The HQ Bde-What is it exactly?

[Jmland]

I'm assuming that it is Army HQ similar to HOI2. But the question is....is this true? Or more specifically, is it ONLY an Army level HQ, not Army Group/Front, or Corps level. The reason I'm asking is that there is good logic behind a requirement for a Corps lvl HQ Bde being required for the Corps to operate. It may be a little late for this, but I would suggest having HQ units required for a Corps and above formation, with the rank of the officer determining whether the HQ is a corps level or Army/Army Group HQ. This would mean a lot of HQ would have to be produced (which is historical), and at a greatly reduced time/cost (also historical). Or maybe, multiple bde types of HQ, one for Corps, and one for Army&above. The point being....slapping 2 or more divisions together and calling it a "combat effective corps" with no command/supply chain is gamey. Just my 2 pfennig (pre-euro).

 

[Alex_brunius]

I think we can be fairly sure when we assume that if the HQ takes up 1000 men Its going to be a Army HQ.

I would not want to be forced to have each corps include a corps HQ brigade since this would reduce alot off the flexibility of your corps compared to HoI2. What I mean specifically is the problems if you want to split a corps up in two that is pretty common. In reality the HQ could also be split up but as you easilly can understand this can't happen in neither HoI2 nor HoI3.

Im ok with all HQs below army level beeing abstracted to our leaders since they didn't require so much resources and they were present everywhere anyway.

 

[Bullfrog]

I think we can be fairly sure when we assume that if the HQ takes up 1000 men Its going to be a Army HQ.

I would not want to be forced to have each corps include a corps HQ brigade since this would reduce alot off the flexibility of your corps compared to HoI2. What I mean specifically is the problems if you want to split a corps up in two that is pretty common. In reality the HQ could also be split up but as you easilly can understand this can't happen in neither HoI2 nor HoI3.

Im ok with all HQs below army level beeing abstracted to our leaders since they didn't require so much resources and they were present everywhere anyway.

I would say that corps HQ's would easily have 1000 men, if not more, depending on corps level attachments and various structures within the HQ. These were often communications, signal, engineer, supply and other support types.
I would actually enjoy a corps HQ, though I see the potential problems. However, HoI3 might not necessarily need your corps to be clumped together into one formation as in HoI2. So a corps might be spread into a couple provinces, at least for a time, if necessary. The proper chain of command would not require divisions to be lumped together, indeed some corps often had armor and infantry divisions together, but they might be used far apart.

 

[peo]

Would be nice but I doubt that they will introduce any constraints like that.
The problem is the limit of 4 or 5 brigades per division, most divisions had 3 frontline and 1 artillery with the sometimes added extra brigade behind that.
So if we force one of the divisions to include a HQ unit of the division will have a significantly lower capacity. This in turn is a bit a historical. Most divisions were relatively fixed formations with a standard layout.
So my personal belief is that it won't be needed for any unit at all to work but that if you have it in the same stack or adjacent stacks it works as a HQ for that area. Basically being the old army/army group HQ unit.

 

[Alex_brunius]

engineer, supply and other support types.

Are you sure that these troops could be counted towards a HQ formation?

At least today those are often organized as a certain non combat train that is separate from the HQ. That is if corps level supply even can be considered part of a divion at all. Ive even seen some organizations where supply & transport are in their own logistics brigade.

 

[Battlecry]

Are you sure that these troops could be counted towards a HQ formation?

At least today those are often organized as a certain non combat train that is separate from the HQ. That is if corps level supply even can be considered part of a divion at all. Ive even seen some organizations where supply & transport are in their own logistics brigade.

True. Generally corps level assets are a separate entity from the HQ brigade.

However, there is not currently a "logistics" brigade (from the Div Builder screen we saw), so unless the new logistics model has some other way to abstract a corps' logistical assets, perhaps the best approximation is to let the HQ brigade encompass all non-combat corps assets. Indeed, this may be the only way to justify the HQ brigade being the same size as an infantry brigade, as a corps HQ by itself had not nearly this much manpower.

 

[Bobb4]

My guess is the HQ will be generic in nature allowing you to join several support brigades to it making it in effect an HQ division.
One hopes the leadership and organisational benefits of such a division will be spread out as a force multiplyer over a wider area and not just say to the next province or two. Its influence getting weaker as units move away from it.
That would be more historical.
For instance an Africa Korps without an HQ should not be as effective as one that includes one...

