Japanese OOB for CHS

[jwilkerson]

The "good news" We are in the process of revamping the IJN/IJA ground OB&TOEs for CHS.

The "bad news" We are essentially out of slots for Japanese LCU.

As a proposal for gaining some slots - we are suggesting removing the "Naval Guard" and Naval Landing Forces" from the order of battle, these units were normally directly associated with their parent base forces and not generally out running around being "ant" marines, like they often are in the game. If we do remove them, we would take their AV strength and add it into the baseforces .. so NOT NET LOSS OF AV !!!

Further we would then use the freed up slots to add some additional units.

Among the new features of the OB/TOE, we are looking at:

(1) Revamping the parachute units, both IJA and IJN, there will be at least 5 jump trained units at start and some more later, the 5 will be 1st & 2nd Raiding Units ( exuent - though their OBs will be revised ), and 1st, 2nd and 3rd Yokosuka SNFL, who were all jump trained pre-war.
(2) Revamping the Divisonal TO&E to correct some "anamolies". This will actually result in a net decrease in strength vis-a-vis the current divisions as some formations are duplicated ( both present inside a division and outside the division ).
(3) Adding 2 new Bde TO&Es ... currently all Bdes and Type-C divisions share one TO&E ... this is far from accurate.
(4) Triangularizing all Japanese divisions at start. Most Japanese divisions were either already triangularized in fact or were triangularized shortly after the start of the war. All were triangularized by mid-1943. The "4th regimental slice" will be added to the OB if not already present. Generally no net loss of AV - unless we find a case where a regiment is duplicated !
(5) Artillery units will be tweaked a bit - to correct some ommissions. This will result in at least one new device type ... T98 32cm spigot mortar ... additional independent artillery units will be added as well. Including an Artillery HQ ( historically the 5th Aritillery Inteligence HQ which will be combined with additional independent artillery support units ) to enable forming the "defacto" Arty Div which was created in the P.I.
(6) Elimination of duplicates - unfortunately there are a few "duplicate" formations currently in the game - mostly these are intermediate Bde level formations ( Mxd Bdes ) which enter the war after the start and are shortly thereafter ( historically ) absorbed in the creation of new arriving divisions. In some cases this may result in a net decrease of AV potential. However, if appropriate, we will advance the arrival of the indicated division, to represent the presence of the Bde at that time. Further, there are additional late war divisions that will be added, slots permitting which in theory will then increase the total AV potential.
(7) One idea, I'm not sure about, would involve standardization of the Type-B TO&E. There are some divisional artillery units ( (like 19th Mtn ) which are currently represented both inside the parent division and outside. The major differences in the Type-B division TOE are the composition of the Divisional Cavalry/Recon Regt and the Composition of the Divisional Artillery Regt(FA or Mtn). By making all these units indepentant and then removing them from the divisonal TO&E we remove the differences in the TO&E and allow the Japanese to have "detached" Recon and Artillery units added to the OB. First problem with this, is even eliminating the NGU and NLF per (1) above will not free up enough slots to do this. And second not sure it would be a good idea to have 50-100 Cav/Recon ants running around. But a number of Artillery units have already been pulled out - and so alternatively we need another TO&E to represent divisions with "detacted" Artillery units. The TO&E slots do however exist. A compromise would be to make the Arty units all independent but leave the cav/recon units inside the divisions.

Anyway,

Feed back on the above or other thoughts on IJN/IJA LCU are welcome.

[jcjordan]

Since your talking about freeing up LCU slots, though not IJA, how about the looking at the Allied side as units like some of the USMC Raider Batts were later on used to form the 6th USMC Div (I think) & other such duplications. Would this help freeing up slots that you could use for IJA units or are the slots resticted to one side always (I've never really gotten that far into the DB stuff to tell).

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Since your talking about freeing up LCU slots, though not IJA, how about the looking at the Allied side as units like some of the USMC Raider Batts were later on used to form the 6th USMC Div (I think) & other such duplications. Would this help freeing up slots that you could use for IJA units or are the slots resticted to one side always (I've never really gotten that far into the DB stuff to tell).

We are looking at LCU slots both for IJA and IJN.

Slots are by side ... some ranges for Japan, some ranges for Allied .. freeing up one doesn't help the other.

