Command hierarchy

[Gefallener_Held]

Again, this is incorrect and you continue to lie in the face of facts. Your Statement about Expert AI and 40w is plain wrong.
Being called out on nonsensical statements is only hounding If you choose to perceive the world along these lines.
Besides the fact that you approached me when I wasn't replying to you about issues in MP and SP, which makes me wonder why you need to lie about these things?

And don't you start telling me about not adressing points - I say, and will always say, "NO!"

This is what I wrote, on the cuff because this and above you are a bother to me:

Expert AI, and people are talking about solving the problem by having AI field them (40 width) also.

"Fielding them" is unqualified. Could mean fielding them across the board, or just one division. In any case, expert AI DOES field them unless you opt out. Others have endorsed just getting the AI to field them, ostensibly across the board.

I NOTE again that the combat metric in the video where 40 width is qualitatively superior to two 20 width has been unrefuted you. There are myriad outstanding points in the thread I posted.

 

[Challenge]

I'd say: 10 INF, to account for the machine gun battalion of the division, 4 ART, 2 AT, 1 AA, along with the usual support.
Gives us 35 width, 15000 fighting men.
14 of those divisions would make a BEF of 210000, with first armoured division added.

So you do count guns, men and the pencils in the HQ and not just Org Charts.

 

[Zauberelefant]

This is what I wrote, on the cuff because this and above you are a bother to me:

Expert AI, and people are talking about solving the problem by having AI field them (40 width) also.

"Fielding them" is unqualified. Could mean fielding them across the board, or just one division. In any case, expert AI DOES field them unless you opt out. Others have endorsed just getting the AI to field them, ostensibly across the board.

I NOTE again that the combat metric in the video where 40 width is qualitatively superior to two 20 width has been unrefuted you. There are myriad outstanding points in the thread I posted.

So, I am a bother to you... Maybe you're just wrong, ever considered that? I was wrong when initially I claimed 40w was a small Corps, that is certainly Not the case.

And why do I need to refute that 40w comes out stronger than 2x 20w? I never claimed the contrary.
This is how the game is set up from 1.0, and while this mechanic brings some issues, concentration of force is a thing.

It's like having 15000 trained soldiers vs 1 division of equal headcount, yes, in theory both should be equally effective.
They aren't. A division is more effective than the sum of its 4 regiments.

There are obvious reasons for this. The game does model the results .... In a way, so to say. It's not quite perfect, but as in real life, 1 division is the stronger force compared to 2 brigades of the same summed up size.

And you consistently fail to acknowledge this and give up the untenable Position that 40w is completely ahistorical and should be an exception.
It is not. The AI should simply strive to build larger Templates, because both the game's mechanics and actual history support it.

I mean, looking at the changes to German infantry divisions from 1941 to 43, they apparently went from "ahistorical and gamey" to "balanced and historical" by reducing the division by 1 infantry regiment.

Apart from this disagreement that we are having, let me express my thoughts before I return ignoring your posts.
It was one of the most unpleasant discussions I had in years, because I had to deal with fallacious reasoning and bold assumptions unchecked by any actual knowledge, was confronted with quite an Ego and unsubstantiated accusations, had witnessed lies being told, strawmen and tantrums as well as Degradation, and did not learn anything worthwile from you in the process.
I did however learn a few things about myself, the game and bizarre human nature, so there's that.
Have a very nice day. This forum has an ignore function, I propose you use it as well.

 

[Zauberelefant]

So you do count guns, men and the pencils in the HQ and not just Org Charts.

I never claimed otherwise. You reinforce my perception of you just fine.

 

[Gefallener_Held]

So, I am a bother to you... Maybe you're just wrong, ever considered that? I was wrong when initially I claimed 40w was a small Corps, that is certainly Not the case.

And why do I need to refute that 40w comes out stronger than 2x 20w? I never claimed the contrary.
This is how the game is set up from 1.0, and while this mechanic brings some issues, concentration of force is a thing.

It's like having 15000 trained soldiers vs 1 division of equal headcount, yes, in theory both should be equally effective.
They aren't. A division is more effective than the sum of its 4 regiments.

There are obvious reasons for this. The game does model the results .... In a way, so to say. It's not quite perfect, but as in real life, 1 division is the stronger force compared to 2 brigades of the same summed up size.

And you consistently fail to acknowledge this and give up the untenable Position that 40w is completely ahistorical and should be an exception.
It is not. The AI should simply strive to build larger Templates, because both the game's mechanics and actual history support it.

I mean, looking at the changes to German infantry divisions from 1941 to 43, they apparently went from "ahistorical and gamey" to "balanced and historical" by reducing the division by 1 infantry regiment.

