Chaning attachments

James Ward · 01-21-2009, 07:30 AM,

JDR Dragoon Wrote:
James Ward Wrote:Regarding attachments is there a limit or penalty for overloading a corp HQ with attached units? For example could I attach 10 German divisions to a corp HQ that started out with 3 divisions attached?

I don´t think so. But you might have a hard time keeping the Corps HQ within range of all it´s 10 division and their respective HQ´s. And if you can´t do that, why bother?

When they are 1 battalion remnants of a division it's no problem :)

JDR Dragoon · 01-21-2009, 07:57 AM,

James Ward Wrote:When they are 1 battalion remnants of a division it's no problem :)

Glenn Saunders · 01-21-2009, 09:11 AM,

Guys:

What were seeing here guys is actually a bit of custom coding done by John Tiller. I'll try to keep it simple or as simpleas I can.

The Attachment Rules are or were designed for assigining divisions to different Corps.

What it does is assign Division units (which include Corps Troops and in some cases KGs and Combat Commands) within available Corps.

However, if you notice the Soviet Corps structure was largely destroyed in the early war and because the Soviets didn't have enough staff officers to go around, I spoke with John and we made a special case that for PzC Soviets, teh Corps attachment rules would work for Divisions and Corps (Mainly Cav Corps and in later periods Tank and Mech Corps) to move within Army units.

Generally the Cav Corps were kept together and Cav Divisions were not spun off to different Corps or Army - the Cav Corps remained together, so it all worked fine. Tank\Mech Corps are made up of Brigades and again these formations stayed together so here again the Corps can move between Armies.

The last spin on this rule is for Modern Campaigns #1 - ME67. What we have here is another special case where the rules work for Israeli Brigades to move between various divisions because the Israeli Army is built on a Brigade structure and they freqently moved the Bridges around into larger KG type formations which was named after the Commander. So instead of the 2nd Division for example it was "Sharon Division" commanded by General Ariel Sharon.

Glenn

FM WarB · 01-21-2009, 09:52 PM,

Glenn,
Great job, as soviet tank and mech corps were division equivalents.

My pie in the sky custom coding would have a second class of attachment capability for Americans and Germans. Batalions could cross attach to different regiment/brgades within their Divisions to flexibly form Combat Commands and Kampfgruppen.

It's winter, and I'm looking at the Bulge, again :)

Glenn Saunders · 01-22-2009, 02:15 AM,

FM WarB Wrote:My pie in the sky custom coding would have a second class of attachment capability for Americans and Germans. Batalions could cross attach to different regiment/brgades within their Divisions to flexibly form Combat Commands and Kampfgruppen.

We feel this would add complexity without offering a whole lot to the game I am afraid.

Outlaw Josey Wales · 01-22-2009, 04:44 AM,

I see where they are going. It seems to me tho that if you were to be able to form different KGs/TFs, there should be all rgt HQs in the game and be listed in the attachments window as a choice to assign units to them. I've thought about this before and liked it, but don't want it to turn out gamey, just somewhat historical. Example....Bulge, 106 Div remnants and 112 Rgt of the 28 Div were attached to 7 Arm Div for a little while. I think if it was to happen, the extra HQs would have to be added to make it work as far as creating KG/TFs. If remnants were to be attached to other Divs, it seems that all the units would have to be on the attachments list to be able to be reassigned to other HQs.

Let me know if any of this is on the right track or at least makes some kind of sense.

Thanks

Glenn Saunders · 01-22-2009, 12:09 PM,

> Example....Bulge, 106 Div remnants and 112 Rgt of the 28 Div were attached to 7 Arm Div for a little while. I think if it was to happen, the extra HQs would have to be added to make it work as far as creating KG/TFs.

Well, I don't want to give you false hope but I don't see this happening.

The way I look at it is like this - using your example. Can the 112 Rgt of the 28th Div, work with the 7th Arm Div in the game, using the existing HQs and command rules or was this Div so far away from Div HQ that it is impossible for them to function with the same effectiveness?

I can't imagine the remnants of the 106th would be very effecive, but in any case having the Div and Bridge HQs in the same area of the 7th Arm HQs would have the same effect.

But if you can show that this particular 112 Regt of the 28th can't do what they did historically (and I asmit that ever action can't be done by the game either) then we might have a case where we need to adjust the HQ command range of either\and the DIv and Rgt HQ so that the game engine can accomodate this situation.

Our feeling is the Corps Attachment Rules are complex enough as they are when you consider that things are all kept track of in lists. And there are some Huges OOBs like France 40 which would be quite unmanagle at this level of detail.

Glenn

Outlaw Josey Wales · 01-22-2009, 11:51 PM,

Howdy,

Your last comment about OOBs is pretty much what I thought, every unit would have to be on the list. Whether a lot or a little coding was to be involved, the OOBs would be a lot of time consuming typing by itself. If it was to ever happen, would be a very long term project unless it could be overcome by copy and paste from the organization menu. Wouldn't be so long then, but still time consuming.

As for 112 Rgt at the Bulge, they had gotten separated from the 28 div on the south side of the Bulge, ending up on the north side. Most people don't play with the air/arty strike by map, so if 112 is north of the Bulge, they don't have any arty support unless they can also save the arty that starts the game near them.

So I figure if anything like this idea was to happen, it would be more like all rgt/bde/KG/TF hqs would be added to the game and assignment list and all div and higher hqs would be on the assigned to list so that a person can reassign a rgt to another div. Another example would be CCB 10 Arm reassigned to 101 AB at Bastogne.

I've never noticed.....if for example, CCB 10 Arm and 101 Div are both attached to VIII Corps, are units of CCB able to spot for and use 101 Div arty for their support?

So in the end, if anything like this was to be possible, it would only go as low as rgt/bde hqs that could be reassigned to other div/corps if need be.

Thanks again for taking the time to look at this novel.

Mark

Dog Soldier · 01-23-2009, 02:33 PM,

I think in this thread I should mention that historically commanders were very reluctant to have units torn from their command and given to some one else. While this did happen and is recorded in books we read, what is not recorded is how many of these heated discussions were won by the commander who wanted to retain his formations.

Then there is the whole aspect that as a player we can know things that would influence our decisions on attachments that commanders on the ground would not know or would learn about too late to do anything that would make a difference. The penalty to only allow attachments on the midnight turn helps to simulate this issue.

Dog Soldier

Dog Soldier · (This post was last modified: 01-23-2009, 02:40 PM by Dog Soldier.)

Outlaw Josey Wales Wrote:I've never noticed.....if for example, CCB 10 Arm and 101 Div are both attached to VIII Corps, are units of CCB able to spot for and use 101 Div arty for their support?

VIII Corps artillery could attempt fire missions for both units. I think if CCB 10th Arm asked for scarce 101 artillery ammunition in the surrounded Bastogne, they would only get Nuts!

Dog Soldier