The devs already stated pretty clearly that corps will be in the game. Only divisional commanders will be removed. Don't judge only by a few seconds of video...
HQs, Command Structure and OOBs
- Thread starter Darkath
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Techs and doctrines do not support units make. As I said before (and its between us players) The vibes say tech or doctrine
increases will take the place of all support units in WW2. If they keep leaders for Corps and above they are just boxes hauling
around officers again and nothing more. Tech and doctrine changes (like adding miles to your ships range) is the easy way to
program this stuff, not historical, but it is easier.
increases will take the place of all support units in WW2. If they keep leaders for Corps and above they are just boxes hauling
around officers again and nothing more. Tech and doctrine changes (like adding miles to your ships range) is the easy way to
program this stuff, not historical, but it is easier.
My underlying belief that you are correct on this is exactly why I have been arguing so hard for months for something better.
In other words, just because I think you are right doesn't mean that I think you should be right.
One think my life has taught me..cough...Sometimes I am not quite right but I am never wrong...cough...:ninja:
I am not saying you are wrong, but when I see the game demo and they don't qualify with it something like 'we still need to add the full command structure' I have to go with what is in the game over statements about the game. They were demonstrating how to assign leaders and how easy it is. I do see a lot of desire for a CoC and think the Devs will take this into account.
It would be wise to have a Division HQ permanently attached to the division and would make so much sense. Not to mention consume manpower and a significant number of officers. If they do their mathematical functions right for "command points" it would be a major factor for winning and losing battles during the game play. Like if a small Division commanded a highly skilled General like MacArthur and his skilled and experienced staff stack up against a large enemy division with low skilled and low command points it would make sense if the smaller division wins despite the numbers and equipment that were stacked against them.
that could work!
Overall, with the new battleplan system, then I do not understand if they leave out the OOB. The presence of the battleplanning system makes the OOB so much more interesting as you could set up different levels of micro management according to the users preference. I.e. you could have settings where you could only give orders to Armygroups, for the players that do not like to micro manage, down to the corps level orders (or even division level ) for the players that like planning all the moves themselves.
Overall, with the new battleplan system, then I do not understand if they leave out the OOB. The presence of the battleplanning system makes the OOB so much more interesting as you could set up different levels of micro management according to the users preference. I.e. you could have settings where you could only give orders to Armygroups, for the players that do not like to micro manage, down to the corps level orders (or even division level ) for the players that like planning all the moves themselves.
just let it out the division level or corps. at least the small HQ. its alot of work for your pc and they dont have any fighting strength. and it is more man hours for the dev to build in it. they are just things you need to babysit all the time.
HQ units don't need to be in the game. The corps, army and army groups can be organized in the off-map selection panel interface for the most part, while having some sort of identifier for quick map reference, like color code or a toggle for an OOB map overlay.
Last edited:
Agree 100%. Removing divisional commanders and HQ units are both good decisions IMO -- allows for a more streamlined approach without sacrificing real depth.
Bullfrog, where did you get this image? It's encouraging that it clearly shows armies "XXXX" (left margin) broken down into corps "XXX" (right margin). But I didn't see this in the Gamescom footage, which shows 'armies' as just indiscriminate collections of divisions. (might be fine if you're playing USSR '42 onward, but that's the exception, not the rule; plus USSR did organize armored corps later in the war).
Unfortunately, it's not official. I photoshopped it to show a basic CoC interface potential.
Could've fooled me - and did! Looks plenty official -- and disappointed to find out that it's not.
It's a great example, though, of how corps, armies, etc. could be organized without adding clutter (HQ units, etc.) to the map.
The more I look at the Gamescom video, watching Dan lump 3 dozen divisions together to create von Rundstedt's "army", the more I pray HoI4 will not abandon the fundamental OOB organization of HoI3. The initiative and ability of Corps commanders were at least as important, arguably often more important, than army generals in determining how operations played out. In the invasion of Poland, corps commanders like Guderian, Hoepner, Busch, von Kleist were the real drivers of the offensive, not army generals like List and Blaskowitz.
I'm not saying army generals are unimportant. I'm saying that if we are only assigning army generals and not corps generals in HoI4, it's going to take away a crucial level of C&C, giving a lot less nuance, as well as really limiting the number of commanders you are able to assign to a mere handful -- unless we go all fictional (as in the video) by assigning commanders like Rommel to army posts in 1939 (even by 1940, Rommel was only a divisional commander during invasion of France...)
It's a great example, though, of how corps, armies, etc. could be organized without adding clutter (HQ units, etc.) to the map.
The more I look at the Gamescom video, watching Dan lump 3 dozen divisions together to create von Rundstedt's "army", the more I pray HoI4 will not abandon the fundamental OOB organization of HoI3. The initiative and ability of Corps commanders were at least as important, arguably often more important, than army generals in determining how operations played out. In the invasion of Poland, corps commanders like Guderian, Hoepner, Busch, von Kleist were the real drivers of the offensive, not army generals like List and Blaskowitz.
