Corps Attachments

[ladner]

This idea is probably beyond the scope of HOI, but hopefully will be implemented in a patch or add on would be corp attachments. Most of the real interesting goodies in WWII such as heavy tanks like the German Tiger, Soviet KV-1s, and Soviet JS I-III, heavy artillery (US 203mm, Ger 170mm), rocket launchers (German Nebelwerfer and Soviet Katyusha), heavy flak like the infamous German 88mm, and of course the heavy tank destroyers like the German Jagdpanther and Soviet SU-100, SU-122, and SU-152 were organized into independent battalions/regiments/brigades attached to a higher level head quarters. Based upon King's AAR you seem to have flexibility in determining the number of divisions per Corp, it would be nice to have the added flexiblity of adding these elements that I have mentioned to give a Corps added firepower not to mention a degree of military/historical authenticity.

On an asside, did anyone notice in the screen shot showing the allocation of panzers for a panzer divsion that above the tank icons were different NATO style icons for engineers, signals/communications, and I think artillery. If you have the ability to "build" your divisions I will be exteremely pleased. Also, if this is the case then my suggestion would not be too much of stretch for a future update.

 

[unmerged(10977)]

brigades

You will be able to add one extra brigade to a division. There seem to be four types of those brigades: artillery, anti-aircraft, anti-tank and engineers.

Divisions can for sure be assigned to different Corps/Armies.

It will be a great game

 

[ladner]

re brigades

Glad to hear you can assign brigades to the divisions. What I was trying to convey though, is I would like to able to add independent brigades such as heavy artilery, heavy tanks etc to the the higher level corps HQ as well. I agree this should be a great game!

 

[sbrengard]

I may be wrong, but I think you can only attach a 'fourth' brigade on a 'standard' infantry division. (not a Mar Div, Abn Div, or Mtn Div)

 

[ladner]

I'm not sure, based upon the replies to my first post that I made a very clear point, although the information on the attaching of brigades to divisions is much appreciated. What I would like to see eventually implement though, would be the attachment of "brigades" (really battalions, but no need to nit-pick) to the higher level corp HQ.

I would also envision a doctrine like "shock army" were you could have multiple brigades attached to the Corps HQ, I think a feature such as this would better capture the feeling of the massed Soviet attacks on the Eastern Front were they had an enormous amount of artillery and armor in support of their attacks, even if the attacking force was not a tank corps. I could also forsee a doctirne like "heavy armour" to allow for the attachment of heavy tank brigades, I suspect that currently, players will be allowed to make entire divisions of Tiger Tanks, KV-1s, and Joseph Stalins, which is very ahistorical. Besides, as the axis you would never have enough fuel to field entire divisions of Tigers.

Another item high on my wish list would be the inclusion of the turrentless assualt guns and tank destroyers employed by the Soviet Union, the Germans, and yes even the Italians. Speaking of the Italians their Semovette (SP?) was one of the few decent Italian manufactured armoured fighting vehicles. I recently read FW von Mellethin's Panzer Battles and he had a decidedly negative opinion of the Italian tanks describing them as under armoured and under gunned.

However, I don't want anyone here to take my comments as criticism of the game, just suggestion that I think would make it the game I've always dreamed of. I even broke down and got a high speed internet connection to multiplay against friends. I'm sure there will be some post to the effect of too much micro management, which is why I would almost want Paradox to release a "Grognard" Edition, instead of a Gold Edition.

Is it November 12 yet???? *sigh*

 

[Alexander Seil]

There is no separation between Corps, Armies and Army Group in the game afaik. There are just divisions, and they are banded into generic groups. If it's big you can call it an army, if it's smaller it would be a corps. Although some screenshots have "XXXX" marked units on them, I would assume those would just be group of 5+ divisions. I don't see any way they can simulate heavy tanks given that they were used in separate battalions by the Germans ( I am talking about Tigers, Konigtigers). Same goes for anything that wasn't part of a division or attached on divisional level. Of course with 700+ technologies such as blood transfusions it is strange they didn't make it possible to equip your forces with heavy armor battalions, so I hope they did find a way to simulate that somehow.

 

[unmerged(3168)]

I'm sure that it will be abstracted into building Panzer/Tank divisions of Tigers, Panthers, KV's ect. I'm sure the techs will include the other Assault guns and TD's but I doubt you'll be building units of them.

