Why No Divisions in DBB

[US87891]

In response to questions, this is the rationale and a guide for effective use.

In the War-II era (even more so in War-I) high intensity combat would quickly reduce an infantry division to its artillery and rear area service elements, along with a collection of exhausted, bleeding, infantry battalion remnants. This was a recurring feature in every combat analysis of every nation in the conflict. Infantry comprised about 30% of divisional manpower, but incurred 80% of casualties. It’s not hard to see how a division could quickly devolve to a short arty regiment with some support and a gaggle of not very highly motivated infantry support troops.

Artillery doesn’t assault. Infantry assaults. Engineers sometimes assault when their expertise is necessary. There are combat functions in the game system that support this differentiation.
A brigade/regiment is an infantry organization for the most part. It is the assault element. The game system is is quite nice in this regard because units may have different postures: Combat or Reserve. And if in combat, may have different Missions: Bombardment or attack/assault.

The internal makeup of a stack defines the posture/mission of each of the elements. The arty bombards, some of the infantry assaults, other infantry waits to get substituted into the mix. The infantry takes the majority of the casualties. Think about it.

Matt

[witpqs]

Are you considering making that change (no divisions) overall across Babes? I know that's a massive effort so I am not suggesting it, I'm just curious if that's something you're implying. I recall that was done already for Australia, for example.

[AlessandroD]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Are you considering making that change (no divisions) overall across Babes? I know that's a massive effort so I am not suggesting it, I'm just curious if that's something you're implying. I recall that was done already for Australia, for example.

Oh...it would be fantastic!

[US87891]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Are you considering making that change (no divisions) overall across Babes? I know that's a massive effort so I am not suggesting it, I'm just curious if that's something you're implying. I recall that was done already for Australia, for example.

No. No one is into massaging the GC. I don't think any of our people care much for the whole ground war in Asia concept. Two main technical reasons are not enough slots, and it would destroy any ability (such as it is) to use the existing GC scenarios with the AI. Sorry.

All we do now is smaller-map, shorter-time, specific-problem scenarios. It is a large pain to port scenarios from our system to standard AE, but those that can be done will have brigade/regiment as the highest echelon.

btw, can I send you a pm about a screen resolution question?

Matt

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Are you considering making that change (no divisions) overall across Babes? I know that's a massive effort so I am not suggesting it, I'm just curious if that's something you're implying. I recall that was done already for Australia, for example.

Everyone keeps posting about how DBB removed the ability to build up the Australian divisions, but I am simply not finding that to be the case.
I play exclusively Babes scenarios and I still get to combine the individual brigades into divisions.

What Babes are the rest of you guys playing that is different from the Babes I am playing?

I've played DBB-C and Ironman ported to Babes (#40).

[Anachro]

It's weird..I'm playing one DBB-C scenario right now where I could build-up the Aussie divisions...and then I have another one same scenario where I can't.

[US87891]

DBB GC scenarios work within the AE system.

DBB short scenarios works according to a different system.

One size does not fit all. Do not make the mistake of conflating the two.

[ed] think I have entered the weird world of wargamers, so I will exit and no longer respond to any such nonsense.

Matt

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: US87891

DBB GC scenarios work within the AE system.

DBB short scenarios works according to a different system.

One size does not fit all. Do not make the mistake of conflating the two.

Matt

Obviously most are all making that mistake as very few are clarifying which they are referring to.

[Anachro]

I'm well aware of the difference between GC and small scenarios...

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: US87891

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Are you considering making that change (no divisions) overall across Babes? I know that's a massive effort so I am not suggesting it, I'm just curious if that's something you're implying. I recall that was done already for Australia, for example.

No. No one is into massaging the GC. I don't think any of our people care much for the whole ground war in Asia concept. Two main technical reasons are not enough slots, and it would destroy any ability (such as it is) to use the existing GC scenarios with the AI. Sorry.

All we do now is smaller-map, shorter-time, specific-problem scenarios. It is a large pain to port scenarios from our system to standard AE, but those that can be done will have brigade/regiment as the highest echelon.

btw, can I send you a pm about a screen resolution question?

Matt

PM sent.