hard code date of Soviet activation in a
Soviet passive scenario). Until then, there was NO theater command, anywhere, ever. When it DID form,
the Soviet Far East Command formed at Chita.

Correct, but Far Eastern Front acted de facto as Theater Command even in 1941 and it acted quite independent from STAVKA. And, as Andy has already explained, we need the Far Eastern Command for the AI.


REPLY: I stated in my original post I believed that hard code would require the existence of a theater command. But in principle it could be split into two commands - sort of like the NEI and USAFFE are different commands - the area is large enough to do that. Such a concept would only apply when/if code is rewritten. I assume we need some sort of command for functional reasons - even if we don't call it Command. I am renaming it a Front - but I am sure it still functions in the original way.

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Stock has this completely wrong - locating the Far East command
at Vladivostok in 1941 - a place it never was - and at the wrong end of the game (except it may be required).
On the other hand, does a unit EVER need to CHANGE HQ to the Soviet command?
What the Soviets DID have was "Front" commands - and something special as well for a place too far from
one of those. There were two different Fronts in the Far East: Trans Baikal (location uncertain in 1941, but
likely near Lake Baikal) and Far Eastern (Location Khabarovsk).

This is a very interesting statement: I never found any source that stated where Far Eastern Front HQ was located. I always suspected that it was located at Khabarovsk but had no proof for this (and thus left it at Vladivostok). Can you name any good source for this? This would be really welcome!

REPLY: In the Russian I found a description of its date of formation (30 July 1945), its commander, and its location (Chita), along with some details (e.g. the creation of a Political Committee organic to the command). In English in Nomanhan I found a map giving the location as Khabarovsk after the beginning of August Storm - only a few days later. It may have formed and then moved by rail.

Trans Baikal MD HQ was either at Ulan-Ude or at Chita in 1941. Sources disagree about its actual location. Have placed it at Ulan-Ude.

REPLY: I think Ulan-Ude is a good guess too - and I think we need such a HQ - so I am going to sacrifice something to get one. It can be a 109 type HQ without being a theater HQ.

[el cid again]

Query: IJA intel believed that four of the "infantry divisions" in the Soviet Far East were "motorized." One - the 36th - had been identified as motorized in Mongolia before 1938. Any idea what the others were? Or if the intel appreciation was correct? Also - what does "motorized" mean? I assume artillery and support are motorized - but the infantry walks. Does it ride? Similarly - in 1941 there are three armored divisions (later disbanded) - in the Far East. By breaking them into armored brigades and infantry regiment, it does not matter they didn't stay one formation. But is that motorized infantry a riding formation?

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

For Soviets we have a totally re writted OOB and TOE and hardcoded routines like the convert to Corps are now removed.

So the Russian corps units will arrive as reinforcements now? Instead of the old upgrade system?

Yes, that is: The forces that were transferred from Europe in 1945 for Autumn Storm arrive in 1945. Forces that were formed in the Far East 1942-45 arrive as reinforcements at the dates they were formed (and forces that were transferred to Europe 1942-45 are withdrawn at the historical transfer dates).

Can the date of withdrawal be set using the editor?