Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Combined Fleet (again)

 
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 >> Combined Fleet (again) Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Combined Fleet (again) - 11/5/2020 8:43:37 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 5953
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
As far as I'm concerned the combine fleet should be a command HQ with nearly all other fleets reporting to it. It's a pain and not historical. The thing that is really annoying is the number of units assigned to the combined fleet at the start of the game at lest in my current game, scen 2. How can this be when it's just a naval HQ and naval HQ cannot have units attached to them? Should also note it has a command radius of 9?

It is my belief this was an error from the outset that has never been rectified (and probably never will). All these attached units should be assigned to something else that can have have units attached, or the simplest, make it command HQ.

Rant over but if I want to change the combine fleet into a command HQ can this be done as I've looked at the editor and not worked it out?
Post #: 1
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/5/2020 2:21:55 PM   
tolsdorff

 

Posts: 123
Joined: 12/12/2016
From: Breda, Holland
Status: offline
Changing the HQ type (a field just below the withdraw date in the middle of the screen) to 109 will do exactly that. Now you have the combined fleet as a command HQ within Southern army. Changing its HQ to itself in the editor will fix that as well.

edit : added the location of the 'HQ type' field.

< Message edited by tolsdorff -- 11/5/2020 2:24:34 PM >

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 2
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/6/2020 6:21:23 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 5953
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline
Thanks

(in reply to tolsdorff)
Post #: 3
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/6/2020 5:04:42 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3018
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
From my understanding, there's some solid rationale for it remaining a Naval HQ only, given that it wasn't a specific geographic command (in the sense of Pacific Oceans Areas or the IJN South-East Area Fleet), but rather a command where the IJN piled its naval assets for major operations (eg. Midway).

(in reply to Chris21wen)
Post #: 4
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/6/2020 9:07:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16933
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: tolsdorff

Changing the HQ type (a field just below the withdraw date in the middle of the screen) to 109 will do exactly that. Now you have the combined fleet as a command HQ within Southern army. Changing its HQ to itself in the editor will fix that as well.

edit : added the location of the 'HQ type' field.


In my Mod Series, Combined Fleet is a Command HQ. Makes total sense to me for to be so.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to tolsdorff)
Post #: 5
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/8/2020 2:04:36 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 6767
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
TBH, its probably a Dev's decision. Since the game is as good as it is, I don't like to question those very often.

_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 6
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/8/2020 10:33:39 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6383
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
It was very much a dev decision to have Combined Fleet classified as a Naval HQ which reported to Southern Army. It was, and remains, not an oversight. Unfortunately the full benefits of that dev decision are not immediately visible to most players because the entire chain of command was not fully developed. It is ironic that over the years those players who demand historical accuracy and like to denigrate the devs fail to see that even with the existing chain of command, within the constraints of the game code the dev decision is the closest abstraction of the historical record.

Invariably players mistakenly believe that a Command HQ is the highest level HQ possible. That is technically not true for a Command HQ can itself be subordinated to another Command HQ leaving us with two Command HQs one of which is clearly not the highest level HQ. For those who doubt that is possible, look at the British 14th Army which is a Command HQ but is itself subordinated to another Command HQ.

The correct way of looking at HQs is to start at the very top, the top echelon so to speak. In AE the top level HQ is one that reports to itself, not another HQ. Japanese examples of top level HQs are:

General Defence
Kwantung Army
Southern Army
5th Fleet
China Expeditionary Army
4th Fleet
Southeast Area Fleet

All these HQs report to themselves and are Command HQs. Significantly when the Large Strategic Map screen is accessed, only these top level HQs are found on the top of the screen. Allied players who access their Large Strategic Map screen will find many more HQs listed on their top line because the Allies historically had many more Command HQs but they will not find listed any Allied Command HQ which is itself subordinated to another HQ. That is one factor taken into account by the devs.

Much more prominent in the minds of the devs was the attachment of non HQ units to these top level HQs. One can see where the chain of command being developed was ultimately leading by carefully noting to which HQs non HQ units can be attached. In simplified terms, putting aside the issue of restricted HQs and units, the attachment rules are as follows:

Command HQ - can have any game unit attached to it. Yes this includes any type of HQ, and LCU, and any ship. Yes, a Japanese player can attach every Japanese carrier to the China Expeditionary Army Command HQ because it is a Command HQ.

Ships - can only be attached to a Command HQ (it need not be a top level HQ) or a Naval HQ. You cannot attach a ship to a land Corps or an air HQ.

Air units - can only be attached to a Command HQ (whether it is or isn't a top level HQ) or an Air HQ which is attached to a top level HQ. You cannot attach an air unit to a Naval Fleet.

