From the front lines in France and Russia to the deserts of North Africa and the airfields and convoys of Britain, the campaigns of World War II are yours to command in WW2: Time of Wrath! This turn-based grand strategy title, the highly improved and expanded sequel to WW2: Road to Victory, puts the player in charge of the political, economic and military decisions of one or more Axis or Allied nations, including minor nations.
A lot of us don't like that new units can be deployed outside the original borders of a country. It seems this cannot be changed in the game without adverse effects to the AI,
so house rules are how it is dealt with. I am playing a PBEM game where new units must be divisions and must be deployed in the home country. I have no problem with
purchasing units at corps level, if you can afford it should be your option. My problem is with upgrading from division to corps anywhere it suits the player.
I propose the following House Rule:
When upgrading a unit to corps size the player must disband 2 other divisions of the same type that are within movement range of the unit being upgraded.
Thereby simulating a consolidation of available units.
There would be no restriction on upgrading within the player's home country and this would not apply to air units.
JJMC
The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.
I would support that provided you got refunded for the costs of the two disbanded divisions.
I've always rather wished you just could not build corps, but rather you formed three divisions into corps, and the corp you got was dependant upon the divisonal constituents.
Well Yes. As it works now I can take a division and pay to upgrade it to a corp. That costs let's say 70pp. Let's also say each division costs 25pp and I get 8pp for disbanding.
If the rule becomes take 3 divisions upgrade one to a corp and deisband the other two.. it will cost 70pp to upgrade to the corp. I will get say 8pp for each division I disbanded, but I am now out two divisions. So I should get credit for 25pp txice which is 50pp minus the 8 pp twice I got for disbanding which is 16pp. So 50-16 = 34pp. I should get 34pp in credit back. Otherwise the cost to upgrade goes up substantially since you lose two divions you previously paid for when you upgrade.
I got no problem restricting corp upgrades outside of home territory.. but it shouldn't cost more.
Based on Level 1 units: 19.5 PPts to purchase an INF Corps vs 18 PPts for 3 Divisions.
An upgrade costs 13.5 + the initial 6 = the 19.5 / Disbanding generates 2.0 per Division
My proposed upgrade works out to be 18 + 13.5 - 2 - 2 = 27.5
A penalty of 8 PPts or +41% for the capability of consolidating units outside your homeland.
Another less costly approach would be to prohibit corps upgrade of front line units. Maybe require they be near a controlled city and must reinforce to 100% first without having to disband other units.
JJMC
The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.
When upgrading a unit to corps size the player must disband 2 other divisions of the same type that are within movement range of the unit being upgraded.
Thereby simulating a consolidation of available units.
There would be no restriction on upgrading within the player's home country and this would not apply to air units.
In order to create a corps, the player must disband a level-1 division which have the following criteria: (A) I must be located no more than two hexes (one intervening) from the unit to be upgraded, and (B) it must have had the ability to move before disbandment, even if it didn’t do this in order to fulfil criteria A, and (C) it must be of the same type as the unit to be upgraded (not same level).
So we're back to limiting purchases to divisions. Is this historic, did countries only create / mobilize units at division level then organize corps after ?
Where do you stand on the refund aspect ? Without one the cost I imagine would seem to be more prohibitive for higher level units if not an actual higher percentage than for Level 1 units. Any refund would have to be made through the F11 feature. Unless the amount generated by disbanding was adjusted.
Then there is issue of using units at different levels that Uxbridge mentioned.
JJMC
The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.
AH, I saw your initial post and had a think about it. Then I posted this morning without reading any of the above discussion.
Nevertheless, as I see it, the corps and divisions in the game aren't really excatly that. The map units are just "drawers" to have an infinite number of sub-units within. We refer to them as corps and divisions because it would sound odd to say big counters and small counters. What, for instance, is an air army?
So in my suggestion, there's no reference to historical organization per se. Regards where you form the corps, therefore, doesn't really matter in my thinking. You like to strengthen a part of the line, so you add a couple of brigades to that area and throw in a number of artillery regiments for good measure. Game-wise, on the other hand, there's a difference. The major part of the game will be fought in USSR, so if the Russians can form corps easily, while the Germans has to do it in a more complicated way, there might be an unbalancing factor at large. If any combatants were good at organization it was the Germans. So I think all nations should adhere to the rule.
Not to be to long about this, the house rule I proposed would give a number of solutions to some things I haven't really liked in the game.
