Deployment of independent support troops?

[Alexander Seil]

Given the new diary fresh off the presses, it should be possible to build "support-only" divisions, from brigades like anti-tank, AA and so forth. Now, they should have no (or very little) combat value without regular line units present, but they should add their special abilities whenever they are in the same stack (or defending in the same province) with regular units.

However, some of their abilities should still be active - for example, it should be possible to deploy independent AA "divisions" (1-brigade units) to protect key areas.

 

[Enzo]

Probably, and this will allow simulation of some independent units at the corps level, like artillery for instance.

 

[Bullfrog]

Yes, so the command capacity may need to be altered somewhat for the allowance of corps and army assets. For example, if my corps has three divisions of infantry but I want to add corps level artillery and HQ, the Lt. General might need to be capable of essentially 4 division command without penalty, despite having 3 "main" divisions.

or,

Command capacity will ignore pure assets such as arty and HQ, to a limit, instead being based entirely on the manuever elements in increments of 1, 3, 9, 12.

I guess this all comes down to the unknown details of the chain of command feature that I hope will be included very accurately.

 

[potski]

Yes, so the command capacity may need to be altered somewhat for the allowance of corps and army assets. For example, if my corps has three divisions of infantry but I want to add corps level artillery and HQ, the Lt. General might need to be capable of essentially 4 division command without penalty, despite having 3 "main" divisions.

or,

Command capacity will ignore pure assets such as arty and HQ, to a limit, instead being based entirely on the manuever elements in increments of 1, 3, 9, 12.

I guess this all comes down to the unknown details of the chain of command feature that I hope will be included very accurately.

We should get a system which takes account of the numbers and types of brigades in the Divs, rather than simply counts the number of Divs. Obviously, not the same command requirements of three Divs of Art only compared to three Arm only.

 

[blue emu]

Obviously, not the same command requirements of three Divs of Art only compared to three Arm only.

True, but the command requirements for three ART brigades should be higher than those for a single ART Division... since three independant Corps assets would require more micromanagement from the Corps commander than a single larger (Divisional) unit would require.

 

[Iberville]

They say Division will be the smallest unit, but then you can have a 1 brigade division... In other words, that 1 brigade unit is what you're talking about.

I wonder how long it would take 4 TAC to insta-vaporize a 1 brigade motorized unit?

 

[Alexander Seil]

I'm just afraid that Paradox misses this opportunity to make OOBs more realistic. As pointed out in the other thread, this would allow Soviet artillery divisions to exist as they did, for example.

 

[Zwiback]

I'm just afraid that Paradox misses this opportunity to make OOBs more realistic. As pointed out in the other thread, this would allow Soviet artillery divisions to exist as they did, for example.

Didn't King said in the other thread that they won't prevent the player from doing anything stupid with the division designer? I would interpret that as "mix anything you want but don't whine about the outcome"

 

[Iberville]

Russian Artillery Divisions are a classic type of asymmetric division out there. I just hope they won't nerf any crazy design by forcing, say, to have at least one INF brigade per division, etc.

Mind you, if you have that ART division of 4 brigades, great, but once in a battle, if it gets hit, it would get seriously mauled... Obviously they were used in second line, not in the first line... Now, Paradox mentioned 'front width per division' and stuff, but not the concept of 'second line'... So I guess for damage purpose one would have 1 INF Brigade and 3 ART... Even then, not sure how efficient it would be...

It'd be nice to have true supporting units, not taking frontage, but supporting the front itself.

 

[donkeysaint]

Probably, and this will allow simulation of some independent units at the corps level, like artillery for instance.

This would be a HQ unit and one or two artillery brigades.

I'm just afraid that Paradox misses this opportunity to make OOBs more realistic. As pointed out in the other thread, this would allow Soviet artillery divisions to exist as they did, for example.

But the Soviet artillery divisions are the exception. I would make no sense if everyone could deploy them, and even the Soviets used them only in the latest stages of the war.

