US Naval HQs

Matrix Games Forums

Join the Matrix Team at Historicon!

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!

Ageod takes you back to the Civil War

Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!

Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update

Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AAR

Conflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!

Pandora Beta Playthrough Videos

Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!

Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

US Naval HQs

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> US Naval HQs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

US Naval HQs - 3/3/2013 3:26:16 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 5293
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I noticed something on US Naval HQs, as opposed to the IJN ones.

The IJN ones are useful; a couple are Command HQs, and the ones that aren't include a fair number of Naval Support Squads. Useful for ship repair and quicker unloads.

The USN Fleet HQs, though, are not command HQs, and they also do not include any Naval Support Squads. They are just support squads, period.

Do the USN Fleet HQs do anything besides provide extra support for land units, if that's needed? Or is that it?

Post #: 1

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/3/2013 5:15:40 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2026
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

My guess would be, the US Fleet HQ was purely an administrative function. 3rd and 5th Fleet come to mind as good examples. The ships would simply fall under a different admiral, nothing else would change.

_____________________________

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 2

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/3/2013 5:31:11 PM

Sredni

Posts: 695
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

I think naval hq's effect ship repair? This thread indicates they do:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2350193

^thread about leadership choices for hq's, ships, and units. I thought I had a useful thread bookmark for hq's specifically but this was the only one I could find in my list.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 3

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/3/2013 6:19:31 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 5293
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I think naval hq's effect ship repair? This thread indicates they do:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2350193

^thread about leadership choices for hq's, ships, and units. I thought I had a useful thread bookmark for hq's specifically but this was the only one I could find in my list.

That's part of the question: IJN Naval HQs do help ship repair. But is that because they have Naval Squads in them? Or that they are Naval HQs? Or both?

Does the HQ provide repair help independent of the Naval Squads?

(in reply to Sredni)

Post #: 4

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/3/2013 8:41:31 PM

dr.hal

Posts: 1402
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline

If you read the manual or the Repair Guide 101 put together by Alfred, it is clear that naval support squads help in repair. However nothing is said about naval HQs themselves. So while HQs impact morale and help in recovery from disruption, I don't think they help directly with ship repair (however to get a squad back on its feet, that could impact once disruption is eliminated).

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 5

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/3/2013 9:38:47 PM

witpqs

Posts: 12442
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

I think it was during one of those threads I asked Michael if naval HQ in and of themselves had any effect, or just by means of their component devices. He answered that it was only via their devices. So if they have no naval support squads, then AFAIK they have none of those effects.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to dr.hal)

Post #: 6

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/3/2013 11:26:14 PM

spence

Posts: 3659
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline

Makes perfect sense. Everybody knows the IJN repaired ships in a flash. Why witness HIJMS Shokaku after Coral Sea. She got back into action in only 3 months: August 42. (It will be necessary here to ignore the fact that the USS Yorktown got back into action 3 days after putting into Pearl Harbor: strangely home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet).

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 7

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/4/2013 3:31:54 AM

witpqs

Posts: 12442
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Makes perfect sense. Everybody knows the IJN repaired ships in a flash. Why witness HIJMS Shokaku after Coral Sea. She got back into action in only 3 months: August 42. (It will be necessary here to ignore the fact that the USS Yorktown got back into action 3 days after putting into Pearl Harbor: strangely home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet).

Well I was just saying what I know of the game-mechanics. The real issue that you are bringing up is whether each side can repair ships as quickly as that side ought to be able to.

With regard to the Allies' naval support squads function, it doesn't really matter if that is provided by naval support squads inside a naval HQ or inside the various base force (and so on) units, or by some intrinsic ability of naval HQ units (without needing squads) does it?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 8

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/5/2013 3:35:04 AM

msieving1

Posts: 315
Joined: 3/23/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Makes perfect sense. Everybody knows the IJN repaired ships in a flash. Why witness HIJMS Shokaku after Coral Sea. She got back into action in only 3 months: August 42. (It will be necessary here to ignore the fact that the USS Yorktown got back into action 3 days after putting into Pearl Harbor: strangely home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet).

