My thoughts are complex. On one hand, there are some good reasons to have division-level characters, based on history - the performance of say the 51st Highland Division was notably different depending on who their commanding officer was at the time - they did very well at times, and very badly at others.
On the other hand, when there's a corps level, there's a temptation to make it matter gameplay wise, and you run into the issues of absurd bonus stacking and other things like that.
This is the biggest question. Why ? If you're going to include corps level things, there has to be a good reason why. On medium-sized fronts, it could provide an option for a more granular level of control when drawing battle plans, for example. But on large or small fronts, it's a level of control that doesn't really do much.
I agree with the concept, I would like more in depth command structure.
For Land, Air and Sea forces.
The whole command structure, and all 1936 Generals starting with 1945 ranks is kind of bogus.
Yeah, having people who were colonels in 1936 (Rommel, this means you) as generals or field marshals, is a bit
I've thought before about the ace mechanic for air wings, and how it could be used for something like ship captains for the Navy, to differentiate ships of the same class from one another. As well as divisional characters - like, an infantry division could generate characters that had the "infantry officer" trait, an armour division the "armour officer" traits and so on. And these characters could be promoted all the way up to staff officer positions, i.e. the high command or theorist slots. So that countries that lack armour high command, could create their own, through building themselves a tank corps, and engaging in combat.
For the air force, I think a command level, where you'd assign the air wings to groups, and then assign groups to tasks, would be good, as then it cuts a lot of the micromanagement of having to change air wing assignments manually.
But that's a lot of work.