This will stop the 20 province dash by some players.
Just thoughts on how HQ's can be improved

 

[Bullfrog]

Are you sure that these troops could be counted towards a HQ formation?

At least today those are often organized as a certain non combat train that is separate from the HQ. That is if corps level supply even can be considered part of a divion at all. Ive even seen some organizations where supply & transport are in their own logistics brigade.

Yeah you're right...the HQ itself would not necessarily include those separate units...but that is the only way I can justify the HQ brigade having stats, especially defensive. Since at least in HoI2 it has logistical enhancement ability I would assume that there is some supply unit present as well.

True. Generally corps level assets are a separate entity from the HQ brigade.

However, there is not currently a "logistics" brigade (from the Div Builder screen we saw), so unless the new logistics model has some other way to abstract a corps' logistical assets, perhaps the best approximation is to let the HQ brigade encompass all non-combat corps assets. Indeed, this may be the only way to justify the HQ brigade being the same size as an infantry brigade, as a corps HQ by itself had not nearly this much manpower.

Yes, this is what I had in mind. Also the corps had artillery and other units attached quite often, which would certianly be possible to do with this division construction feature.

So...if we had an HQ "division," that consisted of artillery and engineer brigades and of course an HQ brigade, the corps level assets could be wonderfully simulated. I stated in another thread the possibility of changing the command structure, so that each division within the corps had a mj. gen. in charge, and the corps HQ division must be commanded by a higher rank. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Bismark776]

I think its safe to assume to that any type of "unit" or "group" of types of soldiers, ie. logistics, engineers, officers, etc. that was in every military unit at every level, is already included in that unit. For example, each brigade can assumed to come with its own officers. There isn't really a need to include a seperate brigade made up entirely of HQ when the HQ is dispersed throughout the parts anyway. Its only in the case of very high up units devoted almost entirely to HQ that such a unit might be necessary.

 

[aphrochine]

After reading today's dev diary, I think the unit will provide benefits to commanders at the Corps and above level just as HQ units in HOI2 did to units in the surrounding area. Johan said that every HQ will be represented by a unit on the map. Given that HQ is now a brigade instead of a full fledged unit, we might see a narrower influence area, such as needing to be in the actual combat, instead of adjecent...perhaps.

I'm thinking the Corps, Army and Theatre commanders will litterally command 1 division on the map. If that division contains an HQ brigade in it, they will probably gain benefits we are used to seeing in HOI2 from HQ divisions. Such as increased event chance, ESE and increased command limit. I'm sure the actual benefts will be different because of the new mechanics, but I'd imagine it would be in the same spirit.

I do not see a HQ brigade being required to form a Corps, Army or Theatre command. HQ's where not required in HOI2. They where greatly beneficial and considered 'needed' from certain perspectives, but the game engine does not 'require' a HQ. I expect this be the case in HOI3.

 

[Alexander Seil]

I don't know, the diary says that every division is its own unit on the map. Meaning - no stacks. In turn, that means that you couldn't have a Corps without a HQ, otherwise the Corps commander couldn't be assigned to command anything!

At the very least, that seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of Johan's enigmatic statement.

 

[Volt]

I think you should seperate the HQ from infantry, armour etc. brigades. If they represent army HQs, which I think they should. After all, I've never heard of an infantry brigade (or rather regiment) directly attached to an army. I think an Army HQ is always a rear unit, therefore no frontline troops should be part of it.

 

[Bullfrog]

I'm betting that the command structure will not be absolutely necessary for every division: think garrisons and so forth.
I bet that it will be most useful when large armies are battling it out, such as in China, USSR, France, etc. The structure is going to require a HQ brigade for each corps, army, etc., at least from what we heard today.

 

[unmerged(44315)]

I don't know, the diary says that every division is its own unit on the map. Meaning - no stacks. In turn, that means that you couldn't have a Corps without a HQ, otherwise the Corps commander couldn't be assigned to command anything!

At the very least, that seems to be the most reasonable interpretation of Johan's enigmatic statement.

I interpret Johan's quote differently. I think he meant that every HQ would be a unit on the map. I don't see the rationale for eliminating the grouping of divisions as is now possible. But, I do see (and worry about) your interpretation.

In practice, I typically combine front line troops in groups of three (or nine at times). I do use individual divisions for garrison, beach duty, etc. While the change in map scale would probably increase my individual division use, I would still prefer grouping, and assume others would as well.

