Dynamic Formations

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

For cooperation the HQ's coulour scheme would be decisive. 90.Light Division can't that easily control Ariete's Tank Regiment, even if its the only subordinated unit. Maybe the more 'limited cooperative' units are assigned to a HQ the more severe the penalty is.

I'm still not getting the color scheme issue. If part of Ariete were attached to 90.Lt Div., Ariete would bring its liason officers to 90.Lt HQ and there would be no difficult control issues, or none that I could see reflected in a scenario. What I see is that 90.Lt is better served by containing its proper subordinate units. Hmm ... maybe I'm still thinking in terms of the supply issue. I might have to bail out of this conversion due to a bias in my brain. [:(]

Hm, i see your point. Maybe his italian stomach won't do well with Sauerkraut?

Then, let's say Doctrine is the issue. How about that?

What if parts of Ariete would attack together with parts of 90.Lt's proper units? Still a penalty, but not as severe as it would be if the Italian units would be under control of their proper HQ?

What about Ammunition, spare parts etc.?

If we can't come up with anything then the only trade off would be the MP penalty for the turn the reassignment takes place.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

I guess the basic questions I don't see answered in this thread are...

What are the effects of moving a unit from one formation to another? What interesting decision does this force the player to make?
What new options for play are enabled by adding this? (either scenarios or better fidelity for some scenarios, or something.)
Can Elmer be programmed to understand this, or is the effect small enough that he can ignore it?

Ralph

From the perspective of an East Frontophile I can list a few reasons for being able to switch formations.

Scenario designers are faced with a choice. Either make formations act historically and make them Internal support. Or allow the Soviets to assign units between formations as they did historically and give Armies a support level that doesn't represent the difficulties they had cooperating. Neither choice works in a historical context and is just as bad from a players point of view.

As a player, with the first choice you are going to have formations chewed up and no way to rebuild them without waiting for reconstitution. Headquarters and the support units assigned to them are going to be made much less useful. Historically the Soviets were able to move divisions out of reserve and into battered formations.

With the second choice the Soviet player will be free to move units anywhere with no attention paid to support levels. Just as bad as the above situation.

In FiTE the Soviet begins the game with units scattered all over the map, some without headquarters for many turns. At least in this scenario they could be assigned to a HQ. The Soviet is crippled because units are unable to fully use what little offensive and support capability they have.

If a headquarters is eliminated, something that happens often for the Soviet side, units are not forced to stay in a headless entity. They can be moved to formations with a HQ.

Why there should be a penalty for being assigned to a different formation is beyond me. There should be none. Why a unit needs to be stacked with a HQ to become part of it's formation makes no sense either.

All this would do is add a historical flexibility that isn't present with the current state of the game without further ahistorical situations taking place.

Then there's all the little units that nations typically assigned to formations on an as needed basis. Why have a tank battalion assigned to a corp that's in a non active area while another formations could use it for support? I've tried to think why formations were made static in the first place. Maybe easier to program? Certainly not done from a historically logical angle.

The scenario designer can use history as an example as to the number of units a formation can be limited to.

The farther a unit moves from it's HQ the worse it's supply situation will become.

These things help prevent abuse.

Now for supply eminating from, say a corp HQ. Can anyone tell me how is that any different from the same supply eminating from a railhead or suppy unit? They are all point specific.

As for Elmer, I think he has it hard enough as it is. Probably shouldn't be part of a PO scenario.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

2) As Bob said, click on the unit, then click on the HQ (or actually any unit in the formation to move to.) This has the same issue that you need to understand which unit is in the formation you want to go to. You also need to worry about stacked units and which unit is the one to attach to.

This sounds good. Right click the unit to bring up the unit box, click on change formation, right click on the target unit of the target formation, this generates a pop up saying move 'unit x' to 'formation Y' - Yes - No, click yes and the deal is done. Or clicking yes will generate a 'Formation Full' notification.

5) Cheats ...

Formations are withdrawn by unit color, not formation, so no worries. If a formation is scheduled to withdraw and you move its units to another formation, the system will still withdraw them, by unit color. No cheating ! [:-]

Couldn't you have a menu item for changing formations? Click it, window opens with a list of formations. Click the formation the unit is in. That formation expands. Click the unit to move. Click the formation to move it to. Pop, done. If the move to formation is full then have it greyed out after the move from choice is made.

I realize that changing all these things in the game isn't easy and I really do appreciate that Ralph listens to the ramblings of probably insane but very appreciative and lucky people. [&o]

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Panama

Why there should be a penalty for being assigned to a different formation is beyond me. There should be none.

