Corps / Army counter symbols - Suggestion

[unmerged(161878)]

Why all the units have the same symbol of corps and army? It's very uncomfortable. To find your corps you need to click on any unit that we see on the map. It could have been easier:


There are two ways to accomplish this:
1. Developers form paradox will do this. Corps and the army somehow would be able to "take" a symbol of the subordinate units. If in corps we have two infantry division and cavalry division, when corps is infantry corps.
2. Manually as i did on the screens. But:
- a man can handle but the AI is not.
- its is hard

Look at my command units.

 

[Pro_Consul]

Why all the units have the same symbol of corps and army? It's very uncomfortable.

Be advised, you are arguing against the system that NATO has been using since practically its inception. You want corps formations to have their HQ units take on the NATO symbol for the unit type most prevalent in the corps. But in actual military OOBs a corps will most often have a mix of troops types under its operational command. And in any case, if you are trying to tell the difference between a corps, an army and an army group, just count the X symbols at the top. If your issue is more about having trouble finding their positions within the hierarchy, then your concerns were addressed in Semper Fi with the addition of the OOB view and the visual linking system. Get SF, or find some pics on a review site and I think you will like the changes.

Edited to add: In actual military usage, corps organization are mission oriented, not unit-centric. What that means is that a corps HQ exists to coordinate and facilitate the activities of whatever ground forces are allocated to a particular mission, be it defense of a border sector, seizing of a set of strategic objectives or whatever. What a corps HQ is NOT used for IRL is to separate the armor forces from the infantry forces so some general in Brussels or at the Pentagon can easily find his tank units on a map of the world.

 

[unmerged(161878)]

Yes... but we are talking here about WWII.

4. Armee

 

[comsubpac]

in my opinion all information you want is already easily available in semper fi while your suggestion would make it harder to find the HQs.

Yes... but we are talking here about WWII.

4. Armee

so the counters on your link look a little bit different... but they also don't look the way you are suggesting.
WW2 or not. it does not make a difference.

 

[Pro_Consul]

Yes... but we are talking here about WWII.

True, but I am fairly confident that a vanishingly small number of the people playing the game were staff officers during WWII. And those that were probably learned the NATO system afterwards and are plenty familiar with it. And the concept of a corps as an organizational grouping has not really changed.

 

[unmerged(143223)]

I'd have to second Pro_consul. It's just weird and somewhat unhistorical too have HQ counters change by the type their subordinates. I also think that it would make HQs harder, not easier to find.

The scalable HQ counter sizes as well as the command hierarchy lines makes navigating the OOB a piece of cake.

 

[apocriphaA]

Actually I do occasionally have trouble telling Mot vs Inf, the two little wheels (triangles) should probably be a tad bigger to make it more obvious. I've actually switched from counters to sprites because of that...

 

[comsubpac]

Actually I do occasionally have trouble telling Mot vs Inf, the two little wheels (triangles) should probably be a tad bigger to make it more obvious. I've actually switched from counters to sprites because of that...

you could mod that easily.

 

[apocriphaA]

you could mod that easily.

Could, but I like the sprites and I've become used to it...

 

[unmerged(161878)]

Pro_Consul

Ofcourse and for units of uniformly the type of troops I create a another command units:

Like this: 4. Armee

NATO is year 1949, I never play that far.


It is true that corps and army in particular, can have very different composition but it is also true that it can have a uniform composition.


EDIT

harder

What a map symbol are? The symbols are intended to help orient on the map, where is my unit. How if we don't have a symbol can facilitate and if we may symbol, its harder to find unit?

Look at this screen again:


What type is XIII Corps, hę? Infantry? or maybe tanks? or maybe cavalry? or maybe fortress infantry? And this is the point, we don'n known.

So where is your tansk? They are in XIII Corps, or maybe in XI Corps and so on.

 

[comsubpac]

Pro_Consul

Ofcourse and for units of uniformly the type of troops I create a another command units:

Like this: 4. Armee

NATO is year 1949, I never play that far.


It is true that corps and army in particular, can have very different composition but it is also true that it can have a uniform composition.

but that does not explain what we would gain from your suggestion. we can already see the command structure on the map and you can have the counters show the name of the unit...
your 4. armee counter has the counter of a brigade in your picture.