[el cid again]

(1) Revamping the parachute units, both IJA and IJN, there will be at least 5 jump trained units at start and some more later, the 5 will be 1st & 2nd Raiding Units ( exuent - though their OBs will be revised

There is one more units worthy of consideration. It is the "Second Training Raiding Regiment" - which was in North China at the time. Apparently all the line units people had to go to this unit after para training, and did operational jumps there. This unit possibly should have a lower proficiency rating than the line units.

Also note that there is great confusion about the formation of "glider raiding regiments." They were "never fully formed" - but what does that mean? There were supposed to be two parachute battalions ("regiments") PLUS two glider battalions ("regiments") in each "parachute group" (brigade). Inside this formation, there were supposed to be "raiding forces" which combined a para bn and a "raiding transport regiment" - that is the paras and their transport were under a single command. Similarly, there were to be "glider forces" which combined a glider bn with a "glider transport regiment." Apparently this was more theory than practice when the war began, but by 1944 apparently at least one or two "glider forces" had formed - although the gliders were in fact used on ferry missions rather than assault. Wether or not the glider bn(s) dropped in the brigade assault on Leyte is uncertain? But it may be that at least one glider bn was formed by that time. More materials en route may clarify these matters.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

(2) Revamping the Divisonal TO&E to correct some "anamolies". This will actually result in a net decrease in strength vis-a-vis the current divisions as some formations are duplicated ( both present inside a division and outside the division ).

Especially by reducing the artillery strengths of most Japanese divisions?

(3) Adding 2 new Bde TO&Es ... currently all Bdes and Type-C divisions share one TO&E ... this is far from accurate.

Maybe more: One for the Independent Mixed Brigades (all Japanese brigades in China present at start were under this TOE), one for the independent brigades raised between Dec 43 and Feb 44 (14 brigades altogether; these are completely missing in the OOB now), one for the (independent) brigades that controlled regiments (Karafuto, 21st, 40th and 44th Independent Mixed and some more), and one for the (4) Mobile/Amphibious Brigades.

(4) Triangularizing all Japanese divisions at start. Most Japanese divisions were either already triangularized in fact or were triangularized shortly after the start of the war. All were triangularized by mid-1943. The "4th regimental slice" will be added to the OB if not already present. Generally no net loss of AV - unless we find a case where a regiment is duplicated !

Good idea, even if all "fourth" regiments were eventually used in the creation of new divisions. But they were present in Dec 41 and Japan still would have to "pay" for the new divisions that contained them later. Some double-counting, but it's an issue with only 6-7 infantry regiments.

(5) Artillery units will be tweaked a bit - to correct some ommissions. This will result in at least one new device type ... T98 32cm spigot mortar ... additional independent artillery units will be added as well. Including an Artillery HQ ( historically the 5th Aritillery Inteligence HQ which will be combined with additional independent artillery support units ) to enable forming the "defacto" Arty Div which was created in the P.I.

Basically a very good idea. The only problems seems to be that many "independent" artillery formations created during the war came from existing divisions (they were seperated from their parent divisions and used elsewhere and mostly not replaced).

(6) Elimination of duplicates - unfortunately there are a few "duplicate" formations currently in the game - mostly these are intermediate Bde level formations ( Mxd Bdes ) which enter the war after the start and are shortly thereafter ( historically ) absorbed in the creation of new arriving divisions. In some cases this may result in a net decrease of AV potential. However, if appropriate, we will advance the arrival of the indicated division, to represent the presence of the Bde at that time. Further, there are additional late war divisions that will be added, slots permitting which in theory will then increase the total AV potential.

Yes, this is one of the major problems with the Japanese OOB! All C-Type divisions (the ones arriving in China in WITP) were (partly) formed from existing Independent Mixed Brigades in 1942-43. I think Matrix gave those divisions brigade TOE's to represent this. Problem is that the artillery and engineer components (battalion-sized) completely came from the Independent Mixed Brigades they were formed from, they did not raise additional engineer or artillery components. They were indeed strange formations, having no regiments but two "independent" brigades with 4 independent battalions each (normally five battalions came from Independent Mixed Brigades and three were newly raised, but this varied somewhat). The independent brigades had no own organic assets, they only controlled their independent battalions.

