Matrix Games Forums

The IJA was in transition in 1941/1942, as was the US Army. Just how to change was not entirely clear and the subject of major debates. For Japan there were also issues of what equipment could be afforded? IJA more or less followed French doctrine on tanks, which is they were infantry support vehicles, except to the extent Gen Yamashita had a following for his proposal (actually implemented) to create an independent tank corps (he actually formed it in Manchukuo late in 1942 - the corps having tank divisions as components). IRL the closest thing the Japanese evolved to a combined arms formation was an "independent mixed brigade" (confusing because the term had different meanings at different times) which had an organic tank battalion. The first of these formed about the time PTO erupted into general war - and Yamashita's proposal for a tank corps was also written in 1941 (after visiting the Eastern Front on the German side of the lines).

In RHSEOS we have moved Gen Yamashita up one level and put him in charge of the Southern Area offensive, including its planning. We assume he formed a committee just like he did IRL for Malaya - and we assume that committee was just as combined arms and joint as the one headed by Col Tsuji IRL was. [The whole EOS concept is based on what few changes that committee might be able to make in the period between mobilization in July 1941 and Dec 1941] One new concept I am introducing (for a technical reason - this is a rationalization of why it might have happened) is a combination of semi-motorized division and the Independent Mixed Brigade concept: specifically we take a semi-motorized division formation and attach a tank "regiment" (battalion) to it.

The REASON for this change is that code does not treat things the same if they are attachments. In particular, it is hard to get it to load a division and a tank regiment on a convoy - but the SAME number of squads as one unit are not a problem!

We also are taking the opportunity to reduce unit count: each such reinforced division comes at the price of a tank regiment that is 9999ed out. We have four cases:

a) 5th Division - combined with 14th Tank Regiment. This is a special case - it has too many MMG (as IRL) which eventually will attrit to normal - and it is the shining offensive unit of the Malay campaign. It really was supported by tanks - but they were not organic.

b) 48th Division - combined with 4th Tank Regiment.
c) 16th Division - combined with 7th Tank Regiment.

These two were the main divisional formations in the Philippines (unless 65th Brigade is also a division - a wierd case) -
and they really were supported by those two tank formations.

d) 54th Division - combined with 8th Tank Regiment. This is the major formation of the plan to conquer Oahu - and it has a problem: if it does get used for that it probably won't survive. But unless it has integrated armor it won't be able to load up in a way to even try.

On a smaller scale, we have made all the Independent Mixed Brigades have a tank company (eventually they will grow a whole battalion, but at first many had no tanks at all) - and we killed a number of independent tank companies to be able to do it. This frees slots, reduces the humangous management of units problem slightly, but more important, it permits the units to load better.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

... code does not treat things the same if they are attachments. In particular, it is hard to get it to load a division and a tank regiment on a convoy - but the SAME number of squads as one unit are not a problem!

Absolutely - even though the screen allows you to select multiple units to load on a single convoy that only works reliably for loading aircraft. When loading LCU's things get all messed up if you load more than one to a TF. For a human player the technique is to load each unit in a separate TF and then combine them before departing.

RHSEOS is your purely fictional scenario, isn't it?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

... code does not treat things the same if they are attachments. In particular, it is hard to get it to load a division and a tank regiment on a convoy - but the SAME number of squads as one unit are not a problem!

Absolutely - even though the screen allows you to select multiple units to load on a single convoy that only works reliably for loading aircraft. When loading LCU's things get all messed up if you load more than one to a TF. For a human player the technique is to load each unit in a separate TF and then combine them before departing.

Actualy, it's quite simple. I've been doint it routinely for about two and a half years now; so many others.

Alll you have to do is be aware of individual LCU load costs and the capacities of your transports and "load only" with a 25% safety factor. If you are unable to do that, your separate TF idea is probably best.

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

RHSEOS is your purely fictional scenario, isn't it?

Not exactly. I say the other scenarios are "strictly historical".