 

[unmerged(43180)]

Danevag has a mod that give each level a different colour.. to distinguish Korps, Army, Armygroup and Theater HQ

Much better than counting X's

 

[unmerged(161878)]

BallaKalle

Sorry, maybe it through my English. We are not talking here about levels in command structure. Do not see the difference between the tanks, cavalry and infantry?


comsubpac

the name of the unit in your language is easier. On counter is not enough place to entire name but for you is okej. In my language we write differently, and type of troops does not fit:
'1st Infa'ntry Corps, but: '1. Korpu's Piechoty - The name does not say of all.
Korpus - Corps
Piechoty - Infantry

That is why the counter would have been useful for me.

 

[Pro_Consul]

What type is XIII Corps, hę? Infantry? or maybe tanks? or maybe cavalry? or maybe fortress infantry? And this is the point, we don'n known.

So where is your tansk? They are in XIII Corps, or maybe in XI Corps and so on.

That is not what corps organizations were intended for. If you want to find your tanks, look for one of the tank divisions and select it. Then click the link above its divisional name to switch to the HQ that commands it. Now you can readily see everything in that corps.

Here, check out how it can look in Semper Fi. Looking for that mountaineer corps? First find any of the individual mountaineer divisions and click it. Then click right above its name to select the corps which commands it. And voila! You get a set of visual links to all of the units under its command (the blue lines) and a link to the army HQ it in turn reports to (the green line):



Cannot find a single mountaineer division in that clutter of divisions scattered across the map? Try the OOB Viewer on the left side of the screen! Simply scroll down until you find what you are looking for, select it in the list, and again the appropriate unit is selected and the visual links appear to show you where it is, where its subordinates are, and where the HQ is that it reports to.



Edited to add: BTW, if you are going to organize your corps for the primary purpose of sort your units by type, the you should name them accordingly. Cannot find the corps which commands your armor units? Instead of wondering whether they are in XXII Corps or IX Corps, try looking in 1st Armor Corps.

 

[unmerged(161878)]

look for one of the tank divisions and select it.

So find the tanks. You must click on every hq units.

And this is small army... imagine red army

If you like: Where's Wally


But if counter looks like this, you do not must, you known where tanks is in first look:

- that is faster
- that is easier
- and looks better

 

[Pro_Consul]

So find the tanks. You must click on every hq units.

Not at all. Look at the second pic I posted above. I can simply scroll down through the OOB browser until I see the armor unit I am looking for. And it will be listed right under the corps which commands it, alongside the other divisions in that corps. So I can find the tanks in the Polish theater while the map is focused on a close up view of Siam. And then with one click I can make the map refocus right on the unit I was looking for and show me big bright lines connecting it to its subordinates and superior in the chain of command.

 

[Nicegil]

I'd have to second Pro_consul. It's just weird and somewhat unhistorical too have HQ counters change by the type their subordinates. I also think that it would make HQs harder, not easier to find.

The scalable HQ counter sizes as well as the command hierarchy lines makes navigating the OOB a piece of cake.

I agree too... Furthermore, as "commander", we are supposed to know with some accuracy the amount (and type) of forces we are commiting on the field and what they have to do.

... although, just for information, in some very specific case, it happened that some (tiny) exceptions to the standart symbols have been made, mostly to better identify ENY units (Geb.K, FJ.Korps, Pz.Armeen, etc etc...) on maps.
More recently, it was also common for NATO to use this symbols on army level to better make the distinction between soviet all-arms and tank armies.

Back to the game : the actual system is quite good, with one exception : it's sometimes difficult to make the difference between a arm. div. (2xarm, 1xmech) and a mech. div. (1xarm, 2x mech). In both case, the armor symbol is on the top. Better would be to have the choice of the top counter. Mho

Good point for the ICE mod and its different colours (corps, army, AG, Theater).

 

[unmerged(161878)]

In both case, the armor symbol is on the top. Better would be to have the choice of the top counter.

It is easy to do. Set priority = 100 for all units in: hoi3/units. Then on top will be that units which you take first.

 

[unmerged(139259)]

What the OP asks for would definitely be quite handy, but I think it would also have several problems tied to it.

First of all, you then would be able to recognize HQs only by the number of "X" symbols above the counters, which might be very confusing in many times? Ah, there is my saviour, a tank division! Oh, no, that's just their HQ...

Then, tanks and other special units are not necessarily need to be organized in specialized corps and armies, so the problem remains.

And what if a corps would include one tank and one airborne division? How would it be displayed? If as a usual corps than again, the problem remains.

 

[unmerged(139259)]

I would rather prefer better distinction of the levels of HQs in the hierarchy. I mean that each level of HQ should get its own symbol, not as all of them has just that common "HQ". So, something like this: