Aussie construction??

[m10bob]

As soon as the war starts, the Allies have an immediate need for construction in Australia, but seemingly have to wait FOREVER to get construction going.
IRL, the Allies did have this problem ,but one group came together to start building airfields for MacArthur, a civilian organisation called the Queensland Road Company, civilian contractors with a patriotic bent who realized the enemy was approaching their own doorstep.
Why can this civilian unit not be included in game for the defense of Australia proper?

Source: Fire In The Sky..Eric Bergerud

http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-con ... vil-cc.htm

"The Civil Constructional Corps & The Civil Aliens Corps


The badge of the CCC The Civilian Service Medal 1939/45 was instituted partly to recognise the service of the CCC & CAC
The need for labour in wartime
One of the most pressing demands on Australia during World War II was for the construction of infrastructure and communications works, such as port facilities, aerodromes, fuel depots, roads and bridges. Commonwealth expenditure on works increased from £2 000 000 in the year preceding the outbreak of war to £32 000 000 in 1941–42.

Extensive runway development took place during the Second World War years, constructed by authorities such as RAAF and U.S. Army construction units, the Civil Construction Corps, Commonwealth Works Department, State Road Departments and local Councils. The methods and materials used were understandably directed towards speed of construction rather than permanence. Nevertheless, some 138 runways were of permanent value and formed the basis for the development of an airport network throughout Australia.

In February 1942 the Allied Works Council (CA 497) was created to take responsibility for carrying out all works required for war purposes by the Allied forces in Australia. Edward Granville Theodore, a former Premier of Queensland (1919–25) and Federal Treasurer (1929–31) was appointed Director-General of the Council.

Establishment of the Civil Constructional Corps
The major difficulty faced by the Allied Works Council was the supply of labour. In March 1942 the War Cabinet accepted a recommendation from Theodore for the creation of a Civil Constructional Corps (CCC), which would undertake war-related construction projects within Australia.

The Corps was formed as a civilian rather than military organisation and comprised volunteers and persons called up under military impressments. Given the wartime climate and the range of powers given to the Director-General, the Corps operated under a more rigid discipline than would be normal industrial practice. While members’ pay was based on civilian award rates, they could not refuse work and were subject to regulations governing their conduct on the job and to the orders of the Director-General for maintaining good order at works or in camps.

By June 1943 some 66 000 men had sought enrolment in the Corps of whom 53 500 were selected as medically fit and suitable. Of these, 8 500 had volunteered, 28 000 had already been working on Allied Works Council jobs at the time of enrolment and about 17 000 had been called up for service. Most were over 35 years of age. The major occupational categories were labourers, carpenters and truck drivers.

Members of the Corps were sent to all parts of Australia to work on projects such as docks, aerodromes, roads, gun emplacements, hospitals, fuel storage depots, pipelines and factories."

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Why can this civilian unit not be included in game for the defense of Australia proper?

I assume such groups are not included as there is nothing stopping a player - apart from house rules, which do not cover the AI - from moving them to other areas of the map, which would be ahistorical. I think it would be good to include some sort of functionality to cover assets such as these, however.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Why can this civilian unit not be included in game for the defense of Australia proper?

I assume such groups are not included as there is nothing stopping a player - apart from house rules, which do not cover the AI - from moving them to other areas of the map, which would be ahistorical. I think it would be good to include some sort of functionality to cover assets such as these, however.

Houserule or pricing barrier??

[Bliztk]

Add more engineers to the Static Fortress already in place....

[Jo van der Pluym]

Or made these Engineers attached to a restricted HQ.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Add more engineers to the Static Fortress already in place....