(7) The major differences in the Type-B division TOE are the composition of the Divisional Cavalry/Recon Regt and the Composition of the Divisional Artillery Regt(FA or Mtn).

There should be enough TOE slots available in the database to have 6 different TOE's for Type-B divisions (I think TOE slots for the Japanese are no problem at all): division with recce and field artillery, division with recce and mountain artillery, division with cavalry and field artillery, division with cavalry and mountain artillery, and the divisions without recce or cavalry but with either field or mountain artillery

By making all these units indepentant and then removing them from the divisonal TO&E we remove the differences in the TO&E and allow the Japanese to have "detached" Recon and Artillery units added to the OB.

I see no need to do this. And the recon and cavalry "regiments" of Japanese divisions were only battalion-sized formations. Better to include them into divisional TOE's than to have lots of those mini-units in the game.

First problem with this, is even eliminating the NGU and NLF per (1) above will not free up enough slots to do this. And second not sure it would be a good idea to have 50-100 Cav/Recon ants running around.

Certainly not, these units would allow Japan a real Blitzkrieg in China by creating ZOC's and cutting of retreats.

But a number of Artillery units have already been pulled out - and so alternatively we need another TO&E to represent divisions with "detacted" Artillery units.

I think there're not enough detached artillery units in the game at start that this will be a real problem. Simply have the divisions that detached artillery regiments understrength at start and let the Japanese player build them up to full TOE. He'll still have to build the new artillery.

The TO&E slots do however exist. A compromise would be to make the Arty units all independent but leave the cav/recon units inside the divisions.

See above

Feed back on the above or other thoughts on IJN/IJA LCU are welcome.

Eliminate the four South Seas Detachments (not the original, the ones that appear in 1943 or 1944). They were simply redesignations of regiments from existing divisions that had been detached.

Some Independent Mixed Brigades and all Independent Brigades are missing (not the ones that were part of the C-Type divisions, the fourteen missing brigades that fought in China)

K

[Don Bowen]

Some Independent Mixed Brigades and all Independent Brigades are missing (not the ones that were part of the C-Type divisions, the fourteen missing brigades that fought in China)

Could you post a list of these units??

[jwilkerson]

Whew - good response K, thanks a bunch !

One issue that I continually run up against in my thoughts is the "duplicate units" issue - and it manifests itself in a number of situations. One idea is that the existing parent or absorbing unit is understrengthed by the items which are in the separately existing "detached" unit. Thus at least at a point in time there is no duplication of real widgets on the map. However, the potential to fill out the duplicate slots in the parent unit exists. I'm ok with this idea as a limited exception, but to make it a over-arching principle as seems to have been done with the IMB/Later War Divisions seems to be going too far. It takes more than hardware and eger replacements to build units, especially specialist units like Artillery and Engineers. You must have some cadre and this is missing for the current system. So my preference is to remove the clear duplicates ( certainly where the widgets are duplicated ) but try in every case not to reduce the widgets on the map below what they were historically.

But in the case of the artillery units, it sounds like you favor stripping the widgets out of the divisions but still having them in the TOE so they can be built back. So I'll take that under advisement. I do however, have several sources that list artillery units throughout the war, so it may also be possible to add more independent arty units in ... but not sure this will make the priority cut given the complete lack of slots ( have to basically give one up to get one - so the process is finding the most important units to represent directly - while trying to represent the other via more abstract methods - such as building into static units.

There are enough TOE slots ( about 30 more it looks like assuming 901-929 are really available as I'm told ).

You didn't comment on the idea about folding the independent naval guard units into their baseforces - this seems more historical - and it frees up slots - any thoughts on this ?

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Some Independent Mixed Brigades and all Independent Brigades are missing (not the ones that were part of the C-Type divisions, the fourteen missing brigades that fought in China)

Could you post a list of these units??

OK, here we go. The following units are Independent Brigades that were formed in 1943/44. As far as I know, these units had no organic artillery or engineer assets (but probably some 70mm battalion howitzers or maybe 81mm/90mm mortars when howitzers were not available). They simply commanded four independent infantry battalions. Most of them saw some action in China (the ones where no depot/formation place is mentioned were probably formed in China) and it seems that all still existed at the end of the war. I think that they were raised to replace forces that were moved to other theatres and originally intended only for garrison duty and anti-partisan warfare. But during the 1944 offensive against the airfields, at least some were employed in front-line service.

