Rounding off to the width dynamic of the game, 27 is a lot closer to 30-31 than 40.
Command hierarchy
- Thread starter Crixus
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
31 would be the lower estimate, and you still don't account for half the AT in the division.
27 is not historical. It's short by 25% of its divisional artillery and 50% of its AT.
I cannot make it much clearer than that. Your proposed hard cap of 27 is wishful thinking without grounding in history.
The fact that 40 width only works as historical when certain additional rules are set does in no way diminish this simpe truth.
When we look at a british division, with 3x3 INF, an additional MG btn (INF, +2 width), and 2 RA regiments (48 guns, that's the same number as the germans had, so 4 btns) plus AT btn comes out at 33w.
If you then consider that corps and army assets need to be added to the templates, it's easily conceivable that such a reinforced division reaches the high 30s or even the forbidden number of 40.
Except when you maintain that historical is just a code for 27 width.
27 is not historical. It's short by 25% of its divisional artillery and 50% of its AT.
I cannot make it much clearer than that. Your proposed hard cap of 27 is wishful thinking without grounding in history.
The fact that 40 width only works as historical when certain additional rules are set does in no way diminish this simpe truth.
When we look at a british division, with 3x3 INF, an additional MG btn (INF, +2 width), and 2 RA regiments (48 guns, that's the same number as the germans had, so 4 btns) plus AT btn comes out at 33w.
If you then consider that corps and army assets need to be added to the templates, it's easily conceivable that such a reinforced division reaches the high 30s or even the forbidden number of 40.
Except when you maintain that historical is just a code for 27 width.
Again, not my position. 27 is the BEST all around cap in consideration of two basic factors: historicity AND to address gamey exploits.
27 is the best historicaly?
Ok.
Can you write down your 27w divisions for
Germany
UK
USA
Italy
France
Japan?
Ok.
Can you write down your 27w divisions for
Germany
UK
USA
Italy
France
Japan?
So, 27 is acceptable, but 28 would be a gamey exploit? I think historicity allows for a much wider range of designs than you think and 40w is gamey only in the sense that AI cannot deal with it, which also applies to any remotely competent human player.
The game could have had two types of infantry battalions: one Chinese milita type - just 800 guys with a rifle each, and a Regular type, with handguns, machine-guns, mortars, sappers, scouts, medics, headquarters and what have you. More expensive and less spamable, but more effective.
You maintain that a hard cap of 27 should be in place, for historicity and Balance.
I cannot imagine that you actually consider 28 unbalanced vs 27, and it certainly isn't less historical...
So what is your position on the Problem???
Nah, I'd argue for a regimental/divisional/corps/army Overhead unit. And a designer for those.
@Gefallener_Held
Still waiting for your historical correct but not gamex 27wdivisiontemplates for
Germany
UK
USA
Italy
France
Japan
Still waiting for your historical correct but not gamex 27wdivisiontemplates for
Germany
UK
USA
Italy
France
Japan
Keep waiting, because GUESS WHAT? My position was never that 27 width divisions were 100 percent, man for man historical for each and every historical division across all countries and alliances. Rather, I submit that 40 width divisions are quite ahistorical, if not wildly so, and gamey and exploitative. In view of these two important consideration, width should be capped. Why 27? Because it is more historical, while also coinciding nicely with the games width dimensions in proviinces. That perhaps is a different topic. Should width be for example 90 from one provice and 30 from others? Maybe... I do not really care. I just know that 40 width are so much bullshit. Again, the only German that approached that width was GD. No other.
That much is clear now, can you point to any kriegsstärkenachweis that mentions "Width"?
And I again would say that Independent battalions, corps and army assets like heavy tanks, tank destroyers, heavy artillery, rocket launchers would under the current system be added to a 32 historical size template and increase width to 40.
Not as standard, maybe, but a significant share.
Remember how I said this is grown tiresome? I believe you or maybe it was someone else conceded 40 width equal to a small corp. I am done with this. I am right, you and your gang are wrong. NOTHING you or anyone can ever say will my position on this, ever. Just NO! to 40 width divisions. That is all.
http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/Gliederungen/PanzerdivisionenSS/Gliederung.htm
Leibstandarte im 1944:
2 MARM
6MEC/MOT
4 ART
1 R ART
1 AA
1 AT
1 TD
The Rest is support.
That's 35 width. If you add 101. Schw SS pzabtl, it's 37.
That's a teeny bit closer to 40 than 27, right? Any additional corps/army asset, like corps artillery, brings that to 40.
I say you are wrong. Dead wrong. This is very much a historic formation.
Even if I accept your numbers which are suspect, LAH was an elite division and and analamous to GD. Still cannot be used as a vehicle to support supposition of 40 width across the board. NO!
Your suggestion would be a simple solution that would fix some of the issues. Still, I think infantry divisions are the backbone of every military in the game and as such deserves some attention, like adding a division designer. Designing combat units was done at the highest level of national command. It was a strategic/national decision that should be in the game, because the design of your combat units matter.
Well, the only elite factors are the Nebelwerfer btn and the TD btn. Everything else was standard issue for armour divisions. There were some 29 of those.
Line infantry before reduction to 2 regiments was 31+ width. And we should be talking planned strength, right?
And how are those Numbers suspect? Is a combat battalion suddenly not a combat battalion because it contradicts your line of argument?
And by the way: before you reject adding Independent battalions into Templates of standard formations, where would all those high profile Units and equipment go, like Tigers, jagdpanthers, Jagdtigers, Ferdinands, 88/128mm AT guns, Flak battalions, Panzerwerfer, Nebelwerfer, StuG-Abtl?
Because these were usually not organic components of divisions, but attached to them temporarily.
If you dismiss that Idea, your "historical" Wehrmacht would not field Tigers or Jagdpanthers, which would mean dismissing more than 2000 of the war's most renowned tanks.
And to get back to GD: you said in the beginning that GD would be the only formation approaching 40w.
Now, LSSAH has been grudgingly acknowledged.
Can you guess that 2nd SS, HG, 12th SS, 3rd SS, Panzer Lehr, were similarly equipped and hence, 40w wasn't the norm but is by no means a fantasy size?
Because these were usually not organic components of divisions, but attached to them temporarily.
If you dismiss that Idea, your "historical" Wehrmacht would not field Tigers or Jagdpanthers, which would mean dismissing more than 2000 of the war's most renowned tanks.
And to get back to GD: you said in the beginning that GD would be the only formation approaching 40w.
Now, LSSAH has been grudgingly acknowledged.
Can you guess that 2nd SS, HG, 12th SS, 3rd SS, Panzer Lehr, were similarly equipped and hence, 40w wasn't the norm but is by no means a fantasy size?
The problem with this is you end up with like 100 different templates to represent the various units.
I have no problem doing this, but it is quite a headache.
That problem, in addition to lack historicity and being gamey and exploitative....