That would prevent misuse alright, but would limit them to just one location.
Obvoiously any "misuse"(movement off of Australia) would be monitored by the opponent, yes??From the above thread, I feel at least one mobile engineer unit is needed.
IMHO, it is jsut what the doctor ordered to get to those new RHS bases of Winton, Longreach, Iron Range,etc..
Of course, it will still take time to develop, but an entire nation just sitting there solely dependent on military organisation with scads of construction engineers loitering is just not practical, is it??[:)]

[Bliztk]

Here the problem are the slots, if we were operating in an ideal world (i.e unlimited slots) you could use the slots using a name like 1st AUS QRC ENG and having them with the restricted Australia Command, thus AI would not send abroad, and a house rule like the one already in place for the Militia Divs for Australia could be in place.

The problem here, is that we don´t have many free slots, for the next RHS update I`m going to try to free several slots (parent formations that only have one formation pointing to it), so maybe we can use the dual approach of using already exisiting slots+new ones

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Here the problem are the slots, if we were operating in an ideal world (i.e unlimited slots) you could use the slots using a name like 1st AUS QRC ENG and having them with the restricted Australia Command, thus AI would not send abroad, and a house rule like the one already in place for the Militia Divs for Australia could be in place.

The problem here, is that we don´t have many free slots, for the next RHS update I`m going to try to free several slots (parent formations that only have one formation pointing to it), so maybe we can use the dual approach of using already exisiting slots+new ones

I like that!!

[el cid again]

I regard this idea as not applicable to RHS based mods because of the nature of RHS supply sinks. These are static engineer units at many locations - including all important locations. These formations include some proper construction engineers and three times as many engineers of a different sort who also contribute to construction/demolition operations. They also include much larger numbers of support squads. [The algorithm is cube root of the number of squads = engineers, three times that number = labor or field hand squads - which are more or less combat engineers of almost no combat firepower value] Rarely supply sinks may have a few aviation support squads as well. Anyway - civilian contractors were a big deal in many situations (see for example Manila in The Philippine Army). In RHS we concieve of these as providing support and engineer services at all important points - and don't need to have another unit representing them.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
Or made these Engineers attached to a restricted HQ.

They should definitely be assigned that way, but I am not convinced that doing this would permanently prevent the AI from taking them and shipping them elsewhere at some point during the game.

[el cid again]

If you use the static device (by whatever name) then Andrew is right. I had big time problems with both the static device - and naval guns assigned load values of 9999 (= static) - before concluding the ONLY way to get a truly static unit was to classify it as a Coast Defense Unit AND as a Fort. Thus an independent supply sink (as opposed to a small supply sink added to a static unit - usually a real coast defense unit) is called "name of location industrial fort" - so it really is static.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If you use the static device (by whatever name) then Andrew is right.

I would not make such units static. That would defeat their purpose, I think. They should be free to move around and do the things such civilian organisations did during the war, such as help build airfields, ports etc. The problem is how to prevent them from being shipped overseas.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If you use the static device (by whatever name) then Andrew is right.

I would not make such units static. That would defeat their purpose, I think. They should be free to move around and do the things such civilian organisations did during the war, such as help build airfields, ports etc. The problem is how to prevent them from being shipped overseas.

Totally agree..The narrative that I read (forcing me to this conclusion) was that the Allies needed new airbases, immediately, but had no military organisation in Australia to build them.
The nation did not want to endanger their civilian populace, and even relocated some of them from Northern Australia, but, civilian construction groups (like the aforementioned Queensland group went north on their own and went to work building those strips..They were not tied down to one area, but remained mobile.
There are house rules for all else, why not this as well, or over-pricing to prevent misuse,whatever?
Can a unit be limited to stay off of ships and maybe confined to railroads??

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
There are house rules for all else, why not this as well, or over-pricing to prevent misuse,whatever?
Can a unit be limited to stay off of ships and maybe confined to railroads??

I am not a fan of House rules, but they should be sufficient for PBEM play. As long as the AI does not decide to start shipping them to the front line. Having them in a restricted command is a big help, but I do not know how much an impediment restricted command assignment is to the AI.

