Replacing my good commanders with bad ones

[CaptHaggard]

Newbie here. I must be doing something wrong. I am buying commanders for my sub fleet. And then I discover that many of my subs commanded by my most esteemed commanders are no longer on their subs - surreptitiously replaced by awful candidates, of whom the pool guide says something like, "Up and coming commander. Suited for command of a fleet sub". Very expensive to get rid of them. They are all 23 - 26 aggressive ratings. Like leadership, you can't learn that.

Why did I lose my good commanders? Do ships/subs automatically lose commanders after 1 or 2 cruises?

These new guys are harbor tug material at best. Might as well just mothball these vessels until I collect more PPs, unless there's a way to recover my old guys.

What am I missing?

[dr.hal]

This is a common misunderstanding of how things happen. If your sub is at sea (in port obviously) meaning it is in a TF of one, then you are replacing the TF commander NOT the sub commander. When that TF comes back into port and it is disbanded, lets say you want to do some sub repairs, then you LOOSE that TF commander and the commander of the sub then becomes the TF commander when the sub is put back into a new TF. Thus you see a new and sometimes less than desirable TF commander (the CO of the sub). The key to a better TF commander is to change the sub's SKIPPER while the sub is disbanded in port, thus when it is later put into a TF, the GOOD skipper is now automatically the TF commander (if the TF is only one sub).... Does this make sense to you???

[wneumann]

More usefully done with land commanders. (i.e. Percival as British commander at Singapore in 1941-42) It prolongs the "agony" - briefly delaying Japanese capture of Singapore possibly one to several game turns, giving you (the AFB) a tiny amount of additional time to do things elsewhere plus an equally tiny waste of the JFB's time and effort. Merely replace Percival with a better British ground commander, then re-instate Percival as commander in Singapore (removing the better British commander) immediately before Singapore falls. Percival gets the "honor" of presiding over the British surrender in Singapore with the better British commander prolonging its defense. Timing on switching command back to Percival is crucial and must be watched carefully.

Also helpful with the Chinese... Replacing Chiang Kai-Chek (in a "coup-de-tat") with a better rated Chinese commander in chief doesn't hurt the Allied cause at all.

[CaptHaggard]

Thank you, Dr. Hal, for responding.

(We had growers over for dinner last night, so kindly forgive my sluggish synapses.)

Setting aside the issue of replacing commanders, and concentrating (best I can)on existing commanders of subs that appear to have been involuntarily replaced:

1. Two of my hotshot commanders returned to Pearl after arduous Aleutian duty, each sub in a separate TF.

2. These commanders have never been replaced or tampered with in any way.

3. Their subs were then disbanded.

4. A week later I am ready to send them out on another mission. The subs in question are now pristine in condition.

5. I form two new separate patrol TFs; I am ready to assign them their destination...

6. It is then I notice that neither commander is the hotshot who commanded these subs the week before.

7. Because of the dismal ratings of the newly listed commanders, I disbanded those TFs and sent someone else.

So are you saying the original commanders are still present?

And in this regard, to clarify:

1. Does a TF of a single ship/sub have both a ship/sub commander AND a TF commander?

2. If so, is the commander listed on individual sub TFs that are underway the TF commander or the sub commander?

Thank you so much for helping me out.

Robert

[CaptHaggard]

Thank you, wneumann, for responding.

I shall remember those invaluable tips. So many angles to this game!

Cheers!

[dr.hal]

Welcome to the forum!!!

Response time is not of concern Robert, that's why this forum is asynchronous, time doesn't matter. You get to it when you get to it. I hope the growers helped you grow!

As for your followup points, as I was not playing your game, I can't be sure of what you did, however as per my last response, when a TF is created, and a TF commander is NOT selected from a list of possible commanders, then the "senior" captain from the TF's constituent ships is appointed TF commander (in MOST cases, there are exceptions such as the two US CV TFs that start the game and have an appointed Historical TF Commander). Once the TF is assembled you CAN change its commander, but here again is the concern, once the TF is disbanded, that TF commander goes back to the TF commander list. If the TF created is using a captain from one of the constituent ships of the TF, once disbanded the ship still retains the captain that was temporarily appointed TF commander.