 

[Battlecry]

But the Soviet artillery divisions are the exception. I would make no sense if everyone could deploy them, and even the Soviets used them only in the latest stages of the war.

The Soviets used them as soon as they could - i.e, as soon as they had enough artillery. After the defeats & Kesselschlachts of 1941, the Red Army was left with very little artillery.
Before the war artillery had been a division asset, much like other nations.
The loss of so much artillery prompted the Soviets to change their system and concentrate their artillery into corps assets (divisions were left with only a few guns, but approx twice as many mortars, far more of them heavy than before) for the rest of the war, in order that the artillery they had could be more effectively utilized - and this worked out fairly well for them.

I think any country facing a shortage of artillery, or even anyone who wishes to do so should be allowed to employ their artillery as corps assets. There are, and undoubtedly will be ingame, various shortcomings of this method (for example, such a unit is immensely vulnerable to air attack) which will quickly become apparent to the player who chooses to do so, but there are also some advantages.

 

[peo]

If you want to use arty as a corps (or div or both) asset it should be in the doctrine I hope. You should of course be able to do so anytime but the advantage of it should be doctrinal (hmm is that a word)

 

[LaDoncella]

i wonder if there will be an indication on the map screen to diferentiate between diferent sizes of divisions

 

[kstanb]

Artillery divisions/ corps should also consume massive amounts of supply

 

[Battlecry]

Artillery divisions/ corps should also consume massive amounts of supply

An HQ brigade + 3 Arty brigades should consume no more supplies than those individual brigades combined if they were each part of a frontline division.

So if you had 5 divisions like this:
HQ/ART/ART/ART
INF/INF/ENG
INF/INF/ENG
INF/INF/ENG
INF/INF/ENG

it should ould consume no more supplies than 4 divisions like this:
INF/INF/ENG/HQ
INF/INF/ENG/ART
INF/INF/ENG/ART
INF/INF/ENG/ART

Each brigade consumes a set amount of supplies, no matter how they're organized. In fact having all your artillery in one unit simplifies the logistics process, unit by unit, to some extent, which is perhaps another reason the Soviets chose to do so. All the supplies/ammo for ART go to one place, while all the supplies/ammo for INF & ENG go to another, rather than having to divide them up, either before or after shipment.

 

[blue emu]

I think any country facing a shortage of artillery, or even anyone who wishes to do so should be allowed to employ their artillery as corps assets.

One could argue that this new type of formation represented a change in Soviet Artillery doctrine... and should only become available (to ANY nation, not just to the Soviets) once the appropriate Land Doctrine Tech has been researched.

 

[Battlecry]

One could argue that this new type of formation represented a change in Soviet Artillery doctrine... and should only become available (to ANY nation, not just to the Soviets) once the appropriate Land Doctrine Tech has been researched.

And how would one represent a forced, unwanted change in doctrine?
(Good to see you involved in these threads Emu, we could use your expertise...how's the weather in ON?)

EDIT: And the doctrine is very much pre-war. Artillery was frequently organized this way in WWI.

 

[Alexander Seil]

But there are more obvious examples - independent AA brigades. There were certainly independent and portable AA units. The artillery divisions are just a more compelling example, but they're by no means the only one. Similarly, it makes no sense to make it mandatory of Military Police to operate together with either "fortress" (Garrison) or line troops. Why couldn't you just deploy MP brigades for partisan suppression?

 

[Rodrico Stak]

I think that leader's command limits should be measured in brigades now instead of divisions, since there is no absolute size of a division anymore. For example (keeping the current proportions between ranks):

Major General: 5 brigades
Lieutenant General: 15 brigades
General: 45 brigades
Field Marshal: 60 brigades

 

[kstanb]

An HQ brigade + 3 Arty brigades should consume no more supplies than those individual brigades combined if they were each part of a frontline division.
.

Sorry, I was not specific, I was saying vs. other type of brigades (INF)

so, many "support-only" ART divisions, could be great for your offensives, but at the cost of having to pay a lot in supply consumption

that without also mentioning their vulnerability to air/ land attack