Depends. Not among units of the same nation.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

For cooperation the HQ's coulour scheme would be decisive. 90.Light Division can't that easily control Ariete's Tank Regiment, even if its the only subordinated unit. Maybe the more 'limited cooperative' units are assigned to a HQ the more severe the penalty is.

I'm still not getting the color scheme issue. If part of Ariete were attached to 90.Lt Div., Ariete would bring its liason officers to 90.Lt HQ and there would be no difficult control issues, or none that I could see reflected in a scenario. What I see is that 90.Lt is better served by containing its proper subordinate units. Hmm ... maybe I'm still thinking in terms of the supply issue. I might have to bail out of this conversion due to a bias in my brain. [:(]

Germans had no problems sticking allied divisions in their corps nor sticking German divisions into allied corps. There didn't seem to be a communitcation problem and the Rumanians performed just as awful whether they were part of a German corp or the Germans unit was part of their corp.

And why would reassignment force a penalty on the reassigned unit? There is nothing to show for a penalty in any wartime accounts.

I'm scratching my head over the color scheme limiting who goes where too.

Oh no, I'm repeating myself.

[Telumar]

I only came up with ideas for Ralph's 'Trade offs'. [:(]

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Telumar

But what i see is that we already have the ability for a unit to change its parent formation. In the editor: Cut current unit / paste unit. That's the functionality Panama meant. I don't know much about coding. But the functionality is already in the code. Graphically you would need an additional line or two in the "right click on unit popup-menue". Then highlighting of HQs (highlighting is already there) or a window with a list (all there).

Maximum number of controlled units of a HQ could be set up by the designer or be dependent on the number of command groups assigned, which itself could be modified by the designer (1 command group = x or y units). Assigned unit size should play a role, too. An additional battalion costs less "control points" for a divisional HQ than an additional regiment. There even would be no need for a maximum number of assigned units. A penalty would do, too. Say a HQ exceeding its "control points" could result in cooperation penalties, supply penalties, additional reorg check for each subordinated unit etc.

I'll leave it up to Ralph to say what could be reused or not - but I expect it's far more difficult than you think. That editor feature isn't quite what we would want. It moves units around the force - formations are not explicitly involved. That makes it hard to put the unit in the right formation. And that's assuming you've got the names right. A better method would be clicking on a map icon to select the unit and an HQ icon to select the formation. That's why using the composition panel might be best - but the unit would have to be stacked with the target formation.

Designer limits on unit colors, types, sizes, etc. would be complicated to implement and use. No getting around that.

That's why I suggest an easier, smaller option: Limit it to swapping identical units (same color scheme, icon, unit size, & maybe even authorized TO&E). Designer limits could be added later.

Can you explain to me what difference any of that would make? Why would a unit have to have a particular color scheme to belong to any formation? A unit takes on the support level of it's formation regardless of size, color, TO&E or anything else. If I assign a Rifle Division to the 1st Guards Army it won't matter. The RD will still be of the same support level of all the units already there.

In fact, if I did that it would be entirely historical since the Soviets had no qualms about what went into an Army. Have a Tank Army? Let's stick some Rifle Divisions in there.

The idea behind a dynmaic formation is to remove the artificial limits presented in the game, not reinforce them.

[sPzAbt653]

Why there should be a penalty for being assigned to a different formation is beyond me.

I'm not getting that one either.

Now for supply eminating from, say a corp HQ. Can anyone tell me how is that any different from the same supply eminating from a railhead or suppy unit? They are all point specific.

In regards to the rough outline I gave, the supply doesn't actually eminate from the HQ units, it is passed down the line during bookkeeping. A unit that is cutoff from its parent HQ, or a unit whose parent HQ has been destroyed, will receive no supply that turn.

Couldn't you have a menu item for changing formations? Click it, window opens with a list of formations. Click the formation the unit is in. That formation expands. Click the unit to move. Click the formation to move it to. Pop, done. If the move to formation is full then have it greyed out after the move from choice is made.

Both of our ideas use 4 clicks, so no difference to me. Click is King, keep them to a minimum !

I realize that changing all these things in the game isn't easy and I really do appreciate that Ralph listens to the ramblings of probably insane but very appreciative and lucky people.

Well put Mr. Panama. By the way, why Panama, if you don't mind me asking ?

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Panama

In fact, if I did that it would be entirely historical since the Soviets had no qualms about what went into an Army. Have a Tank Army? Let's stick some Rifle Divisions in there.

The idea behind a dynmaic formation is to remove the artificial limits presented in the game, not reinforce them.

Still this is different than 90.Lt Div commanding parts of Ariete.

