Chief Rudiger
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Oban (Scotland)

9 Unit or 33 Element Limit on Divisions?

Sat Nov 27, 2010 10:57 pm

From the in game tooltip it appears a division can now hold 33 elements yet there seems to be a limit on the number of units that can be combined into a division.

For example, in the Ice March scenario you may combine 9 Don Cossack single element Infantry/Cav units into a weak division or equally 8 single element units plus the one multi element cossack unit (c/w light arty and cav) for a total of 12 elements!

The same happens in the Finnish Civil War scenario where the you can only create 18 element divisions if you use the 2 element Red/White Guard units but much larger ones if you combine the multi element Jaeger or Swedish Volunteer units.

Is this 9 unit limit Working As Designned or is it a bug?

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Sat Nov 27, 2010 11:00 pm

Chief Rudiger wrote:From the in game tooltip it appears a division can now hold 33 elements yet there seems to be a limit on the number of units that can be combined into a division.

For example, in the Ice March scenario you may combine 9 Don Cossack single element Infantry/Cav units into a weak division or equally 8 single element units plus the one multi element cossack unit (c/w light arty and cav) for a total of 12 elements!

The same happens in the Finnish Civil War scenario where the you can only create 18 element divisions if you use the 2 element Red/White Guard units but much larger ones if you combine the multi element Jaeger or Swedish Volunteer units.

Is this 9 unit limit Working As Designned or is it a bug?


WAD. It limits creation of overpowered divisions but lets the possibility to regroup elements to ease micromanagement.
[LEFT]Disabled
[CENTER][LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/

[/LEFT]
[/CENTER]



[/LEFT]

wosung
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:58 pm

Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:19 am

Clovis wrote:WAD. It limits creation of overpowered divisions but lets the possibility to regroup elements to ease micromanagement.


Hmm. this aspect I find a bit confusing compared to AACW. Here you can combine several divisions under a one (?!) or two star general just with the + button. Then you'll get something named "corps" or even "army". But this very unit also is still labelled "XX", thus probably indicating it's operationally still not a corps in the AACW sense: It isn't corps of an army, marchting to the sound of the drums, meaning it probably can't cooperate with sister and parent units on a trans-regional way.

Regards

User avatar
OneArmedMexican
General
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:14 pm

Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:50 am

Clovis wrote:WAD. It limits creation of overpowered divisions but lets the possibility to regroup elements to ease micromanagement.


I think this is actually a very smart choice. It mostly limits the White player since most his units contain only one element. This reflects the historic realities rather nicely.

On the other hand, it gives the Red free reign to create huge divisions which can serve as a counter-balance to the white elite forces.

Once the Red side will get more ressources to pay for the required troops this will be a lot of fun.

Chief Rudiger
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Oban (Scotland)

Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:34 am

I've just completed the Ice March scenario as the Reds and noticed the "Division" recruitable units become available after one of the Red Army events. However, most of these comprise only around 4 Inf Bn, not ~15,000 men as is the norm.

Osprey's Men at Arms "Russian Army 1914-18" gives a 1914 Russian Division as 4 Regt of 4 Bn each plus an Artillery Brigade of 6 Batteries of 8 Guns each (total 16 Bn, 48 guns). This was apparently reduced by 4 Bn as the war went on, but who's counting?.

Why have you choosen to name what looks to me like a Regiment as a Division? I thought i read in the manual that Red elements could be significantly larger than the Whites, like representing a 4 Bn Regt as one 4,000 man element, but this doesn't seem to be - the recruitable Division is just four 1,000 man battalions. I'm confused!

You could simulate the 1914-18 Division by recruiting three or four 4 Inf/1 Art Regiments/"Divisions" and two additional field gun batteries, for 6 elements. This would be similar to AACW.

The 1914-18 Corp is listed as two such Divisions plus a Howitzer Brigade of two 6 Gun Batteries and a Sapper Bn. Again, nicely reproducable in the game, perhaps with some attached Cavalry for detection bonus and the odd Service Unit.