BTW, I put the "senior" captain in quotes because the program doesn't always pick the senior skipper in rank or grade to be TF commander. Here's a tip, if you don't like the skipper that the computer has chosen to be TF commander upon creation of the TF then you can transfer that ship back to the port in which you are creating the TF, select that ship to view from the port, change the captain on that ship for one that has better ratings from the list of available captains and then re-add that ship to the TF and the new captain will become the new TF commander. This move is a bit "gamey" so to speak, but it gets around the computer's selection of the "senior" skipper.

In your example, when you changed the sub TF commander on the original patrol and then disbanded that patrol, the sub still retains (or "reverts" back to) the original skipper. That's why you appear to have a new and less than desirable skipper at the helm. Remember change "captains" while the sub is disbanded and that sub's NEW captain will become the future TF commander for that sub in a single sub TF.

So in response to your questions, yes a TF can have both a sub skipper and a separate TF commander, but only if you APPOINT the TF commander from the list of TF commanders (note that the TF commander lists and ship's captain lists are NOT the same electronic people). BUT if you simply put a sub into a sub TF (be it mine-laying, transport or normal patrol) the skipper of the sub becomes the TF commander (or if there are 2 or more subs, the "senior" skipper takes the job). In this instance, the TF commander and the sub skipper are one in the same.

I hope this helps. Hal

[BBfanboy]

You can easily check the TF and Sub commanders - in the TF screen the commander is shown - note the name. Then click on the sub in the TF to bring up the ship unit screen and check if it is the same guy. It should be, unless you manually change the TF commander.

The game does promote and transfer really competent leaders and air aces. You get some messages at the end of the Operations Report about people "Available for Reassignment", but it never tells you what ship/LCU/ACU/Support Unit they came from so I find it completely useless (I am NOT going to go into the editor to look up names/starting assignments !).

FWIW I do check commanders every time I send ships to sea after they have been in port.

[BBfanboy]

A little addendum to dr. hal's comments about "senior captain" being picked as commander:

There is a switch on the TF creation screen that you can change to let the AI "Auto Select" the commander - I never do that so I don't know if that is what dr. hal is describing.

I do know that if you have the switch set to Manually Select the commander it will be the captain of the TF Flagship. The selection of the Flagship is where it gets complicated. The priority is:
1. Naval ships over merchant ships. - Note that the latter have a leading "x" in their ship type, so an AP is really a naval ship while an xAP is not.
2. Size matters - the tonnage of the ship is important in deciding the flagship
3. Importance matters - if you have two ships close in tonnage the most important ship will be selected. E.G. - you may have a 30,000 ton BB as flagship but if you add a 25,000 ton CV, the latter will be the flagship. It may be based on VPs for each ship.
4. All else being equal above, the LAST ship added to the TF will be the flagship. Make sure the ship captain is the best you can afford.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A little addendum to dr. hal's comments about "senior captain" being picked as commander:

There is a switch on the TF creation screen that you can change to let the AI "Auto Select" the commander - I never do that so I don't know if that is what dr. hal is describing.

I've never noticed the OP's behavior either, so I suspect it might be this. I never let the AI pick COs. Also, a long time since I played it, but Auto-Sub-Ops might be involved. I don't think so, but it's something to eliminate.

[NigelKentarus]

I never let the AI pick CO's either, but I do let it Auto pick TF CO's on routine, out of the way, relatively safe cargo convoys. Hopefully that will get them some experience and up their leadership ratings.

[CaptHaggard]

Gentlemen, this is a wealth of information for me to grasp and I thank you for it.

I am fortunate to be shot-gunning as sub commander in Lobo v. Rio, and thus gaining valuable insight into this complex world.

I suffer sub-par decisions on my part pretty much on a daily basis; all I ask is that my commanders 1) stay in the same boat unless replaced; 2) retain essentially the same ratings without wild swings.

