HQs, Command Structure and OOBs

[podcat]

We'll make a dev diary about this stuff when we feel like everything is ready. It wont be the next one.

 

[Darkrenown]

that's kinda simplified. Where are all the subforces in the Corps of Rommel and the Army of Runsteadt? Where is all the
corps artillery, assault gun battalions, AAA units. Is it ALL divisions only in the game now? NO smaller units? if its not in
a division its not in the game? Do they lead these masses of troops from a headquarters or a single horse/armored car?

All the HoI games have had divisions as the smallest unit, unless you wanted to rock the no leadership penalty for brigades in 3, which no one did.

 

[podcat]

It'd also be great if you could name your template, which would then be used for all units created with that template. So if I changed the template name from "Infantry Division" to "Independent Mixed Brigade," all units built using that template would be created using that name with a number as a prefix.

Thats probably what will happen

 

[Darkrenown]

If so that would be sad and a crippling loss to ground combat. Your talking at almost 10% of your combat ability beyond the
riflemen that make up the mass of combat units. Non divisional support units are the sticky stuff that holds divisions together
in combat. A divisions is not an island in a sea of war all on its lonesome. No sieges woule be possible without them so forget
Leningrad, Stalingrad, Sveatserpol, Bastogne. No Anzio, Salerno, Gothic line or any line in Italy. You take it by knife or by tank.
Back to the age of Napoleon.

How can not having something we never had before be either a loss or a simplification?

I enjoy the idea of Napoleonic tanks though.

 

[podcat]

The vibes say they don't want to change the system they conceived already. I expect any 'higher assets' will show up as
tech or doctrine increases which is a shame as it cannot be done that way realistically gamewise. You cannot have it and
not have it.

Just as a side note, please don't line break in the middle of text. It makes it really hard to read your posts.

 

[Darkrenown]

It is true that we did not have it. Is that a reason not to have it?

No. My point was it's misleading and dishonest to complain something has been taken away from you when you never had it in the first place. Want to make a case that something should be added? Fair enough. Want to complain something that was never there has been taken from you? No, that's weird.

 

[Darkrenown]

Gee..nobody ever made corps assets from the building block units in HOI3? not in the mods? did not add an artillery unit
or one extra to a 5 unit division? Nobody built an artillery division? They are all there in the game but not put in proper
perspective or operation. PI had a chance to change that and make the game actually easier to play and more historical.
So I suspect you will never see these million men in the game. Damn sad.

"The little men who are not there, there they are again today, gee I wished they went away"

What's given you the idea you can't add artillery to units in HoI4? And yes, you could build an artillery division on HoI3, but it was useless. You'll most likely be able to build useless divisions in 4 too, if you really want to.

 

[Darkrenown]

I don't know why I even debate this anymore. Its pretty clear PI designed the game from their viewpoint from the start and input from players is very much unneeded except for debugging the actual game release version.

Well of course we are designing the game ourselves.

They have paid a few modders for their ideas but never actually included them in the stock PI game, just as add ons.

I cannot think of any examples of that.

 

[Darkrenown]

Indeed there is immersion at that level. I can't be the only one who finds it easier to identify with Army Group Center as opposed to the 237th Infantry Division. I can't be the only who finds something a bit romantic in Das Afrika Korps that does not come across as well in the 19th Panzer Division.

Kampfgruppe Rommel doesn't appeal?

 

[podcat]

I can't prove you wrong as we are all just speculating. I'm also not arguing for how it will work, but rather how i believe it should (relating to a hierarchy that is). It seems very likely that apart from stages, modifications to plans when things go awry (which they are very likely to) or new plans when old ones are complete, as well as direct control because of an unforeseen event will require handy access to smaller elements of a large group without being a hassle. Say for example you start planning Barbarossa. You notice from intelligence some time after the plan has been made that you should create a series of encirclement maneuvers in a couple of places. So you add some splitting vectors (or coinciding-up-to-a-point new ones, effectively the same thing) to existing ones and add some ten corps-sized groups to those. Now, instead of going through lists of divisions from the larger groups already allocated, sifting through 'til you have the right corps-sized combination, you could with a hierarchy just select pre-made subgroups and allocate them. Same goes for modifications of plans when underway, direct control or new stages, subgroups would always be there to act as an effective smallest unit instead of those 500+ or more divisions in large operations.

What happens when your preselected corps sized groups in the heirarchy arent the size you need? An extra step shuffling units about in the heirarchy before giving orders?