RHS scenarios fall into two "families" CVO (Carrier Oriented) and BBO (Battleship Oriented)

Each "family" has a version with the Russians Active (RAO for the CVO set; BBO for the BBO set)

and a version with the Russians Passive (RPO for the BBO set; CVO for the CVO set)

and a version with "extra" political points (PPO for the BBO set; EOS for the CVO set).

[Note that the points are not entirely "extra" - instead many units are assigned home commands and the points that in other scenarios were de facto spent are not available for players to spend - to send to the same or a different scenario]

The CVO set is based primarily on the war as it occurred - and this includes EOS -
while the BBO set is based more on the war as it was planned (and by both sides) - both before the war
and early in the war. This is indicated by things like orders for ships, or building factories like Boeing Renton for
gigantic flying boat production.

EOS (Empire of the Sun) is an implementation of a concept first proposed (to me) by Joe Wilkerson: a "Japan enhansed scenario." I elected to go a very conservative road historically speaking: literally everything is based on something.
I reassigned some of the political players - in particular the three generals who were the triumverate behind the government when the war began (including Gen Sugiama, Army Chief of Staff), Gen Yamashita and Gen Tojo (the at first figurehead who managed eventually to take over power from the triumverate, before falling from grace and power).
Now each of these men were passionate and talented in some respects - Tojo for example was the most air minded leader of the IJA and a former head of the JAAF's technical development (similar to the way Adm Yamamoto had once been in charge of JNAF technical development). Tojo also had headed the Kempetai in Kwangtung Army at the time that army was in de facto rebellion. But more interestingly for me, he believed in the Pan East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere - a movement that was widely popular in the Foreign Ministry, among academics and intellectuals, and the educated public - but which was never permitted to exist in its theoretical form because the IJA insisted on managing it. Putting a General in charge who BELIEVED in "Asia for the Asiatics" means more genuine cooperation with Asian Axis allies - and that is required for any sustained war effort. [IRL Japan turned most of its genuine admirers and would be allies into enemies by the behaviors of IJA in particular and the Kempetai - which strictly speaking isn't IJA - since it has naval elements and since its officers - but not enlisted men - are a different branch whose main job is policing the military] Anyway -
a key problem is that Tojo felt threatened by Yamashita, and tried to sideline him - and indeed DID sideline him after Malaya (he returned to front line command after Tojo fell). Yamashita was the only great captain in IJA, its leading advocate of armor, but most of all - an apostle of joint planning and joint operations. Putting Yamashita in place of Count Teruchi means that the Southern Area Offensive is planned by the committee that IRL did Malaya - "Japan's Greatest Victory" (first half of the title of a book by the head of the committee, Col Tsuji).

EOS assumes NO changes exist until about the time of mobilization (July 1941) - at which time the deck is shuffeled and the planning committee is formed. The biggest change is that the Army and Navy may share aircraft types. This happened IRL, but was the exception rather than the rule. In EOS - it is common - and players can push it further many times (but not always - there are still restrictions on joint use). Otherwise, things are merely logical: why produce obsolete 76mm AA guns when the best 76 mm AA gun in the world was in limited production from 1938? Same for 100 mm AA guns? [I mean exactly the same - the best in the world was in limited production from 1938?] The best light tank in the world was not put in production until 1942 - yet it was available for production from 1939. The list is long - and we just do the logical thing - logistically and operationally speaking. This is the "what if Japan didn't defeat itself" scenario?
Japan has formidable advantages of central lines of communications, vast distances from its enemies bases of military and economic power, the de facto political support of most people in Asia (who don't like colonialism), and a number of superb technologies as well as many adequate technologies: it failed to organize these assets properly. Plans to build escorts were not implemented. Plans to build tanks and trucks were not implemented, and indeed automotive factories were converted to making aircraft: this was eventually reversed. But what it it didn't have to be reversed? Nothing in EOS is radically different - except the extent to which Japan was divided against itself and tended to turn its supporters into enemies by behaviors that were unwise. [It is not well known, but just as Adolf Hitler eventually repealed the Commisar Law as counterproductive, so Japan repealed many laws and practices because they were hurting its war effort. Some of these changes - notably ending extraterritoriality in China - were things invented by Europeans and they never changed back again. Impressed labor was banned, confisgated property (of Chinese, not Westerners) was returned, etc.] These changes must be moderate - because for one thing I lack the slots to outfit vast numbers of Axis Allied units - and because many of their impacts are not measurable in game terms.

