Dynamic Formations

[sPzAbt653]

ORIGINAL: 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.

If Dynamic Supply were included, the ability of a corps HQ, for example, to supply 3-4 US divisions would be normal, but if you added 3-4 British divisions to the corp, the HQ would not be able to adequately maintain them. You might have a super shock force, but they would all be in the red.

[SMK-at-work]

My take - worth what you pay for it

1/ shifting a "unit" from 1 formation to another should take time - you have to tell them who their contacts are, where their new depots are, etc.  So movement points or turns lost - depending on scale

2/ HQ's should have a limited ability to command units effectively, so should b less efficient when overloaded with units.

3/ There is a reason why battalions are organised into brigades or regiments, and companies into battalions, and platoons into companies - commanding units that are "too small" for the HQ means they have to start organising details that the HQ is not equipped for - a Division HQ can tell a battalion where to go, but commanding too many battalions means it needs more runners and radios, more map tables, etc - so units that are at the "wrong level" for a HQ should cost more "command points" than the same number of units organised into a correct sub-HQ.  Ie 9 battalions in 3 brigades might cost 6 command points, but 9 independant battalions might cost 9 command points - thus possibly putting the Div HQ over it's limit and decreasing its "command effectiveness".

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: ralphtrick

One thing that bothers me is that I'm hearing in this thread mostly talk about ways to reduce cooperation effects and do alternate history, and not a lot about the trade-offs. Without trade-offs, why wouldn't people put everything into a few formations? There have to be trade-offs, and reasons to NOT allow the formations to combine, otherwise, why not automate it and let the computer handle it?

Soviet Armies are typically limited to internal support and for good reason. They seemed to have cooperation problems. Here is the assignment history of one Soviet Rifle Division. It is by no means unordinary. In fact, it is a very common history for Soviet combat units:

6th Rifle Division: 22 June 1941 4th Army; April - November 1942 40th Army; November 1942 - January 1943 10th Reserve Army; January 1943 - August 1943 6th Army; August - February 1943 1st Guards Army; February 1943 to wars end 2nd Ukranian Front where it was moved around these various Armies, 53rd Army, 40th Army, 1st Guards Cavalry Mechanized Group.

It gets worse for independant tank, SU and At units. Free support would handle that but then these units would have to be in the same formation and the whole formation would reorg no matter where they were.

I can give examples of divisions being reassigned one day and going on the offensive the next day. Reassignment has more to do with administrative changes than anything else. The only downside I could see would be a change in who you got supplies from. The unit had one days worth. Whether that would be enough for heavy fighting would depend on where it was. Division, three or so.

Being able to move units from formation to formation is extremely historical for the East Front and is far from alternate history. In fact, not enabling this is alternate history.

[Panama]

SMK is correct. A HQ, depending on it's level, only controled a certain number of divisions. The smaller units attached to the Corps was typically mission dependant but there were some types that seemed to be always there, artillery being the biggie. So, allow the scenario designer to set limits on how many divisions sized and how many smaller sized units since this would be scenario dependant. The method doesn't really matter.

Also, each nation should have a formation jumping threshold. Western armies were more resistant to units changing formations than the Soviets. It was mostly about politics.

A Commonwealth division would rarely if ever be found in a US corps and visa versa. Patton would throw a tantrum if someone took one of his divisions. Monty would have someone beheaded.

The Soviet brass would do whatever STAVKA wanted because Stalin would have them shot if they didn't. Stalin was STAVKA.

The German brass didn't like having their divisions taken from them either but were not as resistant as the Allies. They could get replaced but Hitler did have to be sensitive to who was replaced and why. They usually had to really irritate him.

I would assume scenario designers have some idea about how often divisions changed formations. Leave any limits on how many and how often units can change formations in their scenarios. If they don't want it to happen at all they can set it to zero. If they set it higher then they need to start setting limits to corps, armies, etc. They know the subject, they should know the limits.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

In France 1944, ...

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

So long as it's controlled by the designer, which is what I've been arguing all along.

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.

