Command hierarchy

[Crixus]

As we all know, when we construct our divison-templates there can be a variety of fielded manpower in the divisions, though the fighting force were usually defined by the size of them.

So would this be somewhat(in general) accurate:

• Brigade = 10 width
  
  
• Division = 20 width
  
  
• Corps = 40 width
  

 

[Zauberelefant]

As we all know, when we construct our divison-templates there can be a variety of fielded manpower in the divisions, though the fighting force were usually defined by the size of them.

So would this be somewhat(in general) accurate:

• Brigade = 10 width
  
  
• Division = 20 width
  
  
• Corps = 40 width

Very roughly, yes, but edge cases abound.
10w is a strong or reinforced battalion. Could be a brigade with support units.

20w is a slightly small division, but would work for German and british forces in some stages of the war. Doesn't work at all if you think arty battalions are battalions instead of regiments. That requires like 9/3 templates, which makes 27-30 a proper division size.
Going back to brigade, I would see brigades at 12-15 width.

40 width again is a small corps...50 would be the bare minimum in my book.

TL;Dr:
Width and game rules and historicity don't line up.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

Doesn't work at all if you think arty battalions are battalions instead of regiments.

People have adressed this for years. The devs need either to change name of artillery units to regiments or reduce all stats to 1/3 of the current values (combat width 1).

 

[Feeblezak]

10width is definitely not a battalion. 2 width would be. 10 width is an understrength Italian binary division. I guess one of their battalions got lost. In some countries it could possibly be a brigade.

Different countries have different sized units, and in many cases different sizes of the same unit type within the same army. Different hundreds series of Wehrmacht infantry divisions, for example. The terminology can vary between countries as well.

Most countries divisions actually got smaller as the war went on, as opposed to bigger as they tend to in game.

I used to use 9 infantry and 3 artillery as a somewhat historical template for many nations, before i realised how big the artillery “battalions” are in this game.

Support “companies” should be renamed to support battalions.

Overall the combat width and division designer very, very poorly represents historical units. Indeed it can be quite detrimental. I hope they add some nuance with the system in a possible future ground expansion.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Very roughly, yes, but edge cases abound.
10w is a strong or reinforced battalion. Could be a brigade with support units.

20w is a slightly small division, but would work for German and british forces in some stages of the war. Doesn't work at all if you think arty battalions are battalions instead of regiments. That requires like 9/3 templates, which makes 27-30 a proper division size.
Going back to brigade, I would see brigades at 12-15 width.

40 width again is a small corps...50 would be the bare minimum in my book.

TL;Dr:
Width and game rules and historicity don't line up.

Which is why 40 width divisions should be banned. Cap width at 27.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Which is why 40 width divisions should be banned. Cap width at 27.

I disagree. But decisions taken on templates should more directly affect the possible counters - like, if for some reason, everybody went with 4 regiments in a division in alt history, because that just happens to be effective. Like, there are valid reasons to organize like that.

But currently, it's just gamey.

Edit: I came to the conclusion that 40w can actually represent historical formations and the AI is just inept in designing competetive Templates.

 

[stavern]

I liked how Hoi 3 had it. You one Star generals in command of divisions. Two Star generals in command of Corps. Three Star generals in command of armies. 4 Star generals in command of army group. Sure there was just the divisions who was involved in command but you had a feeling of advancement for your generals.

 

[Basileus2]

I liked how Hoi 3 had it. You one Star generals in command of divisions. Two Star generals in command of Corps. Three Star generals in command of armies. 4 Star generals in command of army group. Sure there was just the divisions who was involved in command but you had a feeling of advancement for your generals.

Yeah, I miss some of the depth of the old OOBs in Darkest Hour or HoI3. I'd love to get a bit more realistic with the command structure. Not to the level of HoI3 where you set it up for days before playing, but a bit more than the generic 'throw everything under a field marshal, draw a line and go' feeling you get today.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I disagree. But decisions taken on templates should more directly affect the possible counters - like, if for some reason, everybody went with 4 regiments in a division in alt history, because that just happens to be effective. Like, there are valid reasons to organize like that.

But currently, it's just gamey.

One is entitled to his opinions, but not his own facts. It has been proven again and again that few if any divisions in the war would equate to a 40 width division. And people do not just field them as a one off elite like GD or what have you. For historical accuracy and game balance, they must be banned.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

One is entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts. It has been proven again and again that few if any divisions in the war would equate to a 40 width division. And people do not just field them as a one off elite like GD or what have you. For historical accuracy and game balance, they must be banned.

If the width was capped at 27, (or any other number) that new cap would be still the most powerful template and any min-maxer would use this new cap only.
Instead of banning them it would be better to give large divisions some drawbacks (perhaps reduced speed or organization?)
That would give a meainigful choice between having weaker but more mobile small divisions and more powerful but cumbersome large divisions.

 

[Zauberelefant]

One is entitled to their opinions, but not their own facts. It has been proven again and again that few if any divisions in the war would equate to a 40 width division. And people do not just field them as a one off elite like GD or what have you. For historical accuracy and game balance, they must be banned.