Naming a 3-4 Bn Element a Division seems odd, not least because Osprey's Men at Arms "Russian Civil War: Red Army" lists the original Red Army "Division" paper strength at ~50,000, (more like a Corp) with 3 Bn per Regt and 3 Regt per Brigade and 3 Brigades per Division! It is mentionned that such Divisions existed largely only on paper and that Brigades were "eventually abolished", but still, it's saying a Division is 50,000, I'm thinking 15,000 and you're saying its 4,000?!

What's your rationale?

:blink:

Chief Rudiger
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Oban (Scotland)

Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:54 am

OneArmedMexican wrote:I think this is actually a very smart choice. It mostly limits the White player since most his units contain only one element. This reflects the historic realities rather nicely.

On the other hand, it gives the Red free reign to create huge divisions which can serve as a counter-balance to the white elite forces.

Once the Red side will get more ressources to pay for the required troops this will be a lot of fun.


I would agree, much like preventing the Confederates from forming Divisions too early on and forcing them to keep Brigades directly subordinate to Corps. What i'm not seeing is how a Bde size force constitues a Division!

wosung wrote:Hmm. this aspect I find a bit confusing compared to AACW. Here you can combine several divisions under a one (?!) or two star general just with the + button. Then you'll get something named "corps" or even "army". But this very unit also is still labelled "XX", thus probably indicating it's operationally still not a corps in the AACW sense: It isn't corps of an army, marchting to the sound of the drums, meaning it probably can't cooperate with sister and parent units on a trans-regional way.


I understand that the Soviet practice was to subordinate half a dozen Divisions directly to an Army, so missing out the need for Corp HQ's, which in an inflexible system such as theirs were perhaps less necessary, and certainly not attainable when the lacked qualified commanders (after the purges) and equipment to equip a Corp HQ... but otherwise the Soviet system seems fairly straight forward, especially when they call their Airforces Corps and Divisions too, rather than funny Wings and Groups like in the RAF, or American Armoured Combat Commands or British Army Regiments whose Battalions don't fight together under a "Regimental" HQ...

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Sun Nov 28, 2010 8:21 am

Chief Rudiger wrote:I've just completed the Ice March scenario as the Reds and noticed the "Division" recruitable units become available after one of the Red Army events. However, most of these comprise only around 4 Inf Bn, not ~15,000 men as is the norm.

Osprey's Men at Arms "Russian Army 1914-18" gives a 1914 Russian Division as 4 Regt of 4 Bn each plus an Artillery Brigade of 6 Batteries of 8 Guns each (total 16 Bn, 48 guns). This was apparently reduced by 4 Bn as the war went on, but who's counting?.

Why have you choosen to name what looks to me like a Regiment as a Division? I thought i read in the manual that Red elements could be significantly larger than the Whites, like representing a 4 Bn Regt as one 4,000 man element, but this doesn't seem to be - the recruitable Division is just four 1,000 man battalions. I'm confused!

You could simulate the 1914-18 Division by recruiting three or four 4 Inf/1 Art Regiments/"Divisions" and two additional field gun batteries, for 6 elements. This would be similar to AACW.

The 1914-18 Corp is listed as two such Divisions plus a Howitzer Brigade of two 6 Gun Batteries and a Sapper Bn. Again, nicely reproducable in the game, perhaps with some attached Cavalry for detection bonus and the odd Service Unit.

Naming a 3-4 Bn Element a Division seems odd, not least because Osprey's Men at Arms "Russian Civil War: Red Army" lists the original Red Army "Division" paper strength at ~50,000, (more like a Corp) with 3 Bn per Regt and 3 Regt per Brigade and 3 Brigades per Division! It is mentionned that such Divisions existed largely only on paper and that Brigades were "eventually abolished", but still, it's saying a Division is 50,000, I'm thinking 15,000 and you're saying its 4,000?!

What's your rationale?