 

[ladner]

A plausible solution

I have given this some thought and the solution that I hope Paradox employs is using the AT brigade as the place holder for the Heavy Armour/Assualt Guns/Tank Destoyers. When one thinks about it, most of these weapon systems were primarily designed to destroy other tanks. Granted, the original role of the sturmgeschultz was to support the infantry, but gradually over time the role became that of a tank destroyer. I'm fairly certain that for the soviets the SU-152's nickname in english translate to "Animal Killer" due to it's reputation for destroying Tigers/Panthers, unfortunately without going back and looking in a text I can't remeber the exact Russian phrase.

 

[unmerged(5664)]

Re: brigades

Originally posted by Johan Jung
You will be able to add one extra brigade to a division. There seem to be four types of those brigades: artillery, anti-aircraft, anti-tank and engineers.

What are you basing that on?

 

[unmerged(10815)]

Re: Re: brigades

Originally posted by BarristerBoy


What are you basing that on?

I heard(read) that too

Originally posted by ladner
I suspect that currently, players will be allowed to make entire divisions of Tiger Tanks, KV-1s, and Joseph Stalins, which is very ahistorical. Besides, as the axis you would never have enough fuel to field entire divisions of Tigers.

Good to be able to if the opportunity arises. To experiment with such ideas will only add longevity to the game. I remember reading that faster units could carry 1/2 of its amount(strength?) of another, slower unit(cant remember specific details) if so this will allow an strong armoured taskforce with some inf. traveling at the speed of an armoured unit, maybe it will guzzle too much fuel, maybe I could rip through Russia as Germany in a matter of weeks and mop up behind me, probably not but certainly fun to try out such possibilities no?

 

[Darkrenown]

Re: Re: brigades

Originally posted by BarristerBoy


What are you basing that on?

It was in a preview, the SGO one I think. Although I don't know if it said you could only attach one.

 

[unmerged(10977)]

preview

"What are you basing that on?"


On this:

"Currently Paradox plans no fewer than eight different types of division: Infantry, Cavalry, Motorized Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Armored, Paratroop, Marines, and Mountain divisions. Infantry and Armored divisions can be further customized by a higher initial investment, which adds a brigade of specialized support units such as AA, AT, Engineers, or Artillery for a commensurate effect on the division’s combat values."

Source: http://www.sgo.cc/previews/hearts_of_iron/index.shtml

 

[unmerged(11047)]

Only one placeholder for a "specialist" brigade? Perhaps it wasn't common practice in WW2 for a truly combined arms formation, but there's no reason why one shouldn't have been developed, so why this artificial limitation? Modern combat support may include artillery, antitank, engineers (mine warfare, construction, bridging), air defence etc etc... why not in WW2 given proper doctrinal support?

Incidentally, the same article referred to does mention elite (named) units... yet in other posts it was mentioned that this isn't in the game (initially)... does anyone know if they are in or not, and can you actually rename units (even if it doesn't affect combat value).

 

[unmerged(10977)]

extra brigades

IIRC those add on brigades only increases combat values. With an extra artillery brigade, an infantry division might increase its soft-attack value from 2 to 4 (I do not know the real numbers).

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by bmdman
Only one placeholder for a "specialist" brigade? Perhaps it wasn't common practice in WW2 for a truly combined arms formation, but there's no reason why one shouldn't have been developed, so why this artificial limitation? Modern combat support may include artillery, antitank, engineers (mine warfare, construction, bridging), air defence etc etc... why not in WW2 given proper doctrinal support?

The main reason we have such things in today's militaries is because of experience gained during WWII. In a real sense, we had to fight a major war without true combined arms in order to see the value of combined arms.

 

[ladner]

Originally posted by PBI


The main reason we have such things in today's militaries is because of experience gained during WWII. In a real sense, we had to fight a major war without true combined arms in order to see the value of combined arms.

I'm not so sure about this statement. By 1944 all of the major combatants within the European theatre recognized combined arms doctrine. The United States Army, in particular recognized this, which is why all of the armoured divisions, with the exception of the 2nd and 3rd, were organized with a three combat command structure with each combat command having a mixture of armour, armoured infantry ( a real misnomer since the only "armoured" aspect was that they rode in halftracks), and artillery battalions.

