OOB Information

Norm Koger's The Operational Art of War III is the next game in the award-winning Operational Art of War game series. TOAW3 is updated and enhanced version of the TOAW: Century of Warfare game series. TOAW3 is a turn based game covering operational warfare from 1850-2015. Game scale is from 2.5km to 50km and half day to full week turns. TOAW3 scenarios have been designed by over 70 designers and included over 130 scenarios. TOAW3 comes complete with a full game editor.

Moderators: JAMiAM, ralphtricky

User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: OOB Information

Post by mmarquo »

Larry,

I am playing Ardennes 44, and trying to make some sense of the chain of command - impossible as it stands. My idea of assigning HQs to higher level ones is to simply be able to make some sense of the command structure even if it is chrome. I have an 8th corps HQ with an AA unit assigned and nothing else; just for the purposes of aesthetics - where should I place it???

If several divisional HQs were assigned to the proper corps HQ could I understand the history of the battle better???
User avatar
larryfulkerson
Posts: 40908
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:06 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ,usa,sol, milkyway
Contact:

RE: OOB Information

Post by larryfulkerson »

ORIGINAL: Marquo
Larry,

I am playing Ardennes 44, and trying to make some sense of the chain of command - impossible as it stands. My idea of assigning HQs to higher level ones is to simply be able to make some sense of the command structure even if it is chrome. I have an 8th corps HQ with an AA unit assigned and nothing else; just for the purposes of aesthetics - where should I place it???
I would place the 8th Corps HQ within the area where it could assist in the supply process for some units. Either that or you
could use it as the base HQ for an area where you send the tired units to get some refit and rest.
ORIGINAL: Marquo
If several divisional HQs were assigned to the proper corps HQ could I understand the history of the battle better???
I doubt if I would understand the history of the battle any better but I can understand the desire to do so. Won't hurt anything.
Interviewer: "What is your greatest weakness?"
Elderly Gentleman: "My honesty."
Interviewer: "Well I hardly think that could be a weakness."
Elderly Gentleman: "I don't give a fuck what you think."
governato
Posts: 1318
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:35 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: OOB Information

Post by governato »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Larry,

I am playing Ardennes 44, and trying to make some sense of the chain of command - impossible as it stands. My idea of assigning HQs to higher level ones is to simply be able to make some sense of the command structure even if it is chrome. I have an 8th corps HQ with an AA unit assigned and nothing else; just for the purposes of aesthetics - where should I place it???

If several divisional HQs were assigned to the proper corps HQ could I understand the history of the battle better???


Marquo, a lot depends on the scenario, but I see high level HQs as leader+staff resources. Place them next to units you want to boost supply. Assign Corps level battalion and rgts to the formation of said HQ and set the formation to 'free support'. This is important. The level of support is fundamental in TOAW. This way they will be able to participate in combat with all units with no penalties. Once on free support you can give them a unique color scheme for chrome.
User avatar
shunwick
Posts: 2427
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 10:20 pm

RE: OOB Information

Post by shunwick »

Multiple HQs in formations are certainly possible but do not assign Command and Support Squads to them - TOAW cannot properly work out the supply and command damage if there are multiple HQs (with Command and Support Squads) in a formation.

Best wishes,
Steve
I love the smell of TOAW in the morning...
Oberst_Klink
Posts: 4839
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

RE: OOB Information

Post by Oberst_Klink »

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Multiple HQs in formations are certainly possible but do not assign Command and Support Squads to them - TOAW cannot properly work out the supply and command damage if there are multiple HQs (with Command and Support Squads) in a formation.

Best wishes,
Steve
Depends on the intention of the scenario designer, too. I'd not put more than 12 units, incl. HQ, Support, etc. in a formation because Elmer can't handle that well. The multiple HQs in a formation work more than OK though, see CFNA.

Klink, Oberst
My Blog & on Twitter.
Visit CS Legion on Twitter & Facebook for updates.
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: OOB Information

Post by mmarquo »

DO HQs enhance the supply of any units next to them - attached or not???
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: OOB Information

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

DO HQs enhance the supply of any units next to them - attached or not???

All units that have full cooperation with the HQ.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
governato
Posts: 1318
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 4:35 pm
Location: Seattle, WA

RE: OOB Information

Post by governato »

ORIGINAL: shunwick

Multiple HQs in formations are certainly possible but do not assign Command and Support Squads to them - TOAW cannot properly work out the supply and command damage if there are multiple HQs (with Command and Support Squads) in a formation.

Best wishes,
Steve

It works as long as onlyone HQ is present on the map at any time (this is a neat trick to simulate shifting efforts between different formations)
User avatar
r6kunz
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 7:30 pm
Location: near Philadelphia

RE: OOB Information

Post by r6kunz »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Is there anyway to see the hierarchy of command in TOAW? For example, I am trying Ardennes 44; there are many HQs on the map but no way to see the regiment-->division--->corps--->Army hierarchy.

[&:]
As the designer of Ardennes 1944, let me jump in with a couple of comments. First, thank you for your interest, and your constructive criticisms. Indeed TOAW has an issue with hierarchy of command, but that has bothered me less as time has gone by. Indeed in an ideal TOAW with a complete hierarchy, it would be difficult to model because many times subordinate units are switched to different major commands, new major commands are added, etc.

