Corps assets

[plasticpanzers]

Corps assets..the missing link in ground combat

An Corps (or Army) is more than the sum of its divisions. There is the Corps and sometimes Army
assets that can be very considerable inc: TDs, Mdm Aty, Heavy Aty, and MPs (for suppression), and
even armor units such as Tiger II battalions. Will we see these Corps assets in the Corps/Army HQs
and will they effect the abilities of their attached divisions (when in a certain range to the HQ)?

 

[plasticpanzers]

I can't sleep as this is sticking in my mind (whats left of it). So here we go......

The system works quite well in Matrix's War in the East (and will be I assume in War in the West).

For HOI4 system the following example as a what if:

Your Corps HQ has 12 boxes in it like a division 'template' and perhaps 6 in an Army HQ 'template'

In these boxes you can assign Corp asset units such as:

Heavy Artillery (155mm long guns and larger)
Medium Artillery (150mm howitzers and smaller)
Independent tank and tank destroyer battalions of any type
Assault gun battalions
Rocket battalions
AAA battalions (for HQ defence)
MP battalions (for suppression)

The use of any of these units is not micromanaged by the player. It would be totally up to the AI Corps leader/Army leader.

Now for use as an example

Corps A has 3 divisions (Divisions 1, 2, 3) and Corps assets inc 2 Medium artillery, 1 Heavy Artillery, 1 TD battalion. all under
the command of General George Pat Ton. All units are within the tactical radio range of the Corps A HQ.

As the player running Corps A you have divisions 1 and 2 attack province X1 but your division 3 is being attacked from province X2

Automatically and without your input or slightest micro input by the player the Corps Commander (Gen Ton) assigns 1 Heavy and
1 Medium artillery to support your attack on X1 by division 1 and 2. Your artillery would take losses (if any) org first (exhaustion)
then strength (counterbattery fire) about 2 to 1 in loss as they are support and not front line combat units. but the units never leave
the Corps box itself.

Now Gen Ton automatically assigns the 2nd Medium artillery support and the TD to assist Division 3 in its defence from the attack
from province X2. Their losses would be again org first/strength 2nd for the artillery being support troops but strength first and
org second for the TD unit due to having to move (and have breakdowns on the way) and then engage in combat then take org
loss opposite that of the support units as it (the TD) is a front line combat unit. Again tho these units actually never live the Corps
asset board.

There could be made a message showing General X is using Corps assets in these provinces that could be switched on and off.

Artillery can be used over and over til the unit is too exhausted to fire anymore and the TDs will fight til the battle they are involved
in ends. All units still appear in their respective Corps assets boxes but show losses in Org/Str.

The ability of these 'Corp or Army assets' to get involved into actual battle would be based on several provisos above a base %.
1. Leadership. The better the leader the better the chance of getting them involved and more than once for artillery. More so
if aggressive in attack or a battlemaster or defence master.
2. Radio tech. The better the radio communication a HQ has the better chance to get artillery support or get reinforcements up
to help out.
3. Terrain. Would effect artillery less and ground units more will a lesser chance of invovlment inc Rivers, mountains, swamps.
4. Weather. Might effect movement and setup of guns or movement of ground units attached.

Each of these factors could effect if these assets forces have an effect in combat. The new upcoming leadership should greatly
help if its at Corps and higher levels.

Another example:

Russian player (or even AI Russian) has Corps R of 4 Rifle divisions of 2 Rifle and 1 AT.

In its Corps HQ are 3 Rocket units, 1 assault gun, 1 AT unit.

The Russian unit is in province XX and is being attacked by large forces. Now in a normal game you attach 1 rocket to
3 of the divisions an assault gun to 1 and an at gun to one and make then 3 plus unit divisions. In this system the
divisons never change but their support is adapted (sometimes badly) to help them.

The Russian Rifle Corps attacks a town province and a clear province next to it. the Corps Commander (Gen Sta Lyn)
assigns the 3 rocket batteries to assist 3 of the divisions in the town attack and the assault gun to help the 4th division
attack the province next to it. it holds the AT unit back for no target in reserve.

All of this is done by the officer in command based on a base % plus officer/radio communications/terrain/weather having
an effect on how much help they are or at all. Again the Human player is not involved (just like in the Matrix game). It
is up to the computer Corps and sometimes Army commanders themselves to put assets into the fight.

could include a hospital unit as well to keep trickle back higher and losses lower beyond normal tech.


NOW HQ really do something and have some much greater effect in the game that being chased around battles squeeling. Now
there is a reason to bomb them, to surround and capture them, and yes to destroy them. Now they have a purpose and a real
good'un too!