:blink:


Red Army organization was very different in 1917 until summer 18 . Osprey is describing what Red made after summer 18. You will note how different indeed Soviet units are in november 18 scenario.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

wosung
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 12:58 pm

Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:39 pm

Related to this threads subject:

Do administrative costs for enabling divisons also are to be paid when I still undo them in the very same turn?

(In AACW and ROP it never seemed crucial to me, not so on a Red shoestring.)


Regards

Edit: What about promoting officers and undo this in the very same turn. Are eventual losses in seniority and national moral still to be paid?

User avatar
OneArmedMexican
General
Posts: 582
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 4:14 pm

Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:16 pm

The costs occur when the turn is resolved. Meaning there is no harm in taking them back until you press the next turn button (this is also stated in the tooltip).

Chief Rudiger
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Oban (Scotland)

Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:52 pm

Clovis wrote:Red Army organization was very different in 1917 until summer 18 . Osprey is describing what Red made after summer 18. You will note how different indeed Soviet units are in november 18 scenario.


I still don't get it. I am going on the principal that one Inf element = 1 full strength Infantry Battalion of 1000 men. Are you taking 1000 men to be the "bayonet strength" of a Regiment, of three Battalions, and excluding the "service assets"? I could understand this approach were it WW2, but not in this time period when there was less tail to teeth.

I looked at the other scenario start units and build options and in both the Nov 1918 scenario and Hypothetical Russo German one both the starting "divisions" and the recruitable "division" units compose no more than 5 inf, 1 art and 1 cav. This is the same as in all other scenarios - am i missing a difference?

You also call the 1000 man inf elements of these divisions "1st Moscow Regiment", "2nd Moscow Regt..." etc which, as above, i do not understand.

I just don't get how you can "enable division command" on a leader and combine three or four of these "divisions" into one.... DIVISION... Why call the components "Divisions" when they are Brigade?!

HELP

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Mon Nov 29, 2010 10:56 pm

Chief Rudiger wrote:I still don't get it. I am going on the principal that one Inf element = 1 full strength Infantry Battalion of 1000 men. Are you taking 1000 men to be the "bayonet strength" of a Regiment, of three Battalions, and excluding the "service assets"? I could understand this approach were it WW2, but not in this time period when there was less tail to teeth.

I looked at the other scenario start units and build options and in both the Nov 1918 scenario and Hypothetical Russo German one both the starting "divisions" and the recruitable "division" units compose no more than 5 inf, 1 art and 1 cav. This is the same as in all other scenarios - am i missing a difference?

You also call the 1000 man inf elements of these divisions "1st Moscow Regiment", "2nd Moscow Regt..." etc which, as above, i do not understand.

I just don't get how you can "enable division command" on a leader and combine three or four of these "divisions" into one.... DIVISION... Why call the components "Divisions" when they are Brigade?!

HELP


just because Soviet theorical TOEs and reality had very few common ground to say the last. What they named divisions, on paper composed of 50,000 men , were most often under 5,000 during the war.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

User avatar
Cat Lord
Posts: 1806
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 2:07 pm
Location: Lausanne, Suisse

Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:20 am

IIRC my historical research on the conflict, the ratio of "soldiers fit and equiped to fight" vs total soldiers (and I am talking about soldiers here, not second line and service troops), was between 1/4 and 1/10. I.e. very low.

Cat
[CENTER]
Image[/CENTER]

Chief Rudiger
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Oban (Scotland)

Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:53 pm

Re:

Cat Lord wrote:IIRC my historical research on the conflict, the ratio of "soldiers fit and equiped to fight" vs total soldiers (and I am talking about soldiers here, not second line and service troops), was between 1/4 and 1/10. I.e. very low.

Cat


& Clovis

I can appreciate that units often operated significantly understrength but when raising fresh troops they should initially be at paper strength. The engine will easily diminish these units to historic levels unless they are properly handled and perhaps encourage the player to fight with more manageable ad hoc forces, like in real life, less they never achieve anything for being too precious about their toy soldiers.