Reading the various nuances and pitfalls presented here, I am resolute to understand all the options before me.

Thank you again.

Robert

[CaptHaggard]

I believe I have gotten to the source of the problem with new (vastly inferior and incompetent) commanders suddenly appearing in my subs:

In the course of replacing lower-rated commanders in various vessels, I failed to check the list of commanders already commanding SS in the fleet.

I was essentially transferring my good commanders sub-to-sub without knowing it.

In my humble opinion this is a glitch in the program. The commanders listed as available for command should be those either not currently in a sub, or at least clearly articulated as to their current duty station.

Kind of a rip-off charging PP to 1) have a guy take a stroll across Mike piers at Pearl to his new ship not a 100 yards away, and 2) do so without the player having easy access to information that this stroll was entirely a self-defeating exercise.

Boo!

[BillBrown]

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

I believe I have gotten to the source of the problem with new (vastly inferior and incompetent) commanders suddenly appearing in my subs:

In the course of replacing lower-rated commanders in various vessels, I failed to check the list of commanders already commanding SS in the fleet.

I was essentially transferring my good commanders sub-to-sub without knowing it.

In my humble opinion this is a glitch in the program. The commanders listed as available for command should be those either not currently in a sub, or at least clearly articulated as to their current duty station.

Kind of a rip-off charging PP to 1) have a guy take a stroll across Mike piers at Pearl to his new ship not a 100 yards away, and 2) do so without the player having easy access to information that this stroll was entirely a self-defeating exercise.

Boo!

I don't think that is possible. You have to relieve one to put him in another command.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A little addendum to dr. hal's comments about "senior captain" being picked as commander:

There is a switch on the TF creation screen that you can change to let the AI "Auto Select" the commander - I never do that so I don't know if that is what dr. hal is describing.

I've never noticed the OP's behavior either, so I suspect it might be this. I never let the AI pick COs. Also, a long time since I played it, but Auto-Sub-Ops might be involved. I don't think so, but it's something to eliminate.

I actually do let the AI select a TF commander on the offhand chance it might select a good one I then won't have to pay PPs to replace.

I don't leave it as the default setting when creating TFs. I only enable it when I want to take a chance.

[CaptHaggard]

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

I believe I have gotten to the source of the problem with new (vastly inferior and incompetent) commanders suddenly appearing in my subs:

In the course of replacing lower-rated commanders in various vessels, I failed to check the list of commanders already commanding SS in the fleet.

I was essentially transferring my good commanders sub-to-sub without knowing it.

In my humble opinion this is a glitch in the program. The commanders listed as available for command should be those either not currently in a sub, or at least clearly articulated as to their current duty station.

Kind of a rip-off charging PP to 1) have a guy take a stroll across Mike piers at Pearl to his new ship not a 100 yards away, and 2) do so without the player having easy access to information that this stroll was entirely a self-defeating exercise.

Boo!

I don't think that is possible. You have to relieve one to put him in another command.

Well, I would hope that was the case. But I typed out a complete roster of my active subs, including commanders and pertinent ratings (leadership/inspiration/naval/aggression). One FW Fenno, Lt. Cmdr., was in Grouper. He is a commander who would never be replaced, outstanding ratings. Meanwhile Tuna's commander had low ratings. I chose to replace him. The name Fenno, to tell the truth, did ring a distant bell, but I did not think to check my roster. He was on the "available" list and so I chose him. Now Grouper has some scrub (26 aggressive), and Fenno - exactly the same ratings - is commanding Tuna.

[CaptHaggard]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A little addendum to dr. hal's comments about "senior captain" being picked as commander:

There is a switch on the TF creation screen that you can change to let the AI "Auto Select" the commander - I never do that so I don't know if that is what dr. hal is describing.

I've never noticed the OP's behavior either, so I suspect it might be this. I never let the AI pick COs. Also, a long time since I played it, but Auto-Sub-Ops might be involved. I don't think so, but it's something to eliminate.