In my view, nations most often lose wars, and rarely win them. In EOS, the situation is a toss up - Japan is so outweighed it should still lose - but bad enough play can allow it to win (if the Allies defeat themselves). Needless to say, Japan can still defeat itself - and lose. And if neither does - it may result in a draw.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

... code does not treat things the same if they are attachments. In particular, it is hard to get it to load a division and a tank regiment on a convoy - but the SAME number of squads as one unit are not a problem!

Absolutely - even though the screen allows you to select multiple units to load on a single convoy that only works reliably for loading aircraft. When loading LCU's things get all messed up if you load more than one to a TF. For a human player the technique is to load each unit in a separate TF and then combine them before departing.

Actualy, it's quite simple. I've been doint it routinely for about two and a half years now; so many others.

Alll you have to do is be aware of individual LCU load costs and the capacities of your transports and "load only" with a 25% safety factor. If you are unable to do that, your separate TF idea is probably best.

For a very large unit - say a division - a 25 ship TF is not large enough to load the whole thing - never mind with a 25% surplus. On top of which, if you use large capacity ships, you are doing the opposite of what makes sense for a landing: landings need to be made by many small ships - both to spread the risk when you lose a ship - and to reduce the cost of shipping lost. I am, however, running tests on using a different formation - that is mission type - to see if it helps? And for INITIAL operations, code will allow greater than 25 ship TFs to be specified - which I didn't understand when I first did this. You don't get the dreaded "greater than 25 ship" message if you form the TF before the game begins. [Never mind a real TF might have hundreds of ships - we can't]

Another forthcoming change: IRL the "South Seas Detachment" was more or less alone - a tiny Army contribution to the war in the Great Ocean Area - when the war began. But mid way through the war, five similar formations (with numbers - including a number 1 ) were added. These regimental combat teams were meant to be light and mobile (the first was in fact bicycle infantry) and had somewhat high end equipment (105mm vice 75mm Field Guns) - and in spite of being called "regiment" the commander was a General. These units are all called Nanyo in RHS - the real Japanese word for "south seas" and also a shorter word to use in a name. The first one was really the 144th regiment detached from its division - and it has a dual name in RHS.

My fictional planning committee decided that if the Empire is going to run a successful offensive, a number of new units that form up in 1942 should be clones of the original Nanyo Detachment - and these are given numbers (whereas the original one is not). But these numbers start with 2. [IRL the later Nanyo Detachments didn't need to worry about confusion as the first had been wiped out in New Guinea.] Aside from a lack of slots, IRL a lack of men and weapons mean these cannot be truly extra units - so they replace various Independent Infantry Regiments or Brigades. Ultimately you get 12 of them. Think of these units as "baby independent infantry brigades which cannot divide" - or "gigantic Combined SNLFs" - single point units bigger than one battalion (SNLF or NGF) sized units - also bigger than two battalion (CSNLF) units - but not as heavy to lift as a full independent mixed brigade or a division is. [An independent infantry brigade is a different creature: it is about the same weight - but it can divide - and it is meant to defend some moderately important point. A Nanyo unit is an offensive unit - meant to take a defended point that is not heavily fortified or defended by major units.]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: witpqs



Absolutely - even though the screen allows you to select multiple units to load on a single convoy that only works reliably for loading aircraft. When loading LCU's things get all messed up if you load more than one to a TF. For a human player the technique is to load each unit in a separate TF and then combine them before departing.

Actualy, it's quite simple. I've been doint it routinely for about two and a half years now; so many others.

