Troops Reorganization

[jastaV]

In most sceneries, at campaign start, plenty of Forces/Corps are to be reorganized to balance commands point, (CP) required against commands point available ratio, so to gain optimal Forces/Corps control.
You can have Corps exceding by 25-30% the leader CPs just because brigades and regiments are not organized in divisions.
In other situations you can experiece an improper unit type organization: for example, Guard Units not under command of Leader with the Guard Committement ability.

It's also true that during a campaign player can gain great advantages by a continous troops reorganization.
I'll illustrate the issue with an example.


At any turn start, you have the I Corps and V Corps, in the same region.

I Corps:
1st Div. , 2nd Div., 3rd Div.

V Corps:
10th Div., 12th Div., 16th Div.

NOTE BOLD TYPE units are Divisions with poore troop cohesion and having sufferered losses.


Player reorganize the two Corps:

I Corps:
1st Div., 16th Div., 3rd Div.

V Corps:
10th Div., 12th Div., 2nd Div.

After the reorganization will have I Corps with 3 Divisions with poore troop cohesion and having sufferered losses….it will be usefull to have it resting in place to recover cohesion and replacement.

Corps V after reorganization is composed of fresh, high cohesion and full rank divisions and can be committed to move and engage enemy.


Now, a second example:

At any turn start, you have the I Corps and V Corps, in the same region.

I Corps: Lannes (Active)
1st Div., 16th Div., 3rd Div.

V Corps: Davout (Inactive)
10th Div., 12th Div., 2nd Div.

I Corps leader is active but troops are tired and have to recover losses.
V Corps is commanded by an inactive leader, but his troops have high cohesion and full ranks.

A corps commander exchange can be very usefull!

After reoganization will have:

I Corps: Davout (Inactive)
1st Div., 16th Div., 3rd Div.

V Corps: Lannes (Active)
10th Div., 12th Div., 2nd Div.

With that V Corps is now commanded by and activated leader. V Corps can now be used to full efficiency.

May be other examples could be provided.

Although troops reorganization is allowed, according to CNP rules, it's quite unrealistic.
Corps and Divisions formations, reorganizations, disbanding was (and it’s in modern time too) a complex burocratic routine with a mess of orders to be produced, delivered and executed.
Generals were and are strong competitors. None of them whould give up a strong, fresh unit in exange for an exausted one!

Guess Corps and Armies reorganization should not come for free but it should have a cost in term of leader activation, cohesion, money, Victory or Morale points.
That’s true for Division transfer between Corps, changes in Corps commanders, detachment of Corps from an Army, transfer of Corps between Armies.

JastaV

[FM WarB]

Jasta,
I cannot completely agree with your logic. While some Corps and divisions retained their organizations throughout campaigns, others did not. III French Corps, Davout retained a very stable organization over the years 1805-1809. The Austrian army switched regiments, brigades and divisions around with mind numbing frequency over four months in 1809. Maybe some sort of Corps cohesion/intercooperabilty rule can be implimented, but no cost to NM or movement, I'd think.
Warren

[jastaV]

Jasta,
I cannot completely agree with your logic. While some Corps and divisions retained their organizations throughout campaigns, others did not. III French Corps, Davout retained a very stable organization over the years 1805-1809. The Austrian army switched regiments, brigades and divisions around with mind numbing frequency over four months in 1809. Maybe some sort of Corps cohesion/intercooperabilty rule can be implimented, but no cost to NM or movement, I'd think.
Warren

I never said units reorganization is not to be supported!
Just I think there'd be something to pay for it, in term of administrative costs....
.....and to discourage continous unit manipulations as I exemplified.

[FM WarB]

I never said units reorganization is not to be supported!
Just I think there'd be something to pay for it, in term of administrative costs....
.....and to discourage continous unit manipulations as I exemplified.

I realize you are not arguing against reorganization. Care must be taken before assigning costs. I'd not have thought of using reorganization for such purposes as you described. Thanks for the tip
LoL