ComFleetAirWest

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

ComFleetAirWest

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

I accidentally found that it is possible to change HQs of restricted US Command LCUs to "ComFleetAirWest" making it unrestricted at 1/3 of the cost
A division. which typically cost ~1,700, can be changed by ~500

Lucky me, I had saved my game before and I was able to undo, as this is not kosher on my books...

Shouldn't ComFleetAirWest be [R] , as it is the case of all other US Command HQs?

Playing DBB-C

User avatar
LoBaron
Posts: 4775
Joined: Sun Jan 26, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by LoBaron »

The same is possible with a lot of other HQs.

You are right, buying out restricted units at reduced cost to unrestricted units - in case they belong to the same restricted parent HQ - is gamey. In our PBEM I stick to the rule that if the parent HQ is restricted the same limitations apply as if the HQ itself was restricted. This applies for ground and air units.

I am not completely sure why this is the case. Two explanations would fit: Either it is required to give em some flexibility transferring specific units - e.g. ComAirFleetWest air units to Alaska, which by all means is US hometerritory - or it is simply an leftover in the DB, personally I think it is the former.
Image
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by HansBolter »

Not long ago some one tried to take the player applied limitations usually applied to prevent this exploit to what everyone else thought was an extreme.

His position was that transferring units to a unrestricted HQ that hadn't yet entered play was also a gamey exploit.

Most players disagreed with his position. Many Allied HQs enter well after units already under their command enter. SoPAC is a good example.

Taking the position that restricted units can't be released to SoPAC until it enters the game would place an absurd restriction on the Allied side.
Hans

User avatar
Jorge_Stanbury
Posts: 4345
Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 12:57 pm
Location: Montreal

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by Jorge_Stanbury »

In my opinion, that is too extreme; as long as "the price is right" is in place and not suddendly the entire west cost based US army become part of ComFleetAirWest or equivalent, then I see no issue on selecting "yet to arrive" HQs.

That said, I will try to avoid any historical horror like putting for example, a US Army infantry division under the 1st Marine Air Wing

Is it possible for Japan to do this trick?

regards
User avatar
LargeSlowTarget
Posts: 4799
Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by LargeSlowTarget »

I am one of those extremists which would like to ban unit transfers to not-yet-active HQs. It is defying logic to transfer command to a void. Especially if there are other existing unrestricted HQs to transfer to. For example, transfer to Pacific Fleet HQ instead of South Pacific.
But I also advocate that once unrestricted, changing HQs should be free of pp charges. I think this would solve many exploits issues and allows a "clean" command structure.
But well, won't happen so we must apply Malthusian moral restraint. [:(]
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I am one of those extremists which would like to ban unit transfers to not-yet-active HQs. It is defying logic to transfer command to a void. Especially if there are other existing unrestricted HQs to transfer to. For example, transfer to Pacific Fleet HQ instead of South Pacific.
But I also advocate that once unrestricted, changing HQs should be free of pp charges. I think this would solve many exploits issues and allows a "clean" command structure.
But well, won't happen so we must apply Malthusian moral restraint. [:(]

I agree completely. The command structure is only half heartedly implemented.

I would also like to see command bonuses limited to units actually under the command of a given HQ.
This too would require free transfer once unrestricted.
Hans

User avatar
Mundy
Posts: 2867
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 6:12 am
Location: Neenah

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by Mundy »

Me too.

One cost to "unlock" a unit. Being able to easily organize a proper chain of command after that would be nice.

Ed
Image
User avatar
zulurider
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:34 am
Location: New Jersey

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by zulurider »

I don't like the command structure. Any HQ can support and add bonuses to any unit, regardless of nationality. Chain of command doesn't seem to matter. Really the only part of this game I don't like.
User avatar
IdahoNYer
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 2:07 am
Location: NYer living in Boise, ID

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by IdahoNYer »

There is a command system in in place, it just doesn't work well. Agree the costs are excessive to have units change commands, but unless you are releasing a unit from a restricted command, it really doesn't matter much, does it?

I would rather see smaller costs to change unit's command. There should be some cost, its not easy to just switch theater commands - but also heavy penalties if assigned outside the command structure. Right now, just don't think this works well.

But for me, I have heartburn having a unit assigned to South Pacific fighting in the Aleutians...

And I fully agree with Jorge_Stanbury that its gamey to use that Comfleetwest go-round to reduce costs.
spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by spence »

Frankly the whole "command system" seems rather hokey.

A US Corps was a completely tactical formation with units transferred in and out as the tactical situation demanded. Yet once assigned to a Corps that unit costs a relative fortune to move to any other parent Corps.

