From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Oops, I left and repeated a typo in the third last paragraph of my post. The correct meaning can be determined by the context of the preceding paragraphs so I'll have to correct that post. As to your points.
1. Any HQ can be a top level HQ. All that is required is that it reports to itself only. Making a top level HQ does not convert that HQ into a Command HQ. A Command HQ is created specifically by the scenario designer, not by the code.
2. The 4th Fleet et al that you refer to, and which my post clearly identifies as being Command HQs, are that not because they are top level HQs but because the scenario designer specifically classified them as Command HQs. Why the designation? For the reasons you stated. But those historical reasons did not apply to Combined Fleet. Just because historically lower level HQs reported to Combined Fleet is not a justified reason to make Combined Fleet a Command HQ.
This is not what I observe in the editor and the game. Combined FLeet, 4th Fleet and SE Area Fleet are classified as Naval HQs in the editor. Combined Fleet shows up as assigned to Southern Fleet an d is a Naval HQ. But 4th and SEA Fleet are assigned to themselves and show up as Command HQ. Made a test and assigned Combined HQ to itself and it shows up as Command HQ as well.
3. A top level HQ does not have the attributes I listed in the third last paragraph which are held by a Command HQ. IOW, a top level HQ does not ipso facto have airfield stacking benefits, allow TOE upgrades, assist in the availability of torpedoes for the Netties, improve air coordination odds, provide land combat bonuses for fully prepped units.
Yes, I know and never said it has.
4. For years JWE/Symon consistently pointed out that the game code trumps pretty OOB arrangements Making Combined Fleet a Command HQ which is also q top level HQ would give it all the game code benefits of point 3 above, game code benefits which were simply not present in the historical record. And all for what purpose? Just to have a pretty OOB which in and of itself, has absolutely no game performance impact. Yet the significant game code benefits would be given to Combined Fleet. This is why JWE/Symon specifically said if Combined Fleet must be made a top level HQ, and he most definitely did not believe it should be a top level HQ, it should remain as a Naval HQ.
As I said, I would like to know more about those historical records which show that Combined Fleet HQ had no power over assets that would influence stacking limits, upgrades, torpedo availability etc. but 4th, 5th and SEA Fleet HQ had.
And I haven't found a way for making Combined a top-level HQ without having it convert to Command HQ - see above.
5. Japan is not supposed to have as many Command HQs as the Allied side. Make Combined Fleet a Command HQ (whether or not it is also a top level HQ), which of the existing Command HQs would be demoted? 4th Fleet? 5th Fleet? Southeast Area Fleet? Not demoting one from Command HQ status boosts Japanese game command and control capabilities beyond what the devs believed to be a fair representation of the historical Japanese command and control capabilities. Especially within the context of what ultimately was implemented in AE of the chain of command code benefits/limitations.
Well, if a mod designer wants to boost the Japanese command and control abilities he should be free to do so - his mod, his decision. Many mods add many more toys, ships never build, additional LCU and air units, more supplies etc. - why not more command and control as well?
6. I have previously explained that a Naval HQ without any Naval Support squads does absolutely nothing for ship repairs. The Naval HQ merely extends the range of any Naval Support squads it has within it.
Good info, thanks!
7. It is not a reasonable issue to raise attaching LCUs to a Command HQ because air units can also be similarly attached and there are most definitely game code benefits in attaching air units. As it currently is, a scenario designer cannot force any player from differentiating between LCU and air attachments. This is the core of the gaming exploit which I pointed out in my post.
Ok, I see. My understanding of the relations between air groups and HQ assignements is weak. I thought an air units could still benefit from Command HQ actions even if not assigned directly to the Command HQ - like the replacement aircraft sent by creating a fragment at the Command HQ base if all else failed to pull replacements. eed to read-up.