A. When an attacker wants to smash the defence somewhere and decides to upgrade, he have to do this in his turn, wait for the opponents reaction, and can then attack only in his own preceeding turn. At that point the defender has had time to upgrade as well and maybe he does this immediately. This sometimes gives the defender initiative where it should lay with the attacker. It's purely a game technical thing, of course.
B. When the US player moves his units to Europe, he can transport them over the Atlantic as divisions, only upgrading when he is safe in England. This saves sea transport (and PP) and reduces losses in case of enemy naval activity. This is true also for operations in NA. With the rule this is no longer possible.
C. When defending, I have often used the tactic of deploying divisions in cities, upgrading only when the attacker seems to be closing. This way I can have a cheap defence in depth without actually paying for more than the part that eventually gets under real threat. With the new rule you have to be more resourceful than that and pre-plan the defence more carefully. The possibility to make a sudden upgrade to a sector threatened will also be more unlikely.
D. The rule will add a new and interesting side to the air system. In order to upgrade at desire, the players needs to have a number of ready level-1 divisions some distance behind the front. These could rather easily be attacked and destroyed by strong airforces, thus creating something not totally unlike interdiction operations.
E. If a player plans to have a larger offensive somewhere and wants to add striking power by upgrading, he needs to, just like the defensive player, plan ahead. That's something that I very much approve in a game.
But the rule will add a measure of micromanagement. That's the downside of it. [8|]
While +41% might not seem like much.. it very much is WAY too much. Your already requiring three divisions be in the proper place.. that is enough of a surcharge in my mind. It will require folks to manage units in the field.
I will point out that Armies Corps and Divisions were created OUTSIDE the home country in MANY instances in WWII. Particularly with moving divisions from one corp or army to another. Even army groups were handled thusly. To suppose nations could not form corps as easily outside of their home country is erroneous. The reason the base portion is good, that being that you cannot just upgrade a division to a corp is that is very much as if you could raise a pair of divisions in the middle of France or Libya or the USSR as Germany or Italy. THAT is what is unrealistic and should be prohibited. That there should be some PP penalty for organizing a corp out of existing constituent divisions is just not historical nor realistic.
In order to create a corps, the player must disband a level-1 division which have the following criteria: (A) I must be located no more than two hexes (one intervening) from the unit to be upgraded, and (B) it must have had the ability to move before disbandment, even if it didn’t do this in order to fulfil criteria A, and (C) it must be of the same type as the unit to be upgraded (not same level).
Must dash for work. Back later! [:)]
This seems extraordinarily onerous to me in a game with no stacking of units allowed. You're effectively forcing corps formation to occur only far behind the lines.
It would be a very different story if you could actually stack 3 divisions in a hex and then convert that to a corps. But what you propose is going to create a monumental traffic jam in the front -- and force players to make corps well to the rear.
All right. Yes, it will be rather a lot of clicking around. Let's discuss it further on the HQ (this being adressed only to Flaviusx), as it only concerns our game and not ToW in general. [:)]
I'm glad you were initially intrigued by my proposal but I'm having second thoughts also.
The gist of this thread is our mutual dissatisfaction with how units are deployed in the game. I would love it if there was no upgrading of any kind, level increase or division to corps. Along with the capability to consolidate units and restricted reinforcement of engaged/frontline units.
Back to unit creation, I have to assume that throughout the war the vast majority of units were raised within the countries involved.
Therefore to simplify the matter how about this:
Allow purchase of corps size units while restricting deployment to the home country with the exception of event generated colonials.
No upgrading of units, either type unless they can trace a land route back to their main supply source and that they are not within enemy ZOC.
Restrict reinforcement of frontline units to let's say 20% per turn.
JJMC
The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.
So, I'm mr Bridge now, am I? Wondered for a moment who this guy was. [:D]
Since this is only house rules, each group will have to decide seperately how to do it.
I have to admit that I'm still for my initial proposal. It will be much the same. In our game we need to buy and place a unit as 1-level division at first, then we can upgrade it to level-2, level-3 and so on. Then there's the option to make the corps. This is a lot of clicking anyway. If you at the same time as initial placemant just make a second 1-level unit and then disbands this in a later turn, there isn't so much fuss. This would be fairly the same as you propose above.
I don't like the idea of USSR producing it's units in the home country (which is the frontline) when Germany have to produce hers a long way, maybe months in transit, back.
