Directive 21 v2.0
Moderators: ralphtricky, JAMiAM
-
PRUSSIAN TOM
- Posts: 156
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 10:51 pm
- Location: Los Angeles, Califonia
RE: Newest Version of D21
Yep. Don't even get a error message. I had the wron eqp file in one of the graphics options. I took put the scenario and re-installed it as per instructions, and redid the alternat graphics. Sine then, no prob. Sorry for the flub.
There is no difference in ideology between the (American) Democrat & Republican Parties...only different special interest groups. They have one thing in common...self interest.
D21 v2.3
v2.3 now available at - http://www.dizium.net/TOAW
Some changes to help the Axis supply/rail situation:
Axis Rail Damage is 0% on turn 1, 25% on turn 2, 75% on turn 3, and 100% on turn 32. Axis Forward Supply Dumps (75% supply points) will be established at Pskov, Riga, Bryansk, Smolensk and Kiev. These will be removed on turn 46 (11-25-41) on a turn range of 5 (each one separate).
EDIT - The Forward Supply Dumps will be removed 20 turns after they appear (not on a turn range and not on turn 46 as stated above).
Soviet initial air unit proficiencies have been adjusted lower to better reflect losses occurred versus how the game engine handles them.
Elmer adjustments.
Extended Exclusion Zone 2 in Finland to divide the Finnish operational area from the German operational area, so as to prevent the movement of units around to give the Axis an unfair advantage. This is of course lifted if the Axis occupy Leningrad.
Some Soviet units have been redeployed to correct starting locations to reflect new OOB information that has been published.
Some changes to help the Axis supply/rail situation:
Axis Rail Damage is 0% on turn 1, 25% on turn 2, 75% on turn 3, and 100% on turn 32. Axis Forward Supply Dumps (75% supply points) will be established at Pskov, Riga, Bryansk, Smolensk and Kiev. These will be removed on turn 46 (11-25-41) on a turn range of 5 (each one separate).
EDIT - The Forward Supply Dumps will be removed 20 turns after they appear (not on a turn range and not on turn 46 as stated above).
Soviet initial air unit proficiencies have been adjusted lower to better reflect losses occurred versus how the game engine handles them.
Elmer adjustments.
Extended Exclusion Zone 2 in Finland to divide the Finnish operational area from the German operational area, so as to prevent the movement of units around to give the Axis an unfair advantage. This is of course lifted if the Axis occupy Leningrad.
Some Soviet units have been redeployed to correct starting locations to reflect new OOB information that has been published.
RE: D21 v2.3
Sometimes Elmer takes up to two hours to complete a turn. I don't know enough about what's going on to really figure out why. I can guess that it has to do with the huge map and Elmer trying to figure out the best movement paths out of so many possibilities. Also, I think this tends to occur when there are a number of Soviet units cut off, and Elmer may then be slowed down by trying to figure out what to do about it. I've run the polog, and Telumar has produced some performance data. I think its safe to say that this issue doesn't have anything to do with older machines or system parameters. For now, the only thing that can be done if you run into this is to put 'caps lock' on and minimize the screen.
Please remain on the line, your call is very important to us [:@]
Please remain on the line, your call is very important to us [:@]
RE: D21 v2.3
My thought regarding the ideas:
Removal of the OKH unit (it serves no purpose).
Yea why not.
Remove the Army Group HQ units (they also serve no purpose).
Sounds silly but without Army HQs I feel there would be missing something, also they could be used to raise supplies units received near it so it serves as a far back resting post.
Rolling the independent artillery units into the corps and army hq units. This would give both of these type units a purpose.
Question is wouldn't this move numerous artillery units into a single unit and with that hinder the player to diverse his artillery? I think HQs can't be split.
Making the later panzer divisions one unit instead of three.
Interesting, so it could be split to serve as three mixed KGs, maybe that would be good for later years(1944) in the war.
A possible theater option for 'Guderian style' panzer divisions.
How would they look like?
Organize the German divisions into corps formations.
On one hand a bit more structure would be nice because I feel lost in all those single division formations, on the other it gives the player ultimate flexibility to just pull out a division and move it somewhere else where it can perform equally good.
Put some of the German Inf Div's back to 3 regiments. This involves the 300 series ones.
Well why was the regiment number lowered?
Remove trucks from German Inf Div's.
Why that?
Removal of the OKH unit (it serves no purpose).
Yea why not.
Remove the Army Group HQ units (they also serve no purpose).
