Matrix Games Forums

The manual says that 2 or more Soviet Rifle Brigades can build up into Rifle Divisions, effective from the start of the game.

How is this done? The 'b' key doesn't work. They are not Naval brigades, they have movement points remaining, I have plenty of AP's (though I don't see where there's an AP cost for this) and they're in movement mode. What am I missing?

I believe, its april or may 42, so until then you cant do it.

There's a mistake in the manual then.  Here's the exact language:
 
7.5.3.1. SOVIET BUILDUP AND BREAKDOWN AVAILABILITY
The Soviet ability to buildup or breakdown units is determined by date and type of unit as follows:
Rifle Division (22 June 41): Two or more rifle brigades can buildup into a rifle division. Note that Soviet rifle divisions may not breakdown into brigades. Naval brigades cannot buildup into divisions. See below for buildup of airborne brigades.

It is a known mistake, do you have the updated manual which came with one of the last patches?
 

It was changed in the early versions of the game, iirc.

Don't do it. 2 divisions and 1 brigade makes 1 corps, that's what you want.

i tried the buildup with 3 brigades in a hex - all that happened was my brigades disapeared. ill try it with 2 later - needed a unit with zoc and it wasnt rail accessible. ill remember the corps thing though.

V1.03 changed the rule.

Restricted Soviet Rifle brigades so they can’t merge into Rifle Divisions prior to May-
1942.


The manual just doesn't reflect the change.

ORIGINAL: sveint

Don't do it. 2 divisions and 1 brigade makes 1 corps, that's what you want.

Put another way, 5 brigades makes a corps.

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

ORIGINAL: sveint

Don't do it. 2 divisions and 1 brigade makes 1 corps, that's what you want.

Put another way, 5 brigades makes a corps.

Yes, but that's a waste. For every 2 brigades you use together with 4 divisions for making corps, you save 2 divisions for making a third corps. So using this reasoning 3 brigades makes a corps. [:)]

ORIGINAL: Fänrik Stål

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

ORIGINAL: sveint

Don't do it. 2 divisions and 1 brigade makes 1 corps, that's what you want.

Put another way, 5 brigades makes a corps.

Yes, but that's a waste. For every 2 brigades you use together with 4 divisions for making corps, you save 2 divisions for making a third corps. So using this reasoning 3 brigades makes a corps. [:)]

3 brigades and 6 divisions=21 brigade equivalents= 3 corps
5 brigades = 1 corps; 15 brigades = 3 corps = 6 fewer brigade equivalents.
The only thing you gain is fewer replacements needed to fill out the corps' TOEs. But the total AP cost is the same, and I'd rather have independent divisions rather than brigades.

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

ORIGINAL: Fänrik Stål

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz



Put another way, 5 brigades makes a corps.

Yes, but that's a waste. For every 2 brigades you use together with 4 divisions for making corps, you save 2 divisions for making a third corps. So using this reasoning 3 brigades makes a corps. [:)]

3 brigades and 6 divisions=21 brigade equivalents= 3 corps
5 brigades = 1 corps; 15 brigades = 3 corps = 6 fewer brigade equivalents.
The only thing you gain is fewer replacements needed to fill out the corps' TOEs. But the total AP cost is the same, and I'd rather have independent divisions rather than brigades.

Actually it is not. If you use two div and 1 bgd you will save 5 AP when building a corps; it takes longer to fill it out with replacements however. So it is simply a matter of what is importent to you: if AP then use 2+1, if time then use 3.

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz

ORIGINAL: Fänrik Stål

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz



Put another way, 5 brigades makes a corps.

Yes, but that's a waste. For every 2 brigades you use together with 4 divisions for making corps, you save 2 divisions for making a third corps. So using this reasoning 3 brigades makes a corps. [:)]

3 brigades and 6 divisions=21 brigade equivalents= 3 corps
5 brigades = 1 corps; 15 brigades = 3 corps = 6 fewer brigade equivalents.
The only thing you gain is fewer replacements needed to fill out the corps' TOEs. But the total AP cost is the same, and I'd rather have independent divisions rather than brigades.

The numbers are correct of course, but seeing that you already have the divisions on hand and don't have to make them from brigades, counting their brigade equivalents is irrelevant. If you have 15 brigades and 30 divisions, using my way you get 15 corps, using your way you get 13. I would argue that having more corps is preferable to having more independent divisions. But this may not apply to your style. The AP expenditure per corps is the same of course.

ORIGINAL: pompack



Actually it is not. If you use two div and 1 bgd you will save 5 AP when building a corps;

Really? I never noticed that.[:o]

If you want big, beefy, burly, and even overstrength rifle corps, use 3 divisions. Especially early on, when the rifle corps TOE is so low. (The first really good rifle corps TOE is in late 42.)

There's no economy in understrength rifle corps. God is on the side of the bigger battalions.

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

If you want big, beefy, burly, and even overstrength rifle corps, use 3 divisions. Especially early on, when the rifle corps TOE is so low. (The first really good rifle corps TOE is in late 42.)

There's no economy in understrength rifle corps. God is on the side of the bigger battalions.

Precisely, so I take the early 42 builds and put them in good rear positions to dig and train. My limiting factor is always AP so instead of using "use it or lose it" APs on a large stable of support units, I build weak, early-42-TOE infantry corp and let them slowly grow.

I use those APs for other things.

I don't understand why anybody would want to build a guards rifle corps with a brigade in it in 1942 (and early on, this is the only rifle corps worth building.)