CHS: Manual withdrawal of Allied sqds

[timtom]

As you well know, unfortunately there's no Allied units other that RN ships. However the game does allow us to permanently disband aircraft squadrons. I was wondering if, from researching CHS/RHS, any of you gentlemen would be in possession of a list of Allied sqds that were permanently withdrawn from Asia/the Pacific, and when, approcimately.

Thx,

Tom

[timtom]

No? [:)]

Here's what I've found:

Basically I'll have a houserule in my game requiring the Allied player to permanently disband the sqd's in the "Withdraw" column of the spreadsheet.

A sqd is eligable for withdrawal if it was disbanded but not reformed to serve in the theatre again. This excludes sdq's disbanded August 1945 or later.

The sqds lost in Feb 42 were of course disbanded for reasons that might not arise in the game, so some flexibility is probably necesary - to be fleshed out with my opponent. The Allied player might be required to withdraw 5 fighter- and 1 TB sqd during 1942 or whatever - the point is to reflect Allied force levels as accurately as possible.

I might extend the same kind of thinking to the USAAF sqd's on the WC in 42. This would however require some tweaking of the replacement rate, on the presumption that east-bound sqd's took their aircraft with them.

Critique?

[bradfordkay]

Timtom wrote: "The sqds lost in Feb 42 were of course disbanded for reasons that might not arise in the game, so some flexibility is probably necesary - to be fleshed out with my opponent."

The squadrons disbanded in Feb '42 were disbanded due to attrition (and lack of replacements). My feeling is that these should be exempt from the withdrawal rule. If he suffers enough attrition, he'll be disbanding them anyway in order to have a few squadrons with enough planes/pilots to fly.

[el cid again]

The squadrons disbanded in Feb '42 were disbanded due to attrition (and lack of replacements). My feeling is that these should be exempt from the withdrawal rule. If he suffers enough attrition, he'll be disbanding them anyway in order to have a few squadrons with enough planes/pilots to fly.

Not a chance. There is almost no attrition - and no way yet found to jack it up - short of changing code. I made a heroic effort - radically reducing endurance - on the popular (but apparently false) theory that endurance was a function of endurance. It seems to be a code thing - Japan loses more - but still not nearly enough. Best guess of one analyst - and my data confirms it - is the attrition rate is significantly less than 1/1000 th of what it ought to be!

[bradfordkay]

I agree that operational losses are quite low in the game, but in my experience the squadrons that I use to fight in the SRA get heavilly chewed up. I do keep "no replacements" toggled, except for when the occasional big supply convoy arrives (I'll turn on "replacements allowed" for one squadron per AK in the TF). Maybe this is why I see such heavy attrition.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm pretty sure that making a code change for something like this is not too difficult. I noticed Don Bowen is reading so I stuck this in[:D]...maybe he can verify just how difficult expanding the RN withdrawl requirement to include withdrawls for squadrons, LCUs, merchant ships, obsolete subs (USN relegating subs to training), damaged USN ships (sent to Atlantic navy yards) etc.