Alll you have to do is be aware of individual LCU load costs and the capacities of your transports and "load only" with a 25% safety factor. If you are unable to do that, your separate TF idea is probably best.

For a very large unit - say a division - a 25 ship TF is not large enough to load the whole thing - never mind with a 25% surplus. On top of which, if you use large capacity ships, you are doing the opposite of what makes sense for a landing: landings need to be made by many small ships - both to spread the risk when you lose a ship - and to reduce the cost of shipping lost. I am, however, running tests on using a different formation - that is mission type - to see if it helps? And for INITIAL operations, code will allow greater than 25 ship TFs to be specified - which I didn't understand when I first did this. You don't get the dreaded "greater than 25 ship" message if you form the TF before the game begins. [Never mind a real TF might have hundreds of ships - we can't]

Wow, didn't know that. I usually use an 18 ship, single TF, mix of Jackson's, Crescent City's, Harris' and Heywoods, to load a MarDiv, Raider Bn, Def Bn, and EAB; one stop shopping at SD about two months into a scenario. It's one of my normal, don't even think about it, moves. Done it maybe 15 - 20 times now. I also stuff two Matson-type and four Grace-type passenger liners with 2 eng regts, a base force and an RCT in SFO in about March, '42. Not always, but at least 7-10 times now.

If you are playing RHS, you can use multiple ship units to increase the load capacity and de facto ship count. This in particular applies to LCIs, LCT/LSMs (different names for the same thing), and - sometimes - other things (like say a junk group, a dhou group, etc). In effect we have added thousands of smaller ships - and these matter because they are harder to sink than a smaller number of large ships are. The same thing applies to both sides - except that the economy of scale is quite different for the Allies. [Japan has no LCIs as such either, and if they were early to build LSTs and similar vessels, or even first to build an AGC, they get far too few of any of them]

Yet another revision for EOS only is a change in the priority and availability of Amphibious Brigades. Japan continued to develop amphibious doctrine and organization during the war - but this rather well concieved formation was too late to see the offensive service it was designed for - and apparently only two such formations were created. Leadership by the combined arms oriented Yamashita is (in EOS) - and the joint planning committee (truly joint, it not only combines Army and Navy, but merchant marine officers, intelligence officers and the special operations Nakano School officers) - is assumed to have resulted in a sooner implementation of this concept. IJA gets the Nanyo RCT mostly in 1942 (plus the one they start with); it gets the Amphibious Brigades in 1943 - more of them than IRL (at the expense of independent infantry brigades) - and deceptively numbered (using typical IJA patterns) to make it unclear to the Allies exactly how many there may be?

Some aspects of this organization are not modeled. For this formation IJA went over to a different type of squad, and we don't have that in the data set. But other aspects are modeled: it had an admirable number of 81mm mortars and thought was given to mobility of direct support artillery. Instead of old, heavy, obsolescent field guns, this organization got the newest of the Mountain guns - guns that were light and even could be manpacked (in 11 loads). It was an interesting concept which in the event never was used in its intended role - as indeed also happened to many of the ships designed to lift it (they being converted to kaiten carriers or used for supply runs rather than assault landings).

ORIGINAL: JWE

Actualy, it's quite simple. I've been doint it routinely for about two and a half years now; so many others.

Alll you have to do is be aware of individual LCU load costs and the capacities of your transports and "load only" with a 25% safety factor. If you are unable to do that, your separate TF idea is probably best.

When I started playing WITP (a couple months after release in '04) I tried it just the way the manual says. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn't - and that was with a 50% load factor (i.e. LCU's add up to 15,000, use TF with 30,000 capacity). After much frustration and discussing it with moderators, I went to the single TF per LCU to keep my sanity.

They've made a bunch of changes since then, so maybe it works better. I've also learned a bit more about the way sizes are calculated - sometimes they are a bit off. And, multiple LCU's cannot be on board the same ship. If you have some large devices (like radars) which will only fit on certain of the ships, that's a further complication in how the load needs to breakdown among the ships. With all that said, that's why I just stick with one to one now and then combine them when the loading is done.