Pleace notice that these Independent Brigades were not related to the Independent Brigades raised for the C-Type divisions (which were numbered 50+). But probably they shared the same TOE (containing four independent infantry battalions).

1st Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943) – MG Toshihiko Asami
191st – 194th Battalions

2nd Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943 at Osaka)
195th – 198th Battalions

3rd Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943)
199th – 202nd Battalions

4th Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943)
203rd – 206th Battalions

5th Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943 at Shizuoka)
207th – 210th Battalions

6th Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943) – MG Tada Mamoru
211th – 214th Battalions

7th Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943) – MG Matunoo Masaru
215th – 218th Battalions

8th Independent Infantry Brigade (07/01/1944 at Wakamatsu) – MG Kato Akira
219th – 222nd Battalions

9th Independent Infantry Brigade
223rd – 226th Battalions

10th Independent Infantry Brigade (07/01/1944 at Fukuoka) –
227th – 230th Battalions

11th Independent Infantry Brigade (15/02/1944 at Osaka) – MG Fumio Miyasita
231st – 234th Battalions

12th Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943 at Yamaguchi) – MG Takao Murata
235th – 238th Battalions

13th Independent Infantry Brigade (10/12/1943 at Tokushima)
239th – 242nd Battalions

14th Independent Infantry Brigade (15/02/1944)
243rd – 246th Battalions

Sources: Partly Nazifger OOB/TOE stuff, partly from Japanese websites.

[Kereguelen]

Independent Mixed Brigades:

Only the IMB's that were formed after PH until Oct 1944. "Supplement" means the location of their home depot, it seems the many were formed elsewhere. Where no artillery and/or engineer units are listed it means that those they simply had one artillery "unit" and one engineer "unit" named after the IMB ("artillery unit of the 22nd IMB" etc.). I assume that those "units" were battalion sized formations without an existing "parent" regiment (maybe similar to the meaning of the German word "Abteilung" for certain battalion-sized units?).

Please notice that some of the IMB's were used to form new infantry divisions (30th - 33rd, 74th IMB) and only existed for a short time period. Some were destroyed during the war, but it seems that the rest still existed until 1945.


22nd Independent Mixed Brigade (27/11/1942; supplement Tokyo)
66th, 71st, 125th – 127th Battalions

23rd Independent Mixed Brigade (18/01/1943; supplement Taiwan)
128th – 130th, 247th, 248th Battalions

24th Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Sendai)
138th – 141st Battalions

25th Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Osaka)
142nd – 145th Battalions

26th Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Hirosaki)
146th – 149th Battalions

27th Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Hiroshima)
150th – 153rd Battalions

28th Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Hirosaki) – MG Shigeo Iwabe
154th – 157th Battalions

29th Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Kyoto) – MG Nobuo Tanaka
158th – 162nd Battalions

30th Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Nagoya)
163rd – 168th Battalions
formed 100th Infantry Division in June 1944

31st Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Kumamoto)
169th – 174th Battalions
formed 102nd Infantry Division in June 1944

32nd Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Kumamoto)
175th – 180th Battalions
formed 103rd Infantry Division in June 1944

33rd Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Kyoto)
181st – 186th Battalions
formed 105th Infantry Division in June 1944

34th Independent Mixed Brigade (16/11/1943; supplement Tokyo)
187th – 190th Battalions

35th Independent Mixed Brigade (10/02/1944; supplement Tokyo)
251st – 257th Battalions

36th Independent Mixed Brigade (10/02/1944; supplement Tokyo)
258th – 261st Battalions

37th Independent Mixed Brigade (10/02/1944; supplement Osaka)
262nd – 265th Battalions

38th Independent Mixed Brigade (24/06/1944; supplement Nagoya) – MG Kesao Kishima
81st Infantry Regiment, Artillery and Engineer Troops

39th Independent Mixed Brigade (24/06/1944; supplement Takasaki) – MG Takeo Ito
4th and 5th Mixed Regiments

40th Independent Mixed Brigade (24/06/1944; supplement Nagoya) –
230th Infantry Regiment, 14th Mixed Regiment, Artillery and Engineer Troops