Sounds silly but without Army HQs I feel there would be missing something, also they could be used to raise supplies units received near it so it serves as a far back resting post.
Rolling the independent artillery units into the corps and army hq units. This would give both of these type units a purpose.
Question is wouldn't this move numerous artillery units into a single unit and with that hinder the player to diverse his artillery? I think HQs can't be split.
Making the later panzer divisions one unit instead of three.
Interesting, so it could be split to serve as three mixed KGs, maybe that would be good for later years(1944) in the war.
A possible theater option for 'Guderian style' panzer divisions.
How would they look like?
Organize the German divisions into corps formations.
On one hand a bit more structure would be nice because I feel lost in all those single division formations, on the other it gives the player ultimate flexibility to just pull out a division and move it somewhere else where it can perform equally good.
Put some of the German Inf Div's back to 3 regiments. This involves the 300 series ones.
Well why was the regiment number lowered?
Remove trucks from German Inf Div's.
Why that?
RE: D21 v2.3
Thanks for the thoughts Duke. Here are some general responses:
I usually move it to Vinnitsa and imagine the Fuhrer stomping around in a tirade there. That's about all I can do with it.
There are a lot of Division and Corp HQ's that are useful. The Army HQ's don't really represent anything in game terms. As some have said, they can't see the actual Army HQ's as necessary units to have on map. Of course, if we get attachment and supply priority in the future, the situation will be different.
The current artillery units are multiple batteries. I use the Corp HQ's for different purposes, but the thought behind this modification is to hinder the player. (Yes, HQ's can't be split). I think it might be a way of slightly handicapping the Axis player.
Yes, for the later part of the scenario. Once the Axis are on the defensive, the current KG's are pretty worthless. They can't hold their ground unless stacked together, so why not just make them one unit. There are two possible examples in the first formation (OKH), a 'Model A' and a 'Model B'.
Guderian wanted the 1940 establishment, so basically we would have half as many panzer divisions but each one containing twice as many tanks as they actually had in 1941. But it wouldn't have been put into effect until late '43 or '44, and due to a lack of tanks they would have used assault guns in one of the four panzer battalions in each division. (This isn't really a Theater Option that I am enthused about including, but I thought if a number of people displayed interest, I might put it in).
I'm always lost, so much so that I wrote up a document telling me to what korp each division generally belonged. A few others have expressed interest in this idea also, so it may happen.
Meaning that instead of having the German infantry divisions combined, they would be split into 3 regiments, as they are in FitE. This would help the Germans in covering more territory, and the 300 series divisions weren't considered offensive formations anyway.
Because the Germans weren't motoring their infantry around (they walked everywhere). Some people hate seeing the trucks in those divisions. But removing them would only lower their maximum movement from 17 to 14, not really a big change.
These topics are ones that have been brought up in the past, so we thought we would put them out there as things that are possible to see if there was any concensus. I had also considered putting some or all of these ideas into an 'experimental' version (if I get bored in the future!).
Removal of the OKH unit (it serves no purpose).
Yea why not
I usually move it to Vinnitsa and imagine the Fuhrer stomping around in a tirade there. That's about all I can do with it.
Remove the Army Group HQ units (they also serve no purpose).
Sounds silly but without Army HQs I feel there would be missing something, also they could be used to raise supplies units received near it so it serves as a far back resting post.
There are a lot of Division and Corp HQ's that are useful. The Army HQ's don't really represent anything in game terms. As some have said, they can't see the actual Army HQ's as necessary units to have on map. Of course, if we get attachment and supply priority in the future, the situation will be different.
Rolling the independent artillery units into the corps and army hq units. This would give both of these type units a purpose.
Question is wouldn't this move numerous artillery units into a single unit and with that hinder the player to diverse his artillery? I think HQs can't be split.
The current artillery units are multiple batteries. I use the Corp HQ's for different purposes, but the thought behind this modification is to hinder the player. (Yes, HQ's can't be split). I think it might be a way of slightly handicapping the Axis player.
Making the later panzer divisions one unit instead of three.
Interesting, so it could be split to serve as three mixed KGs, maybe that would be good for later years(1944) in the war.
Yes, for the later part of the scenario. Once the Axis are on the defensive, the current KG's are pretty worthless. They can't hold their ground unless stacked together, so why not just make them one unit. There are two possible examples in the first formation (OKH), a 'Model A' and a 'Model B'.
A possible theater option for 'Guderian style' panzer divisions.
How would they look like?
