Corps Attachments

[Nikolai II]

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.

I'd expect that too, but I won't mind, since those units will contain lots of old fluff.

If you 'build' a Tiger Division I'd expect a batallion or two of Tigers in it, and then a lot of other, smaller tanks as 'fillers'. Won't disturb me when playing that way. Now if they were to explicitly state that every single tank in the division is of the same type, then I'd be worried

 

[unmerged(11047)]

The way its done in "Second Front" (East Front WW2 game by Gary Grigsby, quite old now) is interesting. Basically your standard unit (German Corps / Soviet Army) has a number of slots (eight I think) and you can fill this up however you want... with divisions or independent brigades. More specifically, you only get a number of Corps / Armies that count as armoured, so even if you fill up an infantry formation with armour, it still counts as infantry.

I would use a system where the Corps / Army reflects the divisions that make it up ... if its full of armoured / motorised / mechanised divisions then it can be an Armoured Corps, and if its got any foot infantry its infantry.

The beauty of the maximum number of slots reflects an organisational limit that is not unreasonable. You allocate independent brigades from a pool, so if you want to balance your Corps you can add engineers, artillery and heavy tanks etc... and before you think about it for too long, its probably not a good idea to put eight armoured divisions in the same formation... sure they punch straight through but they can be a victim of their own success and get cut off. Eight divisions of armour without supplies isn't that hard to beat! You could even make the organisational limit part of doctrinal research... start off with a six slot formation and max out at ten after suitable investment etc. I think the one slot for "independents", if its true, is a bit artificial and too low.

 

[ladner]

Originally posted by bmdman
The way its done in "Second Front" (East Front WW2 game by Gary Grigsby, quite old now) is interesting. Basically your standard unit (German Corps / Soviet Army) has a number of slots (eight I think) and you can fill this up however you want... with divisions or independent brigades.

Ahhhh! "Second Front" also updated and released as "War in Russia", a great game, I was a big fan of these.

I have no problem with the current system of attaching brigades to the divsions. Ideally, I also would like to have, what in my opinion would be the greater flexibility of being able to attach brigades to the higher level HQ, whether it be a corps, army, or army group. This would add a touch of military realism, and if it were coupled with doctrine would allow for some interesting choices for the player.

One thing that I'm really interested in after reading King's AAR is if you will be able to change the brigade attachments when you refit a division, especially if it is an elite division I could foresee wanting to be able to do this. After reading the AARs I think this will be a great game!

 

[N Katsyev]

Soviet 8th Army

Just in case anyone would be interested, I decided i'd put up a nice little diagram of a Soviet Army, in this instance its going to be the 8th Army as of June 1941. Organisational strength will be to the left and real strength at that time will be on the right...

10 Rifle Corps:
Men 32057/25480
Tanks 24/12
Guns and Mortars 600/453
Armoured Cars 26/18
Lorries 1900/912 eek: )

11 Rifle Corps:
Men 32057/23661
Tanks 24/17
Guns and Mortars 600/559
Armoured Cars 26/14
Lorries 1900/1007

12 Mechanized Corps:
Men 36080/30436
Tanks 1031/651
Guns and Mortars 358/288
Armoured Cars 266/68
Lorries 5165/2945

Total Manpower 105,508/82,010
Tanks 1,079/680

Soviet manpower per division before the war was set to a more en mass level following WWI, and was at 18,000. During WWII Soviet divisions seemed to stay around the 12,000 - 14,000 mark. The Mechanized corps, when resurrected, were in theory (and later in the war in practice) extremely effective units, possesing the armoured power to take a position, and backed up by the infantry to hold that position, they were however slightly short on artillery.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

It seems as if folks are arguing for a future patch that would see HoI move from a division-level game to a corps-level game. Remember that those corps "units" in the screenshots are just there to help remind the player how many divisions he has.

Assuming HoI stays with the division as the basic unit, maybe corps attachments might be simulated with an "attach corps asset" option much like we can add an additional brigade?

 

[unmerged(8908)]

This idea is probably beyond the scope of HOI, but hopefully will be implemented in a patch or add on would be corp attachments.

Kind of peripheral to what you are talking about, but still sort of applicable:

I was rambling on about a month or two back on the subject of replacements, & how I'd like to see the ability in the game of producing sub-units (say, about battalion or brigade-sized) that are more or less worthless on their own, but would be able to be fed into an HQ & be redistributed to the divisions under the HQ (Automatically? Manually? Automatically OR manually?). There could be several types of replacement units (Infantry, Armoured, Mech, etc), each meant to be plugged into a combat-depleted unit to replace losses.

In regards to your questions/ideas, it would also be kind of cool if these "replacement units" could also include such types as Engineers, Heavy Tanks, Artillery, whatever, & be fed into an HQ to be used at the commanding general's discretion. Obviously, the presence of these units would improve the overall stats of the Corps or Army to which they are attached, & would also help in terms of "lack of foresight" (say, when you built some Soviet divisions in '38, you either didn't have the tech or the resources to include Engineering units in the divisions; now you have a tangible way to add an "aftermarket add-on").