43rd Independent Mixed Brigade (12/04/1944; supplement Sendai)
294th – 297th, 419th, 420th Battalions

44th Independent Mixed Brigade (03/05/1944; supplement Kumamoto)
15th Independent Mixed Regiment, 1st and 2nd Battalions

45th Independent Mixed Brigade (03/05/1944; supplement Marugame)
271st – 273rd, 298th – 301st Battalions

46th Independent Mixed Brigade (03/05/1944; supplement Taiwan)
305th Infantry Regiment, Artillery and Engineer Troops

47th Independent Mixed Brigade (22/05/1944; supplement Osaka)
315th – 318th Battalions

48th Independent Mixed Brigade (22/05/1944; supplement Zentsuji)
319th – 322nd Battalions

49th Independent Mixed Brigade (22/05/1944; supplement Kurume) – MG Akihiko Arima
322nd – 330th Battalions; additional AA unit

50th Independent Mixed Brigade (22/05/1944; supplement Tokyo) – MG Kitamuro Masaru
331st – 335th Battalions; additional AA and tank units

51st Independent Mixed Brigade (22/05/1944; supplement Sendai)
336th – 341st Battalions

52nd Independent Mixed Brigade (22/05/1944; supplement Sendai) – MG Masao Watanabe
342nd – 345th Battalions; additional tank unit

53rd Independent Mixed Brigade (22/05/1944; supplement Tokyo) – MG Takeo Yamaguchi
346th – 351st Battalions

54th Independent Mixed Brigade (15/06/1944; supplement Sendai)
360th – 362nd Battalions

55th Independent Mixed Brigade (15/06/1944; supplement Hirosaki)
363rd – 365th Battalions

56th Independent Mixed Brigade (15/06/1944; supplement Osaka and Hiroshima)
366th – 371st Battalions

57th Independent Mixed Brigade (15/06/1944; supplement Kanazawa)
372nd – 377th Battalions

58th Independent Mixed Brigade (13/06/1944; supplement Hirosaki)
378th – 380th, 544th – 546th Battalions; additional rapid fire and infantry gun parties

59th Independent Mixed Brigade (12/07/1944; supplement Kanazawa)
393rd – 396th Battalions

60th Independent Mixed Brigade (12/07/1944; supplement Utsonomiya)
397th – 400th Battalions

61st Independent Mixed Brigade (10/07/1944; supplement Kyoto) – MG Hikotaro Dajima
302nd, 405th – 409th Battalions

62nd Independent Mixed Brigade (12/07/1944; supplement Zentsuji)
410th – 414th, 625th Battalions

64th Independent Mixed Brigade (12/07/1944; supplement Hiroshima)
21st and 22nd Independent Mixed Rgt., 6th Heavy Artillery Rgt.

65th Independent Mixed Brigade (12/07/1944; supplement Izu Oshima)
27th Independent Mixed Rgt., 2nd Patrol Headquarters

66th Independent Mixed Brigade (12/07/1944; supplement Niizima) – MG Ichiro Yutaka Yokota
18th Ind. Mixed Rgt., 427th Battalion, 5th Ind. MG Battalion, 22nd Ind. Mtn. Artillery Battalion

67th Independent Mixed Brigade (12/07/1944; formed at Hachijo Jima) – MG Saburo Nagasawa
16th and 43rd Ind. Mixed Rgt., 425th, 426th, 668th, 669th Battalions, 16th Ind. MG Battalion, 23rd Ind. Mtn. Artillery Battalion, 12th Ind. Field Artillery Battalion, 100th Ind. Heavy Artillery Battalion, 15th Independent Rapid Fire Battalion

69th Independent Mixed Brigade (29/07/1944; supplement Asahikawa)
421st – 424th Battalions

70th Independent Mixed Brigade (18/09/1944; supplement Tokyo) – MG Masato Oda
428th – 431st Battalions; additional tank party

71st Independent Mixed Brigade (14/11/1944; supplement Fukuoka)
538th – 541st Battalions

72nd Independent Mixed Brigade (14/11/1944; supplement Tokyo)
187th, 188th, 542nd, 543rd Battalions;

74th Independent Mixed Brigade (11/10/1944; supplement Osaka) – MG Takao Ishikawa
445th – 449th Battalions;
formed 125th Division in January 1945

[Bradley7735]

I think there're not enough detached artillery units in the game at start that this will be a real problem. Simply have the divisions that detached artillery regiments understrength at start and let the Japanese player build them up to full TOE. He'll still have to build the new artillery.

