Corps Composition

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Corps Composition

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Corps Composition

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Corps Composition - 5/2/2017 4:56:29 PM

Bismarck2761

Posts: 89
Joined: 11/24/2012
Status: offline

I've raised this before - I think the Allies have too much flexibility with nationality restrictions for their Corps/Armies. I realize one could play with a house rule limiting cross-attachments for some Armies/Corps (Brits/US primarily). Any work afoot, though, to hard-code into the game?

Post #: 1

RE: Corps Composition - 5/3/2017 6:45:43 AM

IslandInland

Posts: 891
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bismarck2761

I've raised this before - I think the Allies have too much flexibility with nationality restrictions for their Corps/Armies. I realize one could play with a house rule limiting cross-attachments for some Armies/Corps (Brits/US primarily). Any work afoot, though, to hard-code into the game?

I hope not. Historically Allied formations were intermingled and I see no reason why the player shouldn't be allowed to do that in the game.

_____________________________

War In The East 2 Beta Tester and
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
XXXCorps

(in reply to Bismarck2761)

Post #: 2

RE: Corps Composition - 5/3/2017 8:13:20 AM

EddyBear81

Posts: 153
Joined: 2/10/2012
From: Lille, France
Status: offline

Agreed, it should be allowed, but the fact that you are 100% flexible is a little bit too much. There were some constraints (being French, I know some units refused to serve under British command), and sometimes the in-game command structure just looks ridiculous.
=> Perhaps a -1 penalty on leader checks (only on admin ?) could be a fair solution

(in reply to IslandInland)

Post #: 3

RE: Corps Composition - 5/3/2017 8:28:24 AM

IslandInland

Posts: 891
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline

I wouldn't mind an option to limit intermingling within the game preferences which could be switched on or off but I don't want a hardcoded rule. If people feel that strongly about it then they could just not do it in their games. I only play the AI and I don't want restrictions which for the most part were not present historically.

_____________________________

War In The East 2 Beta Tester and
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
XXXCorps

(in reply to EddyBear81)

Post #: 4

RE: Corps Composition - 5/3/2017 4:37:38 PM

Markojager

Posts: 17
Joined: 4/9/2014
Status: offline

I'll be good if they give a little penalty for international corps, more if you add differnt language troops to fight together (for example the 15th Army Group had troops from Canada, Indian, Poland, South Africa, Greece, Brazil and New Zealand, and the supply was more difficult than an all anglo or an all british or american army.

_____________________________

If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.

David Hackworth

(in reply to IslandInland)

Post #: 5

RE: Corps Composition - 5/3/2017 5:11:59 PM

IslandInland

Posts: 891
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Markjager

I'll be good if they give a little penalty for international corps, more if you add differnt language troops to fight together (for example the 15th Army Group had troops from Canada, Indian, Poland, South Africa, Greece, Brazil and New Zealand, and the supply was more difficult than an all anglo or an all british or american army.

The Canadians, South Africans and New Zealanders would have spoken English. The Indians were part of the British Indian Army and would have either spoken English or had British officers who spoke Hindi or some of the other Indian languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army#Second_World_War

The Poles, Brazilians and Greeks would need to find a few people who spoke English or the British and Americans a few people who spoke Polish, Portuguese and Greek. The Greeks were only present in brigade strength so they would have hardly brought the Army Group to a standstill had communication been a problem.

_____________________________

War In The East 2 Beta Tester and
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
XXXCorps

(in reply to Markojager)

Post #: 6

RE: Corps Composition - 5/3/2017 7:14:33 PM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

quote:

ORIGINAL: Markjager

I'll be good if they give a little penalty for international corps, more if you add differnt language troops to fight together (for example the 15th Army Group had troops from Canada, Indian, Poland, South Africa, Greece, Brazil and New Zealand, and the supply was more difficult than an all anglo or an all british or american army.

