Command structure changes too expensive (?)

[rotfront1918]

I find that the AP cost to attach corps/army HQs to different superior HQs is ridiculously high. up to 60 AP to attach a puny army to a different front (12.2.1)? If you fail leadercheck, it's cheaper to disband it and build a new one (25AP)...
Also starting a 42/43 campaign is no fun as you cannot reorganize the retarded starting OOB when you also want to reactivate stuff - especially as the soviets when you need the APs to build units. All those corps directly attached to fronts - a nightmare.
To clarify my point, changing the command structure should be costly, but not that much!

Any thoughts on that?
Any plans to balance this in an upcoming patch?

[heliodorus04]

While I don't know what it SHOULD be, I do think it's sometimes outrageously expensive, and I don't understand why.

With a related question, why is it so much cheaper for Soviet divisions to transfer from one army to another (usually 1 or 2 AP), but German divisions cost several times more than this?  Shouldn't the C&C advantage of the German player make it less costly than his Soviet counterpart?

I understand why you want to restrict Germans from moving a bunch of the Romanian corps to AG Antonescu; you sort of have to deal with the nightmare that is AGS, and to a lesser extent AGC and its over-command burden (which lessens naturally over time), but within the corps/army (for Soviet) commands, I don't understand the expensive difference between sides.

[Lieste]

How about reducing these costs and applying the 'savings' to simulating supply/planning restrictions by paying something to include each regt/bde, div, corps etc, with the cost varying with the transport/supply cost by unit type and posture. This could be minor for 'holding the line', slightly higher for actively fortifying or moving, high for defending and very high for offensive action, higher for mechanised, cavalry and artillery heavy formations in active modes.

It would almost certainly require an automatic accounting of fractional points by an 'Aide', but it would mean an ongoing cost of building an overlarge army before it is appropriate, just in the maintenance, and a firm restriction on the ability to apply combat power, particularly large 'heavy weapon' units like artillery divisions to each attack all along the front.

If this sounded interesting then I would implement it:
Note the minimum cost required to maintain the Red Army/Heer in static mode. Allow the player &/or system to specify a soft 'cap' to the expenditure for the turn, and then freely allow expenditure on movement/combat up to this limit. Above this additional costs could be higher (emergency actions and confusion arising), and the current "AP" expenditure balance should be easy to find.

This should allow a mechanism where large scale rebuilding is possible, but not at the same time as large scale operations, and excessive force size may not lead to a direct and linear increase in operational tempo - also maximising commitment of troops may be undesirable from a 'supply expenditure' view.

[Wheat]

ORIGINAL: rotfront

I find that the AP cost to attach corps/army HQs to different superior HQs is ridiculously high. up to 60 AP to attach a puny army to a different front (12.2.1)? If you fail leadercheck, it's cheaper to disband it and build a new one (25AP)...
Also starting a 42/43 campaign is no fun as you cannot reorganize the retarded starting OOB when you also want to reactivate stuff - especially as the soviets when you need the APs to build units. All those corps directly attached to fronts - a nightmare.
To clarify my point, changing the command structure should be costly, but not that much!

Any thoughts on that?
Any plans to balance this in an upcoming patch?

+1. I understand that as the German, you shouldn't get carte blanche to fix the command structure, but OMG!!!! Really, had the Germans wanted to move a corps from AGS to the Rumanian Command, would it have taken such a toll as the game does.

"Sorry panzers, no gas from HQ this week. We sent some Rumanians packing"

How about a modest reduction in the cost guys?

I really like the game btw, glad I bought it. (And no, that's not to curry favor for my position. I have read enough here to know you cannot be bribed! Can you?)

[delatbabel]

+1

I think that the entire AP cost structure is over-stated. e.g. 70APs to activate a single mech corps, more than a turn's allocation, and 15 to transfer it from one army to another. Yet it's only 5 APs to build a new mech brigade, and a total of 35 to build a mech corps.

I would increase the cost of unit builds but decrease the cost of transfers and activations.

[Montbrun]

The system has actually been toned down several times. With activations, especially as the Soviets, the system is also being utilized to prevent unwanted ahistorical results. For example, the 1944 GC Scenario begins with a large part of the Soviet Army in "Static" mode, and in need of activation, to represent the Soviet inability to supply and organize a massive offensive all at once. However, the Soviet player is able to reactivate those units over time.
We also don't want the Soviet player able to activate a bijillion Mech and Tank Corps al at once.

It used to cost several hundred APs to re-attach the Rumanian Armies from AG Antonescu to AGS (which was historical). That was fixed, and several other costs.

It also makes the player plan ahead, and conserve his APs. If you want to create Forts all along the front, then you have to plan out your AP expenditures.

Is the system perfect? Nope. But with some input, we can tweak it.

Brad

[delatbabel]

The 1943 scenario devised by Keke, which has many of the units that the stock 1943 scenario places in static mode instead frozen for several turns, is a better way of stopping the Soviets activating large chunks of army at once.

I still think that the AP cost of activating static mech units, which is roughly double their build cost, is way too high and needs to be toned down a lot. Also the cost of moving an army from one front to another is a cost that's way too high. Conversely, it's too cheap for the Soviets to build a mass of rifle brigades and divisions.

At the moment the big issue that's bugging me is a combination of two issues, (a) activating static units costs too much and can't be done across the whole army, and (b) Soviet static units in front line hexes suffer massive attrition (Joel has confirmed that this is 3x what the Germans suffer), and therefore can't be kept there (and must be activated to be put on refit, which costs too much and can't be done). Hence a catch-22. For the later war scenarios to be playable as the Soviets one of these two must be fixed.

[saintsup]

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

For example, the 1944 GC Scenario begins with a large part of the Soviet Army in "Static" mode, and in need of activation, to represent the Soviet inability to supply and organize a massive offensive all at once. However, the Soviet player is able to reactivate those units over time.

Good point, except that in the 41-45 campaign there is no incentive for the soviet to put large part of the Soviet Army in "Static" mode and hence -following your thinking- there is no mecanism to "represent the Soviet inability to supply and organize a massive offensive all at once".

If "Static" is a way to simulate logistics (consistently with its use in the 43 or 44 scenarios), then you must have very strong logistic incentives to use static mode (which is not the case) and a light reduction of AP costs

[Don77]

I agree about command structure changes being expensive. With the disbandment of AGS, I have two inf armies (11A and 17A) in AGB and one (6A)in AGA. But I still have three in AGS, and can't afford to transfer even the smallest (4th Army) out, ideally to AGA? The only solution for this as I see (a bit gamey?) would be from the moment that 4A starts the game, (with very few units) transfer it to AGS. If only I could think that far ahead. Has anyone else found this?