Having an Ensign as the CO of a light cruiser (HMNZS Achilles or Leander or both) is clearly horsehockey yet to replace him with any Captain (the appropriate rank for a CL) costs a dozen "Political Points" (or more).

The same ridiculous costs apply to the almost uniform assignment of incompetent (and I suspect utterly ficticous) babies placed in command of almost every Allied unit at the beginning of the game. Sure you can replace the 2 Lt in charge of that squadron...just pay 15 PPs to have him step aside for that Colonel. Just like real.

Meanwhile the IJ Player pays nothing whatever to mess with his industry...no problem at all smashing the rice bowl of the Zaibatsu (industrial leaders of the country). Just tell anybody to build anything? Hasn't the feudal system always worked like a charm like that?. Yep, just like real.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by wdolson »

The database of leaders has needed some serious work since the days of WitP. I think we finally got a volunteer!

All you have to do is review the leaders for every unit in the game and assign ones that are appropriate.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
CaseLogic
Posts: 8
Joined: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:24 pm

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by CaseLogic »

There are obviously some balance issues "baked in" to the crappy at start leaders.
Like the fact the crappy division commanders of the indian divisions with land skill in the 30s cost 30-50 PP to exchange.
"OK, you can march them trough the jungle into Burma, but at least it'll cost you a few days worth of PP to make them combat effective" or somesuch.

I noticed too late after clicking through the lot of them, so now I have to wait a few days extra before i can reinforce Port Blair with an Indian brigade out of Colombo. Hope the invasion is a couple of weeks out still, or that the 12x6" coastal arty I got in can maul any landing in the meantime. [:D]
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by wdolson »

Some leaders are specifically assigned to make the early going more realistic, such as the early war Indian and Commonwealth troops. The at start morale and experience for these units is often very poor too.

Some leaders are assigned at the time the unit enters the game from whatever leaders are in the pool. The game engine picks a leader from the right service and closest rank. This is true of LCUs, ships, and air units.

The leader database does need some vetting though. I believe there are some leaders assigned in there that shouldn't be assigned to those units. Some of the more outrageous ones like Japanese officers commanded USN ships have been fixed, but there are still some assigned to the wrong units. This has been made even worse in mods as units move around and changed in the database and leaders aren't always updated.

The ideal thing would be to organize the leader table by nationality and type, then reassign all the unit leaders accordingly, but that would take a big effort and probably a team of people so one or two poor people don't go completely insane.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Jorge_Stanbury

In my opinion, that is too extreme; as long as "the price is right" is in place and not suddendly the entire west cost based US army become part of ComFleetAirWest or equivalent, then I see no issue on selecting "yet to arrive" HQs.

That said, I will try to avoid any historical horror like putting for example, a US Army infantry division under the 1st Marine Air Wing

Is it possible for Japan to do this trick?

regards

Yes very much so and in a definitely extremely gamey manner as it can transfer LCUs to an Air HQ.

Alfred
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by witpqs »

In DBB, ComFleetAirWest is not a restricted command. It is up to the player to restrict it to CONUS/Canada/Alaska/Hawaii. Same with a few other HQ's. And, BTW, in the whole game the same with LCU that don't have to board ships to cross borders - it's up to the player to enforce the restrictions on themselves.
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5035
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by Yaab »

Resurrecting this thread.

If you check both stock and DBB scenarios, you will see that the first unrestricted US Army HQ available is Southwest Pacific, which arrives in April, 1942 in Australia. Now, on 8th December 1941 as the Allied player I have several US Army units (inf, AA, BFs) that I would like to ship outside CONUSA, preferably attaching them to an unrestricted land US Army HQ. However, I don't have any such HQ to attach it! If I want to ship a US Army unit out of USA I have to attach it eiter to navalHQ or air HQ. In the stock scenarios, there is at least this fictional, unrestricted US Marines Corp HQ, but in DBB there is no such thing. So, attaching land units to an air HQ or naval HQ is not an exlpoit or trick, but a necessity. Obviously, I cannot wait until Apirl 1942 in order to ship my first units out of USA, while the Jap player will have covered all bases in the Pacific by that date.

I have a hard time imagining that there was no US Army HQ structure for Pacific between December 1941 and April 1942 in RL.

User avatar
Trugrit
Posts: 1186
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 12:31 pm
Location: North Carolina

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by Trugrit »


You can use the Editor to make your own.