If you look at the Order of Battle in View in Ardennes 1944, you will see the Army HQ's and the army-level attachments, follow the Corps in that Army, each with their respective divisions then regiments (that are on the map at that time). Alternatively, go to the Army HQ, click F key to see the attached units, then the down button to go to the next formation- likely the Corps, then the next formation for the division, etc.

Some designers, however, put all of the Army HQ, then all of the Corps HQ, then all of the divisions without attempting to assign them.
Many of the regiments are seemingly independent; seems like clicking on an HQ should indicate all the units which report to it at least on paper.

If I understand, clicking an Army HQ should highlight all of the subordinate Corps HQ? That would be nice, but mostly chrome. Of coarse, clicking on the Army HQ would highlight all of the army-level units that are directly attached (AAA, arty, etc). Some designers do have all of the units in that Army in one Formation. That means, however, that all the units will have only one Formation path and objectives. It depends on the scale.
Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.
User avatar
Curtis Lemay
Posts: 13846
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Houston, TX

RE: OOB Information

Post by Curtis Lemay »

ORIGINAL: HPT KUNZ

Indeed in an ideal TOAW with a complete hierarchy, it would be difficult to model because many times subordinate units are switched to different major commands, new major commands are added, etc.

This is what bugs me about the lust for a command hierarchy. Everyone who wants it also wants the ability to shift units between formations as well (and would want the ability to shift subordinate formations too, if there were such things). What they don't seem to realize is that those two features combined would sort of cancel each other out and get us about back to where we are now, where you can scatter your units all over the place without much consequence.
My TOAW web site:

Bob Cross's TOAW Site
ogar
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Sep 06, 2009 8:31 pm

RE: OOB Information

Post by ogar »

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...
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.
User avatar
Telumar
Posts: 2196
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 12:43 am
Location: niflheim

RE: OOB Information

Post by Telumar »

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

This is what bugs me about the lust for a command hierarchy.

Immersion. And not only that. Distribution of Supply and Replacements could be handled through a hierarchical OOB (along the line of sending 80% of Replacements to Army Group South). Okay, supply is a different matter as long as it's not volume based. I think Elmer could benefit from a hierarchical OOB too, i outlined this once to Ralph.
User avatar
sPzAbt653
Posts: 9936
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:11 am
Location: east coast, usa

RE: OOB Information

Post by sPzAbt653 »

I still fire up the old Atomic Games once in a while to split off and re-attach units.)

Amen to that !
User avatar
mmarquo
Posts: 1376
Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am

RE: OOB Information

Post by mmarquo »

As the designer of Ardennes 1944, let me jump in with a couple of comments. First, thank you for your interest, and your constructive criticisms. Indeed TOAW has an issue with hierarchy of command, but that has bothered me less as time has gone by. Indeed in an ideal TOAW with a complete hierarchy, it would be difficult to model because many times subordinate units are switched to different major commands, new major commands are added, etc.

Why is the 82nd Airborne a complete formation whereas the 101st units all seem to be independent?
User avatar
r6kunz
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 7:30 pm
Location: near Philadelphia

RE: OOB Information

Post by r6kunz »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Why is the 82nd Airborne a complete formation whereas the 101st units all seem to be independent?
The Screaming Eagles were deployed as independent regiments in the perimeter around Bastogne. When I tried to deploy the 101st as a division, Elmer was not able mount a perimeter defense - I found the only way to create the siege of Bastogne was as individual regimental strong points. The 82nd went in as a more cohesive division.

Thanks again for your constructive criticism.
Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.
User avatar
r6kunz
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 7:30 pm
Location: near Philadelphia

RE: OOB Information

Post by r6kunz »

ORIGINAL: Marquo

For example, there is an 8th corps HQ, I think an AA unit is the only unit which it seemingly commands...but how do I know which divisions? An which Army it reports to? Even if chrome for the game's sake, it should be demonstrable.
For example, there is an 8th corps HQ, I think an AA unit is the only unit which it seemingly commands...but how do I know which divisions? An which Army it reports to? Even if chrome for the game's sake, it should be demonstrable.

To answer the question that originally started this thread, the US VIII Corps was originally the only unit garrisoning Bastogne at the onset, with a couple of attached AA and corps arty units. As the Germans approached Bastogne, the HQ displaced to Neufchateau, along with its attached units. (in the game, the Corps HQ is withdrawn from Bastogne and reappears in Neufchateau). So it primarily served as a defensive roll, and historically these small unit defensive actions of engineers, trains, artillery and HQ was what ultimately slowed the German panzers down.

One could argue doing away with HQ units, but I prefer the historic designations. As I mentioned, if one scrolls down the Order of Battle tab, the units appear in a more-or-less hierarchical fashion.

Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.
User avatar
r6kunz
Posts: 1105
Joined: Thu Jul 04, 2002 7:30 pm
Location: near Philadelphia

Headquarters Units

Post by r6kunz »

Would it be appropriate to start a new thread to discuss HQ units?
Avatar image was taken in hex 87,159 Vol 11 of
Vietnam Combat Operations by Stéphane MOUTIN LUYAT aka Boonierat.
Post Reply

Return to “Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III”