 

[tommylotto]

Yes, I hope to have useful corps and army assets, as I like to see as accurate OOB's as possible. With the division template system that has already been introduced, allocating the corps assets to the divisions in the OOB's might not be possible. Corps and Army assets should be able to assist their subordinate divisions in combat, but only if the HQ is in the same province as the division (not just radio range). I'm not sure how the combat mechanics should work. It depends on the new combat system which has not been disclosed. Maybe the corps and army assets are allocated by the game as you suggest to subordinate divisions engaged in combat, and for purposes of that combat only the allocated assets are treated as an integrated part of that division without the need for a dedicated template. So, you could have an infantry division attacking supported by heavy artillery from a corps HQ and a tank battalion from an Army HQ in the same province. In combat the division would be super sized with the HQ assets added to it for purposes of the attack.

 

[DocDesastro]

I really like this idea very much. It feels more like warfare. I just wonder, whether the details of the corps will be deployed in a single province or if battalions will 'detach' from HQ moving to the location they are needed but still linked to the HQ. (And whether the HQ commander would gain XP for that)

 

[Jazumir]

What if battle was not division-based, but regiment-based with a mechanic akin to screens/capitals ratio for fleets applied to frontage/non-frontage regiments? We could then just throw 0-frontage regiments (brigades, battalions, whatever) into battle, which we before have held in reserve at our HQ´s location. If you´d have too many of those compared to non-0-frontage units in the battle, they will be targeted by the enemy units dispropotionally more often, which you´d want to avoid, since they are not laid out to take such a beating (and are expensive).

 

[plasticpanzers]

HQs cannot attack on their own and make that so in HOI4. That part is simple. These are not on map units

The Corps asset units are not actually sitting outside the Corp commanders tent but up front near the component divisions.
Its not a physical distance but a organizational one based on radio/terrain/weather. They always appear in the Corp asset
boxes but combat units can only assist one battle at a time while artillery may help more than one up to its exhaustion (loss
of org or counterbattery fire).

The key is there is NO micromanagement. Its up to the abilities of the Corps/Army commanders to assist their component
divisions and again the Corp assets actually never leave the Corps/Army asset boxes. They are physically deployed in a
zone behind their component divisions off map and only controlled by the Corps/Army HQ. The player has no input into
their use. Its all based upon leadership value first then radio/terrain/weather.

Ivan the Twit (as an example) is a Corps commander who cannot tie his own shoe laces. His Corps assets will be lucky to
even know a battle is on (making having good commanders a much wanted thing) while at the same time Guderian is having
his Corps assets (2 Tiger II battalions, 1 JagdPanther Battalion, 3 Nebelwerfer battalions, 2 Heavy artillery battalions) flay
poor Ivan's troops to despair helping his German divisions in battle.

Its immersion, the inclusion of a lot of fun units, its totally historical, and its PAINLESS as its not micromanagement. It also
puts a wrench into those folks with calculators trying to figure out the perfect attack percentage as now they cannot know what
they will be facing in full in combat.

Remember these units are Corps/Army assets and will not appear on the map. Only in the battle. If you attack the HQ with
ground or air these units would resist but would take hits and in the case of being the HQ being the recipient of a ground attack
the ground units in the HQ cannot assist other units.

 

[fabius]

HQs cannot attack on their own and make that so in HOI4. That part is simple. These are not on map units

The Corps asset units are not actually sitting outside the Corp commanders tent but up front near the component divisions.
Its not a physical distance but a organizational one based on radio/terrain/weather. They always appear in the Corp asset
boxes but combat units can only assist one battle at a time while artillery may help more than one up to its exhaustion (loss
of org or counterbattery fire).

The key is there is NO micromanagement. Its up to the abilities of the Corps/Army commanders to assist their component
divisions and again the Corp assets actually never leave the Corps/Army asset boxes. They are physically deployed in a
zone behind their component divisions off map and only controlled by the Corps/Army HQ. The player has no input into
their use. Its all based upon leadership value first then radio/terrain/weather.

Ivan the Twit (as an example) is a Corps commander who cannot tie his own shoe laces. His Corps assets will be lucky to
even know a battle is on (making having good commanders a much wanted thing) while at the same time Guderian is having
his Corps assets (2 Tiger II battalions, 1 JagdPanther Battalion, 3 Nebelwerfer battalions, 2 Heavy artillery battalions) flay
poor Ivan's troops to despair helping his German divisions in battle.

Its immersion, the inclusion of a lot of fun units, its totally historical, and its PAINLESS as its not micromanagement. It also
puts a wrench into those folks with calculators trying to figure out the perfect attack percentage as now they cannot know what
they will be facing in full in combat.