Another point however, at least in relation to CHS, is that it is not designed to be played with Allied AI, so maybe the AI problems are not such a big concern. CHS is supposed to be playable vs a Japanese AI, so adding equivalent Japanese units could cause problems. But, as a counterpoint to that - who really cares if the WitP AI gets a bit of a boost?

Maybe this is worth considering more seriously after all. Too bad my "to do" list is very long at the moment and not getting any shorter...

[wdolson]

Just a thought on this.  If these units were assigned to ANZAC restricted headquarters and were loaded with lots of support, they would be extremely expensive to change to an unrestricted command.  They would offer the benefit of extra support to any other units in the same hex, but generally, it would make it an extremely expensive proposition to change the unit's headquarters.  That should discourage players from moving them out of Australia.

I like the idea.  It does take prohibitively long to get the bases in Northern Australia built up. 

Bill

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If you use the static device (by whatever name) then Andrew is right.

I would not make such units static. That would defeat their purpose, I think. They should be free to move around and do the things such civilian organisations did during the war, such as help build airfields, ports etc. The problem is how to prevent them from being shipped overseas.

I see it differently. I think something needs to distinguish civil assets from military units. In my view a military unit is free for a commander to send - wherever. Civil units are tied to local infrastructures, and often their families and even laws (over a certain age you are not usually allowed in a military unit; certain physical conditions as well; yet you can continue to be whatever you are professionally). So I use static as a way to give players civil capabilities that explicitly do not move. The Empire Flying boats were important 1942 patrol and transport assets. These existed in small numbers with bases of operations. At those bases, one off map (does not count), one in Ceylon (I think) and one in Australia, you get civil aviation support squads. You CAN move the planes to ANY place you wish - they will then get supported by the local military aviation support. But you can NOT move the aviation support assets. You also can refuel and rearm anything at those civil bases - even if no military unit is present. That sort of thing. Since RHS has civil support assets of the engineering sort at every important point, that means that you can call on them to build at any important point. But they won't go off into the jungle for you. Since these units have lots of support - they draw nothing from military support elements - and military units defending on their hexes are also able to be supported to optimum (whatever they need) - simulating drawing on civilian trucks etc in local defense situations.

This approach at least has the merit that the civil support assets (of whatever kind) cannot be moved overseas or in to malarial jungles - and no need for a house rule to do so.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: el cid again
If you use the static device (by whatever name) then Andrew is right.

I would not make such units static. That would defeat their purpose, I think. They should be free to move around and do the things such civilian organisations did during the war, such as help build airfields, ports etc. The problem is how to prevent them from being shipped overseas.

Totally agree..The narrative that I read (forcing me to this conclusion) was that the Allies needed new airbases, immediately, but had no military organisation in Australia to build them.
The nation did not want to endanger their civilian populace, and even relocated some of them from Northern Australia, but, civilian construction groups (like the aforementioned Queensland group went north on their own and went to work building those strips..They were not tied down to one area, but remained mobile.
There are house rules for all else, why not this as well, or over-pricing to prevent misuse,whatever?
Can a unit be limited to stay off of ships and maybe confined to railroads??

This is much less of a problem when one has "civilian engineers" at all important locations already - as we do in RHS. Only undeveloped points are exempted. One must compromise somewhere. IF you make civil engineers mobile, THEN players (if only in ignorance) - and AI (always) WILL send them to inappropriate places.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Just a thought on this.  If these units were assigned to ANZAC restricted headquarters and were loaded with lots of support, they would be extremely expensive to change to an unrestricted command.  They would offer the benefit of extra support to any other units in the same hex, but generally, it would make it an extremely expensive proposition to change the unit's headquarters.  That should discourage players from moving them out of Australia.

I like the idea.  It does take prohibitively long to get the bases in Northern Australia built up. 

Bill

Really? Even if you move construction engineers and supplies to those places? Never noticed that. One Matrix programmer and experienced player says that construction in general is way too fast - and I have never noticed otherwise except where an airfield starts at level 0 - which I think is OK for that case.