Guderian wanted the 1940 establishment, so basically we would have half as many panzer divisions but each one containing twice as many tanks as they actually had in 1941. But it wouldn't have been put into effect until late '43 or '44, and due to a lack of tanks they would have used assault guns in one of the four panzer battalions in each division. (This isn't really a Theater Option that I am enthused about including, but I thought if a number of people displayed interest, I might put it in).
Organize the German divisions into corps formations.
On one hand a bit more structure would be nice because I feel lost in all those single division formations, on the other it gives the player ultimate flexibility to just pull out a division and move it somewhere else where it can perform equally good.
I'm always lost, so much so that I wrote up a document telling me to what korp each division generally belonged. A few others have expressed interest in this idea also, so it may happen.
Put some of the German Inf Div's back to 3 regiments. This involves the 300 series ones.
Well why was the regiment number lowered?
Meaning that instead of having the German infantry divisions combined, they would be split into 3 regiments, as they are in FitE. This would help the Germans in covering more territory, and the 300 series divisions weren't considered offensive formations anyway.
Remove trucks from German Inf Div's.
Why that?
Because the Germans weren't motoring their infantry around (they walked everywhere). Some people hate seeing the trucks in those divisions. But removing them would only lower their maximum movement from 17 to 14, not really a big change.
These topics are ones that have been brought up in the past, so we thought we would put them out there as things that are possible to see if there was any concensus. I had also considered putting some or all of these ideas into an 'experimental' version (if I get bored in the future!).
RE: D21 v2.3
2.3 is the current working version? Hella read, Steve, some things in the script that I'd forgotten, eh?
"I have the brain of a Genius, and the heart of a Little Child. I keep them in a jar under my bed!"
RE: D21 v2.3
2.3 is the current working version?
Yes it is. We added some of the new limited supply points that came with 3.4. Mainly to simulate the rail situation in the Baltic States, the Axis will get supply points at Riga and Pskov. Pskov expires after 20 turns, Riga stays for the duration. I just tested this and the way I had it set up didn't work very well, so that's been adjusted and I'll post the file soon.
RE: D21 v2.3
Question for the supply points at sea, do they work?
I thought they have to be connected to the land, for example in the "Weserübung" scenario the sea hexes with supply points have railroads leading to the port so there is a route the supply can follow.
I thought they have to be connected to the land, for example in the "Weserübung" scenario the sea hexes with supply points have railroads leading to the port so there is a route the supply can follow.
RE: D21 v2.3
Yes, supply points at sea work, but at reduced capacity (unless connected to or within one hex of a rail hex). So they come in handy in certain situations. For D21 there are a few. Murmansk, Baku, Sevastopol and Odessa because they could have been supplied from other ports. Kerch Straits because normal supply can't be traced across the sea hexes there. In the Petsamo area because the Soviets landed units there to aggravate the Germans. Also, reconstituted units tend to show up where supply points are placed on urban hexes, so in some cases it is a good idea to not combine the two.
Replacement rates and number of infantry squads per division
How did you set on the number of infantry squads and replacement rates for German and Russian divisions?
I noticed that you use 300 squads/German division, while most published scenarios use 180--200 squads.
A significant difference!
I am updating a TOAWIII version of my old scenario 'Europe 44' (west+east fronts at corps level, 30 km/exe, weekly turns). If I use the historical production figures of tanks, airplanes and artillery, by Winter 44 I find that the number of infantry squads is severely depleted in all units, independent of nationality (I use Heavy Rifle Squads AT for the Germans and the US Army, 180 squads/German division). Tanks on the other hand are doing just fine and are close to the max allotted number (again, true for all armies).
In other words: the ratio of infantry/tanks kill is likely too high or the replacement rate/allocated squads figures are too low. For the Red Army, the number of fighting infantry men remained rather constant throughout 44-45 (according to Glantz's books). This is clearly NOT happening yet in my scenario, the number drops by 30-40%!
This problem likely comes from the abstract nature of 'infantry squads' in TOAW, 1 squad = 10 men, but it could easily be 8-12, plus how to set the replacement rate of infantry to be 'historical' when it is influenced by so many factors (wounded, soldiers on leave, squad skills you name it)?
Bumping up the standard allocation and replacement
rate of infantry squads is likely required to get realistic results (i.e kill more tanks and/or have more infantry squads in the game).
But how did you get to the figures you use in D21? Also, do you find that they work?
Thanks!