The Soviets also recognized this to a degree, and by 1943 had organized their amoured formations into Tank corps of three tank brigades, a motorized rifle brigade, self propelled artillery regiment, AT regiment (towed AT guns), and additional support troops. The Tank Corps was complemented with a Mechanized Corps of three mechanized brigades, a tank brigade, self propelled artillery regiment and additional support troops. A Soviet Tank Army would typically be composed of two Tank Corps and one Mechanized Corps. By 1944 the Soviet Mechanized Brigades were composed of three motor rifle batalions and one tank regiment. As whole though, the Soviet Tank Corps/Tank Army was less balanced with respect to infantry than Western formations. ( I have greater detail on the Soviets for I happened to have a book handy, Knights of the Black Cross by Bryan Perett)

To alleviate any confusion, for those who are not particularly familar with the Soviet Army of WW2, a Soviet Corps was the roughly the equivalent of a Western European Division and a Soviet Army was roughly equivalent to a Western European Corps ( I beg the indulgence of those who already knew this, but the web is a rather large audience).

It should also be noted that by 1944 a US infantry division would frequently be supported by attached battalions of tanks, tank destroyers and artillery. These attachements, from the higher level headquarters provided a US infantry division with significantly more firepower than a Wehrmacht infantry division. In theory the late war German infantry division were to have an assualt gun battalion (again combined arms), but in reality these battalions were rarely at full strength.

I guess the point of this long ramble, is that I agree with bmdman's earlier post. However, I must concede that at some point in time maintaining strict historical detail or military organization (i.e. most divisions were not homogenous with respect to tanks etc.) could negatively affect gameplay, and gamers want to feel like they are playing a game, not managing a database.

Still, I must say the EU2 surprised me, at first glance it seemed almost too simple, than I began to play more and the elegance of the design astounded me. I was quite surprised at how accurately the game modeled the Swiss pikemen and eventually the Spanish Terico as they would dominate the battle field like they historically did and within the correct time frame. So I have great confidence in Paradox and look forward to this game.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

I did say "true" combined arms. Yes, by 44 for the Allies and a bit earlier for the Soviets, there was combined arms in use, but it was still early days. I guess what I was trying to say was that it wouldn't be very accurate if divisions started showing up in 39 organized into combined arms combat teams. Not that it shouldn't be possible, I guess, but maybe the combined arms doctrine might be high up the tech scale? Maybe the doctrine and the attachment of extra brigades should be a seperate thing, with the doctrine giving an extra boost in combat power?

 

[unmerged(10977)]

I am a litte confused. Divisions do have "specialist" troops from the beginning. I mean, artillery, anti-tank and so on. Just look at the combat values in the screenshot. Specialist brigades increases those values (regarding engineers, they might be helpful in assualting fortresses and increase the speed of river crossing operations).

IMHO, the extra brigades are actually corps attachment assigned to divisions. If you want an Army Corps with many artillery brigades, just mass some infantry divisions with attached artillery brigades.

And a Divisional HQ can only control a limited number of subordinate HQs. I belive only one specialised brigade per divsion is wise. This game is after all strategic in scope, and divisions are the smallest unit.



"Maybe the doctrine and the attachment of extra brigades should be a seperate thing, with the doctrine giving an extra boost in combat power?"


I agree.

 

[ladner]

Originally posted by PBI
I guess what I was trying to say was that it wouldn't be very accurate if divisions started showing up in 39 organized into combined arms combat teams.

I definitely agree with you on this point. In '39 only the Germans were close to combined arms doctrine and even at this early stage of the war only the 1st Panzer Division was receiving it's first SPWs (Schutzenpanzerwagen, i.e. half-track APCs) to provide mobility and protection for the infantry within the division. Another item of interest is that the German formations were too tank heavy and this was rectified in '41, when the panzer division was reorganized to one Panzer regiment and two motorized infantry regiments with an armoured reconaissance battalion and artillery, in essence the Germans did not realy use combined arms until '41. Before the ratio of armour to infantry had been reveresed, interestingly enough the British armoured divisions were unbalanced in this same manner in North Africa with two sometimes three brigades of armour and only one brigade of infantry. Consequently, in North Africa, Rommel would employ his sword and shield tactics and the British armour, unsupported by sufficient infantry and artillery, would be ground up by anti-tank gun screens and panzer counter attacks.

 

[peo]

I would think that the attached brigades are in addition to for example artillery.
Altough it would have been fun to be able to build the divisions brigade by brigade but it is a wee bit to much to handle