The Canadians, South Africans and New Zealanders would have spoken English. The Indians were part of the British Indian Army and would have either spoken English or had British officers who spoke Hindi or some of the other Indian languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Indian_Army#Second_World_War

The Poles, Brazilians and Greeks would need to find a few people who spoke English or the British and Americans a few people who spoke Polish, Portuguese and Greek. The Greeks were only present in brigade strength so they would have hardly brought the Army Group to a standstill had communication been a problem.

There was also the complication from the other direction. In the French Canadian formations, the enlisted men rarely spoke English so liaison had to go via the officers if they were in a purely anglophonic command group. Not sure but I think that was one of the reasons why Canadian units tended to operate under their own command - the other being that, like the Australian and NZ Govt, they didn't exactly trust the British (a legacy of WW1 experiences).

_____________________________

(in reply to IslandInland)

Post #: 7

RE: Corps Composition - 5/8/2017 1:38:58 PM

Bismarck2761

Posts: 89
Joined: 11/24/2012
Status: offline

I was thinking some restriction on support units. It seems very odd to load up the British XXX Corps with all-American corps artillery. But if folks don't think there's a concern (especially given advantages of using US HQs) so be it.

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 8

RE: Corps Composition - 5/9/2017 4:14:49 PM

Devonport

Posts: 167
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

I wouldn't want to see anything hard coded as we as players then have the choice. Personally I keep US and British troops apart at Corps level and mostly at army level, but in practice they were mixed (look at Corps that landed at Anzio for example). If there was to be anything to simulate practical issues it would be an impact on supplies to reflect incompatibility of ammo etc; but I don't think this is a priority for dev. time.

(in reply to Bismarck2761)

Post #: 9

RE: Corps Composition - 5/15/2017 5:23:02 PM

Bismarck2761

Posts: 89
Joined: 11/24/2012
Status: offline

I think it would be easy and worthwhile to impose a 10% penalty for certain mixed commands (e.g., US/CW; CW/FR).

(in reply to Devonport)

Post #: 10

RE: Corps Composition - 5/15/2017 8:01:41 PM

Gunnulf

Posts: 686
Joined: 10/31/2012
Status: offline

I'm definitely in the same camp as Devonport, I always try use a self imposed rule to keep US and Commonwealth corps unique across all theatres. Armies in Italy I allow to have mixed nationality corps, but NWE only canadian & British mix it up together. The French I allow myself to mix up with the US, and Polish with the British or Canadians. The only other exceptions are Airborne units which I always allow to be inter-allied. In terms of support units I absolutely only use artillery with the correct higher command along the US/CW divide, though I know some artillery would be available to support allies in some cases of course.

The reasons for me come down to doctrine, command and control and most importantly by a long way logistics. A British corps logistics train would have great difficulty supplying any US units under their command the correct ammo smoothly and efficiently. Not impossible, but certainly sub-optimally. C2C was between US and British command was not without friction, jealousy and rivalry - again not unworkable but certainly sub-optimal. As Bismarck points out a simple % penalty would provide a small combat penalty to discourage the mixing, without making it impossible as clearly it did happen at times. As present divisions under different HQ fighting together receive a C2C penalty, but national difference should be just as important an impact on co-ordination. Less easy maybe would be a supply penalty for being under the 'wrong' corps, but I'm sure that is harder to impliment and test.

Not a huge drama obviously as those who want to play this way can just implement their own rule, and honestly I haven't found it at all restrictive in terms of results, and I feel better playing that way. I can see that others are more relaxed about it and want to mix it up for optimisation purposes, or just more fluid play. I'll wince a little maybe but either way its not a huge drama really I'm sure.