I noticed that you use 300 squads/German division, while most published scenarios use 180--200 squads.
A significant difference!
I am updating a TOAWIII version of my old scenario 'Europe 44' (west+east fronts at corps level, 30 km/exe, weekly turns). If I use the historical production figures of tanks, airplanes and artillery, by Winter 44 I find that the number of infantry squads is severely depleted in all units, independent of nationality (I use Heavy Rifle Squads AT for the Germans and the US Army, 180 squads/German division). Tanks on the other hand are doing just fine and are close to the max allotted number (again, true for all armies).
In other words: the ratio of infantry/tanks kill is likely too high or the replacement rate/allocated squads figures are too low. For the Red Army, the number of fighting infantry men remained rather constant throughout 44-45 (according to Glantz's books). This is clearly NOT happening yet in my scenario, the number drops by 30-40%!
This problem likely comes from the abstract nature of 'infantry squads' in TOAW, 1 squad = 10 men, but it could easily be 8-12, plus how to set the replacement rate of infantry to be 'historical' when it is influenced by so many factors (wounded, soldiers on leave, squad skills you name it)?
Bumping up the standard allocation and replacement
rate of infantry squads is likely required to get realistic results (i.e kill more tanks and/or have more infantry squads in the game).
But how did you get to the figures you use in D21? Also, do you find that they work?
Thanks!
RE: Replacement rates and number of infantry squads per division
How did you set on the number of infantry squads and replacement rates for German and Russian divisions?
German infantry squads were based on current Welle information, replacements were based on total casualties and adjusted based on playtesting.
Soviet infantry squads were based on information from various sources but mostly on Glantz' books. Replacements were also based on total casualties and adjusted based on playtesting.
I noticed that you use 300 squads/German division, while most published scenarios use 180--200 squads.
I don't think we can measure consistancy from scenario to scenario. Over the years there have been many different sources used, and the designers can have various reasons for using different numbers of squads.
... how to set the replacement rate of infantry to be 'historical' when it is influenced by so many factors ...
One of those factors being the possibility of players not playing historically. Nothing wrong with that, just that designers can't predict every possible strategy and play style. Playtesting helps a lot. FitE and D21 have been playtested enough over the past 5 years that squads and replacements are no longer a topic of debate/discussion.
I found your 'Europe 44' scenario on Rugged Defense. 6 years since you put that one together! Lots of updating to do?
Re: Europe 44 and Replacement rates and number of infantry squads per division
I don't think we can measure consistency from scenario to scenario. Over the years there have been many different sources used, and the designers can have various reasons for using different numbers of squads.
One of those factors being the possibility of players not playing historically. Nothing wrong with that, just that designers can't predict every possible strategy and play style. Playtesting helps a lot. FitE and D21 have been playtested enough over the past 5 years that squads and replacements are no longer a topic of debate/discussion.
I found your 'Europe 44' scenario on Rugged Defense. 6 years since you put that one together! Lots of updating to do?
All fair points, and yes, most of the testing of the new version has been done with Elmer vs Elmer, which pushes attrition casualties way up. The man (ehm AI) cannot sit still! I am running a test scenario where infantry replacements have been raised way up (x10) to see what happens. I will bring them down in steps till I get a more stable number of infantry squads, and then release the revised scenario on the forums hoping to get a few AARs and maybe look for a player or two to test it. I think it is a fun, yet historical scenario for both sides with a few advanced features.
Revisions to Europe44: balancing details, new PO tracks and made Winter effects a lot more severe for the Allies (less supply) and air warfare in general.
This is a scenario where I experimented with a few cool features:
- Red Army and Wermacht infantry replacements have been partially separated from hardware ones through disbandments of cadre units.
- supply of individual armies regulated through supply squads and HQ disbandments (for example Patton's 3rd Army HQ gets replaced if the Arnhem TO is activated. The new HQ is missing 80% of its supply squads at the start, to represent a reduced flow of supplies.
Similarly Wermacht HQs get a lot of supply squads when the Ardennes option is activated.
-
samba_liten
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Currently in Kiev
RE: Directive 21 v2.0
Some ideas that have been banged around in the past but were never ratified and are still up for consideration:
Removal of the OKH unit (it serves no purpose).
Remove the Army Group HQ units (they also serve no purpose).
Rolling the independant artillery units into the corps and army hq units. This would give both of these type units a purpose.
Making the later panzer divisions one unit instead of three.
A possible theater option for 'Guderian style' panzer divisions.
Organize the German divisions into corps formations.