Remember these units are Corps/Army assets and will not appear on the map. Only in the battle. If you attack the HQ with
ground or air these units would resist but would take hits and in the case of being the HQ being the recipient of a ground attack
the ground units in the HQ cannot assist other units.

Hmm, that's an interesting idea. If I understand you correctly are you saying player builds Corps HQs via template with X assets in. And AI determines which divisions they support? (so long as they are in HQ range of course.)

 

[DocDesastro]

This really sounds good! I hope such a thing would be relatively easy to code.

 

[Axe99]

I like it, a top idea. Maybe it might need something where you could assign a 'priority' to a particular action, so the corps and particularly army commander knows what the higher-ups' most important target is, but that doesn't mean 'all in' with the corps assets, just that it gets a higher percentage (and, of course, the opponent won't know if any priorities have been set).

Only thing it needs is somewhere to put 152mm artillery .

 

[plasticpanzers]

Fabius, yes. Your Corps or Army HQ becomes more than just a box to haul your commanders around it. When
created they would have 12 or so boxes in a Corp and 6 or so in an Army and can be filled with HQ level asset
forces of the type I mentioned earlier. They exist only on the template and not on the map tho their effects in
combat will if they are assigned to support by their commander with the correct % to do so less terrain, weather,
and radio communication. They would have a reduced physical effect if the parent HQ was physically attacked itself.

The thing is not all units would get involved. Some would roll low on the % to get involved and sometimes support
might be given where its not needed rather that where it is. But this is true 'Friction' in war where stuff doesn't always
happen like you want which is great in a game. I think its totally doable but I would love for PI to chime in and say:

Podcast: 'eh, we can't do it' to at least put me out of my misery! lol!

On artillery types oh yeah all types inc US 240mm guns and perhaps the Karl if you have a Soviet fort to pound.

 

[fabius]

Fabius, yes. Your Corps or Army HQ becomes more than just a box to haul your commanders around it. When
created they would have 12 or so boxes in a Corp and 6 or so in an Army and can be filled with HQ level asset
forces of the type I mentioned earlier. They exist only on the template and not on the map tho their effects in
combat will if they are assigned to support by their commander with the correct % to do so less terrain, weather,
and radio communication. They would have a reduced physical effect if the parent HQ was physically attacked itself.

The thing is not all units would get involved. Some would roll low on the % to get involved and sometimes support
might be given where its not needed rather that where it is. But this is true 'Friction' in war where stuff doesn't always
happen like you want which is great in a game. I think its totally doable but I would love for PI to chime in and say:

Poscast: 'eh, we can't do it' to at least put me out of my misery! lol!

On artillery types oh yeah all types inc US 240mm guns and perhaps the Karl if you have a Soviet fort to pound.

That is a great idea, especially the "friction" in war. I's probably add a player priority tick box in the divisions- but as you say not 100% guaranteed. And probably have that 100% some reflection of doctrine, org or HQ and General's skills.

I would also have them appear in the 'Corps' only slots in the divs so the player can see them. But as you say no direct control.

 

[Jazumir]

I like the idea, too, but i am just not sure the division template is the way to go, to get there. The templates of 4 are a rather fixed structure, as i understand. But we should be able to shuffle corps-assets between corps, right? We want to be able to have some with a lot of independent regiments, acting as described by the OP, and others with few or none at all, right? In that case, one could simply use the ability (that the AI never used in 3 and was thus rather an exploit) of attaching brigades to Corps HQs (i´d say we´d better limit this to corps - not armies ; the latter do have quite a range*) and have those attached brigades (regiments, whatever) act as decribed. Maybe up their possible number somewhat per corps HQ.

*For armies, aerial assets could play the same role, acting parallel to what was described in DD7, but auto-focused on supporting the army they are attached to.

 

[Shadow Knight]

I like this idea. Sounds like it would add a lot to the game.

 

[Dalwin]

I really liked how corps assets were handled in Grigsby's War in the East (game cited by OP). Those HQs had multiple roles though so were kept on map. In addition to being the location of the pool of corp level units which could be assigned to divisions (all via automation, no micro); these HQs were also an important link in the supply chain as modeled in that game.

Besides, if trying to represent organizations like corps or army, it is necessary to have the divisions stay in proximity to others in the same organization. The simplest way to do this is to have on map HQs as the central point from which to measure that proximity.


The Army level HQs also ended up being home to the various aerial recon units (which again were mostly handled via automation to reduce micro management).