I'm not saying army generals are unimportant. I'm saying that if we are only assigning army generals and not corps generals in HoI4, it's going to take away a crucial level of C&C, giving a lot less nuance, as well as really limiting the number of commanders you are able to assign to a mere handful -- unless we go all fictional (as in the video) by assigning commanders like Rommel to army posts in 1939 (even by 1940, Rommel was only a divisional commander during invasion of France...)
I see. That explains why the army commander shows a division count (though appropriate for army level). I agree that the three stars make sense for army command and four for army group. I envision a similar thing but with army showing something like 5/6 corps under his command, instead of a division count.
Really nice mock-up Bullfrog. I guess some way of easily identifying a corps or army in the sidebar would be required as well, so that you could easily find your desired specific corps/army in the list while planning, so as to not having to look into the subunits each time. Still better than sorting through 50+ divisions to find the composition you need for a specific vector though. 
Sandman, i can relate to wanting corps commanders but at least i would really dislike it if you'd have to assign a commander to each corps. Much better then would be to have an option to assign an (outstanding) commander to a specific corps, giving the corps some bonuses related to the character. Not unlike the aces mechanic i guess.
Sandman, i can relate to wanting corps commanders but at least i would really dislike it if you'd have to assign a commander to each corps. Much better then would be to have an option to assign an (outstanding) commander to a specific corps, giving the corps some bonuses related to the character. Not unlike the aces mechanic i guess.
Bullfrog,
While I prefer on map HQ counters (and divisional commanders) I can live with something like you showed. Keeping HQ counters close enough to the divisions it commands can be a bit of a pain. How would you keep the exploit having a great Corps commander having divisions in the Corps in both North Africa & the Eastern Front? I am not worried that a division gets a little too far from the others in the Corps, but some limits would be good to command range.
While I prefer on map HQ counters (and divisional commanders) I can live with something like you showed. Keeping HQ counters close enough to the divisions it commands can be a bit of a pain. How would you keep the exploit having a great Corps commander having divisions in the Corps in both North Africa & the Eastern Front? I am not worried that a division gets a little too far from the others in the Corps, but some limits would be good to command range.
I'd say this is the obvious price we pay for removing the multi-tier command structure from HOI3, or even if we keep multiple tiers but abstract teh HQs to be off map. It is a clear case of us wanting to have our cake and eat it to, to some extent.
I am not sure how they will solve this proximity issue, or if they will just ignore it. One way that occurs to me, would be to make the bonuses for using the battle planner be significant enough that we usually want to use it. Have it such that the planner doesn't allow giving orders to anything below corps level. The corps commanders themsleves will then be trying to keep their own units in roughly the same area so that they can follow the battle plan.
If a player wants to micro it by giving individual divisions separate orders outside of the battle plan, they are effectively detaching that division from the corps and losing the bonus. I think the key here is to have the planner only able to drill down to corps level.
I was making the assumption here that Rundstedt was in charge of an army group, but didn't show that in his command limit. His three underlings would be Army commanders, and the three to the right would be corps commanders within the selected army.
Yes, a specific name would be in order for each unit. I figured it could be present in the selection window as well as on top of each of the leader portraits at the bottom of the screen.
Yes, I imagine in order to give the unit orders you'd have to use the battleplan feature, so having a corps split across large distances would not really work. The AI would have to be made responsible for keeping the CoC in the same area. That's not too different though from having a "bunch of divisions" assigned to a specific vector of attack. You wouldn't expect them to stray from each other much, so in effect a CoC wouldn't change much in that regard. But you wouldn't, or couldn't, as Dalwin says, use the divisions of a single corps on more than one attack vector.
To me, it looks like you would have the option of either assigning the rough equivalent of army generals or corps generals -- the difference is just how many divisions the general has under his command. Grab 20 divisions -- you have an army. Grab 4 division -- you have a corps. But that is not a proper CoC. There should be an Army Group general, an Army general, AND a Corp general all commanding the same division in a hierarchy -- just like in real life. But that was not what we saw. We saw ad hoc groupings of various sizes under a single general. Here is hoping that all has not yet been revealed.
And if executable plans are limited to Corps, what happens in smaller theaters where the basic maneuver element will necessarily be division sized? I guess a different general could be assigned to each division (essentially making each division its own Corps). Then separate plans or vectors could be issued to each division and executed separately. The limiter would be the number of generals provided by the game.
Last edited:
Or in those low troop density areas, you'd probably want to micro it and be giving orders to individual divisions anyway. A lot of islands really aren't worth (or big enough) to commit more than one or two divisions. If you want to use the battleplanner to blindly send 20 divisons sweeping across micronesia, fine, but I can't really see that part of the war as supporting the broad strokes method very well.
Last edited: