Independent air units

[Chris21wen]

How are they treated by HQ?

[GreyJoy]

Good question. Don't know the answer

[HexHead]

Perhaps better stated as "how do they treat HQ"? I don't know for sure, but, from the 'vanilla' way HQs operate, I would hazard the question as restated: IOW, not differently than other units. If it's in range, then HQ bonuses apply. If not, not.

Just a guess.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: HexHead

Perhaps better stated as "how do they treat HQ"? I don't know for sure, but, from the 'vanilla' way HQs operate, I would hazard the question as restated: IOW, not differently than other units. If it's in range, then HQ bonuses apply. If not, not.

Just a guess.

For admin purposes there are no differences that I can see. I'm really asking how the AI uses them for targeting and cohesion.

[HexHead]

ORIGINAL: Chris H

ORIGINAL: HexHead

Perhaps better stated as "how do they treat HQ"? I don't know for sure, but, from the 'vanilla' way HQs operate, I would hazard the question as restated: IOW, not differently than other units. If it's in range, then HQ bonuses apply. If not, not.

Just a guess.

For admin purposes there are no differences that I can see. I'm really asking how the AI uses them for targeting and cohesion.

As best it can, probably.

[crsutton]

AI is different. I doubt the computer AI is affected at all by the presence or lack of a HQ.

[Chris21wen]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

AI is different. I doubt the computer AI is affected at all by the presence or lack of a HQ.

I doubt that either but it's not the compter AI I'm thinking about, just targetting. If you set up a raid using the normal raid unwritten rules for the best coordination and include indepenent air how are they treated?

[Balou]

Maybe it's an outdated thread but I'd like to ask: is there any benefit to expect from an assignement of "independent" CV-air squadrons to a shore-based air HQ? Fiddling around with air crew training I try to figure out whether pilot skills - beyond training missions - may improve further while ac are within an air-HQs command radius.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Balou

Maybe it's an outdated thread but I'd like to ask: is there any benefit to expect from an assignement of "independent" CV-air squadrons to a shore-based air HQ? Fiddling around with air crew training I try to figure out whether pilot skills - beyond training missions - may improve further while ac are within an air-HQs command radius.

I never re-assign a HQ for any unit. It is just an expensive waste of precious PP. I have moved my carrier units ashore on quite a few occasions and really found there to be little or no penalty. Quite frankly, with air units, it is leadership and experience that matters the most. Carrier air units are such high quality and well led that they always attack. Aside from moving a unit out of a restricted HQ, there is never any reason to re-assign a HQ for any type of unit in the game. You need your PP for other more critical things.

[Numdydar]

+1
 
Somewhere along the WitP development arc, I am sure there was a desire to have a complete command structure for both sides in the game, like the HoI series as an example. Obviously, this did not materialize so HQ structure is meaningless (other than restricted commands). When I pay PP to release restricted commands, I just attach all of them to the Southern Command as Japan [:)]. I have not found any downside to doing this so I assume it would be the same for the Allies.
 
The ONLY inpact that HQs have on the game other than containers for leaders, replacements, etc., is if a Corps HQ is attched to an Army HQ and the Corp HQ is within the range of the Army HQ. In this case the Army leader is also used with the Corps leader to help out with combat of all units within range of both HQs. If both HQs have the same objective then even better [:)]. Also, none of the non-HQ units have to be attached to either of these HQs to get the leaders benefits.
 
Of course if you you want to use PPs to 'roleplay' a complete command structure, then you need to dramtiily increase the PP gain/turn in order to 'pay' for this type of play. Then you would need to seperately keep track of PPs used to unrestrict units using the stock PP value (60/turn for Japan) while the rest of the PP pool could be used to restructure commands as you saw fit [:)]. Otherwise it would be too tempting to say "Look at all these PPs I have. Lets take everyone out of Japan/West Coast and see what we can do NOW!" [:D]

[Balou]

Thanks both of you. But to me it seems that re-assigning "independent" air groups would be for free, so no PPs wasted

[Skyros]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

+1

Somewhere along the WitP development arc, I am sure there was a desire to have a complete command structure for both sides in the game, like the HoI series as an example. Obviously, this did not materialize so HQ structure is meaningless (other than restricted commands). When I pay PP to release restricted commands, I just attach all of them to the Southern Command as Japan [:)]. I have not found any downside to doing this so I assume it would be the same for the Allies.