Let me return the compliment: you are entitled to your opinion, but in fact I never said that 40w would equate to historical divisions. I said small corps. Careful reading is advised, as always.

And I specifically said that, should the game model the reasons for divisions laid out as they were, and for alt history reasons in a given game 40w turns out to be as viable as 27-32 width was in reality, then it shouldn't be banned.

Turn that around: once the game makes 40w unviable for the reasons we find in real life, I think it makes a lot more things better along the way. Banning 40w is hence not an improvement, it's an artificial limitation that does nothing for the game at large.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Let me return the compliment: you are entitled to your opinion, but in fact I never said that 40w would equate to historical divisions. I said small corps. Careful reading is advised, as always.

And I specifically said that, should the game model the reasons for divisions laid out as they were, and for alt history reasons in a given game 40w turns out to be as viable as 27-32 width was in reality, then it shouldn't be banned.

Turn that around: once the game makes 40w unviable for the reasons we find in real life, I think it makes a lot more things better along the way. Banning 40w is hence not an improvement, it's an artificial limitation that does nothing for the game at large.

NOT an improvement, except it closes an obvious, gamey exploit and has divisions be more like divisions...
Alt history reasons, you mean like a communist Japan or Rise of the South in the 30s. No thanks.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

If the width was capped at 27, (or any other number) that new cap would be still the most powerful template and any min-maxer would use this new cap only.
Instead of banning them it would be better to give large divisions some drawbacks (perhaps reduced speed or organization?)
That would give a meainigful choice between having weaker but more mobile small divisions and more powerful but cumbersome large divisions.

I am not aware that GD was somehow cumbersome or not mobile. It should be banned for same reason that space marines were banned.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

I am not aware that GD was somehow cumbersome or not mobile. It should be banned for same reason that space marines were banned.

And how would banning 40W divisions prevent the new cap from being still OP compared to 20W or 10W?

 

[Zauberelefant]

I am not aware that GD was somehow cumbersome or not mobile. It should be banned for same reason that space marines were banned.

Space marines are banned? How so? You can still combine INF with HTD for the same effect.

And cumbersome is the very reason for which square and pentonic Divisions were not used, the inherent difficulties in their chain of command.

GD was a triangular Division and only "large" in the sense that despite being a Panzergrenadier division, it was actually a Panzerdivision with attached Heavy tank company, and both AT and StuG Battalion.

That's +3 width vs a standard PG division, which would be ~16-18 width.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

And how would banning 40W divisions prevent the new cap from being still OP compared to 20W or 10W?

Being overpowered is a matter of degree, considered along other factors such as historical plausibility, etc. Divisions represent divisions right, rather than corps? If so, the cap should be at what represents a division. 27 is the outer limit of that.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

Space marines are banned? How so? You can still combine INF with HTD for the same effect.

And cumbersome is the very reason for which square and pentonic Divisions were not used, the inherent difficulties in their chain of command.

GD was a triangular Division and only "large" in the sense that despite being a Panzergrenadier division, it was actually a Panzerdivision with attached Heavy tank company, and both AT and StuG Battalion.

That's +3 width vs a standard PG division, which would be ~16-18 width.

They are banned in multi player from what I understand and the limit on special forces was directly taken in order to ban them.

 

[Coach Bud Kilmer]

Yeah, I miss some of the depth of the old OOBs in Darkest Hour or HoI3. I'd love to get a bit more realistic with the command structure. Not to the level of HoI3 where you set it up for days before playing, but a bit more than the generic 'throw everything under a field marshal, draw a line and go' feeling you get today.

I doubt we'll ever get corps back, but I don't see why they don't make theater commanders in this game. It would give us an extra echelon level but without the complications of splitting armies down into corps. Plus we could see some of the field marshals in their proper places, maybe with a handful of specialized bonuses.

 

[Challenge]

If the width was capped at 27, (or any other number) that new cap would be still the most powerful template and any min-maxer would use this new cap only.

I'm not sure that would be right -- that 27, or whatever the new cap is, would be the most powerful template. As long as they don't change the combat front of 80, three at 27 wide would be less powerful than four at 20 wide. It would, of course, depend on what you put in them, and probably not by much, but 72 wide doesn't quite close the gap.

Instead of banning

them it would be better to give large divisions some drawbacks (perhaps reduced speed or organization?) That would give a meainigful choice between having weaker but more mobile small divisions and more powerful but cumbersome large divisions.

I agree that this would be a better solution, though.

edit: Tried four times to get rid of the extra quote box... Just doesn't like me, I guess.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

I'm not sure that would be right -- that 27, or whatever the new cap is, would be the most powerful template. As long as they don't change the combat front of 80, three at 27 wide would be less powerful than four at 20 wide. It would, of course, depend on what you put in them, and probably not by much, but 72 wide doesn't quite close the gap.



I agree that this would be a better solution, though.

3 X 27 = 81