Please include a "Combat Support Brigade"

[Hansag]

When thinking of war and divisions slugging it out, I am certain that most people think of the front line soldier, rifle in hand, engaged in bloody combat.

But what interests me is, that since HOI3 is said to be much more focused on logistics, how does this G.I. actually get food, water and munitions?

I know DD7 was just an Alpha screen, but why is there no Combat Support Brigade?

In both HOI1 and HOI2 there were research projects that were directly linked to such a brigade one had been available.

Looking at the following page:
http://www.history.army.mil/html/forcestruc/cbtchron/infcomp.html

One can se the composition of what a US Infantry Division looked like in World War II.

Let's assume the following:

Brigade: 3000
Regiment: 1500
Battalion: 500
Company: 150
Platoon/Troop: 50
CIC detachment: 17 (1)

3 Infantry regiments (3x1500=4500)
4 Field artillery battalions (4x500=2000)

1 Signal company (150)
1 Ordnance company (150)
1 Quarter-master Company (150)
1 Reconnaissance troop (50)
1 Engineer battalion (500)
1 Medical battalion (500)
1 CIC detachment (17)

This gives a total of: (6500+1517)=8017 or roughly 8000 people.

56,25% Infantry
25% Artillery
18,75% Combat Support
100% Total

Which could be translated into:


2 Infantry Brigades
1 Artillery Brigade
1 Combat Support Brigade

-----

Another example, this from the Swedish army in 1944(2).

3 Infantry Regiments (3x1500=4500)
1 Artillery Regiment (1500)

1 Security (MP) Battalion (500)
1 Reconnaissance Battalion (500)
1 Engineering Battalion (500)
1 Support Battalion (500)
1 HQ Company (150)
2 Signals companies (2x150=300)

Thus with the same assumptions as above, this gives a total of: (6000+2450)=8450

53.25% Infantry
17,75% Artillery
29% Combat Support
100% Total

Which again could also be translated into:

2 Infantry Brigades
1 Artillery Brigade
1 Combat Support Brigade

(Even though it is much heavier on the Combat Support side.)

(1) http://www.history.army.mil/books/lineage/mi/ch6.htm
(2) http://niehorster.orbat.com/081_sweden/1944/_43_inf-div.html

My point is simply that given the large number of troops dedicated to Combat Support, there aught to be a Combat Support Brigade representing this fact as well as acknowledging that there is more to a division than just front line troops and the artillery placed in it's rear areas.

Some would however say that the Brigades have organic logistics, true, but a divisional Combat Support Brigade (CSB) would be the interface, or port, between the division and the rest of the world (eg. through the Corps HQ-divisions CSB), after which the organic Brigade takes over, so it's not the same thing.

Further:

Weakening a divisions CSB would weaken the whole division. Thus having one in a division, and keeping it safe would be a priority, since the division would otherwise have very high attrition without it's divisional medical/sanitation services - not to mention specialist units for making food! [field rations can be nice, but having good food is way better].

Upgrading a divisions CSB would strengthen the whole division (and possibly reduce supply consumption).

All in all, having a Combat Support Brigade would be able to give great flavor to the game (especially since it's values could be altered depending on such things as doctrinal research etc. as well)

 

[Alexander Seil]

It is better to abstract it and leave it as is. Including support personnel in a division is not an "option" for a player to exercise. It's mandatory. The game simply assumes that these people are distributed to the brigades and doesn't make much fuss over it. The only purpose this can ever serve is to permanently fill one slot of every division with a CSB. It represents higher-level support personnel through HQ brigades.

 

[Hansag]

Including support personnel in a division is not an "option" for a player to exercise. It's mandatory

I agree, not having one would result in serious penalties.

The only purpose this can ever serve is to permanently fill one slot of every division with a CSB. It represents higher-level support personnel through HQ brigades.

A solution to this could be to have all new divisions equipped with a CSB when they are fielded. Which in a sense increases the allowed number of brigades with one (1).

