SU Attachment

[jhdeerslayer]

The logic for when you can Assign SU's or not to say a HQ is baffling at times so I must be missing a key point.

1. Sometimes you cannot Assign a SU from a higher level HQ but that higher level HQ can change the SU HQ to the
lower HQ and you get your SU that way. Why is that? Shouldn't it be two ways? Does this approach have to follow
command structure?

2. Does water restrict SU assignment? I have 8th Army in Sicily and it cannot assign or be assigned SU's from a higher up HQ that is
in it's command link such as AFHQ and 15th (AAI).

Any help appreciated. I can send SU's (by changing HQ only) from UK Home Forces HQ to N Africa so I'm really confused.

[NotOneStepBack]

Water does restrict SU assignment. I think it's something that should be looked at. Perhaps they should be able to be assigned across water using ships and rules the same as CU's...

[Banquet]

Sorry to hijack this thread, but on similar lines can someone explain what the benefits of assigning certain su's are? I had a mountain (brigade?) and assigned it to an HQ. The brigage had 2 CV but the HQ was still 0 CV after it was assigned. So what's the benefit of taking a brigade/regiment sized unit that can move and attack independently and assigning it so that it loses it's ability to move and loses its attacking ability?

[marion61]

A HQ won't have a CV as they cannot attack and flee if alone. They can assign the SU to a combat unit attached to it, but it can not fight alone.

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: meklore61

A HQ won't have a CV as they cannot attack and flee if alone. They can assign the SU to a combat unit attached to it, but it can not fight alone.

Thanks, so was I a bit silly to attach a combat unit to an HQ if it can't attack?

[marion61]

Not at all, because if the SU is attached to the HQ it can potentially be used by any of the units attached to it, or you can assign them directly to the division. My philosophy is to assign eng., anti tank, and armor su's to divisions and leave the arty and stuff like that in the HQ to support the attack from behind the lines.

[Banquet]

Thanks, that makes sense

[Smirfy]

Water or enciclement does not seem to effect the the AI's ability to teleport support units or Panzer Gren Brigades. Having played one campaign and I admit Im no expert but it appears Allied support units are pretty useles. The Axis have a clear artillery superiority plus its largely organic. Third rate Axis units are just too difficult to shift. A shell is a weapon and the Allies had a lot more of them, they also appear ot have had a organisation called AGRA which appears to have behaved like a Russian artillery division in WITE. Think we need AGRA units to simulate the Allied artillery superiority that the manual mentions.

[jnpoint]

Sorry for this silly question, but why have 'support units'? Why isn't it not just 'units'? In stead of having 'artillery support units', it's just 'artillery units'. I don't know much of real warfare, so bear with me. Is my question intelligible at all?

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: jnpoint

Sorry for this silly question, but why have 'support units'? Why isn't it not just 'units'? In stead of having 'artillery support units', it's just 'artillery units'. I don't know much of real warfare, so bear with me. Is my question intelligible at all?

not a daft question.

my feeling is that most armies in this era kept assets at corps/army level and assigned them on need - so some key and rare assets were given to specific operations. So some SUs reflect that sort of asset. Also a lot of armies allocated medium artillery as organic to the division but kept the heavier guns back.

so the SUs reflect all those specialist parts of the OOB. Then you have two ways to get them into battle. Either attach to a particular division, for a reason. Say give a normal infantry division a tank or tank destroyer formation either because there is no specialist armour on a sector or to enable them to deal with enemy tanks.

In essence, the basic divisional TOE is the norm, a sort of balanced all round construction (which varies radically by army), the SUs then allow a degree of tailoring or enhancing that.

[Smirfy]

Essentially its to give the game flavour, support units were attached to various division depending on the mission and it gives the illusion that there is a command structure and commander ability to influence battles. It would get messy if there were battalions running round everywhere so it helps map clutter. Now its absolutely fun with the Germans because you have Stug Battalions and Heavy Tank Battalions etc in WiTE and I assume in WiTW As the Russians in WiTE cause you have everything from Ski Battalions through Motorcycle Battalions to Heavy Tank regiments and loads of them its fun just doing attachments. But the Rub is Both the Russian and German stuff is ideal for attaching directly to divisions making it fun to custom units. When you look through the choice the Allies have its bland pretty much just artillery which operated in Corps groups (in the Bitish Army anyway) so should just be units to save fapping about. We might be able to shift security regiments with them also.

[loki100]

I think you are missing a key element. By 43 and especially by 44, the Western Allies were equipment rich so their default divisional OOB was much more an all round formation than anything the Germans or Soviets had.

I can't say anything about German practice but the Soviets from 43 on were into radical prioritisation. So if an army seen as elite (and this was not just Gds or Shock, in fact 2 Shock was poorly equipped) it got the tools to break the line - heavy artillery, katyushas, heavy SUs, and from 44 heavy tanks. If it went into reserve a lot of this stuff was stripped out and sent elsewhere.

But run of the mill Soviet armies limped on with their generic TOE and very little additional assets.

[Smirfy]

Thats exactly the point. There is absolutely no point to the game system with the Allies. The Axis and Russians sure its *Fun* but what is happening is in my campaign the Italian scenario the Axis have more artillery than the Allies and its organic and they get the non artillery attachments. Now maybe thats historic, I dont know and right now I cant be arsed to look, Ive just had a couple of teleporting PG divisions ruin my game and a security regiment stop 80,000 men with artillery support. But I know what is historic the Allies had more shells. The allied attachment should then be a shed load of shells to expend rather than the guns themselves who should just be units. Now that would be fun, that would mean some fun planning.

[NotOneStepBack]

Play humans my friend

[Smirfy]

That won't solve the obvious fact that an artillery piece without ammunition was just an Innate object. WitW has got artillery fundamentally wrong. as for humans the The game was advertized as having an AI and we are reasonable enough for the AI to get some help but Witw AI mugs you. it like playing against the Galactic Federation rather than a mid 20th century army