RE: Cross Attachments
Guys,
Request heard, but also be aware we try and build features that stay within historical norms.
A free for all regarding attachments might have big impacts on balance as well as 'ahistorical' formations.
Mixed formations had to train together for a period of time before they could effectively work together. The Allies in particular were quite poor in this regard and examples of attempts to create ad-hoc formations generally unsuccessful (read a little about the British armour in Operation Bluecoat).
The nice thing with Panzer Battles is that we normally cover discreet battles and usually for a day or less. If we think there was an existing cross attachment that was significant we then model it in the OB. There are a number of these already in Normandy under Kampfgruppe. This is less prevalent for the Allies who due to the number of units available had less need to build scratch units. That's not to say different formations didn't work together but in many case they were not integrated under single commands with appropriate doctrine. Of interest the US 'light' Armored Divisions are set up in Combat Commands while the two heavy's (2nd & 3rd) are in their more traditional regimental order of battle - this is a reflection of the lessons learned in the first 4 - 6 weeks after D-Day.
Later in the war, where there was more emphasis on Task Forces and Combat Commands for the Western Allies there is more likely hood that we build these directly into the OB or potentially adjust the cross attach function. This all an exercise in giving players flexibility where they should have it versus the actual historical norm of the time.
David
|