|
ogar -> RE: OOB Information (1/24/2015 4:42:14 PM)
|
I wish this thread could be re-named and stickied, as it has developed in a useful discussion of HQs and formations and their limits -- thanks to Marquo for starting this. (I'll bet he did not expect it to drift off in all this theory vs his specific question !)
I agree with Curtis that all this asking for flexible attachment/detachment of units to a defined formation hierarchy _sounds_ good, but to have it work would mean a lot more detailed work by the gamer. I'm not sure most would approve of the extra work. (For the record, I'm one of the crowd lamenting the present, one-level, flat structure "formation" structure -- I still fire up the old Atomic Games once in a while to split off and re-attach units.) A defined command hierarchy would call for attachment/detachment rules (for subordinates and base units); it would also need command_specific supply sources (for example, VIII Corps pulls supply from location X) and rules to allow switching of supply sources (like changing formation objectives). As has been mentioned, there would also need to be span of control rules based on hierarchy, (and likely other things, proficiency, command experience...). These would help limit the end-result Curtis describes...
quote:
where you can scatter your units all over the place without much consequence.
And that would be a lot of work -- for the gamer as well as designer.
Back to Marquo's question,
other reasons that designers sometimes have only a few units per formation is the need to set differing objectives, and the need for differing qualities like Formation Supply or Proficiency, and then there's Formation Orders.
Example :So, while OOBs may list the dozen or so tank regiments and brigades attached to 48th Army as directly reporting to 48th Army, I put them in their own formation, and put the array of artillery regiments in their own formation, and the handful of direct report rifle divisions in a 3rd formation. Each formation has differing tasks and objectives, and this is one way to make a scenario resemble the history.
Of course, a different designer with a different view of the battles and the scope and duration he wants to cover may do it differently to get better effects - from his view -- from the formations.
|
|
|
|