Whoops, would have liked to elaborate a bit more, but the kids want me to come and watch Angels and demons. Will report back later. [:)]
I will point out that Armies Corps and Divisions were created OUTSIDE the home country in MANY instances in WWII. Particularly with moving divisions from one corp or army to another. Even army groups were handled thusly. To suppose nations could not form corps as easily outside of their home country is erroneous. The reason the base portion is good, that being that you cannot just upgrade a division to a corp is that is very much as if you could raise a pair of divisions in the middle of France or Libya or the USSR as Germany or Italy. THAT is what is unrealistic and should be prohibited. That there should be some PP penalty for organizing a corp out of existing constituent divisions is just not historical nor realistic.
Sure, but when the corps were created, they were probably created from divisions already in the same region. In TOW, you can upgrade a simple division to a corps without having to bring the reinforements needed to upgrade it by sea or rail. As if the additional soldiers and equipment needed could pop from thin air in the deserts of Lybia.
Michel Desjardins,
"Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"History is a set of lies agreed upon" - Napoleon Bonaparte after the battle of Waterloo, june 18th, 1815
When upgrading a unit to corps size the player must disband 2 other divisions of the same type that are within movement range of the unit being upgraded.
Thereby simulating a consolidation of available units.
There would be no restriction on upgrading within the player's home country and this would not apply to air units.
The Parker amendment -
A refund of PPts for the costs of the two disbanded divisions, administered through the F11 feature.
The Gardner amendment-
Require unit disbanding within home country also.
The Uxbridge variant -
In order to create a corps, the player must disband a level-1 division which have the following criteria:
(A) I must be located no more than two hexes (one intervening) from the unit to be upgraded, and
(B) it must have had the ability to move before disbandment, even if it didn’t do this in order to fulfil criteria A, and
(C) it must be of the same type as the unit to be upgraded (not same level).
Clarification -
Existing House Rule requires the player to buy and place a unit as 1-level division first, then upgrade it to level-2, level-3 and so on.
As for creating corps size units - at the time of initial placement purchase the 1-level units required for disbanding and then perform upgrade in a later turn.
My second proposal - in reaction to the extra cost/ penalty of disbanding units
Prohibit corps upgrade of front line units. Maybe require they be near a controlled city and must reinforce to 100% first without having to disband other units.
My third proposal - reacting to where deployment and upgrading should take place
Allow purchase of corps size units while restricting deployment to the home country with the exception of event generated colonials.
No upgrading of units, either type unless they can trace a land route back to their main supply source and that they are not within enemy ZOC.
Restrict reinforcement of frontline units to let's say 20% per turn.
Now all I have to do is make up my mind.
JJMC
The next best thing to being clever is being able to quote someone who is.
I will point out that Armies Corps and Divisions were created OUTSIDE the home country in MANY instances in WWII. Particularly with moving divisions from one corp or army to another. Even army groups were handled thusly. To suppose nations could not form corps as easily outside of their home country is erroneous. The reason the base portion is good, that being that you cannot just upgrade a division to a corp is that is very much as if you could raise a pair of divisions in the middle of France or Libya or the USSR as Germany or Italy. THAT is what is unrealistic and should be prohibited. That there should be some PP penalty for organizing a corp out of existing constituent divisions is just not historical nor realistic.
Sure, but when the corps were created, they were probably created from divisions already in the same region. In TOW, you can upgrade a simple division to a corps without having to bring the reinforements needed to upgrade it by sea or rail. As if the additional soldiers and equipment needed could pop from thin air in the deserts of Lybia.
I agree with you. I am just saying.. IF you have all the constituent parts in place in an area.. you should be just able to do it and make the corp, it shouldn't cost anything extra to do so. My examples are that in the field divisions were formed into corps almost on a regular basis. So if there is a rule restricting upgrading divisions to corps (which I think is a good rule to make) then it should do its utmost to basically be something like.
If you got three divisions of the same type pick the one with the lowest level, then the one with the most % damage. If the other two divisions could move to the chosen divisions hex, then you can upgrade the division to a corp by deleting the other two divisions, and upgrading the one remaining (the one that was lowest tech and most damaged). You then recoup the cost of construction for the two divisions you deleted minus what you received when you deleted them.
This makes it PP neutral, but does mean you have to have the parts in place in the field and reasonably close together to do it. If your still in your home territory you can just do the upgrade without these restrictions.
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.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite malfunction
