Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tomokatu

As if the additional soldiers and equipment needed could pop from thin air in the deserts of Lybia.

Which is what's happening when you use the "Replacements" button for any unit. There's no visible mechanism for replacing aircraft by the Takoradi route or regular convoys of troopships either. I've assumed that all this scurrying around was happening, troops being brought into theatre, assigned to holding depots and parcelled out as replavements/reinforcements, all without me (as commander at a much more senior level) needing to be aware of it.

However, that said, I'm not opposed to a mechanism being in place to constrain the creation of corps from divisions.

Are you sure? Have you tried the replacement button when your supply is low? For the americans & british, if I do hot have convoy lines for my troops they fall short of supply and I cannot bring replacements either, or I can bring only limited replacements. I think this case is already handled quite well.

The reorganization of one's army is surely a command decision. If you have the PP and are willing the accept the AP hit for corps vs. divisions then surely the necessary staff can be brought up to form a corps. On the other hand there is a sorry lack of ability to dissolve a corps into constituent divisions. I would love to have a mechanism to pay a "friction" price and receive divisions for corps. Notice I mention a price, which would stop this from being done casually. The Germans were masters at informal organization, and the USA and GB were also good. The Soviets were less so, and perhaps a larger cost for them would be appropriate.

If you have a corps between two cities and need to occupy both there is no doubt what would happen in the actual war. It just cannot be done in the game.

However I can certainly live with the current situation, and will join in the "no more micromanagement" cause!

Chuck

Problem with an option to break down corps is, once again, the game forbids unit stacking.
 
I don't think the game lends itself at a basic mechanical level to this corps business. It's not just a question of the corps itself. You'd have to address several different layers of abstraction to get it right.
 
 

You are correct, of course. Abstraction is the key to wargaming, and a perusal of the posts in this forum shows that there is a wide range of tastes here. I am finding the level of abstraction drifting a bit too far into details, and perhaps a bit lower level of abstraction than I, personally, prefer. RtV was more abstract and I think I did more strategic thinking at that level. Now, with ToW, and especially with some proposed mods we are drifting down into middle operational, maybe even a bit lower, and the game turns are taking significantly longer.

I still love this game though!

Chuck

After mulling it over, I feel that The Uxbridge Variant captures the essence of the idea with the best balance between the added realism desired and the slippery slope of micro-management.

If we combine his rule restricting initial purchases to Level 1 divisions with disbanding just one such unit while upgrading a second the lack of a full refund is not as costly.

Personally I would still prefer requiring 2 divisions be disbanded, but however many units players agree upon when implementing the rule it still avoids manipulating PPts through the dreaded F11 feature.

Current version of the "Uxbridge variant" is that we now use level-1 motorized for the conversion. These units have radically reduced combat abilities as well as special symbols. They are also the only units that may carry commanders/HQs and thus function in a multi-purpose rôle. Being motorized they are quicker and sligthly more expensive.

Start up ETO_PBEM, shift to Uxbridge_units_PBEM and buy one level-1 motorized division and one level-1 motorized corps and you can see how it looks and try how it works.

Since these units are now prime targets for the air forces, they add a whole new dimension to the air system.

Flaviusx was a little hesitant to this initially, mainly for fear of micromanagement, but playing it for a number of turns, I think he has come around to my point of view. I'm sure he will share his experience regarding this. [8D]

Are you using Level 1 Motorized to disband for upgrading Infantry and Armor also?

Yes. There's no need to complicate things with different types also. My main purpose with the system is that players shouldn't be allowed to upgrade at whim. The upkeep costs and actual cost of upgrade and disbandment will suffice as payment, regardless of unit being upgraded.

Uxbridge, I merely tolerate this system. I still don't like it.
 
The really annoying thing about LUs: a single airstrike can take them out in clear weather. I've been destroying them myself as the Poles in our game. And have lost some of my own. It's proving to be extremely difficult to upgrade divisions at the front as a result. This is pretty gamey. Corps formation shouldn't be at the complete mercy of enemy airstrikes.  
 
The system in particular penalizes minors who lack the territorial depth to do upgrades in the rear. (Like, say, the Belgians and Dutch. Good luck trying to upgrade a division.) And in practical terms, most of your upgrades will be done in the rear, because anytime an LU appears in the front, it will get destroyed more or less. Only during bad weather and in adverse terrain can you move these units forward with any confidence.
 