To this, it also opens up a lot of possibilities for modding and research that affects a CSB specifically.

With the argument that "every division has one", one could just as well remove other Brigades such as "Engineer", "Armored Car" (recon) and "Military Police".

I do admit however that the HQ brigade might fill the same role as the CSB that I propose, but in that case IT aught to be mandatory (or at least give such a large range of benefits that it's be silly not to have one, unless they're to expensive). But as I envision it, the HQ brigade is something used for Corps HQ and above; thus not filling the same role.

 

[Alexander Seil]

Not every division has a sizable force of armored cars attached, or engineers, or military police. If a CSB is mandatory (and it is), you could achieve the same effect by applying the effects of research directly to the brigades, rather than indirectly through the CSB somehow (since, CSBs being mandatory, it makes no difference). I just don't see what it adds to the game?

 

[zeekater]

A solution to this could be to have all new divisions equipped with a CSB when they are fielded. Which in a sense increases the allowed number of brigades with one (1).

To this, it also opens up a lot of possibilities for modding and research that affects a CSB specifically.

Question is: 'Is one division with 2 brigades the same as 2 divisions with 1 brigade each?'

If they are not, adding an inherent brigade to each division (which should be relatively cheap, they represent divisional logistics and leadership, not the logistics for the brigades) will symbolize the cost for a level of command.

However, the command system has not been discussed yet, so they might have taken this into account already.

 

[Bullfrog]

I know the numbers from the DD #7 image (the division build screen) are not very meaningful, but the sample division's strength is 8000, its manpower usage is 10. If the strenght does not equal mp, that means an assumption of 2 mp extra, which I assume to be support.
Of course that depends on 1 mp=1000 men.

 

[Radbod]

A Regiments in wwii is more 2500-3000 men

3 Infantry regiments (3x2750=8250)
4 Field artillery battalions (4x500=2000)

1 Signal company (150)
1 Ordnance company (150)
1 Quarter-master Company (150)
1 Reconnaissance troop (50)
1 Engineer battalion (500)
1 Medical battalion (500)
1 CIC detachment (17)

Thus with the same assumptions as above, this gives a total of: (10250+2450)=12700

64.96% Infantry
15,74% Artillery
19.3% Combat Support
100% Total

 

[zeekater]

I know the numbers from the DD #7 image (the division build screen) are not very meaningful, but the sample division's strength is 8000, its manpower usage is 10. If the strenght does not equal mp, that means an assumption of 2 mp extra, which I assume to be support.
Of course that depends on 1 mp=1000 men.

The screenshot is very confusing.

The total 'manpower cost' of 10 is the sum of the IC costs of the 4 brigades, while the total 'IC cost' of 15.32 is the sum of the manpower cost of the 4 brigades :rofl:

It's a logical assumption that that could be the difference between manpower cost and strength.

 

[Bullfrog]

The screenshot is very confusing.

The total 'manpower cost' of 10 is the sum of the IC costs of the 4 brigades, while the total 'IC cost' of 15.32 is the sum of the manpower cost of the 4 brigades :rofl:

It's a logical assumption that that could be the difference between manpower cost and strength.

They're in the wrong columns, just switch them.

 

[unmerged(44926)]

Anything that is essential to proper operation of a unit should be abstracted, imho.

Saying we should have to manually add combat support sections to ground divisions is like saying that we should have to manually add ground crews to aircraft wings. Not adding these things would make the unit useless, therefore all units would have them. If that is the case, why not just abstract the whole thing and save the extra clicking?

That said, I do think doctrine effects should simulate the level of support given to front line troops by support personnel. Better support improves morale at the cost of extra manpower, while motorized support might further increase morale, at the cost of extra oil consumption. Something like that... As long as it doesn't require an extra click for every unit I build.

 

[Jerzul]

Anything that is essential to proper operation of a unit should be abstracted, imho.

Saying we should have to manually add combat support sections to ground divisions is like saying that we should have to manually add ground crews to aircraft wings. Not adding these things would make the unit useless, therefore all units would have them. If that is the case, why not just abstract the whole thing and save the extra clicking?