Of course, I also understand that in a game of this scope, one MUST draw the line somewhere -- you can't put in EVERYTHING, or else the game would cost $5,000 & you'd need a Cray II to run it. But still, it's fun to speculate...

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by C.C.R.


Kind of peripheral to what you are talking about, but still sort of applicable:

I was rambling on about a month or two back on the subject of replacements, & how I'd like to see the ability in the game of producing sub-units (say, about battalion or brigade-sized) that are more or less worthless on their own, but would be able to be fed into an HQ & be redistributed to the divisions under the HQ (Automatically? Manually? Automatically OR manually?). There could be several types of replacement units (Infantry, Armoured, Mech, etc), each meant to be plugged into a combat-depleted unit to replace losses.

In regards to your questions/ideas, it would also be kind of cool if these "replacement units" could also include such types as Engineers, Heavy Tanks, Artillery, whatever, & be fed into an HQ to be used at the commanding general's discretion. Obviously, the presence of these units would improve the overall stats of the Corps or Army to which they are attached, & would also help in terms of "lack of foresight" (say, when you built some Soviet divisions in '38, you either didn't have the tech or the resources to include Engineering units in the divisions; now you have a tangible way to add an "aftermarket add-on").

Of course, I also understand that in a game of this scope, one MUST draw the line somewhere -- you can't put in EVERYTHING, or else the game would cost $5,000 & you'd need a Cray II to run it. But still, it's fun to speculate...

If HoI dealt with corps and army-level units, this might work, but HoI uses divisions...I think Paradox's "land task forces", especially the gorgnard-mode shots showing "corps" and "armies" are causing a lot of confusion. There are only corps and armies in the game because Paradox didn't want to have huge stacks of division counters, I'm guessing.

 

[unmerged(8908)]

If HoI dealt with corps and army-level units, this might work, but HoI uses divisions...I think Paradox's "land task forces", especially the gorgnard-mode shots showing "corps" and "armies" are causing a lot of confusion. There are only corps and armies in the game because Paradox didn't want to have huge stacks of division counters, I'm guessing.

Well, in essence these groups ARE stacks -- they're just a little more flashy.

After consideration, I see where the terms "corps" and "army" may be misnomers. However, even if I were to revise my previous post like so:

Kind of peripheral to what you are talking about, but still sort of applicable:

I was rambling on about a month or two back on the subject of replacements, & how I'd like to see the ability in the game of producing sub-units (say, about battalion or brigade-sized) that are more or less worthless on their own, but would be able to be fed into a Task Force (TF) & be redistributed to the divisions under the TF (Automatically? Manually? Automatically OR manually?). There could be several types of replacement units (Infantry, Armoured, Mech, etc), each meant to be plugged into a combat-depleted division to replace losses.

In regards to your questions/ideas, it would also be kind of cool if these "replacement units" could also include such types as Engineers, Heavy Tanks, Artillery, whatever, & be fed into a TF to be used at the commanding general's discretion. Obviously, the presence of these units would improve the overall stats of the TF to which they are attached, & would also help in terms of "lack of foresight" (say, when you built some Soviet divisions in '38, you either didn't have the tech or the resources to include Engineering units in the divisions; now you have a tangible way to add an "aftermarket add-on").

...my point is EXACTLY the same, yet technically agreeable semantically to what you were saying.

But since it has been announced that HoI has already gone "Gold," then I have to file all of this away for HoI 2...

 

[Soapy Frog]

Divisional level granularity is perfect for a strategic level games... the only reason why most strategic level board games use "corps" as their base unit is because if they used divisions the number of counters required would be totally unamanageable.

The operational unit in WW2 was the division (with the brigade as a subset), which would be fluidly combined into strategic level formations like Corps, Armys and Army Groups.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by C.C.R.


Well, in essence these groups ARE stacks -- they're just a little more flashy.

After consideration, I see where the terms "corps" and "army" may be misnomers. However, even if I were to revise my previous post like so:



...my point is EXACTLY the same, yet technically agreeable semantically to what you were saying.

But since it has been announced that HoI has already gone "Gold," then I have to file all of this away for HoI 2...

Actually, it's not techically agreeable, since a single division also qualifies as a task force. Where would corps attachements come in, then, since there is no corps to attach them to?

 

[unmerged(8908)]

Actually, it's not techically agreeable, since a single division also qualifies as a task force. Where would corps attachements come in, then, since there is no corps to attach them to?