I caution against this. I think you should try to keep the LCU's to an accurate/historic TOE. There are a lot of Japanese players who produce ships faster, more planes and fill out TOE's faster than I think was historically possible. If you allow the LCU's to build to un-historic levels, then most players will do so. (assuming they take Palembang intact)

If Japanse production, supply levels, fuel levels, etc was looked at and put to historic levels at game start, then I'd definitely agree with you. (allow the player to choose where to put excess HI., but as it is now, they most likely can do it all)

This is really just a hunch on my part. But others have alluded to problems regarding Japan making too much stuff, too fast.

Thanks to all of you for looking at this part of CHS. I was hoping someone could tackle the Japanese LCU side of things.

bc

Edit: I think I may have mis-interpreted your post. Please disregard if your intent is not to allow Japanese players to build LCU's larger than historic.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

You didn't comment on the idea about folding the independent naval guard units into their baseforces - this seems more historical - and it frees up slots - any thoughts on this ?

That's a very difficult and confusing topic. El Cid again has some excellent material about their TOE's.

All I can tell is that there're ostensibly too many SNLF/NLF/Naval Guard units in the game. Most (maybe all) of the original SNLF units were converted to garrison forces after the initial operations, but some new ones were raised later (they're in the WITP OOB, but arrival dates seem to be wrong). But I've absolutely no idea what happened to the NLF's.

Currently I think that the best solution would be to delete at least the garrison units because they're already included in the TOE's of the IJN base forces and special base forces.

[jwilkerson]

Edit: I think I may have mis-interpreted your post. Please disregard if your intent is not to allow Japanese players to build LCU's larger than historic.

I'd call it a discussion point right now.

My preference is to limit the "duplicate" units and not make it a rule to have them. But it is not clear that there is no case for allowing some duplication of internal/external units. The war did not have to unfold exactly as it did. If say the 35th Bde had not been destroyed at Guadalcanal then it might not have been disbanded and had its 124th regiment absorbed into the 31st Division, something else would've happened. One key issue is that the ground system does not support disbanding of one unit into another ( as the air system does ). Hence we are more likely to find ourselves needing to support some duplication. For instance - do we not bring in the 31st Division, because it is a duplicate ? That probably isn't the right answer. Do we not have the 35th Bde ? That probably isn't the right answer. Do we start the game with the 31st Division, but make it be Bde strength ? A better answer but unrecognizable from an OB perspective unless you read the footnotes. And this type of situation arises, over and over again. So - I guess I see that wiith the system the way it works, we have little alternative. We can however remove many duplicate IMBs which arrive mid war and are fairly quickly ( within months ) absorbed into divisions. One solution is to bring the divisions in early and understrength and with lower ratings and have this "simulate" the arrival of the Bde. Currently that is the solution we are thinking of for this particular type of scenario anyway.

But within a given LCU .. .the intention is never to allow the unit to grow beyond its historical TOE.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Edit: I think I may have mis-interpreted your post. Please disregard if your intent is not to allow Japanese players to build LCU's larger than historic.

Not generally. But there're some Japanese divisions in the game that had detached some of their units on 7th Dec 1941 (artillery and infantry regiments, for example: the South Seas Detachment was the reinforced 144th Infantry Regiment that "belonged" to 55th Division). It's not possible to have these detached units returned to their parent units in the game. Because these "independent" units are needed by the Japanese player in the initial operations, their parent units should be reduced accordingly at start. The question is then, if their parent units should be able to build up to their full TOE or if they should remain under the "reduced" TOE (both is possible within the game database).

[Don Bowen]

Thanks Kereguelen!