You write as a player. But a modder wants to come up with something that works WITHOUT a player - if one side is handed over to the AI. Very hard to do. But for the Japanese side, it is necessary and barely possible.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You write as a player. But a modder wants to come up with something that works WITHOUT a player - if one side is handed over to the AI. Very hard to do. But for the Japanese side, it is necessary and barely possible.

I disagree. Loading one LCU in one TF works all the time. Loading multiple LCU's in one TF sometimes fails. A player can deal with that, the AI can't. For the AI my advice is 'always load one LCU per TF'. There will be no combining, the the TF's will just have to sail as is.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: JWE

Actualy, it's quite simple. I've been doint it routinely for about two and a half years now; so many others.

Alll you have to do is be aware of individual LCU load costs and the capacities of your transports and "load only" with a 25% safety factor. If you are unable to do that, your separate TF idea is probably best.

When I started playing WITP (a couple months after release in '04) I tried it just the way the manual says. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn't - and that was with a 50% load factor (i.e. LCU's add up to 15,000, use TF with 30,000 capacity). After much frustration and discussing it with moderators, I went to the single TF per LCU to keep my sanity.

They've made a bunch of changes since then, so maybe it works better. I've also learned a bit more about the way sizes are calculated - sometimes they are a bit off. And, multiple LCU's cannot be on board the same ship. If you have some large devices (like radars) which will only fit on certain of the ships, that's a further complication in how the load needs to breakdown among the ships. With all that said, that's why I just stick with one to one now and then combine them when the loading is done.

That's probably a very good approach. Although we pump a lot of stuff out of ConUS in multiple LCU TFs (just don't understand why it doesn't work for you; works for us over all upgrades and over 2 years; I'd like to see a savegame, maybe I can suggest a fix), we usually articulate assaults into TransDivs (3 APAs, 2 AKAs, mostly, sometimes 2 APAs, but rarely) that lift an RCT, or equivalent, plus a share of DivAdmin and attachments.

It's been a long time since I tried it. Maybe it does work better now.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: el cid again

You write as a player. But a modder wants to come up with something that works WITHOUT a player - if one side is handed over to the AI. Very hard to do. But for the Japanese side, it is necessary and barely possible.

I disagree. Loading one LCU in one TF works all the time. Loading multiple LCU's in one TF sometimes fails. A player can deal with that, the AI can't. For the AI my advice is 'always load one LCU per TF'. There will be no combining, the the TF's will just have to sail as is.

You seem to look at things from an Allied point of view. The Japanese lack the escorts to make a lot of TFs - so following your formula would force them to (a) run unescorted or (b) run without even minimally adequate escort. ONLY IF the number of TF is small is there any reasonable alternative. And if we don't escort even to Japanese standards, we are not simulating anything. Loading one LCU is not how things work IRL - and should not be the norm in the game. I am not happy about having to deal with this matter: I think code should be up to it. I want two different forms of loading - transport and assault too. The latter spreads everything out - and is about half as efficient.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: JWE

Actualy, it's quite simple. I've been doint it routinely for about two and a half years now; so many others.

Alll you have to do is be aware of individual LCU load costs and the capacities of your transports and "load only" with a 25% safety factor. If you are unable to do that, your separate TF idea is probably best.

When I started playing WITP (a couple months after release in '04) I tried it just the way the manual says. Sometimes it worked, and sometimes it didn't - and that was with a 50% load factor (i.e. LCU's add up to 15,000, use TF with 30,000 capacity). After much frustration and discussing it with moderators, I went to the single TF per LCU to keep my sanity.

They've made a bunch of changes since then, so maybe it works better. I've also learned a bit more about the way sizes are calculated - sometimes they are a bit off. And, multiple LCU's cannot be on board the same ship. If you have some large devices (like radars) which will only fit on certain of the ships, that's a further complication in how the load needs to breakdown among the ships. With all that said, that's why I just stick with one to one now and then combine them when the loading is done.