 

[potski]

I'm betting that the command structure will not be absolutely necessary for every division: think garrisons and so forth.
I bet that it will be most useful when large armies are battling it out, such as in China, USSR, France, etc. The structure is going to require a HQ brigade for each corps, army, etc., at least from what we heard today.

No, I think a command structure for garrisons could work well. You can assign GAR/POL Divs and a couple of INF to an Army HQ/Gen. and then let the AI control this "front". The AI can then deal with any partisan uprisings without you having to get involved.

 

[potski]

I think you should seperate the HQ from infantry, armour etc. brigades. If they represent army HQs, which I think they should. After all, I've never heard of an infantry brigade (or rather regiment) directly attached to an army. I think an Army HQ is always a rear unit, therefore no frontline troops should be part of it.

You might want to:
1. Keep some brigades in reserve (assuming you can easily detach them from the HQ and attach them to another unit)
2. Provide protection to the HQ in case of breakthroughs
3. Use the HQ unit as a combat unit in really sparsely covered situations, such as Central Africa.

In the European Theatre I think it would be more likely for a Corps HQ in the Combat Zone to have combat Bde's attached, but if you want to do it to an Army HQ in the rear then you should be able.

 

[Alexander Seil]

I just hope, personally, that we can assign divisions directly to armies, army groups and theatres, perhaps forgoing some benefits of corps-level command, if any. It would certainly make sense for fortress and garrison troops used as individual divisions (i.e., not Soviets' fortified regions or anything of that sort).

 

[potski]

After reading today's dev diary, I think the unit will provide benefits to commanders at the Corps and above level just as HQ units in HOI2 did to units in the surrounding area. Johan said that every HQ will be represented by a unit on the map. Given that HQ is now a brigade instead of a full fledged unit, we might see a narrower influence area, such as needing to be in the actual combat, instead of adjecent...perhaps.

I'm thinking the Corps, Army and Theatre commanders will litterally command 1 division on the map. If that division contains an HQ brigade in it, they will probably gain benefits we are used to seeing in HOI2 from HQ divisions. Such as increased event chance, ESE and increased command limit. I'm sure the actual benefts will be different because of the new mechanics, but I'd imagine it would be in the same spirit.

I do not see a HQ brigade being required to form a Corps, Army or Theatre command. HQ's where not required in HOI2. They where greatly beneficial and considered 'needed' from certain perspectives, but the game engine does not 'require' a HQ. I expect this be the case in HOI3.

I see the HQ brigade being required for all of the higher levels of command. See my post in this thread: Organisation Structure?

The HOI2 game engine is getting a major overhaul. Every Dev Diary so far has made at least one completely new feature. While we still don't know the exact details of how the command structure will work, I'd guess it's much more likely to be something similar to AGEod's games, than HOI2.

 

[Alexander Seil]

It was pretty clearly stated by Johan that all command structures will be physically represented with a HQ. Meaning than an Army Group of 3 armies of 3 corps each would have 3*3+1=10 HQ units.

 

[potski]

I just hope, personally, that we can assign divisions directly to armies, army groups and theatres, perhaps forgoing some benefits of corps-level command, if any. It would certainly make sense for fortress and garrison troops used as individual divisions (i.e., not Soviets' fortified regions or anything of that sort).

To save the IC costs of building the intermediate levels, seems reasonable in the circumstances you mention.

Also, nearly every Field Army had Divs assigned directly to the Army, in "Army Reserve". The Army commander can then throw them into any battle to support a Corps that needs it.

A strategic reserve at Theatre Level would also be useful for a country such as the Soviets, to try to counter any major blitzkrieg breakthroughs. In that case, you might have properly formed Corps, but no Army/Army Group in the command structure.

Johan seems completely in favour of allowing maximum flexibility for us to do what we want, even if it is stupid. Like sending 20 Divs to the frontline directly commanded by a Theatre HQ/FM without any Corps/Army structures.

What I hope to see is every unit has something like an HQ attachment button and this opens up a screen where you can select ANY higher level HQ to assign it to. Or even detach it completely from any HQ, so that it then becomes a unit that has to be micro-managed by the human player. This nicely covers the situation that occurred in a few cases where a unit or small group of units was kept out of the normal military command structure, and controlled directly by the High Command.