Well I was just saying what I know of the game-mechanics. The real issue that you are bringing up is whether each side can repair ships as quickly as that side ought to be able to.

With regard to the Allies' naval support squads function, it doesn't really matter if that is provided by naval support squads inside a naval HQ or inside the various base force (and so on) units, or by some intrinsic ability of naval HQ units (without needing squads) does it?

It does seem that the naval HQ was kind of an afterthought as far as the developers were concerned. Why include a unit type that does nothing? Army and air HQs have a function, but it looks like naval HQs were just thrown in for show.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 9

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/5/2013 6:23:51 AM

Lokasenna

Posts: 634
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Makes perfect sense. Everybody knows the IJN repaired ships in a flash. Why witness HIJMS Shokaku after Coral Sea. She got back into action in only 3 months: August 42. (It will be necessary here to ignore the fact that the USS Yorktown got back into action 3 days after putting into Pearl Harbor: strangely home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet).

Well I was just saying what I know of the game-mechanics. The real issue that you are bringing up is whether each side can repair ships as quickly as that side ought to be able to.

With regard to the Allies' naval support squads function, it doesn't really matter if that is provided by naval support squads inside a naval HQ or inside the various base force (and so on) units, or by some intrinsic ability of naval HQ units (without needing squads) does it?

It does seem that the naval HQ was kind of an afterthought as far as the developers were concerned. Why include a unit type that does nothing? Army and air HQs have a function, but it looks like naval HQs were just thrown in for show.

They provide some very nice Naval Support, but there are times as the IJ player that I feel like I don't have enough "hub bases" to put them, and I feel like putting more than one at any place is something of a waste (Rabaul with Port 7 doesn't need more than one, for example).

(in reply to msieving1)

Post #: 10

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/5/2013 12:32:14 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Makes perfect sense. Everybody knows the IJN repaired ships in a flash. Why witness HIJMS Shokaku after Coral Sea. She got back into action in only 3 months: August 42. (It will be necessary here to ignore the fact that the USS Yorktown got back into action 3 days after putting into Pearl Harbor: strangely home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet).

Well I was just saying what I know of the game-mechanics. The real issue that you are bringing up is whether each side can repair ships as quickly as that side ought to be able to.

With regard to the Allies' naval support squads function, it doesn't really matter if that is provided by naval support squads inside a naval HQ or inside the various base force (and so on) units, or by some intrinsic ability of naval HQ units (without needing squads) does it?

It does seem that the naval HQ was kind of an afterthought as far as the developers were concerned. Why include a unit type that does nothing? Army and air HQs have a function, but it looks like naval HQs were just thrown in for show.

They provide some very nice Naval Support, but there are times as the IJ player that I feel like I don't have enough "hub bases" to put them, and I feel like putting more than one at any place is something of a waste (Rabaul with Port 7 doesn't need more than one, for example).

He was talking about the Allied naval HQs that don't provide any naval support.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to Lokasenna)

Post #: 11

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/5/2013 2:05:18 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 4514
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

For whatever reason, and I am sure there are some very good ones, the designers decided to split the naval support from the US Naval HQ's and put it into Base support LCU's as opposed to the IJN HQ's which have it integrated.

Anyone who has played both sides of this will know, for a fact, that the allies posses many times the naval support squads that the IJ does and that the allies CAN repair capital ships in 3 days whereas the IJN will repair ships in 3 months if they are lucky.

Oh, hold it, that is a historical representation! Must be a mistake. The game is clearly BORKED beyond all recognition.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 12

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/5/2013 4:30:58 PM

Lokasenna

Posts: 634
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Makes perfect sense. Everybody knows the IJN repaired ships in a flash. Why witness HIJMS Shokaku after Coral Sea. She got back into action in only 3 months: August 42. (It will be necessary here to ignore the fact that the USS Yorktown got back into action 3 days after putting into Pearl Harbor: strangely home of the U.S. Pacific Fleet).

Well I was just saying what I know of the game-mechanics. The real issue that you are bringing up is whether each side can repair ships as quickly as that side ought to be able to.