Apart from this disagreement that we are having, let me express my thoughts before I return ignoring your posts.
It was one of the most unpleasant discussions I had in years, because I had to deal with fallacious reasoning and bold assumptions unchecked by any actual knowledge, was confronted with quite an Ego and unsubstantiated accusations, had witnessed lies being told, strawmen and tantrums as well as Degradation, and did not learn anything worthwile from you in the process.
I did however learn a few things about myself, the game and bizarre human nature, so there's that.
Have a very nice day. This forum has an ignore function, I propose you use it as well.

It is you who is wrong.

 

[Challenge]

I never claimed otherwise. You reinforce my perception of you just fine.

Me thinks you might be incorrect, sir.

Wrong on the numerical part, that was an additional factor I considered. But organization took priority over gun count

But that doesn't matter. You take yourself too seriously. Everything is an attack to you.

I do have one question that I'm curious about. What setting do you use with Expert AI? All 40s, some 40s or Historical?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Can we get a mod to lock this thread now that it's devolving into "No you" "No you"? There's no point in debating in bad faith.

 

[RELee]

Knock it off, guys!

 

[Crixus]

I simply wanted an alternative way to make Corps in the game, I never inteded this thread to be a sandbox-fightingground.
I'd suggest that in a coming DLC that land combat be revamped to add Corps Commanders and that Generals and Corps Commanders have their unit/army count lowered by far(from 24) to acually make use of alot more generals in the game then just to use 1 field marshal and maybe 3 generals an entire game.

 

[Ketchup & friends]

British artillery units were much larger than other countries. A division had three field artillery regiments each if 24 guns. The anti tank regiment had 48 guns and the anti-aircraft regiment has 54 light guns. So it would need quite a few battalions to match the numbers.

If Artillery battalions were reduced to 1/3 of their values as we've proposed (see our post on page 1 of thisd thread), a division would need more of them, but each would increase the width by 1 instead of 3. A division has 25 battalion slots, that should be enough to recreate any historical layout.
Making artillery battalions more granular would help making any Division design more accurate.
It would also hardcap division width at 50 (instead of a theoretical 75 width for rather impractical pure artillery divisons)

 

[Harin]

If Artillery battalions were reduced to 1/3 of their values as we've proposed (see our post on page 1 of thisd thread), a division would need more of them, but each would increase the width by 1 instead of 3. A division has 25 battalion slots, that should be enough to recreate any historical layout.
Making artillery battalions more granular would help making any Division design more accurate.
It would also hardcap division width at 50 (instead of a theoretical 75 width for rather impractical pure artillery divisons)

This is a good idea. At the moment, you have to run a 7-2 infantry division to make an efficient 20w with artillery. With your idea, you could run a 7-6 which equals the 7-2, but also you could run a 8-4 or a 9-2. That is a lot more flexibility in division design,especially for poorer nations or when you want to slip some AT or AA battalion in there without messing up the 20w.

I imagine the same flexibility exists in armored divisions, unless someone likes running lots of SP guns and runs out of slots when making their 40w tank division.

 

[halvorni]

I apologize if this was already discussed, but I skipped large parts of this thread due to long quarrels discussions...
I strongly support the introduction of the army corps level for immersion, but we should also take care not to complicate things too much for the AI and for players.

A note regarding commanding generals: In Western armies, division commanders were usually major generals (2-star), corps commanders were usually lieutenant generals (3-star) and army commanders usually full generals (4-star). Army group commanders could be 4-star or 5-star (the US didn't get any 5-star until the end of 1944). For game purposes I'd propose we keep the divisional commanders as faceless and nameless generals with no bonuses, just as today.

For an Army Corps I'd like:
- 3 or 4 divisions (this is more historically accurate than 5 or 6, although exceptions occured)
- The AI should try to keep all the divisions within a province, or if stretched, as close as practical
- Adding a number of support battalions, giving bonuses to all attached divisions
- Adding a named lieutenant general, if available, giving some small bonuses, otherwise just let a nameless and faceless major general be commander
- An amount of manpower should be used by the corps to reduce spam (maybe just a percentage of the total)

For an Army I'd like:
- 3 or 4 corps (yes, this would limit the number of divisions in an army, but actually around 10 divisions to an army is more historically correct than 24)
- Adding CAS (as today's air wings for armies, but limited just to CAS)
- Having a full general as commander, as today, but if you don't have one you can use a lieutenant general with lesser bonuses (but you should NOT be allowed to keep the army without a commander)
- An amount of manpower should be siphoned off, again to reduce division spam

Army Groups:
- Just as today, basically, although with the possibility to use a general as commander instead of a field marshal (but again, it should be disallowed not to choose one)
- Adding air support (all kinds) to the army group echelon

Theatres:
- Having the possibilty to assign a field marshal as overall commander, giving some some bonuses to all land, air and sea units in that theatre