I actually do let the AI select a TF commander on the offhand chance it might select a good one I then won't have to pay PPs to replace.

I don't leave it as the default setting when creating TFs. I only enable it when I want to take a chance.

Another fine idea.

You know, the problem I have with the vast amount of expert information, tips and insights collected from these pages is how the devil to index it.

A detailed index could run dozens of pages... but I'm beginning to think, from a rank amateur's POV, that there could be no worthier project in an effort to master such a complex simulation.

Salute & cheers to all the luminaries whose insights inhabit these pages!

[CaptHaggard]

Gentlemen,

A brief postscript to "Replacing my Good Commanders with Bad Commanders":

I think I know the problem. Rio Bravo played 250-odd turns with the subs on computer control. Then I came aboard to guide them manually.

Hence, whenever I bring SS into port after a mission, a certain percentage flip back to computer control. Whenever that happens, the commander changes.

Whether or not it is placing the "original" commander into the vessel, I can't say due to lack of record-keeping.

But it looks as though it's a problem I'm just going to have to live with... I can't keep spending Rio's hard-earned PP on new commanders every time out...

Or can I?[:)]

Cheers,

Hag

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

Gentlemen,

A brief postscript to "Replacing my Good Commanders with Bad Commanders":

I think I know the problem. Rio Bravo played 250-odd turns with the subs on computer control. Then I came aboard to guide them manually.

Hence, whenever I bring SS into port after a mission, a certain percentage flip back to computer control. Whenever that happens, the commander changes.

Whether or not it is placing the "original" commander into the vessel, I can't say due to lack of record-keeping.

But it looks as though it's a problem I'm just going to have to live with... I can't keep spending Rio's hard-earned PP on new commanders every time out...

Or can I?[:)]
Cheers,

Hag

Did you go to preferences and set "Auto Sub Ops" to OFF? That should prevent reversion to computer control, unless it is one of those switches where the setting is permanent after the first turn runs.

[jmalter]

hi Captain,
next time you receive a game-turn file, use hotkey P to open the game's Preferences, check if GAME OPTIONS > Automatic Submarine Operations is OFF or ON. In a game vs. the AI, these options can be changed mid-game, but in a PBEM game, many options are locked after turn 1 is played.

When you form a new TF, you get the 'Select Mission' screen, over on its right side, 'Auto-Select Commander' should be off.

Then after you've added a sub to your TF, you'll get the TF screen. Assuming it's a 1-boat Sub Patrol TF, *do not* click on the 'Cdr:' name! (If auto-commander is Off, this will be the sub's captain.) To improve the captain, click on the boat's name in the TF screen, then select a better leader from the ship's 'Captain:' option.

This captain will stick with the sub, but a TF commander will return to the pool when the TF disbands. Obviously, you'll use your PP more efficiently by buying improved captains, instead of TF commanders.

[Rio Bravo]

ORIGINAL: CaptHaggard

Gentlemen,

A brief postscript to "Replacing my Good Commanders with Bad Commanders":

I think I know the problem. Rio Bravo played 250-odd turns with the subs on computer control. Then I came aboard to guide them manually.

Hence, whenever I bring SS into port after a mission, a certain percentage flip back to computer control. Whenever that happens, the commander changes.

Whether or not it is placing the "original" commander into the vessel, I can't say due to lack of record-keeping.

But it looks as though it's a problem I'm just going to have to live with... I can't keep spending Rio's hard-earned PP on new commanders every time out...

Or can I?[:)]

Cheers,

Hag

Capt. Haggard-

I think El Lobo did set subs for computer control.

In the beginning, and until you took over sub operations, I had like 7 or 8 subs on computer control. I changed them to human control numerous times, but they kept reverting back to computer control.

The balance of the subs were not and are not on computer control.

Accordingly, it wasn't precisely like,"Rio Bravo played 250-odd turns with the subs on computer control." It was only 7 or 8 that were a pain in the ass. The balance, which was the vast majority of subs, went where ordered.

Your pal,

-Terry