Page 1 of 3
motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 2:30 pm
by crsutton
Is all support just support or does motorized support give any advantage to the Allies who get quite a lot of it? If not, then motorized support is really just a major liability becuase it is much more difficult to transport.
It seems to me that motorized support would give Allied units better mobilty in certain terrain and certainly help supply flow along roads and tracks. However, this does not seem to be the case. Largely foot bound Japanese infantry units can move as fast and maintain supply flow over the same distances as any Allied infantry unit with loads of motorized support.
Am I missing something here? Are there hidden benefits to motorized support that I don't know about?
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:41 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: crsutton
Is all support just support or does motorized support give any advantage to the Allies who get quite a lot of it? If not, then motorized support is really just a major liability becuase it is much more difficult to transport.
It seems to me that motorized support would give Allied units better mobilty in certain terrain and certainly help supply flow along roads and tracks. However, this does not seem to be the case. Largely foot bound Japanese infantry units can move as fast and maintain supply flow over the same distances as any Allied infantry unit with loads of motorized support.
Am I missing something here? Are there hidden benefits to motorized support that I don't know about?
Isn't it required to get the Strat(road) movement bonus when in Strat mode but on a road and not a railroad?
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:48 pm
by Misconduct
I noticed Allies get strategic movement on roads if it has motorized support, japanese on the other hand have very few units with this kind of mobility.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:51 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
I noticed Allies get strategic movement on roads if it has motorized support, japanese on the other hand have very few units with this kind of mobility.
Only some Allies. US, UK, and Oz I think, and not all of them.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:53 pm
by Misconduct
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
I noticed Allies get strategic movement on roads if it has motorized support, japanese on the other hand have very few units with this kind of mobility.
Only some Allies. US, UK, and Oz I think, and not all of them.
Yeah, I believe it has to do with the amount of motorized support, let me check the manual.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 3:55 pm
by Charbroiled
So far I have found that motorized support are very good at making remnant units all over the place when the motorized support units are left behind during TF loading.[:D]
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:01 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
So far I have found that motorized support are very good at making remnant units all over the place when the motorized support units are left behind during TF loading.[:D]
I had the opposite problem. Bought out one of the early US divisions, got it safely to Noumea in Feb. 1942. Minimal escort, as is necessary then. Unloading at the pier, got visited by an IJN raider force of a CA and three DDs. Sank the whole TF. All of the troops were ashore watching, but 203 (!!!) motorized support sank at the pier. It's now mid-August, and they haven't re-built 100% yet.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2010 4:16 pm
by Smeulders
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Misconduct
I noticed Allies get strategic movement on roads if it has motorized support, japanese on the other hand have very few units with this kind of mobility.
Only some Allies. US, UK, and Oz I think, and not all of them.
Yeah, I believe it has to do with the amount of motorized support, let me check the manual.
I always though it had to with nationality. Japan can't, Allies can with the exception of commonwealth forces (Burma and some African units) and China.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:48 pm
by crsutton
Ok, that is good to know that only the Allies with sufficient motorized support get the road bonus. That is a pretty nice deal. But as far as I can see it only happens on primary roads not dirt roads or tracks. Nice for Oz and India but the benefit is fairly limited elsewhere. Would be nice if it meant better supply flow as well.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:49 pm
by crsutton
ORIGINAL: Charbroiled
So far I have found that motorized support are very good at making remnant units all over the place when the motorized support units are left behind during TF loading.[:D]
Not a bad thing if you plan on going out and losing your unit....[;)]
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 3:54 pm
by Smeulders
ORIGINAL: crsutton
Ok, that is good to know that only the Allies with sufficient motorized support get the road bonus. That is a pretty nice deal. But as far as I can see it only happens on primary roads not dirt roads or tracks. Nice for Oz and India but the benefit is fairly limited elsewhere. Would be nice if it meant better supply flow as well.
I'm sorry, but this is not correct. As said above, it has to do with nationality, not with motorized support. To test I ordered 2/4th Ind Coy (Aussie unit, 2 support, 0 mot sup) to strat move from Sydney to Canberra (Canberra has no rail links), the order was accepted so unless something happens during turn resolution it is due to nationality.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:06 pm
by crsutton
Thanks, no need to be sorry. That information is helpful.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:24 pm
by witpqs
They've confirmed that motorized support does not influence movement, nor does any other type of device (although obviously static devices prevent movement). The type of LCU influences movement rates. An "infantry" type LCU filled with all tanks will still move like an infantry unit, while an "armor" type unit filled with radar devices will still move like an armor unit.
Hope this is helpful.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:31 pm
by crsutton
It is helpful but that brings me back to my origial question. Is there any benefit from motorized support over plain vanilla support? If not, I am sending 100,000 trucks back stateside for conversion to recreational vehilcles. No sense in the civilian populations suffering in this time of war.[&:]
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 4:37 pm
by witpqs
As far as I know support squads and motorized support squads provide exactly the same benefits. Motorized support squads are (as you no doubt have found out!) more difficult to move around. They put in the motorized support squads because they were there IRL. We did ask for accuracy! I suppose you could always make a mod where motorized support was basically a clone of support so you wouldn't have to change all the LCU that have MS.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 5:43 pm
by Bullwinkle58
ORIGINAL: Smeulders
ORIGINAL: crsutton
Ok, that is good to know that only the Allies with sufficient motorized support get the road bonus. That is a pretty nice deal. But as far as I can see it only happens on primary roads not dirt roads or tracks. Nice for Oz and India but the benefit is fairly limited elsewhere. Would be nice if it meant better supply flow as well.
I'm sorry, but this is not correct. As said above, it has to do with nationality, not with motorized support. To test I ordered 2/4th Ind Coy (Aussie unit, 2 support, 0 mot sup) to strat move from Sydney to Canberra (Canberra has no rail links), the order was accepted so unless something happens during turn resolution it is due to nationality.
I don't think this is correct. I'd modify my original post to agree with witpqs. It's not nationality, it's road type. I got an Indian infantry unit to move in NE India on primary roads in Strat mode (+RD bonus tag.) You can move to Canberra because it's connected by primary (gray) road. You can't get anything, of any nationality, to move in Strat mode on yellow, secondary roads, even in Oz. As witpqs says, motorized support seems to have nothing to do with it, which surprised me. But I got engineers, arty, and infantry all to go to RD+ strat mode on primary roads. It happens so infrequently in India that a destination isn't on a rail line or gray road that I had never noticed the lack of nationality barriers.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:42 pm
by noguaranteeofsanity
Road movement is definitely limited by nationality. See page 185 of the manual, which says "The Allies can utilize Strategic OpMode on rail lines and Main Roads. The Japanese are limited to using Strategic OpMode on rail lines."
However, according to another thread (
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2470587) the Russians and Chinese cannot utilise strategic road movement either, the reason being that excess transport vehicles were not available in those nations. Although also seems it is limited to certain areas as well, eg Australia and the US, which might explain the Chinese and Russians, but it didn't come up with a definitive answer as to where.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:47 pm
by VSWG
ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
It's not nationality, it's road type.
It's both.
Some nationalities can use strat move on major (grey) roads.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 6:55 pm
by witpqs
My post was commenting only on the query regarding motorized support affecting movement rates.
RE: motorized support-just an encumbrance?
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2010 7:02 pm
by witpqs
Look at this table from the manual. What I mean is that only the unit type determines which column is used, not the devices inside the LCU.
