Divisions? Corps? Armies?

[FireDevlin]

I like to play with my forces as corps of three divisions each, all brigaded. I also like to have some armies of 6 divisions with an HQ, everything with a brigade. I do this for immersion factors and for fun. Do single divisions/commanders work that much better with IC? I feel I am limiting myself (also with so many more map spaces), but I really enjoy not having Generals and FM's commanding single divisions. (Granted this leaves me with many divisions technically without a commander because the commander is a "corps" commander . . .

Just curious how other feel about this and what they do.

 

[RiseOrDie]

i love it. in fact i turned off auto promote... the trick is to gain skill and watch you're leaders gain it... then promote chosen leaders who out pass others... man i had leaders leading 9 divisions by barbarossa kicked. gods. they went through enemy lines unstopped. even in winter they out done themselves... always start with 1 leader then promote when you feel the time is right...

you're panzer leaders need this, give it to them..

 

[unmerged(59863)]

Hello;

I generally use corps of 2 divisions for armor, mechanized, motorized or "commando" units ( paratrooper, marines...), all with brigades, because in IC they are very important. With infantry, corps are formed by 3 divisions ( 4 for puppet countries), with brigades also. HQ have generally a motorized or mechanized division as support. And, of course, a lot of individual divisions to increase the skill of the leaders, so after they can command a corps, with more accuracy.
I think that armies of 6 or more divisions are not very operatives in IC. The new added provinces requires to change some tactics!

 

[unmerged(176442)]

During Doomsday days i played at Corps and Army levels. Infantry, Paratrooper, Mountain, Marines were organized as Corps with 3 divisions each.
Mobile forces - motorized or mechanized infantry and armor were organized as Armies if i had enoug IC (4 Armor and 2 Mot infantry for example). If i used a combination at Corps level (2 Armor, 1 Mot). When playing as Germany or US my Tanks Armies had 9 divisions including one HQ.
In AoD this didnt really work out well. The new stacking penalty makes large formations useless. I ditched the Army level and organized my entire force at Corps level.
With AoD IC you need to go one step further. There a soo many provinces that you run out of available Corps to deploy. So i went from the usual 3 divisions / Corps to a 2 divisions / Corps formula, at least for all non mobile forces. Armored Corps still have 3 divisions each (2 heavy, 1 light division) to get the necessary combat power. But no armies anymore, with AoD combat system and IC provinces this is a nogo.
Overall, its more fun to play that way. I still have my issues with the AoD combat system but the provinces in IC are just great. So many new possibilities for my armor centred forces to crush the enemy. Only Africa is a big pain in the ass. Way to many provinces in south. Nobody fights for them.

 

[unmerged(157031)]

In my current game as the USSR I've realised that I need a lot of different types of divisional structures. At the moment they consist of:

Armored offensive units - Corps consisting of 1 arm division (light or med, heavy is too expensive) and 2 mot divisions. The plan is that when the Germans invade that these corps will strike through the centre of their spearhead (i.e. away from the enemy arm and mot), quickly cutting off the enemy's main force from supply.

Low priority primary defensive infantry - Corps or armys (depending on wether or not I can get the needed amount of men in time) consisting of my worst equipped inf. These will be deployed along the centre of the line, give the German armor a massive advantage. Hopefully they'll take the bait, attack throught this deliberatly weak area and run in to...

Low priority secondary defensive infantry - The best infantry available deplyoed in the second and third lines behind the primary. Equipped with armored cars to make them flexible, these corps have the flexibility to retreat while also providing a rigid barrier agains the werchmart. The enemy armor should be slowed down but pushing forwards, leaving room for the the...

High priority defensive infantry - Deployed at the flanks, the best infantry available to deter the enemy in to taking the centre. When the enemy have pushed through the primary defense and the secondary defense has given in, the arm-off. corps will push from the flanks to meet in the middle, these inf becomming the encircling infantry.

I never had to have this kind of planning in AoD or HoI2. All of the little elements of the tweaked combat mechanics force the player to come up with ever cunning strategies to beat the system. It's beautiful

 

[quaazi]

I usually organize my troops in the following order - Army Group, Army, Corps, Division - check my AAR if you're confused as to what I mean. All divisions are separate from eachother and have their own leader, but are designated to belong in a specific unit. That way it feels more historical, and I also have a damn lot of flexibility. Corps have 3 (+/-1) divisions, Armies have 3 (+/-1) Corps, Army Groups have as many armies as I can muster. Army groups are indeed more the overall units that have to achieve a certain objective. For example. I have HG A/B/C as Germany at Barbarossa. HG A, with all the troops in it, will rush towards Leningrad, HG B towards Moscow and so on.

Also, HQs. One HQ per Army, not so much for gameplay as for immersion. Also one HQ per Army group. Each HQ unit is accompanied by a standard inf/motinf/arm (for Panzer Armies) division. So effectively HQs are the only units that I attach another unit to.

 

[Jekolmy]

I usually organize my troops in the following order - Army Group, Army, Corps, Division - check my AAR if you're confused as to what I mean. All divisions are separate from eachother and have their own leader, but are designated to belong in a specific unit. That way it feels more historical, and I also have a damn lot of flexibility. Corps have 3 (+/-1) divisions, Armies have 3 (+/-1) Corps, Army Groups have as many armies as I can muster. Army groups are indeed more the overall units that have to achieve a certain objective. For example. I have HG A/B/C as Germany at Barbarossa. HG A, with all the troops in it, will rush towards Leningrad, HG B towards Moscow and so on.

Also, HQs. One HQ per Army, not so much for gameplay as for immersion. Also one HQ per Army group. Each HQ unit is accompanied by a standard inf/motinf/arm (for Panzer Armies) division. So effectively HQs are the only units that I attach another unit to.

How do you manage to keep track of all the units and also name them when war starts out? I know I had difficulties figuring out which unit went where in mid 34 during the possible early Anchluss of Austria.

 

[Conanteacher]

How do you manage to keep track of all the units and also name them when war starts out? I know I had difficulties figuring out which unit went where in mid 34 during the possible early Anchluss of Austria.

Easy= micromanagement.

I usually name every single unit from the beginning of the game, or when I consider it as necesssary.

I also play with 1 div Corps!

Can you imagine a red army with 400 divs, half of them on 1 unit corps, each with a specific name and a carefully chosen leader?

That's my game. I name and assign as soon as the unit is deployed.

You could use a standard naming procedure like "Inf 1" or "Mot4", "Cav32" etc and also for the brigades like "Inf 235a" or "Arm 6e" etc etc.

 

[Jekolmy]

I tend to lose track of what production run my units are on. I know I have had some past experiences that were bad with the single division armies that when they were in combat it felt like they always kept getting trapped by stacks of units and one by one dieing, unlike the usual corps of 3 that I tend to use...

Then again as Germany I am starting to run out of good infantry generals by 39 using corps but I may have different criteria for leaders too.