Remove trucks from German Inf Div's.
Some belated thoughts.
The OKH unit could go, as far as i am concerned, but i would sort of miss it. The same goes for the army group units. I like having them there, but i never do anything with them. One pointless idea is to keep them, but lock them in place so that they can't run around doing things they shouldn't be.
The artillery being incorporated into higher HQ's sounds great.
The panzer divisions being split into smaller units is something i find attractive, but possibly counter productive. When all other units are one-counter divisions the pz units seem rather weak split into their constituent parts. I would even like to suggest keeping the early pz divisions as single units. That would give them more overrun capability. It would also reflect some of the problems the Germans had sealing off the pockets the panzers created.
Removing the trucks from the infantry seems like a good idea to me. They never had enough of them historically. It would be nice to see the Germans with horse drawn transport!! It would also show the motorized divisions in a better light.
السلام عليكم
RE: D21 v2.3
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I usually move it to Vinnitsa and imagine the Fuhrer stomping around in a tirade there. That's about all I can do with it.
Marching it into the Baltic seems to be a more satisfying idea. [;)]
ORIGINAL: polarenper
Some belated thoughts.
The OKH unit could go, as far as i am concerned, but i would sort of miss it. The same goes for the army group units. I like having them there, but i never do anything with them. One pointless idea is to keep them, but lock them in place so that they can't run around doing things they shouldn't be.
For the Germans using anything above Corps for supply would be kind of cheating. German infantry divisions would use their own resources to go and pick up supply from Corp depots. Not Army or Army Group since they really had no supply depots.
For the Soviets anything above Army for supply would be the same. Army sent supplies out to units subordinate to them using Army resources from Army depots. Non Army artillery was a bit different but why muddy the water?
Because of the two points above I've been wondering why have any HQ above Corps or Army since there isn't any hierarchy and may never be one. It just makes for a bunch of counters that are used in ways that are so badly ahistorical as to be ludicrous. Army Group HQ running around acting as recce or closing pockets or even being used as resupply cows is a bit much.
RE: D21 v2.3
So then, a tally of thoughts results in these current proposals:
The OKH unit and Army Group HQ's will be removed.
Roll the independant artillery units into the corps and army hq units. Corps HQ's would have 1 hex range artillery, Army HQ's would have 2 hex range artillery. This will make me contemplate changing the icons from HQ to Artillery, with units having names such as '8.Corp ArKo' and '4.Army HarKo'.
Making the later panzer divisions one unit instead of three - nobody seems really firm on this so far. I can consider making it a Theater Option so that the player can decide.
Will remove trucks from German Inf Div's.
Putting the 300 series German Inf Div's back to 3 regiments? This isn't necessary with 3.4 because we can keep a line consisting of units every other hex. But be careful starting late '42 early '43.
Organizing the German divisions into corps formations is still up in the air. Some like it, some don't. I really like the idea.
The OKH unit and Army Group HQ's will be removed.
Roll the independant artillery units into the corps and army hq units. Corps HQ's would have 1 hex range artillery, Army HQ's would have 2 hex range artillery. This will make me contemplate changing the icons from HQ to Artillery, with units having names such as '8.Corp ArKo' and '4.Army HarKo'.
Making the later panzer divisions one unit instead of three - nobody seems really firm on this so far. I can consider making it a Theater Option so that the player can decide.
Will remove trucks from German Inf Div's.
Putting the 300 series German Inf Div's back to 3 regiments? This isn't necessary with 3.4 because we can keep a line consisting of units every other hex. But be careful starting late '42 early '43.
Organizing the German divisions into corps formations is still up in the air. Some like it, some don't. I really like the idea.
RE: D21 v2.3
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
So then, a tally of thoughts results in these current proposals:
The OKH unit and Army Group HQ's will be removed.
It's just four, later five units. I would leave them in, just as chrome. But that's me..
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Roll the independant artillery units into the corps and army hq units. Corps HQ's would have 1 hex range artillery, Army HQ's would have 2 hex range artillery. This will make me contemplate changing the icons from HQ to Artillery, with units having names such as '8.Corp ArKo' and '4.Army HarKo'.
HArKo - Höherer Artillerie-Kommandeur. With a capital A. Sorry for nitpicking, but who else here (ok except tOberst Klink or BigDuke66 or Cfant..) could have told you that.
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
Organizing the German divisions into corps formations is still up in the air. Some like it, some don't. I really like the idea.