[m10bob]

Concerning the ages of the early engineer units, I very recently read that even the earliest SeaBee units were made up of men up to mid-fifties because it was their experience that was need,(not unlike the Aussie units proposed here.)
With the harsh weather and hard work, these older folks did suffer attrition, and as the war progressed and the average age dropped, so did the experience level, and quality of work suffer.
FWIW, while the Australian units were retained as civilians, they laboured on, together, not unlike their military counterparts.
I think it proper they be remembered.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Just a thought on this. If these units were assigned to ANZAC restricted headquarters and were loaded with lots of support, they would be extremely expensive to change to an unrestricted command. They would offer the benefit of extra support to any other units in the same hex, but generally, it would make it an extremely expensive proposition to change the unit's headquarters. That should discourage players from moving them out of Australia.

I like the idea. It does take prohibitively long to get the bases in Northern Australia built up.

Bill

ORIGINAL: el cid again
Really? Even if you move construction engineers and supplies to those places? Never noticed that. One Matrix programmer and experienced player says that construction in general is way too fast - and I have never noticed otherwise except where an airfield starts at level 0 - which I think is OK for that case.

The problem is that Australia is very short of construction engineers in the first few months. You need to strip them from other areas. m10bob has identified civilian construction units that were active in Queensland early in the war. As I understand his desciption, it sounds like they were organized sort of like the Civilian Conservation Corps in the US. They went where they were needed, so they should be mobile, though tied to Australia. They were not locals who turned out to help build a base.

I believe that Allied engineer units work about as fast as they did in real life. Here is the story of the building of Portland Roads: http://www.answers.com/topic/iron-range-national-park

This story says that it took the 46th GS Engineer Regiment and the No 26 RAAF Base Unit 3 months to build up the base large enough to operate B-26s, which would be at least size 4 in game terms, probably size 5 or 6.

I happen to have two engineering units at Portland roads right now in the game I'm playing. They aren't the same two units. I believe it's two base forces with fewer engineers than the 46th GS Engineer unit. It just upgraded to port size 1 and airfield size 1 last night when I was playing. It took them 3-4 weeks game time to achieve that level. The location has lots of supply. I offloaded over 10,000 supply there when the units were unloaded there and one of the bases a little ways down the coast has over 100,000 supply.

I've been building Port Morsby since the game started and moved a couple of base forces into the base in early March or late Februrary, 1942. I'm to April 15, 1942 now and it's just now getting big enough to operate B-26s and B-25s without penalty. I believe by the Battle of Coral Sea, it was a major base operating B-17s. By mid-1942 I know it had extensive dispersement facilities for B-17s and operated several squadrons. In game terms, Port Morsby was probably to size 7 by then (even though 6 is the largest you can go in the game). The last 6 weeks of game time, I've probably had more engineers working there than in the real world, but the base is just now getting to the size it was by May, 42. I think it's a size 4 AB now.

Bases tend to build faster in the game because players concentrate their engineers more. The 1st CBs first assignment was to build a base on Luganville, or one of those islands in the South Pacific. The US had a lot of engineer units building a chain of bases through that region. A lot of air assets were based their too. Unless the Japanese have taken islands in that region, few Allied players bother to build up those bases. The engineer and air units that were historically based in that area end up on bases closer to the front lines.

The US had a tremendous number of aircraft on submarine patrol at all times. Building rear area bases for these aircraft was a priority in 1942. Engineer units were also at work throughout the Aleutians, which doesn't often happen in the game. To take back the Aleutians, the US built a chain of air bases from Dutch Harbor to Kiska. Few of these get built in the game unless the Aleutians end up hotly contested.

In India, the British were building bases all over the subcontinent. Many times those construction units get moved closer to the front, accellerating construction.

There probably should be some kind of limit to how many engineers can get crammed into a hex. At some point, they are going to get in each other's way rather than work together. The limit should be tied to the natural base size. You're going to max out the practical density of engineers on a 1 AB long before a 6 AB.

Bill