LCUs - can only be attached to a Command HQ (whether it is or isn't a top level HQ) or a land based HQ (ie Army/Corps/Air HQ) which is attached to a top level HQ. LCUs cannot be attached to a Naval HQ. It is however an unfortunate loophole brought about by not completing and implementing fully the intended chain of command, that it is possible to attach large maneuver units such as a combat division to an Air HQ. Every dev involved in coding and researching the OOB has publicly stated that no such LCUs should ever be attached to an Air HQ and that doing so is gaming the system.

By now it should be clear why the devs made Combined Fleet a Naval HQ, attached to a top level HQ. Were it made a Command HQ it could have any game unit attached to it, which was most definitely not the historical situation. As a Command HQ it would significantly increase the Japanese in game command and control capabilities beyond the historical. - consider the impact on airfield stacking, on TOE upgrades, on the availability of torpedoes for the Netties, on air coordination, on land combat bonuses for fully prepped units to mention just some of the quite unhistorical unbalancing which would result.

What is certain is that the two key AE naval team devs, JWE/Symon and Don Bowen would not be in favour of making Combined Fleet a Command HQ. JWE/Symon was quite explicit when he posted on 30 June 2010 in a certain long third party modding project, that if it was absolutely necessary to make other HQs subordinated to Combined Fleet (which he also pointed out doing so provided no benefit in terms of the game code), then make Combined Fleet a top level HQ but retain it as a Naval HQ. Don Bowen hasn't directly commented on this issue but he is on the record of liking and using the ship attachment organisation feature (which no one ever admits on the forum to using) and this could be messed up by changing the current status of Combined Fleet.

Finally as to the OP concerns about the at start unit attachments to Combined Fleet in scenario 2. A couple of observations. Firstly, many of those units start the scenario embarked on ships participating in the initial Japanese operations which were planned overall by the historical Combined Fleet. Secondly, the attachment rules I have listed apply above still apply viz no other land unit which starts the scenario or subsequently enters play as a reinforcement unit, can be attached to Combined Fleet.

Alfred

Edit: type of HQ (a typo) corrected. Correction made in colour

< Message edited by Alfred -- 11/12/2020 9:32:17 AM >

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 7
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/12/2020 6:31:39 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4161
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

...if it was absolutely necessary to make other HQs subordinated to Combined Fleet (which he also pointed out doing so provided no benefit in terms of the game code), then make Combined Fleet a top level HQ but retain it as a Naval HQ.


How? A Naval HQ set to top-level i.e. reporting to itself automatically becomes a Command HQ - see 4th Fleet and Southeast Area Fleet
which in the editor are HQ type = 25 (naval HQ command range 5) but show up in the game as Command HQs. 5th Fleet in its first incarnation already starts as Command HQ type = 109.

In this context - will 4th Fleet and Southeast Area Fleet act only as Command HQ or will they retain their Naval HQ functon as well, i.e. "help to speed ship repair time"?

quote:


It is ironic that over the years those players who demand historical accuracy and like to denigrate the devs fail to see that even with the existing chain of command, within the constraints of the game code the dev decision is the closest abstraction of the historical record.


Not denigrating the devs, just asking a question for clarification: Alfred, could you please explain why this is the closest abstraction? IRL 4th Fleet, 5th Fleet and Southeast Area Fleet were subordinate to Combined Fleet, and all four HQs exercised control over land forces. So it seems that it would be consistent to make all of them Command HQs. And in order to respect the chain of command, 4th, 5th and SE Fleets could report to Combined Fleet instead of themselves, since it is well possible to have a Command HQ which is subordinate to another Command HQ.

Finally, if "a Japanese player can attach every Japanese carrier to the China Expeditionary Army Command HQ because it is a top level HQ" then why it seems to be a such a sin when a modder changes Combined Fleet to a top-level HQ so a Japanese player can attach LCUs to a Navy HQ? Esp. if latter has a historical basis but not the former?

Just wondering (and bracing for impact).


< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 11/12/2020 6:33:03 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 8
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/12/2020 9:23:37 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6383
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
LargeSlowTarget,

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Alfred


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 9
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/12/2020 12:24:16 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4161
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

LargeSlowTarget,

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.




quote:


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.
quote:



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.

quote:


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?

quote:



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!

quote:


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.



Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 10
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/12/2020 1:04:18 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6383
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
1. There is a bug involving top level HQs which are not Command HQs. It was briefly commented on by US87891 after receiving direct input from Symon so I wouldn't place too much weight on the graphical display.

2. This thread is about the official scenarios. Modders can always do what they want. They can, if so inclined, equip PTs with 12 x 16" guns. Or create an aircraft with a top speed of Mach 2. The official scenarios had to be designed around the historical capabilities as abstracted to fit the game code. There are enough unwarranted criticisms of them as is.

3. The chain of command for air units was much more fully developed and implemented than that for terrestrial elements. Yes there are some air units benefits not dependent on a strict line of command, but most of the benefits do depend on adhering to the chain of command. Air coordination is a big winner on following the chain of command.