Image
Attachments
National.jpg
National.jpg (310.18 KiB) Viewed 404 times
"A man's got to know his limitations" -Dirty Harry
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5035
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by Yaab »

I don't plan to edit. I have always shipped the initial ground units by attaching to them available naval, air or marines HQ. Today it dawned on me that US Army only has land HQ structures for Luzon and CONUSA, and has zero HQ structure between them until April 1942. Weird. Were the units subordinated to naval/air in RL or they were all independent?
US87891
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:31 pm

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by US87891 »

ORIGINAL: Yaab
I don't plan to edit. I have always shipped the initial ground units by attaching to them available naval, air or marines HQ. Today it dawned on me that US Army only has land HQ structures for Luzon and CONUSA, and has zero HQ structure between them until April 1942. Weird. Were the units subordinated to naval/air in RL or they were all independent?
Depended on the theater, but land and naval forces were never ever subordinated to air HQs, anywhere, any time, except for airfield construction assets or airbase AA defense/security units. Otherwise, units reported to ground or naval command, depending on the organizational structure of the different theaters.

The forerunner to SWPac was ABDA, which controlled all land, sea, air, assets in the area bounded by PI, Malaysia, and Australia. The tactical command structure was primarily the pre-existing Dutch one, overlayed with a mélange of international commanders. The PI was a different beast and conformed to MacArthur’s requirements, which were ad-hoc and changed from time-to-time as circumsyances dictated. MacArthur was evacuated; experienced staff elements were not.

In SWPac, in the beginning, MacArthur had no US Army subordinate command units. There were no higher echelon troops, no trained staffs, no facilities; nothing except a couple divisions worth of untrained, inexperienced, semi-equipped, indifferently officered, recruits. Commanding both US and Aus forces, MacArthur used what was available; Australian staffs and commands, under the rubric Allied Land Forces, under Blamey (New Guinea Force, 1 Corps, 2 Corps, etc.). After US troops were deemed fit for combat (after 6 to 9 months of intensive training), they were assigned to Australian commands for operations. MacArthur did not request a US Corps level HQ staff until Aug 1942. Eichelburger’s I Corps activated October 1942, under command of 1st Aus Army (Laverack). Even though active, I Corps was not initially operational. At Buna, Eichelberger only commanded the US units under the overall command of Aus Gen Herring (technically, Aus I Corps). Vasey commanded the Australian units, also under Herring. The first true US Army planning/operational control HQ, in SWPac, was Krueger’s Sixth US Army, activated February 1943.

There was neither need nor scope for operational US Army Corps and Army level HQs until Elkton/Cartwheel.

In CenPac and SoPac, everything was under overall Navy command, with a ComAirxxPac Admiral commanding USN, USMC, and USAAF units, eventually with a USAAF General as deputy.

All ground forces were also under overall Navy command, with planning and operational control initially in the Navy’s hands, but handed off to the USMC unit commander once established. There was neither scope nor need for Corps and Army level HQs (either USMC or USA) until the end of 1942, when XIV Corps (Patch) took over tactical command from ‘TF Vandegrift’ on Guadalcanal, December 1942.

In the beginning, and for at least twelve to eighteen months, all higher echelon ground force staffs were fully utilized for theater unit training and logistical establishment and build-up (whether USA or USMC). There were neither people nor institutional resources available for anything else. Division level was the highest functional tactical command echelon for a long time, excepting SWPac, which used Australian structure as the intermediate.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: ComFleetAirWest

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Resurrecting this thread.

If you check both stock and DBB scenarios, you will see that the first unrestricted US Army HQ available is Southwest Pacific, which arrives in April, 1942 in Australia. Now, on 8th December 1941 as the Allied player I have several US Army units (inf, AA, BFs) that I would like to ship outside CONUSA, preferably attaching them to an unrestricted land US Army HQ. However, I don't have any such HQ to attach it! If I want to ship a US Army unit out of USA I have to attach it eiter to navalHQ or air HQ. In the stock scenarios, there is at least this fictional, unrestricted US Marines Corp HQ, but in DBB there is no such thing. So, attaching land units to an air HQ or naval HQ is not an exlpoit or trick, but a necessity. Obviously, I cannot wait until Apirl 1942 in order to ship my first units out of USA, while the Jap player will have covered all bases in the Pacific by that date.

I have a hard time imagining that there was no US Army HQ structure for Pacific between December 1941 and April 1942 in RL.
The game designates certain HQ as Command HQ rather than Army, Navy, etc. PacAO (that's the DBB name, might be different in stock) is a command HQ and you can certainly assign those USA units to PacAO if you like. It's not any kind of cheating or gaming the system.

The issue of assigning units to an HQ that requires less PP to make the unit unrestricted is a different issue and should (IMO) be handled by player agreement. Personally I don't do it, but I know opinions vary. I guess there are also some cases where such is intended so as to reflect historical command structure changes.

Edited to fix "do" was meant to be "don't".
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”