If a TF consists of a single division, then why couldn't you put the "attachment(s)" under the division/TF commander? How does this work for ya':

Kind of peripheral to what you are talking about, but still sort of applicable:

I was rambling on about a month or two back on the subject of replacements, & how I'd like to see the ability in the game of producing sub-units (say, about battalion or brigade-sized) that are more or less worthless on their own, but would be able to be fed into a Task Force (TF) & be redistributed to the division(s) under the TF (Automatically? Manually? Automatically OR manually?). There could be several types of replacement units (Infantry, Armoured, Mech, etc), each meant to be plugged into a combat-depleted division to replace losses.

In regards to your questions/ideas, it would also be kind of cool if these "replacement units" could also include such types as Engineers, Heavy Tanks, Artillery, whatever, & be fed into a TF to be used at the commanding general's discretion. Obviously, the presence of these units would improve the overall stats of the TF to which they are attached, & would also help in terms of "lack of foresight" (say, when you built some Soviet divisions in '38, you either didn't have the tech or the resources to include Engineering units in the divisions; now you have a tangible way to add an "aftermarket add-on").

Better?

Nov 19th better come soon -- we're arguing about specifics that aren't even in the game!!!

 

[Johan Elisson]

Just wondering why everyone talks about brigades all the time, since most of the bigger powers built their divisions upon regiments and battalions...

/Elisson

 

[unmerged(8908)]

Just wondering why everyone talks about brigades all the time, since most of the bigger powers built their divisions upon regiments and battalions...

Ahh, the classic message board trap: How to phrase one's post so that it's specific enough for the readers to get the point, yet vague enough to weasel around the nitpickers...

...So screw it. Instead of metally masturbating about how to implement an idea, I'll just take the easy-cheesey way out & ask a question which I know good & God-damned well won't get answered before Nov 19th:

How are existing units replenished and/or upgraded in the field?

 

[Nikolai II]

Originally posted by C.C.R.

How are existing units replenished and/or upgraded in the field?

Look through the screenies (I can't be bothered right now ) one released during this week shows a division selected individually, and in the taskbar at the right there are option buttons like 'upgrade (to most modern equipment)' and 'replenish (to full fighting strengthe)' among other options.

I'll post a link someday if noone beats me to it

 

[Nikolai II]

Here's a screenie

It shows a bomber division but I would think it holds. you can also disband the unit or send it by rail/strategically move.

In AARs it has been mentioned that replenishing to full strength costs manpower and upgrading to modern weapons takes a long time, likely as long as building a new unit. (Advantages of upgrading could be saving manpower and keeping unit experience)

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by C.C.R.


If a TF consists of a single division, then why couldn't you put the "attachment(s)" under the division/TF commander? How does this work for ya':



Better?

Nov 19th better come soon -- we're arguing about specifics that aren't even in the game!!!

That's what I'm getting at...they wouldn't BE corps assets then. Since corps and armies don't exist in HoI, unless there will actual HQ units, then we go back to the original question of how/if corps attachments will be handled. Most games that I've seen that use a divisional scale either abstract the effect of the attachments into the division stats.

 

[unmerged(6780)]

Originally posted by Elisson
Just wondering why everyone talks about brigades all the time, since most of the bigger powers built their divisions upon regiments and battalions...

/Elisson

Commonwealth didn't.

 

[ladner]

Re: Soviet 8th Army

Originally posted by N Katsyev
Just in case anyone would be interested, I decided i'd put up a nice little diagram of a Soviet Army, in this instance its going to be the 8th Army as of June 1941. Organisational strength will be to the left and real strength at that time will be on the right...

10 Rifle Corps:
Men 32057/25480
Tanks 24/12
Guns and Mortars 600/453
Armoured Cars 26/18
Lorries 1900/912 eek: )

11 Rifle Corps:
Men 32057/23661
Tanks 24/17
Guns and Mortars 600/559
Armoured Cars 26/14
Lorries 1900/1007

12 Mechanized Corps:
Men 36080/30436
Tanks 1031/651
Guns and Mortars 358/288
Armoured Cars 266/68
Lorries 5165/2945

Total Manpower 105,508/82,010
Tanks 1,079/680

Soviet manpower per division before the war was set to a more en mass level following WWI, and was at 18,000. During WWII Soviet divisions seemed to stay around the 12,000 - 14,000 mark. The Mechanized corps, when resurrected, were in theory (and later in the war in practice) extremely effective units, possesing the armoured power to take a position, and backed up by the infantry to hold that position, they were however slightly short on artillery.

Katsyev- just out of curiousity what was your source for the Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) for the Soviet 8th Army?

Thanks,

ladner

 

[N Katsyev]

Re: Re: Soviet 8th Army

Originally posted by ladner


Katsyev- just out of curiousity what was your source for the Table of Organization and Equipment (TO&E) for the Soviet 8th Army?

Thanks,

ladner

The Road to Stalingrad Stalin's War With Germany by Johan Erickson. The actual table is in the resources area at the end of the book. It originally came from a study released in 1974 by Col. N Baryshev.

 

[ladner]

Ahhhh. My first thread, how silly you read, now that I understand the game mechanics. Still the idea of task force attachments could be interesting for say, HOI2.