4. The fundamental point however is that making Combined Fleet a Command HQ without demoting one of the existing Command HQs increases Japanese capabilities beyond what the devs thought reflected a fair abstracted historical AE implementation.


Not commented on by the devs but I strongly suspect that in their testing, they found that operating on the central lines, which as time passes will tend to contract inwards, Japanese HQs are in a better position to overlap their respective spheres of influence. In geographical terms, Allied HQs are much more widely spread out and unlikely to have much overlapping until mid 1945.

Alfred

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 11
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/14/2020 6:12:26 AM   
Chris21wen

 

Posts: 5953
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Cottesmore, Rutland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

....

Finally as to the OP concerns about the at start unit attachments to Combined Fleet in scenario 2. A couple of observations. Firstly, many of those units start the scenario embarked on ships participating in the initial Japanese operations which were planned overall by the historical Combined Fleet. Secondly, the attachment rules I have listed apply above still apply viz no other land unit which starts the scenario or subsequently enters play as a reinforcement unit, can be attached to Combined Fleet.




Thanks for all that it fully explains why the Combined Fleet was not made a command HQ and the historical reasons some land units are attached to it at the start and have no quibble with any of it.

What I still don't understand is how a unit attached to the commbined fleet is affected game wise if land units should not be attached, and cannot be attached in game. At start there are has 85 unit/subunits attached made up of Naval BF, SNLF, Nav Gds, Air Field Co, Const and forts. They should, by rights all be reassigned. This costs PPs obviously but many of the BF and forts cannot be ressigned.

There are 8 more units that arrive as reinforcements, one an Air HQ, all atteched to the Combined Fleet. Are these an oversite?


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 12
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/14/2020 1:59:36 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16066
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

....

Finally as to the OP concerns about the at start unit attachments to Combined Fleet in scenario 2. A couple of observations. Firstly, many of those units start the scenario embarked on ships participating in the initial Japanese operations which were planned overall by the historical Combined Fleet. Secondly, the attachment rules I have listed apply above still apply viz no other land unit which starts the scenario or subsequently enters play as a reinforcement unit, can be attached to Combined Fleet.




Thanks for all that it fully explains why the Combined Fleet was not made a command HQ and the historical reasons some land units are attached to it at the start and have no quibble with any of it.

What I still don't understand is how a unit attached to the commbined fleet is affected game wise if land units should not be attached, and cannot be attached in game. At start there are has 85 unit/subunits attached made up of Naval BF, SNLF, Nav Gds, Air Field Co, Const and forts. They should, by rights all be reassigned. This costs PPs obviously but many of the BF and forts cannot be ressigned.

There are 8 more units that arrive as reinforcements, one an Air HQ, all atteched to the Combined Fleet. Are these an oversite?


Well the word 'oversite' appears to be an oversight ...

_____________________________

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 Chris21wen)
Post #: 13
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/14/2020 2:18:31 PM   
Zorch

 

Posts: 8166
Joined: 3/7/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

....

Finally as to the OP concerns about the at start unit attachments to Combined Fleet in scenario 2. A couple of observations. Firstly, many of those units start the scenario embarked on ships participating in the initial Japanese operations which were planned overall by the historical Combined Fleet. Secondly, the attachment rules I have listed apply above still apply viz no other land unit which starts the scenario or subsequently enters play as a reinforcement unit, can be attached to Combined Fleet.




Thanks for all that it fully explains why the Combined Fleet was not made a command HQ and the historical reasons some land units are attached to it at the start and have no quibble with any of it.

What I still don't understand is how a unit attached to the commbined fleet is affected game wise if land units should not be attached, and cannot be attached in game. At start there are has 85 unit/subunits attached made up of Naval BF, SNLF, Nav Gds, Air Field Co, Const and forts. They should, by rights all be reassigned. This costs PPs obviously but many of the BF and forts cannot be ressigned.

There are 8 more units that arrive as reinforcements, one an Air HQ, all atteched to the Combined Fleet. Are these an oversite?


Well the word 'oversite' appears to be an oversight ...

Are you a Grammar Samurai?

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 14
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/14/2020 5:35:27 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 16066
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorch


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Well the word 'oversite' appears to be an oversight ...

Are you a Grammar Samurai?

Not the right race for that. I could pass as a grammar Nazi though.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 Zorch)
Post #: 15
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/15/2020 12:59:21 AM   
geofflambert


Posts: 14546
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline
Let's not over cite oversite.

_____________________________

Currently fighting for the Emperor against AW1Steve. As of 12/20 it is 4/45.

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 16
RE: Combined Fleet (again) - 11/16/2020 9:59:42 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4161
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Thanks Alfred for your comments! That display bug for Naval HQs-turning-Command HQs was very misleading...

_____________________________


(in reply to geofflambert)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Combined Fleet (again) 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