Would you call a 40 wide template a corps?

[Corpse Fool]

Title. I've asked this several times and no one has answered.

Most of the people arguing against 40 wides as a 'division' say that they are just too big. There seems to be no historical precedent to call such a template a division.

The designer itself is built around battalions and regiments to make a 'division'. But since we could have a 'division' that is more like battalion, regiment, or brigade in size, why couldnt we consider larger templates to be a corps in size?

 

[Harin]

It would be a reasonable statement to say a 40w could represent a corps as it sits on the map. Unfortunately, in combat they are treated as a single division with all the bonuses that come with it. If the combat system could break the 40w into its two divisions, then maybe the 40w could be a corps on the map and in combat, but I doubt that will happen.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

why couldnt we consider larger templates to be a corps in size?

Because the larger 40w template is too small to be a Corp.

Just think of them as a reinforced division (ie Infantry Division (+)).

 

[Corpse Fool]

Because the larger 40w template is too small to be a Corp.

Can I have more information on this? I'm sure most corps were more than 2 divisions, but some brief googling suggests that a corps can be as small as 2. It seems to be commonly accepted that around 20 width is a decent enough representation of what a division historically was. I think this means that a 40 wide template would qualify as a corps, or at least a corps- rather than a div+. I could see something like 26/27 or 30 width being a div+, but being straight up double I would think pushes it up a level.

 

[Shaka of Carthage]

I'm sure most corps were more than 2 divisions, but some brief googling suggests that a corps can be as small as 2.

Yes, it could be as small as two divisions, but was more likely three to six.

It seems to be commonly accepted that around 20 width is a decent enough representation of what a division historically was.

With the base game widths, a historical division is a 27w unit. Regardless, your typical 40w is equivalent to two 20w's. In effect, two divisions. I cannot accept the abstraction that the combat mechanics use, to accept it as a two division unit. Combat is supposed to be division vs division, even if you use choose to employ vastly understrength divisions.

Hence, for those above reasons, I would not call a 40w a Corp. And while my group uses a mod that fits historical divisions into 20w, it also removes the 40w "temptation" (by changing the bn slots from 25 to 16).

 

[PanzerMan7]

While initially in camp corps, I've come to believe it's a really big division. For reference, some historical templates:

HOI 4 – Historical Infantry Division Layouts – Early War #Hearts of Iron – Military History Visualized – Offical Homepage for the YouTube Channel

militaryhistoryvisualized.com

As you can see, mid to high 20s is the typical width of a historical division.

 

[CrasherZZ]

Corps designation does apply to Soviet-40 wides with Mass Assault doctrine. I make Soviet 40 width divisions with 2 extra Infantry battalions from the Mass Assault modifier. That's 20 battalions plus some ART, AT, & AA. I name them Rifle Corps. Here's an excerpt from Wikipediai:

An example of wartime rifle corps organization is that of the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps in 1942:[3]

• 8th Rifle Corps
  • 7th Rifle Division
  • 249th Rifle Division
  • 85th Corps Artillery Regiment
  • 36th Sapper Battalion
  • 86th Medical Battalion
  • 482nd Reconnaissance Company
  • 162nd Machine Gun Battalion

Of the 8th Rifle Corps' 1942 strength of 26,466 men, only 2,599 (less than 10 per cent) made up the corps headquarters and corps assets, the remainder being assigned to the two rifle divisions.

It's a pretty close match to the Rifle Corps I create in the HOI4 but I think this would apply only to the Soviet Army and some minors. There are unique circumstances to why the Soviets built corps this way.

In game terms though, since 20w is the normal division size, it's plausible than 40w could be considered a corps in general but an 80w would be more like a real life corps or Soviet army. A 40w armored division with 750 tanks would be more like a corps, IMO.

 

[Corpse Fool]

With the base game widths, a historical division is a 27w unit.

I figured this would come up, and I would like to know more information on what this is based off of.

 

[Fulmen]

Most of the people arguing against 40 wides as a 'division' say that they are just too big. There seems to be no historical precedent to call such a template a division.

The Russian rifle division with a tank battalion had an authorised strength of 19,350 men in 1939, the closest in-game equivalent to the division has 44 combat width.

See here:

Historical Divisions - Soviets

HOI4 has generic units, which more or less are modelled after Western style units. Trying to accurately represent Soviet style units can be challenging, to say the least. Historical divisions are also sub-par, with the current combat mechanics...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

Aren't 12 to 15 battalions per division more historical than 25?

It may be that an upper limit of 12 to 15 maneuver battalions are more historically appropriate than an upper limit of 25. Anyone have any thoughts of why HoI4 depicts divisions with max 25 maneuver (line) battalions--instead of 12 to 15? There...

forum.paradoxplaza.com

 

[batata1]

Military Units: Army

From team to region - an interactive look at the organization structure of the Army.

www.defense.gov

Division: 10-15k soldiers, 3-4 brigades
Corps: 20k-45k soldiers, 2-5 divisions

40w have 4 brigades and about 20k soldiers so equivalent to a very large division / very small corps

 

[Corpse Fool]

The Russian rifle division with a tank battalion had an authorised strength of 19,350 men in 1939, the closest in-game equivalent to the division has 44 combat width.