For the entire campaign, i don't know. If it was a Barbarossa only scenario, okay.
RE: D21 v2.3
I would leave them in ...
Well, that evens the votes, so I guess the AG HQ's are in for now.
HArKo - Höherer Artillerie-Kommandeur.
Thank you, nitpicking is good!
For the entire campaign, i don't know.
The Corp organization would get complicated, but what are your reasons for not liking it so much for the whole campaign?
I would certainly have to make a bunch of decisions as to what goes where for the duration, and I envision situations like someone picking the 223.Inf in August 1943 and seeing that it actually wasn't in 28.Korp at that time. [X(]
RE: D21 v2.3
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
I would leave them in ...
Well, that evens the votes, so I guess the AG HQ's are in for now.
Huh, i didn't know that i have a vote in D21.[8D]
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653HArKo - Höherer Artillerie-Kommandeur.
Thank you, nitpicking is good!
We're such nerds, how did it come we've ever found gf/wifes..??!
ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653For the entire campaign, i don't know.
The Corp organization would get complicated, but what are your reasons for not liking it so much for the whole campaign?
I would certainly have to make a bunch of decisions as to what goes where for the duration, and I envision situations like someone picking the 223.Inf in August 1943 and seeing that it actually wasn't in 28.Korp at that time. [X(]
First that. And then things will get messed up soon i think. If Shock army xy attacks a sector of the front and it comes to formation reorganisation, why should a unit several hundred kilometers away fall into reorg? Then, Korps assignements changed so often, and TOAW, well you know. Strict OOB.
OTH, having Korps sized formations could help to stay focused, with the current single division approach manouevering has something.. casual. But it's okay for me.
RE: D21 v2.3
Depending on how the game develops over the course of the war moving divisions here and there without having to pay attention to the formation its in is for me the better way.
I currently play the "Götterdämmerung 1944 - 1945" scenario and sometimes it's simply a pain in the arse moving complete corps formations around to plug wholes, but here it's at least necessary because the Korps HQ is the only HQ for a bunch of divisions.
How does it look here? Each division has its HQ and so the Korps formation would simply be a bunch of HQ- & Combat-counters and finally another HQ the Korps HQ unit itself.
Formations are useful to keep the overview of what should stay together but here it isn't necessary on a Korps level, it would also mean losing the flexibility that the German side needs and on a historical level it also doesn't make sense as what Division belongs to which Korps changed again and again over the war.
The only benefit would be that it gives the frontline a "structure", personally I still hope that the player can one day make his own formation overlay to help him see what he wants to keep together("User defined OOB") but for now I would leave it like it is.
Regarding the Army Group HQs & OKW if the slots are needed go for it but simply deleting them without using the slots is just taking a bit chrome off so no real reason for it.
I currently play the "Götterdämmerung 1944 - 1945" scenario and sometimes it's simply a pain in the arse moving complete corps formations around to plug wholes, but here it's at least necessary because the Korps HQ is the only HQ for a bunch of divisions.
How does it look here? Each division has its HQ and so the Korps formation would simply be a bunch of HQ- & Combat-counters and finally another HQ the Korps HQ unit itself.
Formations are useful to keep the overview of what should stay together but here it isn't necessary on a Korps level, it would also mean losing the flexibility that the German side needs and on a historical level it also doesn't make sense as what Division belongs to which Korps changed again and again over the war.
The only benefit would be that it gives the frontline a "structure", personally I still hope that the player can one day make his own formation overlay to help him see what he wants to keep together("User defined OOB") but for now I would leave it like it is.
Regarding the Army Group HQs & OKW if the slots are needed go for it but simply deleting them without using the slots is just taking a bit chrome off so no real reason for it.
RE: D21 v2.3
i didn't know that i have a vote in D21
Everybody has a vote ... just sometimes the tabulators don't do such a good job. [:(]
how did it come we've ever found gf/wifes..??!
Maybe they are goofy too, in their own soft, curvy, good smelling way.
... moving divisions here and there without having to pay attention to the formation its in is for me the better way... it would also mean losing the flexibility that the German side needs and on a historical level it also doesn't make sense as what Division belongs to which Korps changed again and again over the war.
Makes good sense.
Regarding the Army Group HQs & OKW if the slots are needed go for it but simply deleting them without using the slots is just taking a bit chrome off so no real reason for it.
But only if the chrome makes sense ... in this case, some are taking the chrome and using it as extra wheels and seats. And even worse, some are using chrome to boost horsepower. [:-]