That's exactly what it will function as.

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.

The benefits of moving it into Russia are huge, and the risks would be small. Players are going to do it. And it will be total nonsense.

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.

Some scenarios will have undesireable consequences, some won't. But in every case, the effects and consequences will be totally divorced from reality. This is shear lunacy. What benefit does this provide over the existing system in exchange for the cost and harm?

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.

Better to make it a cost. You can't just snap your fingers and be in another organization. If it is cost free, players will do it for trivial reasons - that first attack of the turn will never suffer cooperation penalties - and we'll all have to do that.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Telumar

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...

Actually it will have to be far more complicated than the most complicated version of that. The designer would have to have much more control - the numbers can't be set in stone by Ralph.

Note that that doesn't prevent the British from doing just what I listed. British Infantry regiment swaps with a US regiment - no problem.

Another point - command groups already have a function in the game, and if you now require them to do something else, their first function will suffer.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

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

It does not. Free Support is entirely at the discretion of the designer. It's available only if he puts it into the design.

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.

I've seen those ideas too. God help us.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

If Dynamic Supply were included, the ability of a corps HQ, for example, to supply 3-4 US divisions would be normal, but if you added 3-4 British divisions to the corp, the HQ would not be able to adequately maintain them. You might have a super shock force, but they would all be in the red.

British regiments would be swapped with US regiments. The number of units in the formation would be unchanged. Super shock force.

And God help us from that supply nonsense listed above.

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: Panama

SMK is correct. A HQ, depending on it's level, only controled a certain number of divisions. The smaller units attached to the Corps was typically mission dependant but there were some types that seemed to be always there, artillery being the biggie. So, allow the scenario designer to set limits on how many divisions sized and how many smaller sized units since this would be scenario dependant. The method doesn't really matter.

Also, each nation should have a formation jumping threshold. Western armies were more resistant to units changing formations than the Soviets. It was mostly about politics.

A Commonwealth division would rarely if ever be found in a US corps and visa versa. Patton would throw a tantrum if someone took one of his divisions. Monty would have someone beheaded.

The Soviet brass would do whatever STAVKA wanted because Stalin would have them shot if they didn't. Stalin was STAVKA.

The German brass didn't like having their divisions taken from them either but were not as resistant as the Allies. They could get replaced but Hitler did have to be sensitive to who was replaced and why. They usually had to really irritate him.

I would assume scenario designers have some idea about how often divisions changed formations. Leave any limits on how many and how often units can change formations in their scenarios. If they don't want it to happen at all they can set it to zero. If they set it higher then they need to start setting limits to corps, armies, etc. They know the subject, they should know the limits.

All of this has to be controlled by the designer. And imagine how complex it's going to be to implement in a usable fashion. This is turning into the mod that ate New York.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: Panama

SMK is correct. A HQ, depending on it's level, only controled a certain number of divisions. The smaller units attached to the Corps was typically mission dependant but there were some types that seemed to be always there, artillery being the biggie. So, allow the scenario designer to set limits on how many divisions sized and how many smaller sized units since this would be scenario dependant. The method doesn't really matter.

Also, each nation should have a formation jumping threshold. Western armies were more resistant to units changing formations than the Soviets. It was mostly about politics.

A Commonwealth division would rarely if ever be found in a US corps and visa versa. Patton would throw a tantrum if someone took one of his divisions. Monty would have someone beheaded.

The Soviet brass would do whatever STAVKA wanted because Stalin would have them shot if they didn't. Stalin was STAVKA.

The German brass didn't like having their divisions taken from them either but were not as resistant as the Allies. They could get replaced but Hitler did have to be sensitive to who was replaced and why. They usually had to really irritate him.

I would assume scenario designers have some idea about how often divisions changed formations. Leave any limits on how many and how often units can change formations in their scenarios. If they don't want it to happen at all they can set it to zero. If they set it higher then they need to start setting limits to corps, armies, etc. They know the subject, they should know the limits.

All of this has to be controlled by the designer. And imagine how complex it's going to be to implement in a usable fashion. This is turning into the mod that ate New York.