Why did you put 5 artillery, for 180 guns?

40w have 4 brigades and about 20k soldiers so equivalent to a very large division / very small corps

How do you figure it is 4 brigades in 40w?

 

[batata1]

Umm I just counted? 14x4 is 3 inf and 1 art brigades? Does support count as an extra?

 

[Corpse Fool]

Umm I just counted? 14x4 is 3 inf and 1 art brigades? Does support count as an extra?

Those are what the game calls Regiments, not brigades.

 

[batata1]

Ah. I just used what was on the US army's website. I think they use "battalion" for what the game calls "brigades"

 

[Corpse Fool]

Ah. I just used what was on the US army's website. I think they use "battalion" for what the game calls "brigades"

The game doesn't call anything brigades.
The game has divisions, made up of support companies and regiments, and the regiments are made up of battalions.

 

[GrandVezir]

The game doesn't call anything brigades.

Some 3-5 battalion in-game divisions are called "brigade" in the naming system. And, to the original point, the in-game naming system calls Soviet tank divisions "Mekhanizirovaniy Korpus", mechanized corps*.

So we can probably call any of these things whatever we like.

* If it gets up to 40 width, I'd feel obligated to use the "guards" (gvardeyskiy) designation.

 

[Fulmen]

Why did you put 5 artillery, for 180 guns?

Because manpower is more relevant here than equipment, the latter which is an abstraction that includes things like ammunition, spare parts, tractors and horses. The in-game artillery battalions are battalions, even if the UI will tell you they have triple the "guns" most historical battalions had.

 

[Emren]

Corps designation does apply to Soviet-40 wides with Mass Assault doctrine. I make Soviet 40 width divisions with 2 extra Infantry battalions from the Mass Assault modifier. That's 20 battalions plus some ART, AT, & AA. I name them Rifle Corps. Here's an excerpt from Wikipediai:

An example of wartime rifle corps organization is that of the 8th Estonian Rifle Corps in 1942:[3]

• 8th Rifle Corps
  • 7th Rifle Division
  • 249th Rifle Division
  • 85th Corps Artillery Regiment
  • 36th Sapper Battalion
  • 86th Medical Battalion
  • 482nd Reconnaissance Company
  • 162nd Machine Gun Battalion

Of the 8th Rifle Corps' 1942 strength of 26,466 men, only 2,599 (less than 10 per cent) made up the corps headquarters and corps assets, the remainder being assigned to the two rifle divisions.

It's a pretty close match to the Rifle Corps I create in the HOI4 but I think this would apply only to the Soviet Army and some minors. There are unique circumstances to why the Soviets built corps this way.

In game terms though, since 20w is the normal division size, it's plausible than 40w could be considered a corps in general but an 80w would be more like a real life corps or Soviet army. A 40w armored division with 750 tanks would be more like a corps, IMO.

Well. This is just an idea: Would it be relevant for the Soviet makeover to also make the division builder matrix options related to your land doctrine? So basically unlocking that fifth row or column only with Mass Assault? Mobile warfare could then unlock an extra support company, for example.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Some 3-5 battalion in-game divisions are called "brigade" in the naming system. And, to the original point, the in-game naming system calls Soviet tank divisions "Mekhanizirovaniy Korpus", mechanized corps*.

I suppose you got me. I was mostly referring to the engine/game mechanics of the designer itself referring to the different pieces in that way, rather than what the nations themselves actually fielded and the way they were used.

Because manpower is more relevant here than equipment, the latter which is an abstraction that includes things like ammunition, spare parts, tractors and horses. The in-game artillery battalions are battalions, even if the UI will tell you they have triple the "guns" most historical battalions had.

Why not add extra infantry battalions then? They would consume more manpower, the extra equipment can be abstracted and apparently sticking to the ORBAT itself in terms of regiment/battalion count isn't a priority. We could also increase the manpower consumption of some of the battalions/companies to put the divisions more in line with what they 'ought' to be.

Well. This is just an idea: Would it be relevant for the Soviet makeover to also make the division builder matrix options related to your land doctrine? So basically unlocking that fifth row or column only with Mass Assault? Mobile warfare could then unlock an extra support company, for example.

I had a similar idea, but rather than the doctrines giving you different slots in the designer, it was having more direct effect on the widths and capabilities/costs of the different battalions.

Another one of my ideas was to basically remake the division designer where instead of adding battalions and companies, we added preformed regiment/brigade 'blocks' that would be unlocked/upgraded with technologies, doctrines, and focuses. I think the "one-size-fits-all" approach hurts more than it helps.

 

[Fulmen]

Why not add extra infantry battalions then?

Because infantry battalions don't abstract artillery equipment; they abstract infantry equipment.

We could also increase the manpower consumption of some of the battalions/companies to put the divisions more in line with what they 'ought' to be.

Yes. This is what some mods have done, see for example my translation of the same division into BICE from the links I posted in my reply to you earlier.