OOB Recommendations

[pnzrgnral]

Just a few thoughts...
Ground Units - I noticed while playing the campaign game that a few significant Allied ground units weren't included in the OOB. Namely, 3rd NZ Division, 11th Abn Division, and 6th Ranger Battalion. Both the NZ & Abn divisions include their regiments which appear in the game, but they did fight as divisional organizations later. 6th Rangers is a good, small unit, like the Marine Raiders, to conduct light, cheap raids - which they historically did. Maybe the regimental units of those divisions can appear in the game as XX Div/1,2,3, just like "divided" units as the game progresses? Ships - carrier conversions. The Japanese converted Chitose, Chiyoda, Shinano, Ise & Hyuga as a result of their losses at Midway, exacerbated by the severe shipbuilding difficulties they possessed. Mogami was converted as well but that was a result of being in the yard for major repairs anyway following Midway. Converting BB's to CV's wasn't very practical - look at Shinano - huge resources, very long time. Ise & Hyuga (and Mogami) - long time and they were floatplane hybrids, which meant they weren't very useful. Here's a suggestion: Mizuho was a near sister to Chitose & Chiyoda, so she can be included - historically, she was lost before Midway. CV conversions should result as a trigger event - Midway losses were the trigger, so logically in the game, the Japs need cumulative CV losses or a big loss to JUSTIFY converting normal shipping to CV's. US CVL's converted from Cleveland CL hulls followed this very reasoning following the 1942 US CV losses. If there is little CV loss in '42, then those CVL's should appear as the CL's they were originally built. Maybe this is doable, maybe not, but it's something I waste my time by pondering. Happy gaming!

[bstarr]

Maybe the regimental units of those divisions can appear in the game as XX Div/1,2,3, just like "divided" units as the game progresses?

Cool idea, but it won't work. The game won't let you introduce already divided units and combine them later. I remember this from a thread concerning the second Marine Div which is an opposite case - it was used as regimental units and combined later. However, it is included as a full div from the start due to the inability to combine units from the database.
bs

[pnzrgnral]

Thanks for the reply. Roger that about introducing divided ground units as reinforcements. Here's an "oops" - I did a little research AFTER posting the letter, namely Friedman's "US Carriers", and the US Cleveland hull CVL program was planned in late '41, with execution of the plan starting Jan '42. It was intended to beef up CV platforms until the Essex class could start arriving for fleet duty.

[bstarr]

I can't even count the number of times I've posted, then had to say "whoops!" I started a rather long thread in the main section denouncing the need for sub vs sub combat then had to switch sides in the middle of the discussion because I found out it really did happen and wasn't near as uncommon as I had imagined.

[Herrbear]

I think the problem is that the Rngr Bn generally fought as individual companies and not as a unit.