Also, i thought the engine already simulated the ratio of "soldiers fit and equiped to fight" vs total soldiers as cohesion. I though cohesion loss represents the easily recoverable drop in combat efficiency due to sickness and minor injury. In game, a large force with a lot of sick, injured and stragglers still has a high ration strength but not much combat power, hence the difficulty and enjoyment of the operational level of the game. If you represent a Division as 4-5,000 men then you are doubling factoring this factor, if that makes sense, and not encouraging proper husbandry.

Why not represent a Division as 12+ Bn or 3+ Regts (super 3000 man inf elements) and increase the cohesion loss effects of movement and combat so that massive formations lacking command point become totally inefficient if asked to do anything too taxing? This would make defensive battles easy to win, as was the tactical paradigm, and emphasize the usefulness of high cohesion units and cohesion boosting generals and service assets for offensive action.

It would also reward the player who skirmishes with light forces and sends advance guards ahead to secure military control of area so that the delicate main force can move in for the kill without loosing too much cohesion. This would also emphasize the historical rail-bounded-ness of modern supply hungry armies.

Additionally, If you wanted to simulate the situation where men are called to the colours but don't recieve the proper equipment and training then perhaps you could have a two phase "building" system where the unit first gains "hits" (i.e. men) during the notmal build period, then become unlocked, but only then gains cohesion and therefore combat power.

For example: If a unit were raised in a remote level 1 city without a depot then it might take yonks to build up enough cohesion whereas if you built the same unit in a level 3 city, with depot, it would very quickly become truly operational.

This initial cohesion gain might work on a law of diminishing returns principle to represent formations being armed with any old rifles or shot guns but not recieving light and heavy machine guns, mortars and other equipment until later.

Just an idea.

User avatar
Clovis
Posts: 3222
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:43 pm
Location: in a graveyard
Contact: Website

Tue Nov 30, 2010 11:57 pm

Chief Rudiger wrote:Re:



& Clovis

I can appreciate that units often operated significantly understrength but when raising fresh troops they should initially be at paper strength. .


That would have been logical but it wasn't the case. Fictional TOEs were never implemented and RUS is abstracting much things as I'm rather sure no one Red division has exactly the same real organization.
[LEFT]Disabled

[CENTER][LEFT]

[/LEFT]

[LEFT]SVF news: http://struggleformodding.wordpress.com/



[/LEFT]

[/CENTER]







[/LEFT]

Chief Rudiger
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Oban (Scotland)

Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:46 am

But its not just the Russians during the turmoil of the Civil War that you are representing in this way but also the regular International contingents which arrive and later, in the Polish-Soviet War, you represent both sides as having 5000 man divisions.

In this scenario the Polish Divisions are complete with a "divisional artillery" element which only have 8 guns yet the Soviet Divisions boast 20-30 guns in multiple batteries. Why this inconsistency?

Both sides formations are very neat, most having sequentially numbered "regiments". In the case of the Soviet divisions you are representing close to theoretical paper strength Arty establishments anyway so surely paper strenght ORBATs should apply to the infantry aswell.

User avatar
ERISS
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 2120
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:25 am
Location: France

Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:47 am

Chief Rudiger wrote:I can appreciate that units often operated significantly understrength but when raising fresh troops they should initially be at paper strength.

Lol, I remember when I was in the Army 20 years ago: in my regiment, half the tanks couldn't move, half couldn't fire. So, at peace with fresh troops, only a quarter could well fight...

Chief Rudiger
Sergeant
Posts: 75
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 10:13 pm
Location: Oban (Scotland)

Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:19 am

Yeah, but the Army you knew was bankrupted by a half a Century of trying to keep in an arm race with an alliance of the most industrially advance nations on Earth - not a pre-mechanisation era 1920's army equipped with bolt action rifles.

The comparrison is not worthy.

Return to “Revolution Under Siege”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests