Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

ComFleetAirWest

 
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 >> The War Room >> ComFleetAirWest Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
ComFleetAirWest - 11/6/2014 7:57:21 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3082
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
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



< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 11/6/2014 8:58:56 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/7/2014 6:33:25 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 2
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/7/2014 10:57:44 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5585
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
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


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 3
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/7/2014 12:13:10 PM   
Jorge_Stanbury


Posts: 3082
Joined: 2/29/2012
From: Lima and Toronto
Status: offline
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

< Message edited by Jorge_Stanbury -- 11/7/2014 1:14:11 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 4
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/7/2014 1:04:29 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3395
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 11/7/2014 2:06:10 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 5
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/7/2014 1:33:57 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5585
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

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


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 6
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/7/2014 1:52:05 PM   
Mundy


Posts: 2336
Joined: 6/26/2002
From: Neenah
Status: offline
Me too.

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

Ed

_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 7
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/7/2014 6:11:37 PM   
zulurider


Posts: 40
Joined: 10/1/2014
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 8
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/7/2014 10:10:08 PM   
IdahoNYer


Posts: 1887
Joined: 9/6/2009
From: NYer living in Boise, ID
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to zulurider)
Post #: 9
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/11/2014 11:51:50 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 4366
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 10
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/12/2014 5:09:32 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10203
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 11
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/14/2014 11:33:52 AM   
CaseLogic

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 2/26/2014
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 12
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/14/2014 11:52:41 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10203
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
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

(in reply to CaseLogic)
Post #: 13
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/14/2014 2:38:39 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 4935
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to Jorge_Stanbury)
Post #: 14
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 11/14/2014 2:52:06 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 21684
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 15
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/14/2017 7:00:09 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2639
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
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.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 16
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/14/2017 12:45:11 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 405
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

You can use the Editor to make your own.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 17
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/14/2017 1:33:59 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 2639
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 18
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/14/2017 4:36:17 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 391
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
quote:

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.


< Message edited by US87891 -- 5/14/2017 4:40:14 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 19
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/14/2017 5:08:15 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 21684
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

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".

< Message edited by witpqs -- 5/14/2017 5:10:52 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 20
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/14/2017 5:08:52 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 21684
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Oops, Matt already covered it better.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 21
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/14/2017 6:07:18 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 8540
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

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".

Should be PacOA - the word Oceans coming before the word Areas.
Pacific Fleet HQ in stock changes to PacOA very soon after the war starts.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 22
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/15/2017 6:28:33 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 2639
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

quote:

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.



Thanks! I completely forgot about ABDA. I was checking US Army HQs only. Talk about the disruptiveness of hindsight on planning: I treated everything west of Port Moresby as a done deal (Japs will conquer DEI and Malaysia anyway) and was prepping myself for defensive actions ins SoPac. Also, thanks for clearing the issue between air and naval HQ attachments. Seems right now, the best would be to attach the land units to either Pacific Command or ABDA, depending on where the units will be used.

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 23
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/15/2017 9:25:18 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1516
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

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.


One slight variation; Austro-American land command relationships were not quite as smooth as the OOB tree suggests. Maj Gen R C Richardson had been 'felt out' for command of I Corps, but ducked it because he did not want to take orders from an Australian Army (NGF was expanding into an army level HQ by process of osmosis) or land forces (Blamey) commander. Richardson had been to Australia in 1942, so if he had the misfortune to meet Blamey, his reaction could be assessed as perfectly reasonable.

Also ironically, Eichelberger had no choice in the matter, but when he arrived, MacArthur created "Alamo Force" directly subordinate to SWPAC so that it wouldn't fall within the the SWPAC/Australian state of command anyway. Personally, I quite like Robert Lawrence Eichelberger, who in corps command was 'up front' and exposed to enemy fire.