That said, I do think doctrine effects should simulate the level of support given to front line troops by support personnel. Better support improves morale at the cost of extra manpower, while motorized support might further increase morale, at the cost of extra oil consumption. Something like that... As long as it doesn't require an extra click for every unit I build.

I completely agree with this statement. Abstract is the way to go with this one.

 

[unmerged(105989)]

I completely agree with this statement. Abstract is the way to go with this one.

I generally agree with you, with one exception. That is the Corps and army logistical units that make up the very necessary rear support functions of higher HQs. I think a way to model this would be a unit like the traditional garrison unit, but it controls stockpiles, and units suffer penalties if they are too far away from one. Thus supply would originate from a home country (we can debate whether the home country counts as one big logistics point, or if there should be points in the country) via a ground route or sea route to a logistics node, and then from there to a unit. This would much more accurately model logistics as they are, without the rather cumbersome and way too abstracted (IMO) system currently. We could even talk about how far apart logistics nodes can be before they start suffering penalties. Thus, you would have to set up intermediate nodes.

Like the US fighting in Europe. Convoys across the channel to a logistics node in France (if it's not in a port, it could only handle a certain amount). Then from the "port" logisitics hub to an intermediate one (say 5-6 provinces away), then to the units fighting in the middle of Germany (say another 5-6 provinces).

Thoughts?

 

[Alex_brunius]

As most have said already combat support should be abstracted. The problem here is that every division should have support "built in" so to speak. And the editor will allow us to build a division of 5 armored brigades and a division of a single militia brigade, both of which clearly demands different levels of support.

The only option left is to assume support personal is already included in the single brigades we choose from, and I don't have anything against this interpretation.

 

[Hansag]

64.96% Infantry
15,74% Artillery
19.3% Combat Support
100% Total

As Radbod notes, CS is still more than Artillery. Yet it's even more important (since it supplies the artillery with the services needed for it to function).

So except for the fact that it would add realism having them represented, one doesn't need to manually add them to a division when they are being placed in the build cue.

You could have a slider under the build screens 'brigade window' where you can chose what kind of CSB you want the division to have.
i.e. Horse-drawn, or motorized for instance.

Question is: 'Is one division with 2 brigades the same as 2 divisions with 1 brigade each?'

If they are not, adding an inherent brigade to each division (which should be relatively cheap, they represent divisional logistics and leadership, not the logistics for the brigades) will symbolize the cost for a level of command.

That is a good question. And since we all seem to agree that CS is needed, then giving this discussion here a 2 brigade division can't be the same as two 1 brigade ones. Thus I agree, and it would be quite easy to implement as well.

As for the DD7 screen, I don't read to much in to it at this stage

add ground crews to aircraft wings. Not adding these things would make the unit useless

That said, I do think doctrine effects should simulate the level of support given to front line troops by support personnel. Better support improves morale at the cost of extra manpower, while motorized support might further increase morale, at the cost of extra oil consumption. Something like that... As long as it doesn't require an extra click for every unit I build.

I do not think that the player should be saved by abstraction just because he/she opts to do such a stupid thing as raising divisions without CS

I have thought about the thing with air wings and ground crew however. The easy solution would be that ground crew is present at airfields (which would require airfields to suck up manpower when they are rebuilt etc. [unless you deactivate an airfield]).

Agreeing with the effect you are listing, my concern is that they'd be instant, and not require some form of upgrade (new equipment, training etc.)

As for ecnan02's ideas on long distance logistics, I agree. Here to CSB's could play a role in determining the number of provinces between the different Supply Depots.

Say you have a garrison with:

2 Garrison Brigades
1 MP Brigade
(1 CS Brigade - inherent)

and another one that had:

1 Garrison Brigade
2 CS Brigades
(1 CS Brigade - inherent)

The do play different roles. On the one hand you have one focused on Security, on the other, you have one focused on supplies and serving the rest of the army.