Since I'm not a programmer you would have to ask Ralph. You are correct in saying some people will switch formations constantly and of course that would be wrong. Giving a nation a value that limits that would be needed, yes. More designer controlled stuff. Of course none of this would be mandatory. All voluntary on the part of the scenario designer.

Some of us would like to see more control over the different aspects of the game. This is just one I'd like to see to allow some scenarios to better reflect reality. No where on the East Front were Soviet units forced to be in any particular army. To inflict that upon a scenario designer is to ignore what took place. It would be nice to be able to make a scenario more closely resemble what went on. That's all I've ever asked for.

You keep using a Brit unit in a US formation as a reason not to do this. As in so many many cases, a 'house rule' will cover such things. Again, there is nothing stopping a Hungarian unit from staking with a Slovak unit in FiTE except for a house rule. Couldn't be done histroricaly, can't be done in the game becasue of a written rule, not programming. Lots of scenarios handle things with written rules. I'm sure you've played some. Did you violate the written rule?

[Telumar]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Actually it will have to be far more complicated than the most complicated version of that. The designer would have to have much more control - the numbers can't be set in stone by Ralph.

Never said that. The numbers can be set up by the designers.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Note that that doesn't prevent the British from doing just what I listed. British Infantry regiment swaps with a US regiment - no problem.

As mentioned before: House Rules.

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

Another point - command groups already have a function in the game, and if you now require them to do something else, their first function will suffer.

Who says their first function would suffer? Then they have two functions. Like engineers (egineering and minor ferrry).

As i said, i know this probably would require an awfull amount of coding. I would be happy about any change in this direction, even the simplest solution. Because:

ORIGINAL: Panama

This is just one I'd like to see to allow some scenarios to better reflect reality. It would be nice to be able to make a scenario more closely resemble what went on

And: Anyone who swaps Brit Divs with Americans, creates that 10 Armor Div Mega Corps can't be helped anyway...

[SMK-at-work]

For supply - I don't think there is a need to route supply through SHAEF or OKH/W - but as you go down levels there probably is a closer correlation between a unit HQ and the physical location of hte supplies it controls - Albert Speer writes orders to companies and does not need to check the existence of everything hiself, but the company quarter-master sergeant will be keeping a close eye on his blankets and bullets!

In terms of being able to swap units between commands of various armies - it probably needs to be controlled at a couple of levels - some units might be specifically allowed to do so, and at another level, some HQ's might be specifically allowed to control units of other armies, and potentially some armies might be allowed "free control" of other army units.

I have read of occasions where being separated by a common language supposedly cause communication difficulties between US & CW units in WW2 - "Things are a bit sticky here old chap" just didn't register with 'Merkin speakers at the other end...or vice versa...so there must have been some level of co-command to allow the units to be talking to each other in the first place.

But I suspect for the most part such cross-cultural exchanges would not be allowed by default.

[Grognard]

from sPzAbt653:

Probably lots of issues, but its fun to think about. This isn't my idea, I remember some other game system that used it, maybe V4V ? And I'm not putting in my vote for it being a necessary change, but it seems some would like it.

Actually it was V4V's progeny series "World at War" the last title of which was "D-Day, America Invades"

That game is now abandonware and available online from a number of places. Get it (free) and see how the supply and attachment procedures work. They work well. They work elegantly. I just finished the campaign game (again, after 15 years away) and it certainly rivals TOAW (IMHO). Of course that's a pretty stupid apples & oranges thing for me to say as that game is fixed in scale, scope, environment etc. and it's the editor in TOAW that gets our juices flowing. Translating a system similar to D-Day into variable context is the thing. yes?... Ralph?

Supply should flow through a unit's (or HQ's) immediately superior HQ. That is a REAL LIFE FACT. Supply should become attenuated by distance from that HQ - another real life fact. So firstly the engine needs to recognize heirarchy (XX down to III eg.). This applies to supply and/or formation dynamics. A formation has a max # of possible subordinate formations (and a different # for single units), modified +/- by HQ proficiency (command span). Then comes the bookkeeping of cut and paste or somesuch and boy howdy I'm a happy camper. If not for supply, at least reattachment.