_____________________________

"Stay low, move fast"

(in reply to Bismarck2761)

Post #: 11

RE: Corps Composition - 5/16/2017 9:28:42 AM

Bismarck2761

Posts: 89
Joined: 11/24/2012
Status: offline

Concrete proposal: In next patch, make it an *option* that when mixing beyond the historic parameters, apply some sort of deduction (e.g., 10%). Perhaps more when the British/French mix. ;-)

(in reply to Gunnulf)

Post #: 12

RE: Corps Composition - 5/16/2017 9:37:49 AM

Devonport

Posts: 167
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

What are you suggesting is deducted? And how would you define the historic parameters?

(in reply to Bismarck2761)

Post #: 13

RE: Corps Composition - 5/16/2017 9:43:18 AM

loki100

Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bismarck2761

Concrete proposal: In next patch, make it an *option* that when mixing beyond the historic parameters, apply some sort of deduction (e.g., 10%). Perhaps more when the British/French mix. ;-)

Problem is there are a lot of sensible restrictions that can be applied to the allied player. Beyond the SU issue in this thread two obvious ones are not to strip the UK of tac bombers in 1943 for the Italian campaign and not to remove Australian, New Zealand, S African, Greek etc units from the Med (all for different political reasons).

In a vs AI game, all good and sensible stuff.

But in PBEM, unfortunately some players are very win focussed and generally in the WiTE/W series there are few role playing constraints built into the rule set. So if the axis player wants to operate purely in terms of the VP parameters (and believe me, some do) then its essential that the Allied player is not constrained.

Its a tricky one as I like historical constraints (one of the many reasons I like the AGEOD series) but they have to be balanced and also useable by the AI. Or done purely as an agreement to not abuse the potential of the game engine.

In the main WiTW has been less subject to this type of behaviour but it has long bedevilled WiTE.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bismarck2761)

Post #: 14

RE: Corps Composition - 5/16/2017 9:50:20 AM

Devonport

Posts: 167
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

I really don't see why the issue can't simply be addressed by self-restraint if playing the AI or House Rules in a PBEM if people think it is a problem. Why mess with it for those who want to play the way they want. As I said, I exercise self restraint, as I do wth the other issues loki raises, and it works perfectly

(in reply to loki100)

Post #: 15

RE: Corps Composition - 5/16/2017 12:18:33 PM

IslandInland

Posts: 891
Joined: 12/8/2014
From: YORKSHIRE
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Devonport

I really don't see why the issue can't simply be addressed by self-restraint if playing the AI or House Rules in a PBEM if people think it is a problem. Why mess with it for those who want to play the way they want. As I said, I exercise self restraint, as I do wth the other issues loki raises, and it works perfectly

That's what I was intimating in one of my earlier posts.

If people feel that strongly about it then don't do it. It really is as simple as that. If people feel it's somehow "wrong" then don't mix nationalities at corps level or even at army level.

If such a rule were to be introduced I would also expect a similar penalty for mixing Italian and German units at corps level.

_____________________________

War In The East 2 Beta Tester and
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
XXXCorps

(in reply to Devonport)

Post #: 16

RE: Corps Composition - 5/16/2017 9:54:50 PM

HMSWarspite

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline

I have commented before that the real issue I see is seamless transfer of divisions to other corps without penalty. In reality there ought to be a week or two where they don't quite gel properly. I hate that you can swap command half way through the turn (in the midst of an encirclement operation say). This restriction would limit the swapping around. It would also allow am assignment to another nationality to have a bigger deficit, which takes longer to wear off. Say attaching to a new HQ takes 10% off unit morale (not because I am saying the morale actually drops, but to simulate a loss of effectiveness). this could be doubled for attaching cross nationally. This could then be recovered at say 10% per week (so T1, change attachment. T1 & 2 have a 10% loss, T3 back to normal. For foreign units, 20% loss T1&2, 10% T3, normal T4). I will have the wronng magnitude and parameter but you get the point - it forces planning and measured change over the 'swap 'em round every week approach. Could also do it with SU permanent attachments (not HQ throwing them into support a unit in combat)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to IslandInland)

Post #: 17

RE: Corps Composition - 5/16/2017 11:07:38 PM

Joel Billings