I can already see as the Russians how I'm going to be dealing with this post Barbarossa: building level 1 divisions and LUs hundreds of miles away from the front (beyond Luftwaffe range, in other words), upgrading them to corps there, and then SMPing them forward. This is silly. The Germans, presumably, will be doing the same in the west later in the war in the face of overwhelming allied airpower.
 
I continue to believe this entire mechanics is just not suited for a game that lacks unit stacking.

Oh, look now, I thought you were all in favour. [:)]

The way I see it, the main advantage with the LUs are in the HQs capacity. The player who dominates the skies will have an advantage on the ground, and that without costly pinpoint attacks on certain ground units.

But you may very well be right about the corps. If we keep the above, I'm not at all a stranger to some separate rule regarding the corps. But what?

I see two main problems with the corps.

1. They often appears in threatened places such as cities and vital points in the frontlines.

2. British and US units can be shiped around the world, only being upgraded when the player finds the need for it. This saves unreasonable costs and transport capacity.

How can we solve these both problems?

I could accept a rule that corps may only be built or upgraded from divisions in homeland city hexes, and only if these cities is not within 3 hexes (FoW range) of an enemy ground unit. The only exception to the 3 hexes inhibition would be if the city is a main supply source, or if it is the only remaining city in the country. This would fix both points above for me. The only unbalancing side of it is that it will disfavour Germany, having to transport units all the way from home. But this was also the reality for them, so why not.

The headquarters aspect I like just fine and think is quite good. I especially like the way you introduce (or remove) commanders chronologically. You can also mitigate the worst abuses of airpower by upgrading LUs to depots.
 
It's this corps business I'm not sold on.
 
I'm honestly completely OK with the game's basic upgrade function from divisions to corps by spending PPs. Is it abstract? Yes. But it works given then general game mechanics. If you want to implement more compex division/corps rules, you need to change a lot of things about the basic game engine. Once again, for me, the decisive objection lies in the lack of unit stacking here. Fundamentally there's an issue of scale at question here, and the game is set at a very high level of abstraction. It's really not designed around grand tactics and this whole corps issue rather misses the point and scale of the game where such questions would be more important.
 
If you're looking for a game set at that scale -- I'd be checking out the new Gary Grigsby eastern front title (which really looks amazingly good.) I do not expect this sort of thing from a game of grand strategy like Wrath, however.
 
 

I'm really tempted to reduce the corps strength to just about 40-50 % more than that of divisions and letting them have the same speed or only a slight reduction of it. This would then simulate not different organization, but a higher amount of artillery assetts and independent support units moved into the hex. As it is now, we have mixed hares with elephants and I rather see dogs running side by side with wolves.

Since the LU/HQ system is only present in ETO, and though we don't want to confuse outside players stumbling on this issue, I suggest moving the discussion to HQ. I will open new threads there.

ORIGINAL: Uxbridge

2. British and US units can be shiped around the world, only being upgraded when the player finds the need for it. This saves unreasonable costs and transport capacity.[/i]

How can we solve these both problems?

I could accept a rule that corps may only be built or upgraded from divisions in homeland city hexes, and only if these cities is not within 3 hexes (FoW range) of an enemy ground unit. The only exception to the 3 hexes inhibition would be if the city is a main supply source, or if it is the only remaining city in the country. This would fix both points above for me. The only unbalancing side of it is that it will disfavour Germany, having to transport units all the way from home. But this was also the reality for them, so why not.

Personally, I did not try this mod. I do not like the idea of having to disband divisions to create corps, it's complicated and I am lazy. Corps and divisions should only be created in the home nation of a major power that's all. Upgrading a division which is far away from his home nation is another matter, I do not know how it should be handled. Maybe in this case we should have to disband divisions to create a corps for this case, but I am not a programmer, I do not know how it should be handled.

But I do not see why a major power would not be able to form directly a corps in its home country.

There is also the delay that bothers me. There is a delay for creating ships, there should be a delay for creating land and air units as well. In the majority of games on WW2, it takes three months to produce and infantry unit for example, because training a guy be a soldier in a standard regiment do takes 3 months and it takes more time to train someone in elite corps, like the marines or paratroopers. And producing aircraft like fighters or strategic bombers take some time too.

Another point, strategic bombing is not worth it, you bomb a factory and a couple of weeks later it is back at full strenght. It's like the factories are able to quickly regenerate at no cost.

This post if for you Uxbridge but also for the developers of the game, other suggestions from me I guess.