After 6th Army was established under Kreuger, Eichelberger, with his corps staff, was sidelined on training duties in Australia for a time. The War Department twice wanted to move him to Europe - in command of 1st Army, and later 9th - but MacArthur blocked any transfer. MacArthur also blocked an MOH recommendation, based on his exposing himself to Japanese fire at Buna, to get the troops moving. Eventually, MacArthur must have decided he was no longer a publicity threat, and he got back into the saddle. He would have commanded 8th Army in the proposed Coronet operation.

As for Maj Gen Richardson, he spent most of the war as military governor of Hawaii, where his lasting claim to fame is that he managed to get himself convicted for contempt of a civil court when he refused to produce a couple of internees under a writ of habeas corpus.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 5/15/2017 9:28:23 AM >


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 24
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/18/2017 11:05:02 PM   
Lawless1


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2015
From: Martland but now living in SC
Status: offline
quote:

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.


LargeSlowTarget in the stock GC and DBB Lite A sCN #26 the following units are already assigned to SWPAC, which has not arrive as of Dec 7, 1941.

898th EAB @Tacoma
205th FA BN @ March Field
48th AU BN @ PM
114th USAAF BF, 115th USAAF BF, 147th FA RGT, 148th FA BN, 131th FA BN embarked in TF407
Torres Straight BN @ Horn Island

Since these units are already assigned to HQ that hasn't arrive, would you still consider it gamey if additional units were assigned to SWPAC? You are still paying full PP to reassign any unit to SWPAC.

_____________________________

Two types of ships, targets and submarines
Death from below

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 25
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/19/2017 9:46:38 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3395
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I have not said it is gamey, it is just not logical.

The fact that some units start assigned to SWPac is due to game engine restrictions and scenario design decisions.

Historically correct, the units of the Pensacola convoy and other units earmarked for the PI for example should be under USAFFE command. However, since USAFFE is a restricted command in the game, the earmarked units would be unable to load on ships and would have to be bought-out with PPs to an unrestricted HQ. Furthermore, they would most probably never make it to USAFFE anyway and end-up assigned to some other HQ. So, it makes sense that they are assigned to SWPac.

However, in a perfect game, the said units should not be assigned to SWPac at the game start because SWPac HQ did not exist at the start of the war. Said units should be assigned to a different unrestricted HQ or should be "independent" like some air groups are. Historically, the units on the Pensacola convoy came under the command of the "United States Forces in Australia (HQ USFIA)" Command, effective December 22, 1941 - under BGen Barnes, the ranking officer of the Pensacola Convoy. The scenario designers could have created such an HQ, or a generic HQ unit called "Independent ground forces" or "Unassigned ground forces". But the fact that from the game mechanics POV it does not matter since the chain of command has not been implemented, they probably did not deem it worth the hassle.

Finally, since the game charge PPs for changing unrestricted units, it is ok to assign restricted units directly to the intended unrestricted command, even if the unrestricted HQ is not in the game yet. I do this myself, since the current game leaves no choice. My comment about not allowing this was made with the provision that changing unrestricted units should not cost PPs.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 5/19/2017 9:55:31 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Lawless1)
Post #: 26
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/19/2017 4:34:27 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 21684
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
The part of my comment about not gamey was because I presume that's what some people were considering.

The logical part is where historical reality gave way to the restrictions of the computer code. They had to make it function as closely as they could within those limitations.

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 27
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/19/2017 7:58:23 PM   
Lawless1


Posts: 63
Joined: 9/6/2015
From: Martland but now living in SC
Status: offline
LST, ah ha, my misunderstanding of what I read. It would have been great if scenario designers could have created such an HQ,("United States Forces in Australia (HQ USFIA)" Command, effective December 22, 1941 - under BGen Barnes), or a generic HQ unit called "Independent ground forces" or "Unassigned ground

_____________________________

Two types of ships, targets and submarines
Death from below

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 28
RE: ComFleetAirWest - 5/19/2017 9:17:32 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 3119
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

My comment about not allowing this was made with the provision that changing unrestricted units should not cost PPs.


Within the context and constraints of the game mechanics, I wish this were true.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Lawless1)
Post #: 29
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> ComFleetAirWest Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.191