Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/2/2016 10:51:31 PM   
AlessandroD


Posts: 381
Joined: 12/28/2014
From: Italy
Status: offline
I don't know if someone can answer me, but do you know why some Corps HQ are without units under their direct command?

I.e: HQ So Seas Group (Horii)
144th Inf Regiment is directly attached to 17th Army (in fact is another Corps HQ) and not to Horii's Command.

Thanks in advance

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 1:08:54 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7603
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
Probably because it doesn't matter.

Command structure was not fully implemented in the original game design and has never been "corrected".

Any corps or army or command HQ can provide combat bonuses to any LCU.

There is no in game benefit to being attached to the "correct" HQ.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to AlessandroD)
Post #: 2
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 3:34:14 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3262
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Probably because it doesn't matter.

Command structure was not fully implemented in the original game design and has never been "corrected".



Hans I have to ask, what basis do you have to say that the command system "was not fully implemented"? What was this implementation to look like?

When I first started playing the game, I looked at China and the disposition of troops at the outset and was aghast to find that there seemed to be no rhyme or reason to the disposition. It is a hogpog of units and commands. I thought to myself, HOW am I going to get these dispread units back to their commands? So I asked the forum and was informed it doesn't matter, much like your response to this thread. However I thought, why have this "command" structure if it doesn't matter? But in truth, DOES it matter? When my ship deployed overseas (I'm talking real life here) it "chopped" to another fleet, that change of status was nothing more than a message sent by the ship... no big deal. So I would be interested in how LCUs change commands, I would assume (a dangerous concept unto itself) that it is about the same thing, a message. Thus my questions to you (and anyone else that is "in the know"), what was the original idea of the command relationship to look like and why? Is there some sort of advantage in keeping the command structure intact, or is it simply a matter of a message being sent that articulates a change from Corp 1 to Corp 2 or Fleet 1 to Fleet 2? Thus as the current game situation dictates, no big deal! As the tail end of a famous messages said: "...all the world wonders".

< Message edited by dr.hal -- 8/3/2016 3:37:39 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 3
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 4:18:25 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlessandroD
I don't know if someone can answer me, but do you know why some Corps HQ are without units under their direct command?

I.e: HQ So Seas Group (Horii)
144th Inf Regiment is directly attached to 17th Army (in fact is another Corps HQ) and not to Horii's Command.

Thanks in advance

Hans is correct. In the AE game system, it doesn't matter; an HQ is an HQ.

In some Babes scenarios, the rules suggest keeping component units with their echelon command. Therefore, component units have an appropriate HQ assignment. Also, in some scenarios, there is some dynamic restriction depending on an HQ assignment.

Guadalcanal was the first AE scenario that John ported to AE, so it does not have some of the detailed graininess of later works. But you can internally 'house rule' the component assignments if you wish. All he wanted to do was offer a scenario where the internal components of an LCU conformed with a lower level echelon paradigm. So don't worry about HQ assignment structures in your game.

Matt

(in reply to AlessandroD)
Post #: 4
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 4:34:53 PM   
jmolyson

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline
Another disappointment in this game and another reason to learn and use the Editor.

We're not playing checkers or Battleship. The way the units maneuver, at least in real life, is greatly affected by the chain of command. It's a shame it's treated in such a cavalier manner.

And incidentally, when a unit or ship "chops" (change of operational control) from one command to another is a significant event. It's a lot more then "sending a message". The respective chains of command are anticipating the movement of the unit/ship from one AOR (area of responsibility) to another. Everything from logistics, to rules of engagement to who evaluates the performance is affected.





_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 5
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 4:58:30 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
I'm getting tired addressing this continuous fatuous nonsense. You don't like it, then go buy another game.

Matt

(in reply to jmolyson)
Post #: 6
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 5:04:29 PM   
jmolyson

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline
No, I like the game but unlike you it's not perfect.

The idea of the forum is to address issues. If you don't like that, don't read the forum.

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 7
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 5:29:19 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3262
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
Ayaad (Joe),

Thanks for the addition to my note. However when I said it is only a message, in fact that's true. Of course the beans, bullets and butter come from a different location, as it should when any unit moves from A to B. This is actually true in the game as well, if a ship moves from San Diego to Pearl, it gets everything it needs at Pearl once there. So in truth, the game reflects reality. A change of command is certainly a change in support and operational control. But since the game has only one controller per side (normally), then it doesn't make much sense to put a road block into that control, unless the road block is a reflection of some other aspect of the game (such as out of supply). But you are certainly right, changing operational control in real life can be a very different story (been there, done that). But I don't see how this can be reflected in the game other than the command's ratings in terms of leadership, range, etc.... I think that's a fair attempt at replicating the impact of a changing command structure, give the limits of the game (it is a game after all!).

_____________________________


(in reply to jmolyson)
Post #: 8
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 6:31:38 PM   
jmolyson

 

Posts: 162
Joined: 11/27/2006
Status: offline
All true.

I am playing the Guadalcanal scenario from stock. I've spent a lot of time researching these command arrangements.

Frankly, I am beginning to enjoy editing the scenario as much as playing the game. It's an opportunity to do research in depth.

Joe

_____________________________

Joe

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 9
RE: Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question - 8/3/2016 8:30:29 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7603
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
I believe there is one instance where units need to be under the same HQ to get a benefit and that is in coordination of air missions.

I believe the manual states (and I'm working form memory here) that air units under the same HQ, operating within command range of that HQ get a coordination bonus.


For those of us who are sticklers for aesthetics it grates against our sensibilities to have units of SouthPac operating in the SWPac zone while still under the SoPac HQ as a simple example.

The ground game has always been somwhat of the bastard red headed stepchild of WITP, getting far less design effort and mechanical complexity than the air and naval games received.

Alas, it is what it is and we have to live with it.

When releasing a restricted unit I always switch it to the command in which I intend to operate, but changes after that are too costly in PPs.

The command structure could only be fully implemented by changing the PP cost to NOTHING to switch from one unrestricted command to another.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to jmolyson)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Da Babes Guadalcanal Command question 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

0.188