That's probably a very good approach. Although we pump a lot of stuff out of ConUS in multiple LCU TFs (just don't understand why it doesn't work for you; works for us over all upgrades and over 2 years; I'd like to see a savegame, maybe I can suggest a fix), we usually articulate assaults into TransDivs (3 APAs, 2 AKAs, mostly, sometimes 2 APAs, but rarely) that lift an RCT, or equivalent, plus a share of DivAdmin and attachments.

There are several orders of problems in WITP loading, one of which we are only slightly able to address:

a) Combat loading. ALL ships have TWO (or even more) standards of loading - combat loading being very much less efficient and with smaller loads per ship. All I can do in RHS is make true amphibious ships and craft - so far only those that beach - have the cargo rating for combat assault - while other ships have the cargo rating for transport. That means that (1) an LST (or whatever) transporting is not lifting what it could/should and (2) that an AP (or whatever) is lifting too much when it does an assault landing;

b) The kinds of numbers of ships you are stating above imply you are not in sync with this thread's issues - which is about attaching units to divisions to do a truly major assault landing. While it is widely stated Japan could not do this, in fact they did even before WWII as we recognize it (only if the War of Resistence is WWII is it "during the war" - and it is years before we usually say PTO erupted into war). Japan had the first built to purpose major amphibious landing ship acting as something like an LHA off Shanghai for a NAVAL infantry landing of DIVISIONAL scale in the 1930s.* It did an opposed landing against divisional scale opposition at Kota Bahru in 1941. It planned - and stood up three divisions (not counting smaller units assigned) - to invade Oahu itself (the operation not occuring because of what we call the Battle of Midway).
I need to simulate the ability to lift major units together for an assault landing - and I won't be able to do it with 3 APAs and 2 AKAs - and not just because Japan has no AKAs or APAs as such (although in a sense every ship was designed for use in either role) - but because the amount being lifted requires many more ships.

c) Assault landings should be done by smaller (or medium and smaller) sized vessels - and if you do not use large vessels - you cannot lift a major formation without an excessive number of ships.

d) Wether or not you believe in Japanese major landing operations, you simply must believe in major Allied ones - if the Allies are to have a shot at driving the Japanese back. So the need to have real task forces with divisions and heavy attachments is vital to WITP. I noticed that we made things like nominally attached tank units organic for the Allies - so it seems to be a solution already in place.

All these are real problems - and all of them need to be addressed to fulfill my design goals. Until we get better code to work with, we need to manipulate data and anything else we can.

* I am trying to say a naval infantry landing - not army infantry landing - of division size. You might call it a Grand Naval Langing Force. There were problems, but the operation was opposed, if ineffectively, by a much larger force. The landing at Kota also involved significant problems - ships being badly mauled - troops unable to reach the beach and forced to swim ashore with partial equipment - organize in darkness - and assault superior forces in fortified positions. They still pulled it off - although it was in doubt for some hours.

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There are several orders of problems in WITP loading, one of which we are only slightly able to address:

a) Combat loading. ALL ships have TWO (or even more) standards of loading - combat loading being very much less efficient and with smaller loads per ship. All I can do in RHS is make true amphibious ships and craft - so far only those that beach - have the cargo rating for combat assault - while other ships have the cargo rating for transport. That means that (1) an LST (or whatever) transporting is not lifting what it could/should and (2) that an AP (or whatever) is lifting too much when it does an assault landing;

Quite true, Combat loads usualy give you 60%-80% of potential Cargo Deadweight in long or metric tons. Combat loading does come very close in Bale Cubic capacity, understanding of course that the Block Volumetric of a truck is about 25% greater than its physical Bale Volumetric, and that military planners and cargo masters used Block and Measurement Tons as their allocation bases.