 

[Dragnar]

I fail to see how that would enhance gameplay at all. Noncombat personnel has been abstracted in HoI 2 as well, as rebuilding a division from zero (combat) strength costs about 80% in IC and manpower than building it anew, so it is assumed each division incorporated about 20% combat support already, which matches the numbers in this thread. As those units don't fight, I fail to see how specifically putting them directly in the game makes any difference.

 

[Zanza]

As every single division has combat support elements I don't see what is gained by explicitely modeling them in the game. It's not like you can have a division without them anyway. Superflous detail.

 

[Hansag]

I fail to see how that would enhance gameplay at all. /../As those units don't fight, I fail to see how specifically putting them directly in the game makes any difference.

As every single division has combat support elements I don't see what is gained by explicitely modeling them in the game. It's not like you can have a division without them anyway.

It depends on what you want to make out of them, or what level of imagination one has.

Now that some more info has been posted on logistics in DD9 I can think of two areas were a CSB could be made to have an effect (depending on its tech level/doctrine):

1. Amount of supplies a Division can carry with it
2. Supply tax (how high/low etc. - if you have better repair equipment, you don't have to send for as much spare parts, or if you have better refrigeration/packaging of food it doesn't spoil [thus making your unit require less])

One could also envisage that getting supplied would be easier in your "home" provinces (where there is no dissent), thus one could have units without a CSB attached; much like the Swedish home guard today which relies on civilian hospitals, supermarkets etc. for supplies - which is actually quite silly, but still... (and it would severely affect a militia units ability to conduct operations such as river crossings into hostile provinces since a CSB would contain engineering elements used in building temporary bridges or such - not to mention casualty recovery and repair in non-"home" provinces [thus affecting the rate at which one has to send for reinforcements due to strength drains after combat [and desertion with the less than perfect command and control structure within such a division]).

Basically, a CSB [or rather the lack of such in a militia division] would make certain units [militias] perform considerably worse than other more regular units (who most likely have CSBs) - i.e. militias would basically suck unless stationary in home provinces.

Even if you don't have brigades that are upgraded in the same way divisions were in HOI2, you still could have research that improves:
Signals (as was the case in HOI1 with new radios), Encryption, Supply organization research, hospital system (sure there are medics etc. in battalions, but if you want a proper hospital they'd be in the CSB, possibly with air evac capacity in the later parts, or post war period). The list can go on, and it has a direct effect on the other units combat performance and efficiency if the CSB has the latest equipment and personnel rotated back for training on any number of things.

It all depends on ones imagination, but the (type or) "tech level" of a CSB should most definitely impact the amount of supplies a division carries with it.

 

[Shabz]

IIRC in DD7 screen we could see that MP usage for div is larger than is the number of men in division? That would mean that division requires more men than is actually deployed in combat brigades. So it follows that combat support is abstracted (as well it should be). I think these guys would fight only in desperate situations..

 

[Hansag]

IIRC in DD7 screen we could see that MP usage for div is larger than is the number of men in division? That would mean that division requires more men than is actually deployed in combat brigades. So it follows that combat support is abstracted (as well it should be). I think these guys would fight only in desperate situations..

Honestly though, since the numbers in DD7 are placeholders (as the numbers in the Alpha screens seem to be in general) they don't mean anything.
(wish they'd replace the Bazooka with an AT-gun for HA rating though)

And yes, they don't fight unless in desperate situations (which is probably why HQ divisions in HOI2 has a soft attack rating of 1).
They'd still take (and possibly give) casualties anyway.

One could say that other units without frontage (Artillery etc.) doesn't really do any fighting either (they are just supporting the units at the front), but they still require manpower/replacements, supplies/fuel etc.

Even if a unit isn't in the front line doesn't mean they aren't directly involved in the fighting, which a CSB is, since they are the backbone of a division.

Thus they should be subject to upgrades and similar modifications as the game goes on, just like any other brigade.

 

[Johan]

no