Corps Composition

Gary Grigsby’s War in the West 1943-45 is the most ambitious and detailed computer wargame on the Western Front of World War II ever made. Starting with the Summer 1943 invasions of Sicily and Italy and proceeding through the invasions of France and the drive into Germany, War in the West brings you all the Allied campaigns in Western Europe and the capability to re-fight the Western Front according to your plan.

Moderators: Joel Billings, RedLancer

Post Reply
Bismarck2761
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:11 pm

Corps Composition

Post by Bismarck2761 »

I've raised this before - I think the Allies have too much flexibility with nationality restrictions for their Corps/Armies. I realize one could play with a house rule limiting cross-attachments for some Armies/Corps (Brits/US primarily). Any work afoot, though, to hard-code into the game?
User avatar
IslandInland
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:54 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE
Contact:

RE: Corps Composition

Post by IslandInland »

ORIGINAL: Bismarck2761

I've raised this before - I think the Allies have too much flexibility with nationality restrictions for their Corps/Armies. I realize one could play with a house rule limiting cross-attachments for some Armies/Corps (Brits/US primarily). Any work afoot, though, to hard-code into the game?

I hope not. Historically Allied formations were intermingled and I see no reason why the player shouldn't be allowed to do that in the game.

War In The East 2 & Steel Inferno Expansion Beta Tester
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
Strategic Command American Civil War Beta Tester
XXXCorps
1941 Hitler's Dream Scenario for WITE 2
EddyBear81
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:07 pm
Location: Lille, France

RE: Corps Composition

Post by EddyBear81 »

Agreed, it should be allowed, but the fact that you are 100% flexible is a little bit too much. There were some constraints (being French, I know some units refused to serve under British command), and sometimes the in-game command structure just looks ridiculous.
=> Perhaps a -1 penalty on leader checks (only on admin ?) could be a fair solution
User avatar
IslandInland
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:54 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE
Contact:

RE: Corps Composition

Post by IslandInland »

I wouldn't mind an option to limit intermingling within the game preferences which could be switched on or off but I don't want a hardcoded rule. If people feel that strongly about it then they could just not do it in their games. I only play the AI and I don't want restrictions which for the most part were not present historically.

War In The East 2 & Steel Inferno Expansion Beta Tester
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
Strategic Command American Civil War Beta Tester
XXXCorps
1941 Hitler's Dream Scenario for WITE 2
User avatar
Markojager
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 1:25 am

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Markojager »

I'll be good if they give a little penalty for international corps, more if you add differnt language troops to fight together (for example the 15th Army Group had troops from Canada, Indian, Poland, South Africa, Greece, Brazil and New Zealand, and the supply was more difficult than an all anglo or an all british or american army.
If you find yourself in a fair fight, you didn't plan your mission properly.

David Hackworth
User avatar
IslandInland
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:54 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE
Contact:

RE: Corps Composition

Post by IslandInland »

ORIGINAL: Markjager

I'll be good if they give a little penalty for international corps, more if you add differnt language troops to fight together (for example the 15th Army Group had troops from Canada, Indian, Poland, South Africa, Greece, Brazil and New Zealand, and the supply was more difficult than an all anglo or an all british or american army.

The Canadians, South Africans and New Zealanders would have spoken English. The Indians were part of the British Indian Army and would have either spoken English or had British officers who spoke Hindi or some of the other Indian languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_I ... _World_War

The Poles, Brazilians and Greeks would need to find a few people who spoke English or the British and Americans a few people who spoke Polish, Portuguese and Greek. The Greeks were only present in brigade strength so they would have hardly brought the Army Group to a standstill had communication been a problem.



War In The East 2 & Steel Inferno Expansion Beta Tester
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
Strategic Command American Civil War Beta Tester
XXXCorps
1941 Hitler's Dream Scenario for WITE 2
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Corps Composition

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: XXXCorps

ORIGINAL: Markjager

I'll be good if they give a little penalty for international corps, more if you add differnt language troops to fight together (for example the 15th Army Group had troops from Canada, Indian, Poland, South Africa, Greece, Brazil and New Zealand, and the supply was more difficult than an all anglo or an all british or american army.

The Canadians, South Africans and New Zealanders would have spoken English. The Indians were part of the British Indian Army and would have either spoken English or had British officers who spoke Hindi or some of the other Indian languages.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_I ... _World_War

The Poles, Brazilians and Greeks would need to find a few people who spoke English or the British and Americans a few people who spoke Polish, Portuguese and Greek. The Greeks were only present in brigade strength so they would have hardly brought the Army Group to a standstill had communication been a problem.