[sPzAbt653]

That game is now abandonware and available online from a number of places.

Yes, the guys in the General section of the forum told me how to get it going, and unlike many other computer things, it was a no fuss installation. Up and running quickly.

I see that the HQ's trace a supply line off the map edge, as opposed to my memory of supply being traced to the highest HQ. But as you said, it works quite well.

[sPzAbt653]

Found the entire game manual in .pdf, free for download at: http://www.replacementdocs.com/download.php?view.3285

[Grognard]

I see that the HQ's trace a supply line off the map edge, as opposed to my memory of supply being traced to the highest HQ. But as you said, it works quite well.

Only the on map boss(es) - ie Corps HQ's, trace to the beaches... lower HQ's trace to their immediate superior - and length (# of hexes) effects amount of supply received. But also check attachment procedures. This is what I have yearned for from TOAW lo these many years......

Edit:

Oops - I played the U.S. so my supply was traced to the beaches. The Axis, of course, would go to the map edge. But again, only boss HQ's. And they would automatically have the best available level. For all subordinate HQ's (and units) - distance matters and can reduce supply in 25% increments depending on supply line length to the higher assigned HQ. As the Germans had very limited supply, robbing Peter to pay Paul with made for some painful choices.

[sPzAbt653]

But also check attachment procedures. This is what I have yearned for from TOAW lo these many years......

Yes, attachment is the subject of this thread, but I think supply has to be tied to it in order to give it teeth. Certainly not necessary, but I'll continue to be an advocate until Ralph tells me not to be.

[Panama]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

But also check attachment procedures. This is what I have yearned for from TOAW lo these many years......

Yes, attachment is the subject of this thread, but I think supply has to be tied to it in order to give it teeth. Certainly not necessary, but I'll continue to be an advocate until Ralph tells me not to be.

[:D]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
This is turning into the mod that ate New York.

Maybe not New York but quite possibly Ralph. [:D]

[sPzAbt653]

Command Groups sound like a good solution to attachment limits. I wasn't sure of all their functions so I sifted thru the manual:

Formation Proficiency is reduced by 50% if any assigned Headquarters
unit is eliminated, or if all assigned Command Groups
in the Headquarters have been eliminated. You should attempt
to protect your Headquarters units to avoid this drop in Proficiency.

So I guess designing a fragile formation with the ability to hold several units would be difficult. The designer would have to decide which function was more desirable for a particular scenario. This situation may be something that is not often encountered.

Um ... that's it, that is the only current function of command groups. I'll throw my lot in with Telumar on this one as being a good idea. For any Beta it could be set static, i.e. 1 command group = 1 battalion. A 7 command group HQ can hold 7 battalions, etc. Maybe a final version could be designer controlled.

[Grognard]

Um ... that's it, that is the only current function of command groups. I'll throw my lot in with Telumar on this one as being a good idea. For any Beta it could be set static, i.e. 1 command group = 1 battalion. A 7 command group HQ can hold 7 battalions, etc.

Yes - I also thought Telumar's idea was good - enhancing the value of command groups. However the size of subordinates would have to vary if we keep the possible subordinate #'s the same. E.g. KG/Regt/Bde HQ's control x Bns - Div. HQ controls x Regts - Corps HQ controls x Divs et cetera et cetera et cetera. Again, x would be adjusted up or down by HQ proficiency. This seems to mirror real life. Also there would be a need to provide for direct unit attachments e.g. GHQ flak or any independant cos/bns. An attachment limit would be determined first by HQ level and then an appropriate # of co/bn/rgt equivalent building blocks so to speak.

Say, for example, a corps HQ of x% proficiency could handle a maximum of 11 Regiment equivalents or even break it down (fine tune) further to Bn or Co equivalents. Plug in 3 Divisions and Corps assets until that limit is reached. I'm thinking Companies as the lowest common denominator.