The ONLY inpact that HQs have on the game other than containers for leaders, replacements, etc., is if a Corps HQ is attched to an Army HQ and the Corp HQ is within the range of the Army HQ. In this case the Army leader is also used with the Corps leader to help out with combat of all units within range of both HQs. If both HQs have the same objective then even better [:)]. Also, none of the non-HQ units have to be attached to either of these HQs to get the leaders benefits.

Of course if you you want to use PPs to 'roleplay' a complete command structure, then you need to dramtiily increase the PP gain/turn in order to 'pay' for this type of play. Then you would need to seperately keep track of PPs used to unrestrict units using the stock PP value (60/turn for Japan) while the rest of the PP pool could be used to restructure commands as you saw fit [:)]. Otherwise it would be too tempting to say "Look at all these PPs I have. Lets take everyone out of Japan/West Coast and see what we can do NOW!" [:D]

I believe HQs have an impact on the coordination of airstikes. Air units assigned to the same HQ and within its control range have a higher chance of coordinating there strike.

From patch notes: 10/11/12: 1120 - Increased air hq and group leader effect on raid coordination

[Icedawg]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

+1

Somewhere along the WitP development arc, I am sure there was a desire to have a complete command structure for both sides in the game, like the HoI series as an example. Obviously, this did not materialize so HQ structure is meaningless (other than restricted commands). When I pay PP to release restricted commands, I just attach all of them to the Southern Command as Japan [:)]. I have not found any downside to doing this so I assume it would be the same for the Allies.

The ONLY inpact that HQs have on the game other than containers for leaders, replacements, etc., is if a Corps HQ is attched to an Army HQ and the Corp HQ is within the range of the Army HQ. In this case the Army leader is also used with the Corps leader to help out with combat of all units within range of both HQs. If both HQs have the same objective then even better [:)]. Also, none of the non-HQ units have to be attached to either of these HQs to get the leaders benefits.

Of course if you you want to use PPs to 'roleplay' a complete command structure, then you need to dramtiily increase the PP gain/turn in order to 'pay' for this type of play. Then you would need to seperately keep track of PPs used to unrestrict units using the stock PP value (60/turn for Japan) while the rest of the PP pool could be used to restructure commands as you saw fit [:)]. Otherwise it would be too tempting to say "Look at all these PPs I have. Lets take everyone out of Japan/West Coast and see what we can do NOW!" [:D]

Air HQs determine whether or not air units can take replacements. I have had two squadrons at the same base and needing replacements. One had its parent HQ in range and at a large, well-supplied air base. The other did not. The one with its parent HQ nearby was able to take replacements. The other was not. By switching the command of the latter unit to the above-mentioned HQ, it was able to take replacements too.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

+1

Somewhere along the WitP development arc, I am sure there was a desire to have a complete command structure for both sides in the game, like the HoI series as an example. Obviously, this did not materialize so HQ structure is meaningless (other than restricted commands). When I pay PP to release restricted commands, I just attach all of them to the Southern Command as Japan [:)]. I have not found any downside to doing this so I assume it would be the same for the Allies.

The ONLY inpact that HQs have on the game other than containers for leaders, replacements, etc., is if a Corps HQ is attched to an Army HQ and the Corp HQ is within the range of the Army HQ. In this case the Army leader is also used with the Corps leader to help out with combat of all units within range of both HQs. If both HQs have the same objective then even better [:)]. Also, none of the non-HQ units have to be attached to either of these HQs to get the leaders benefits.

Of course if you you want to use PPs to 'roleplay' a complete command structure, then you need to dramtiily increase the PP gain/turn in order to 'pay' for this type of play. Then you would need to seperately keep track of PPs used to unrestrict units using the stock PP value (60/turn for Japan) while the rest of the PP pool could be used to restructure commands as you saw fit [:)]. Otherwise it would be too tempting to say "Look at all these PPs I have. Lets take everyone out of Japan/West Coast and see what we can do NOW!" [:D]

Are you sure the Corps HQ has to be attached to the Command HQ to get both bonuses? I was under the impression that it could be any Corps and any Command HQ and only having the same objective matters.

[Numdydar]

You could be right [:)]. I keep them in the same oob just to be safe.