why only 3 div formations?

[Johnhawkwood]

o.k so I am a bit of a traditionalist - an army group for me consists of (depending on year and campaign) a FM 6 - 12 divs, gen 3 - 9 divs, Lgen 1-3 divs plus a gaggle of major generals in tow plus any armoured formations organised on the same principle. Of course there is usually more than 1 gen or Lgen in an army group. But it seems some people only have formations of three regardless of the command capacity of the leader ie FM 3, gen 3 Lgen 3- have I understood this correct? Or do people organise the way I do - by sets of three - 1,3,6,9,12?

 

[unmerged(47302)]

Its not only a problem of command capacity.

I generally put my FM and Generals in HQ as a unique unit.
So I can move it where I want without any other unit and Leaders take benefit from HQ.

And you have more tactical flexibility with 3*3 units than with 1*9.

 

[guardian21]

Well, most people use corps of 3 for the followwing reasons:

1) More leaders in combat --> they all gain experience
2) Good enough defence against aircraft

and some other reasons, such as better organisation (corps of 3 fits both to 9 or 12, and is also really easily movable the number of divisions you need without messing a lot and losing organisation)

 

[Johnhawkwood]

but isnt it easier to move around and organise an Fm a few G's and LG's rather than a whole bunch of three div sized corps? It seems this is more of a game management thing rather than any real tactical reason - although the more leaders in combat gaining experience is a fair reason. However I usually find that by the time I get to the soviet campaign playing as germany i have all my skill level 3 plus leaders assigned and can't build any more divs because of manpower shortages. A few FM's and gens and a bunch of lg's mg's at skill level 3 - 6 is pretty good. I never assign anyone who is not three or more in skill.

 

[Randwyck]

2) Good enough defence against aircraft

How does it help exactly?

 

[unmerged(105989)]

but isnt it easier to move around and organise an Fm a few G's and LG's rather than a whole bunch of three div sized corps? It seems this is more of a game management thing rather than any real tactical reason - although the more leaders in combat gaining experience is a fair reason. However I usually find that by the time I get to the soviet campaign playing as germany i have all my skill level 3 plus leaders assigned and can't build any more divs because of manpower shortages. A few FM's and gens and a bunch of lg's mg's at skill level 3 - 6 is pretty good. I never assign anyone who is not three or more in skill.

Actually, the larger number of smaller formations is of great tactical utility. For instance, a US 14 tank company is broken into 3 four tank platoons (the CO and XO each get one too). Now it is simpler to simply move all 14 tanks in the same way, but with 3 seperate manuever elements, the company can now move along three seperate axes, and has much greater freedom. then when you consider that each four tank platoon is further broken down into 2 two tank sections, and the platoons generally move and fight by sections, you can see that each company really has 6 separate fighting parts, without counting the commander whose job it is to manage this whole beast. Same thing applies at the higher echelons.

 

[unmerged(42723)]

I'd love to assign only skill 3 or better as Italy or France.

As for the corps, yeah, it's mostly 3 divs per corps for me too, just much more flexbile than using only bigger armies.

I use some 6 div armies, though it depends what nation I play. Certainly for Sov for example when you just have so much troops that mm gets really annoying, and otoh you don't lose much of the mentioned flexibility since it's still lotsa different corps/armies after you built the red army into a massive war machine.

 

[panzergenerals]

Its also depends on which nation u play. If i play germany i ve so 400 divisions in 1942 (mod TRP/WIF) Then its more likely to have 12 div formations command by a good FM. Its better to have 12 div command by von Manstein (level 5) then just 3 div by von Manstein. With so many div u even run out of good commanders when u just put only max 3 corps on the field.

 

[Spookyashell]

Also the lower rank officers gain XP faster than higher rank, am I right?

 

[unmerged(106255)]

I use the 3 unit corps regardless of leader rank. That way all the corps can be shuffled around the battlefield in stacks of 3,6,9,12,etc without reassigning leaders. Single units would be even more versatile if it wasn't such a pain in the ass to micromanage.

 

[xtfoster]

o.k so I am a bit of a traditionalist - an army group for me consists of (depending on year and campaign) a FM 6 - 12 divs, gen 3 - 9 divs, Lgen 1-3 divs plus a gaggle of major generals in tow plus any armoured formations organised on the same principle. Of course there is usually more than 1 gen or Lgen in an army group. But it seems some people only have formations of three regardless of the command capacity of the leader ie FM 3, gen 3 Lgen 3- have I understood this correct? Or do people organise the way I do - by sets of three - 1,3,6,9,12?

Most of these have been said already, but

1) More leaders in combat means more leaders gain experience (more on this later).
2) More units means more movement options. A 9 Division "Army Group" can only move to 1 location, but 3 x 3 Division Corps can move to 3 locations.
3) A 3 Division Corps is generally large enough to be immune to Air Attacks (as long as you don't let its ORG drop to 0).

* With some countries (i.e., China, Italy, etc.) I actually use 1 Division groups. These countries have very few high skill leaders, so I try to get as many as possible as much experience as possible during the beginning. With China, once I win the war against Japan and unify the country, I usually reorganize my army into the traditional 3 division Corps, but now with very highly skilled leaders.

 

[DarthJF]

Also the lower rank officers gain XP faster than higher rank, am I right?

Yes, that's why I usually stick keeping my leaders as Lt. generals for a long time, so they get high skill levels easily.

 

[JimboOmega]

It's frustrating how the trade off is entirely based on hassle to the player. I don't like how I have to use 1 unit armies to maximize experience.

 

[PanzerMan7]

i use line infantry corps in groups of 9. manouver formations (tanks, mot) in a 6 division corps or even a 3. infantry that cover their rear do the 3*3

 

[arkdeniz]

I tend to keep the bulk of my army in single divisions. Helps build up leader XP more evenly and makes the occasional loss of a leader in combat easier to take. I mean, if you lose a lvl 8 Gen Zhukov when you have 8 other lvl 8 leaders it is less of a concern than if you lose a lvl 8 Gen Rommel and have to replace him with one of the 8 untapped lvl 3s sitting in the depot twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do since Rommel was leading a 9 stack by himself.

 

[pollock]

organising 3 div corps is easy. Organise them once and dont really have to change once .

I used to move around generals alot tho its good to have von manstein and guderian rushing around sorting out problems. Leading a 3 division panzer corps in my army was basically the highest position

 

[midget_roxx]

It depends on number thats all. If you vs Human SU then you'll find heaps of 9div armies