Locking Groups

[Theopolis]

What is the purpose of locking groups? I realize that it allows you to cycle only through the units belonging to a particular corps, but beyond that is there any advantage to it? I am not sure, but I do not think there is any integrity bonus above the divisional level. Was this feature included in the game for anything other than as a historical curiosity?

[Gregor_SSG]

What is the purpose of locking groups? I realize that it allows you to cycle only through the units belonging to a particular corps, but beyond that is there any advantage to it? I am not sure, but I do not think there is any integrity bonus above the divisional level. Was this feature included in the game for anything other than as a historical curiosity?

We put the feature in for those people with particularly orderly minds who like to give orders at a formation level. It has no gameplay benefits, it's just an interface thing, but very few people actually use it.

Gregor

[coralsaw]

I like to play as realistically as possible, which means eg. artillery only supports organic units etc. In such a case it's good to have the "lock group" functionality.

/coralsaw

[Theopolis]

I figured it was a Grognard thing, but I just wanted to make sure. Restricting the artillery fire to support of units only in the same formation sounds like a daunting task. I consider myself lucky just to maintain any degree of divisional integrity, so my hat is off to you.

I am not very familiar with the tactics of this era, but I am wondering about the degree to which the corps/armies mixed their units along the lines, particularly in engagements like Korsun. I will throw divisions around wherever they are needed, and by the end of the game my units are all over the map. Did they do that during the war, or did the larger units all stay more or less together? Would spreading the divisions of a corps far apart have a similar effect on command effectiveness as it does on the divisional level, or does the game theory follow that divisions suffer little or no loss in efficiency regardless of how far they are from central command?

[coralsaw]

Theopolis,

To maintain Corps and Army integrity in KP is quite challenging indeed, but fun in its own perverse way. Wish the AI would adhere to it too.

AFAIK, the game doesn't punish (as it should) such loss of integrity, which is understanble I guess because of the diverse audience of the game. It would have been nice if only stacking was allowed only within the same Korps and various independent and support units (Tank Bdes, AT Troops etc).

Historically in WW2, echelon integrity including strict sectors of responsibility for each higher formation were the norm, especially because of the rigidity of the command system and the difficulty of communications.

The Germans at times contravened this rule by forming on-the-spot Kampfgruppen, even consisting of soldiers returning from leave from any unit, as it happened to push back the Anzio Allied bridgehead. The same thing happened late during the war, when scraping the bottom of the barrel was quite common for the Germans, as it happened during the Market Garden campaign at Arnhem etc. That the Germans were able to act with such fluidity was mainly due to the resourcefulness and doctrinal freedom of the middle-tier officers.

Other than that, and at Korps/Divisional etc boundaries, mixing regular formations belonging to different higher structures was quite uncommon.

/coralsaw