With regard to the Allies' naval support squads function, it doesn't really matter if that is provided by naval support squads inside a naval HQ or inside the various base force (and so on) units, or by some intrinsic ability of naval HQ units (without needing squads) does it?

It does seem that the naval HQ was kind of an afterthought as far as the developers were concerned. Why include a unit type that does nothing? Army and air HQs have a function, but it looks like naval HQs were just thrown in for show.

They provide some very nice Naval Support, but there are times as the IJ player that I feel like I don't have enough "hub bases" to put them, and I feel like putting more than one at any place is something of a waste (Rabaul with Port 7 doesn't need more than one, for example).

He was talking about the Allied naval HQs that don't provide any naval support.

Well...reading comprehension fail.

Apologies!

(in reply to HansBolter)

Post #: 13

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/6/2013 5:26:28 AM

uncivil_servant

Posts: 93
Joined: 2/19/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

For whatever reason, and I am sure there are some very good ones, the designers decided to split the naval support from the US Naval HQ's and put it into Base support LCU's as opposed to the IJN HQ's which have it integrated.

Anyone who has played both sides of this will know, for a fact, that the allies posses many times the naval support squads that the IJ does and that the allies CAN repair capital ships in 3 days whereas the IJN will repair ships in 3 months if they are lucky.

Oh, hold it, that is a historical representation!� Must be a mistake.� The game is clearly BORKED beyond all recognition.�

But it could also be an oversight. If the designers looked at how many units that could help in the repair of ships each side had, and implemented them in the game and then later put in the HQ's after the historical divvying up that it could be a non-tranparent omission of those units on the allied side that favors the IJN side - or someone decided the allies "had enough of that stuff" and added those onto the IJN side. But if one states in the manual "HQs help this" it would imply that was the intent for that to be the Navy HQ's purpose, but the intent an implemented is not the same for each side.

As to whether or not the same facilities advantages are identical - RE game vs reality - I just hope I can take advantage of that imbalance. I don't know about you, but I wish allied carrier could face and IJN carrier's dive bomber and torpedo bombers and get only dinged in the game and need only three days of repair.

The yorktown faced such instances twice and was not sunk either time. Probably due to the fact that wildcats seemed to do a wee bit better IRL than they seem to in the game versus zeros as well as IJN torpedo attacks irl weren't quite the auto-kill that they seem to be in game reading AARs of massive CV fleet sinkings.

The noted Yorktown took a bad bomb hit but avoided torpedos (yes, those faster IJN ones) at Coral Sea, emergency repairs to superficially patch up flight desk, then survived six more hits at Midway and then two torpedo hits from 10 TBs. Still wasn't sunk.

Two more torpedos from a submarine did enough damage (still didn't sink!) to cause repair efforts to be deemed too dangrous to continue. (so 9 bomb hits and 4 torpedo hits) without drydock repairs.

I just hope my ships can survive similar so I can take advantage of the superior repair facilities (I've never seen a 3-day repair time for combat damage - but I am very new).

< Message edited by uncivil_servant -- 3/6/2013 6:32:48 AM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 14

RE: US Naval HQs - 3/6/2013 12:25:39 PM

HansBolter

Posts: 3150
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

For whatever reason, and I am sure there are some very good ones, the designers decided to split the naval support from the US Naval HQ's and put it into Base support LCU's as opposed to the IJN HQ's which have it integrated.

Anyone who has played both sides of this will know, for a fact, that the allies posses many times the naval support squads that the IJ does and that the allies CAN repair capital ships in 3 days whereas the IJN will repair ships in 3 months if they are lucky.

Oh, hold it, that is a historical representation!� Must be a mistake.� The game is clearly BORKED beyond all recognition.�

Well playeed bit of sarcasm there. I agreee for the most part without the drama. Dispersing the naval support actually gives the Allies far greater flexibility in it's use than the Japanese enjoy. All that being said, nothing about that argument invalidates the observation that it makes the Allied Naval HQs somewhat superfluous as they serve no naval function.

_____________________________

Hans

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 15