Matrix Games Forums

The base admin cost for changing the attachment of a div is the same no matter where that transfer is. (Ignore STAVKA and MDs).

In any well organisation Military, the controlling Army would have a number of Division under it's direct control. These would be used as reserves and/or to replace any front line Corps/Div when they ultimately become exhausted. In the game the Admin cost simulates this transfer well. My question is why are these cost not increased when transferring out of the Army, or even worse, out of the Front?

Agree, an aspect of WitE that could be done differently. Applies equally to Axis and Soviet, but resolution of simulation issues might be different. Why? How? my programming team is too busy right now to answer that.

Wait for 1.08

There has been a move towards this in the 1.8. To be honest not quite as far as I would like but it's still a lot more logical than we've had up till now.

Very interesting answer guys.   Wonder if WitW will incorporate it.

Surely the AP cost is just there to prevent people changing for nothing and encouraging them to follow historical practice of keeping constituent units close to the parent HQ?

The real and practical effects of changing might have been different dependent on whether the division was within the same higher HQ etc, but none of the effects would ever have been felt in the abstract like the AP is?

This all just exists to prevent players optimising play un-historically each turn.

The costs are an abstract mechanism, so I'm not sure reducing or increasing them based on historical data is actually addressing the point.

I would personally make all attachments etc free, but reduce things like MPs or the range of orders that could be given to reflect the temporary command dis-location.

Regards,
ID

ORIGINAL: IronDuke

Surely the AP cost is just there to prevent people changing for nothing and encouraging them to follow historical practice of keeping constituent units close to the parent HQ?

The real and practical effects of changing might have been different dependent on whether the division was within the same higher HQ etc, but none of the effects would ever have been felt in the abstract like the AP is?

This all just exists to prevent players optimising play un-historically each turn.

The costs are an abstract mechanism, so I'm not sure reducing or increasing them based on historical data is actually addressing the point.

I would personally make all attachments etc free, but reduce things like MPs or the range of orders that could be given to reflect the temporary command dis-location.

Regards,
ID

I agree it's an abstract way of doing it but it's nothing to do with historical data. You can't take any unit out of it's current organisation and put it into another and expect it to fighter efficiently immediately. Where they get they fuel, ammo, supply, intel, map making not to mention such thing as medical support, mister postman, the ammourer, radio frequencies and a hundred other things a unit needs. Although larger units like a div have their own support staff coving the internal stuff, linking it to the rest of the new organisation that causes the problem. Corps have support staff to carry out these links as do armies etc. but they still need to know where, what and when to be able to do it. All this of course is admin.

I do agree that some attachments should be free, such as moving a div between Army and Corps and maybe decrease the units ability to do anything other than move/defend for a turn if the attachment is out side of this. But I'm sure this has been looked at by the Devs.

ORIGINAL: Chris H
I do agree that some attachments should be free, such as moving a div between Army and Corps and maybe decrease the units ability to do anything other than move/defend for a turn if the attachment is out side of this. But I'm sure this has been looked at by the Devs.

Moving units down the chain of command is free under 1.8.

I've advocated in the past for some kind of penalty to be applied to newly attached units. Also to newly appointed leaders.