 

[plasticpanzers]

There should be no reason that corps assets cannot be reassigned strategically and move (offmap) like aircraft (but not over water!)
The Corps/Army template is simply a layout that the player could organize and see his assets at one glance. Since the new
graphics are so nice it would look cool to see all the heavy hardware backing up your line troops.

As most players know trying to build an 'Artillery Division' never works now. This could change all that.

 

[fabius]

Never played War in the East but checked some play vids to see the corpse screen.

Have to say there were a few things to like, including from what I could see of the Corps system.

 

[jamesd]

In my HOI3 games, corps and higher level troops were represented through attachments to HQ's and converged recon divisions. For example a German Infantry Corps HQ might have an infantry brigade, representing the field replacement battalions of the divisions, an Eng brigade representing the corps engineer regiment and an AA brigade representing attached Luftwaffe or Heer battalions. The fifth "division" of the corps could be built around a Cav brigade, representing the infantry divisions' recon battalions, with attached engineers (divisional battalions), SPA (motorised corps artillery regiment) and TD (attached mot AT, assault guns etc). The infantry divisions would still have attachments such as ART & AT representing their organic medium artillery and AT battalions.

In HOI4 I'm anticipating having to draw up extra divisional templates to represent corps troops - which may mean modding to reduce the cost of changing templates or adding additional templates to those available from the start of the game. While not allowing the corps troops to be spread out amongst all divisions in the corps, it would allow corps troops to be concentrated at the crucial point where a corps is spread out over more than one province.

 

[Gre]

HQs cannot attack on their own and make that so in HOI4. That part is simple. These are not on map units

The Corps asset units are not actually sitting outside the Corp commanders tent but up front near the component divisions.
Its not a physical distance but a organizational one based on radio/terrain/weather. They always appear in the Corp asset
boxes but combat units can only assist one battle at a time while artillery may help more than one up to its exhaustion (loss
of org or counterbattery fire).

I really like the idea of corps assets and really hope Paradox decides to implement them in HOI4. They could even work without an OOB, which seems to be the way HOI4 is moving. "Corps" artillery, AAA, armor, engineers, etc. could be assigned directly to each general. You just click on the general's portrait, and along with his stats, a list of the assets attached to him would pop up. We know that generals will have ranks and different generals will be able to command different numbers of divisions. They could each have more or fewer slots for assets, and the assets could even be assigned by templates to reduce micromanagement. Assigning them to attack vectors or defense lines could be as easy as assigning regular divisions. They could even be represented on the map, but the player wouldn't have to click on each one (on the map) to use them - they could be controlled from the generals' interface.

Not only would this add to immersion, it would be fun and interesting. Rather than having to make a bunch of different division templates (infantry with extra arty, infantry with AAA, infantry with extra engineers) and keep track of where they are on the map (tedious!) or, worse, just giving every division of each type more or less the same stats in those "extra" areas (boring!), the player (and the AI) could easily decide where the engineers, arty, anti-tank, AAA, or whatever need to go.

 

[battlemac007]

There could also be Service support assets, such as logistics (supply, maintenance and transport), engineers (bridging, railroad and heavy/airfield construction), and communications (which would increase the distance you could control units). Although the Corps and Army controlled combat units are important for the units supported/commanded, the command and control and logistics aspects are the reason the higher HQ's exist.

 

[wingo]

I think it is a great idea, but dont take it too far, keep it simple and it would be pretty in line with their focus on rewarding battle plans and less micro. Just get rid of (or reduce) the arbitrary bonus % number for battle plans and replace it with one which will depend on corps/army assets, because a good plan will not help you much if you dont have adequate equipment to support it. If you plan ahead your attack your troops will feel the full support, if they act independently they can't rely much on support, same if they get on the defense suddenly. With defense, if you draw a defensive line with "Not one step back!" you get full bonus for frontline troops on defense but not much for any reserves behind current front lines, or you can set it as Defense in depth which would not give the full bonus for the first line of defense but reserves (2nd line of defense) would get similar bonus as the frontline etc. This would also mean that if you are set for defense, your sudden attack would be without suport from these assets, but could be worth it in some situations (because the enemy is set to attack so doesnt have bonuses as well). Add in commander modifiers and it's golden.
This could also lead to feints and mind games, especially in multiplayer and also be more realistic, win-win

As for the support units, they could be recon, artillery, engineers, TD, anti-air etc each giving a distinct bonus for a different area (so not a flat +5% combat strength increase). Different types would have different characteristics, but to keep it simple just stick to 2 types of each (arty/sp arty, engineers/mechanized engineers...) with similar stats but the more expensive ones would reduce the needed time to get the full bonus (and probably also needed to be researched first). So now you can have flexible but expensive army, cheaper but less flexible or a mix of both.