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
One issue that I continually run up against in my thoughts is the "duplicate units" issue - and it manifests itself in a number of situations. One idea is that the existing parent or absorbing unit is understrengthed by the items which are in the separately existing "detached" unit. Thus at least at a point in time there is no duplication of real widgets on the map. However, the potential to fill out the duplicate slots in the parent unit exists. I'm ok with this idea as a limited exception, but to make it a over-arching principle as seems to have been done with the IMB/Later War Divisions seems to be going too far. It takes more than hardware and eger replacements to build units, especially specialist units like Artillery and Engineers. You must have some cadre and this is missing for the current system. So my preference is to remove the clear duplicates ( certainly where the widgets are duplicated ) but try in every case not to reduce the widgets on the map below what they were historically.

I agree with this.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
If Japanse production, supply levels, fuel levels, etc was looked at and put to historic levels at game start, then I'd definitely agree with you. (allow the player to choose where to put excess HI., but as it is now, they most likely can do it all)

This is really just a hunch on my part. But others have alluded to problems regarding Japan making too much stuff, too fast.

The problem is that your hunch is just that - a hunch. I have seen the same comments regarding Japanese production, but the one thing I have chased up so far (apart from oil) is aircraft production, and judging by the information provided to me by others, such as jwilkerson, the Japanese in the game do not produce too many aircraft. What I still don't know is whether they can accelerate ships too easily and/or produce too much equipment for LCUs.

It seems to me that these are difficult questions to answer.

[jwilkerson]

Regarding airpower the data I posted from my CHS game in which I am Japanese ( PBEM ) and which has reached Sept 43 ... the aircraft production is bit higher than historical but I have increased production per the capabilities given in the game and stopped some other things ( like Musashi ) that were built historically. As far as "hunches" at least in my game, I predict that it will not be possible - or even desirable to increase Japanese aircraft production to the historical 44 levels in 44. Shortage of "RESOURCES" being the issue. If the resources existed, then the OB would be a constraint on use of the additional planes. Right now my airplane slots in the air units are about 98% utilized and I have hundreds of planes sitting around .. most of which will never be used because I'm upgrading past them. So the "attrition" level imposed on the Japanese by the game and the Allies determines whether the Japanese need to produce more to replace the losses. In my game I produced too many "reserves" but not more total planes than were produced historically which means my losses have been significantly lower than historical. This is in part due to my opponents play style and in part due to the lower than historical rates for operational attrition.

Regarding ships .. I did accelerate Taiho, and the first three Unryus and they came in over the summer of 1943 ... on average a year early. but I shut down all the carriers that would arrive after summer 1943 as well as all the BB/CA/CL ( except Yammato ). On merchant ships I shut down all AK/AP but accelerated as many TK/AO as possible. WIth AUX I accelerated some, halted some and left most at "normal". On balance probably roughly a historical level of ship production. If I remember correctly the Japanese now have just over 100 total destroyers, 14 Carriers, about 30 Cruisers and 8 BB ... so there have been some losses but not quite as high as historical.

Regarding armaments, vehicles and manpower. I ran out of armaments in the early summer 43 crunch ... now I know the crunch exists I'll be ready for it next time .. but I've built back up to a 20k armaments reserve ( not much of a reserve ). Vehicles have maintained a small reserve and I don't even look at manpower much since it always seems to have a huge reserve. So is LCU production too high ? I really don't know. But I don't feel constrained other than by the OB in this area.

Production machine is in decent shape with 600k+ HI reserve and 1.8 million oil and 1.0 million resources. HI and oil are continuing to grow slightly ... resources is remaining flat.

[el cid again]

What I still don't know is whether they can accelerate ships too easily and/or produce too much equipment for LCUs.

It looks like WITP is very tied to history re ship production - and while you can change things - you cannot change them very much. You can NEVER lay down an extra hull - and right now playing 8.5 months past the end of the war - that is a possible problem. Lots of ways you might produce fewer ships. And if you are smart and cancel Shinano (for example) you do get smaller ships sooner. But you cannot take Shinano - with the steel for 150 escorts or 1500 tanks - and turn that steel into either - which really was an option.

Land widgets CAN be built above history IF you do two things:
1) Build industry
2) Keep that industry in supply and out of harms way (either bombing or capture) long enough.

That seems reasonable to me.

[el cid again]

This is the top of the list of planes, in slot order, with comments on EVERY field which is not the same. Documentation follows the list.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

But you cannot take Shinano - with the steel for 150 escorts or 1500 tanks - and turn that steel into either - which really was an option.

Well no, not in-game. That's an editor job...