However, there is only one load routine in the game. The manual is quite specific (and quite accurate) as to how various "device [types]" are accounted for, with respect to "ship [type]". I would love a 'combat load' routine, but for now, it isn't there.

b) The kinds of numbers of ships you are stating above imply you are not in sync with this thread's issues - which is about attaching units to divisions to do a truly major assault landing. While it is widely stated Japan could not do this, in fact they did even before WWII as we recognize it (only if the War of Resistence is WWII is it "during the war" - and it is years before we usually say PTO erupted into war). Japan had the first built to purpose major amphibious landing ship acting as something like an LHA off Shanghai for a NAVAL infantry landing of DIVISIONAL scale in the 1930s.* It did an opposed landing against divisional scale opposition at Kota Bahru in 1941. It planned - and stood up three divisions (not counting smaller units assigned) - to invade Oahu itself (the operation not occuring because of what we call the Battle of Midway).
I need to simulate the ability to lift major units together for an assault landing - and I won't be able to do it with 3 APAs and 2 AKAs - and not just because Japan has no AKAs or APAs as such (although in a sense every ship was designed for use in either role) - but because the amount being lifted requires many more ships.

That could be so. I don't know how you name your transports. My transports are named according to USN convention and the data is from my own mod; a transport/merchant mod (if you will) off CHS 2.08.

Shouldn't matter though, since the "name" is not the "thing", and since the executable code treats a Japanese AP precisely like a US AP; the load routines are nondenominational. My imperitives, as an Allied player, are a bit different; I want to load and lift a combat unit, an eng unit, a base force, and maybe some air, for several intermediate bases in early '42. I also want to load and lift a pocket corps, or two, to NZ and OZ, as quickly as possible, without regard to assault (moving to stage areas).

My Japanese opponents have a slightly different imperitive, in that they need to offload/assault quickly and efficiently, early war. Utilizing the 2/42 bonus is entirely reasonable. Because of their offload requirements, my JP friends use a different load paradigm, however, I am reliably informed that a single Transport TF can load a 'hot' Brigade, a tank Regt (Bn), a Mort Bn, and a base force (as of 12/18/41), and has been able to do so for the past year.

c) Assault landings should be done by smaller (or medium and smaller) sized vessels - and if you do not use large vessels - you cannot lift a major formation without an excessive number of ships.

Not sure I understand this. If you are talking game, then sure; 5000 rowboats will offload a division in 1 turn. while 20 transports will take 3-4 game turns to unload (depending on where and how they were loaded).

If you are talking generally, you are of course entitled to your opinion, but there is no military establishment, that I am aware of (NA, SA, EU, Rus, CH, SEA, SA, JP), that thinks this.

d) Wether or not you believe in Japanese major landing operations, you simply must believe in major Allied ones - if the Allies are to have a shot at driving the Japanese back. So the need to have real task forces with divisions and heavy attachments is vital to WITP. I noticed that we made things like nominally attached tank units organic for the Allies - so it seems to be a solution already in place.

Not sure what this means; of course I believe in major landing operations. SoCal Wargamers has always been able to define real task forces with divisions and heavy attachments for both sides, without making anything organic. Good for you for putting a solution in place.

All these are real problems - and all of them need to be addressed to fulfill my design goals. Until we get better code to work with, we need to manipulate data and anything else we can.

* I am trying to say a naval infantry landing - not army infantry landing - of division size. You might call it a Grand Naval Langing Force. There were problems, but the operation was opposed, if ineffectively, by a much larger force. The landing at Kota also involved significant problems - ships being badly mauled - troops unable to reach the beach and forced to swim ashore with partial equipment - organize in darkness - and assault superior forces in fortified positions. They still pulled it off - although it was in doubt for some hours.

OK, and ?

What I did for true landing ships and craft - those that beach - was rate them for beaching load - vice transport load. Other ships are rated at transport load - and make no allowance for either combat loading or spaces lost when you use an AK or AP as an AKA or APA. In effect, each type of ship/craft is rated for its primary mission. And by combining smaller craft and landing ships into groups, we get lots more of them represented (and still freed up slots). Many of those slots became LSTs for the Allies, which were about half absent.