And i indeed think there should be no penalty for soviet units joining soviet formations as there should be no penalty for german units joining german units etc.

[sPzAbt653]

Infantry Regiments under command of the Corps HQ? Lol

Because Corps HQ's can only have Division HQ's under them, plus a maximum of the equivelant of 2 regiments directly attached (for Corp artillery, security units, etc.).

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Infantry Regiments under command of the Corps HQ? Lol

Because Corps HQ's can only have Division HQ's under them, plus a maximum of the equivelant of 2 regiments directly attached (for Corp artillery, security units, etc.).

Yeah. This is something that's really going to have to be scenario dependant. Different nations did different things with what was attached and I don't think anywhere was there a hard and fast rule. Let the scenario designers deal with it.

Panama because of the hat I wore when not out mucking about. Someone suggested I paint a target on it.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

2) As Bob said, click on the unit, then click on the HQ (or actually any unit in the formation to move to.) This has the same issue that you need to understand which unit is in the formation you want to go to. You also need to worry about stacked units and which unit is the one to attach to.

Thinking about it, that would work best, and might not be too hard to do.

5) Cheats, I can see people moving all the units out of a formation that's due to be withdrawn, so that an empty formation is withdrawn.[:-] You're going to have to be able to say that some formations can't be changed. I don't know if any formations have events which change proficiency or any other statistics, but that's something that needs to be taken into account.

TOAW doesn't currently have a "Withdraw Formation" event. There's "Withdraw Unit" and "Withdraw Army". Of course, a "Withdraw Formation" event would be nice to have (hint).

But this certainly illustrates the potential for abuse and ruination of scenario design features. Let me give an example: In France 1944, British formations have formation proficiencies that are quite lower than US formations. This is despite that British units have higher unit proficienies than US units. This reflects the fact that while the British were more experienced than the US, they had politically hit the wall on casualties. So, I tried to design the British so that they would be very effective when used, but then their higher command would be likely to reorganize if they suffered heavy losses.

Without restrictions, players would shift the British units out of the British formations and put them in US formations, creating a super shock force with high unit and formation proficiencies. The same applies to Italians in North Africa, Minor Axis in Barbarossa, Paratrooper formations in Normandy (great place for armored regiments), etc.

The formation is part of the national and arm modeling, just as the unit is. It has to be up to the designer what can or can't be shifted anywhere. And that's non-trivial.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

But HQ's do represent the infrastructure that handles allocation. I don't see the reality in having a static supply point anchored at Berlin. But I do see the reality in having an OKH unit represent that allocation, or a SHAEF unit in England.

How can you not see the difference? The supply point is static. Ok, OKH is a source of supply: just move it into the Soviet Union. No supply tightrope in Barbarossa - the source is right next to the front. Partisans? No problem, the supply source is beyond them. Move it to North Africa - now the RN can't interdict Rommel, etc.

If the supply is tied to the formation chain, it is far more realistic than the current system, and I might argue that you couldn't get more realistic. Maybe we see it differently.

Boy do we ever.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
That's why I suggest an easier, smaller option: Limit it to swapping identical units (same color scheme, icon, unit size, & maybe even authorized TO&E). Designer limits could be added later.

Same colour scheme - ok. Or maybe same background colour. But icon, size or even TOE. That's not what i would like to see, don't know about the others around here. Besides i already mentioned issues with unit/HQ sizes

Anything less would have to have designer approval. The above suggestion could avoid that for a easy initial version. Implementing designer controls would be so complicated it might not be done for quite a while.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

And why would reassignment force a penalty on the reassigned unit? There is nothing to show for a penalty in any wartime accounts.

It has to cost something. Otherwise, players will switch just for one attack, then back again. No attack will ever suffer cooperation penalties (and everyone will have to do that or be disadvantaged - won't that be fun). You have historical examples of units cavalierly switching in and out of organizations on an hour-by-hour basis?

I would suggest that there be at least a penalty of one day's MPs.

[sPzAbt653]

In France 1944, ...

Don't use the Dynamic Formations option in that scenario.

OKH is a source of supply: just move it into the Soviet Union.

Remember that OKH is not a supply point, it is simply the origination point. From OKH supply only goes to Army Group HQ's. If OKH is destroyed, the entire force goes out of supply (or better options I can explain later). The player will not be willing to move OKH anywhere near harm. Plus, moving OKH into Russia will gain no large benefit other than shortening the physical distance to the Army Group HQ's.

Move it to North Africa - now the RN can't interdict Rommel, etc.

If we are dealing with an ETO scenario, moving OKH to Africa will surely put all units not in North Africa out of supply. If dealing with a North Africa only scenario, there is no OKH, there is a Commando Supremo (or whatever) that is designed for that scenario.

It has to cost something. Otherwise, players will switch just for one attack, then back again.

Then it can't be an option during the turn. It can happen as a function of the bookkeeping phase, or after that and before the turn actually starts. This might even assist Ralph in using the editor to implement the changes, while keeping it separate from the actual game.

Its an interesting topic because we see it so differently.

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

And why would reassignment force a penalty on the reassigned unit? There is nothing to show for a penalty in any wartime accounts.

It has to cost something. Otherwise, players will switch just for one attack, then back again. No attack will ever suffer cooperation penalties (and everyone will have to do that or be disadvantaged - won't that be fun). You have historical examples of units cavalierly switching in and out of organizations on an hour-by-hour basis?

I would suggest that there be at least a penalty of one day's MPs.

As i said or 50% of the unit's full movement allowance. This would enforce players to do their reassignment on the beginning of the turn, so no switching byck and forth al gusto.

But this certainly illustrates the potential for abuse and ruination of scenario design features. Let me give an example: In France 1944, British formations have formation proficiencies that are quite lower than US formations. This is despite that British units have higher unit proficienies than US units. This reflects the fact that while the British were more experienced than the US, they had politically hit the wall on casualties. So, I tried to design the British so that they would be very effective when used, but then their higher command would be likely to reorganize if they suffered heavy losses.

Without restrictions, players would shift the British units out of the British formations and put them in US formations, creating a super shock force with high unit and formation proficiencies. The same applies to Italians in North Africa, Minor Axis in Barbarossa, Paratrooper formations in Normandy (great place for armored regiments), etc.

The formation is part of the national and arm modeling, just as the unit is. It has to be up to the designer what can or can't be shifted anywhere. And that's non-trivial.

What about my command group approach? An example: Say a Pz Regt costs 10 command points, an Inf Regt costs 4 points, an Art Bn 2 points. 362.Inf Div HQ would have 4 command groups (as set up by the designer), worth 20 command points (5 each). This would enable it to control 3 Inf Regts plus 3 Art Bns without disadvantage/penalty whatever. But not one PzRegt, two Inf Regts and 3 Art Bns. This could be better done by 15.PzG Div HQ, which has 5 command groups (assigned by the designer).
The designer can set up his HQs accordingly. He might even be able to determine the 'worth' of a command group via a editor variable or even the command point costs for a each unit/unit type/size. Ultimate freedom for the designer, possibility for penalties/restrictions to prevent abuse.

(all numbers just examples, i ignored divisional engineers, recon etc)

Now you can come up with contras: Too difficult to implement (i know), no relation to realism, too complicated...

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay


Without restrictions, players would shift the British units out of the British formations and put them in US formations, creating a super shock force with high unit and formation proficiencies. The same applies to Italians in North Africa, Minor Axis in Barbarossa, Paratrooper formations in Normandy (great place for armored regiments), etc.

What keeps the Axis minors from stacking together in any Barbarossa scenario? Nothing other than a written rule included by the author. Know what? I've NEVER seen anyone who was aware of this rule violate it. The British/US scenario you portray would be resolved the exact same way.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

And why would reassignment force a penalty on the reassigned unit? There is nothing to show for a penalty in any wartime accounts.

It has to cost something. Otherwise, players will switch just for one attack, then back again. No attack will ever suffer cooperation penalties (and everyone will have to do that or be disadvantaged - won't that be fun). You have historical examples of units cavalierly switching in and out of organizations on an hour-by-hour basis?

I would suggest that there be at least a penalty of one day's MPs.

Free support does this exact same thing you are saying is bad. So, Free Support is bad and needs to be removed.

BTW, the smallest time frame is six hours. Telumar had a good idea. Allow it only at the beginning or end of a turn.

I've seen good ideas presented by several people but I fear they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of seeing the light of day.

[Panama]

Forgot something concerning supply and HQ.

Supply to a HQ would only be as much as would be received by a unit in the same location. It would become less as the distance from the HQ increased just as it does now. The difference is that the supply would be counted from the unit's HQ, not from any supply point that happened to be nearby. I wouldn't advise using too high of a HQ. Corp level would probably be the highest you would need to go. OKH can stay home and cuddle the Fraulein.

I'm sure this would increase the time for the game to resolve supply before a turn began. Maybe too big for some. My computer runs through that very fast and they just get faster as time goes by so it's not as much of a problem as it would have been five years ago and will be even less of a problem in two years.