There was also the complication from the other direction. In the French Canadian formations, the enlisted men rarely spoke English so liaison had to go via the officers if they were in a purely anglophonic command group. Not sure but I think that was one of the reasons why Canadian units tended to operate under their own command - the other being that, like the Australian and NZ Govt, they didn't exactly trust the British (a legacy of WW1 experiences).
Bismarck2761
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:11 pm

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Bismarck2761 »

I was thinking some restriction on support units. It seems very odd to load up the British XXX Corps with all-American corps artillery. But if folks don't think there's a concern (especially given advantages of using US HQs) so be it.
User avatar
Devonport
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:25 pm

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Devonport »

I wouldn't want to see anything hard coded as we as players then have the choice. Personally I keep US and British troops apart at Corps level and mostly at army level, but in practice they were mixed (look at Corps that landed at Anzio for example). If there was to be anything to simulate practical issues it would be an impact on supplies to reflect incompatibility of ammo etc; but I don't think this is a priority for dev. time.
Bismarck2761
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:11 pm

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Bismarck2761 »

I think it would be easy and worthwhile to impose a 10% penalty for certain mixed commands (e.g., US/CW; CW/FR).
User avatar
Gunnulf
Posts: 687
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2012 7:26 pm

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Gunnulf »

I'm definitely in the same camp as Devonport, I always try use a self imposed rule to keep US and Commonwealth corps unique across all theatres. Armies in Italy I allow to have mixed nationality corps, but NWE only canadian & British mix it up together. The French I allow myself to mix up with the US, and Polish with the British or Canadians. The only other exceptions are Airborne units which I always allow to be inter-allied. In terms of support units I absolutely only use artillery with the correct higher command along the US/CW divide, though I know some artillery would be available to support allies in some cases of course.

The reasons for me come down to doctrine, command and control and most importantly by a long way logistics. A British corps logistics train would have great difficulty supplying any US units under their command the correct ammo smoothly and efficiently. Not impossible, but certainly sub-optimally. C2C was between US and British command was not without friction, jealousy and rivalry - again not unworkable but certainly sub-optimal. As Bismarck points out a simple % penalty would provide a small combat penalty to discourage the mixing, without making it impossible as clearly it did happen at times. As present divisions under different HQ fighting together receive a C2C penalty, but national difference should be just as important an impact on co-ordination. Less easy maybe would be a supply penalty for being under the 'wrong' corps, but I'm sure that is harder to impliment and test.

Not a huge drama obviously as those who want to play this way can just implement their own rule, and honestly I haven't found it at all restrictive in terms of results, and I feel better playing that way. I can see that others are more relaxed about it and want to mix it up for optimisation purposes, or just more fluid play. I'll wince a little maybe but either way its not a huge drama really I'm sure.
"Stay low, move fast"
Bismarck2761
Posts: 89
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2012 4:11 pm

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Bismarck2761 »

Concrete proposal: In next patch, make it an *option* that when mixing beyond the historic parameters, apply some sort of deduction (e.g., 10%). Perhaps more when the British/French mix. ;-)
User avatar
Devonport
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:25 pm

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Devonport »

What are you suggesting is deducted? And how would you define the historic parameters?
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11699
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule

RE: Corps Composition

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: Bismarck2761

Concrete proposal: In next patch, make it an *option* that when mixing beyond the historic parameters, apply some sort of deduction (e.g., 10%). Perhaps more when the British/French mix. ;-)

Problem is there are a lot of sensible restrictions that can be applied to the allied player. Beyond the SU issue in this thread two obvious ones are not to strip the UK of tac bombers in 1943 for the Italian campaign and not to remove Australian, New Zealand, S African, Greek etc units from the Med (all for different political reasons).

In a vs AI game, all good and sensible stuff.

But in PBEM, unfortunately some players are very win focussed and generally in the WiTE/W series there are few role playing constraints built into the rule set. So if the axis player wants to operate purely in terms of the VP parameters (and believe me, some do) then its essential that the Allied player is not constrained.

Its a tricky one as I like historical constraints (one of the many reasons I like the AGEOD series) but they have to be balanced and also useable by the AI. Or done purely as an agreement to not abuse the potential of the game engine.

In the main WiTW has been less subject to this type of behaviour but it has long bedevilled WiTE.
User avatar
Devonport
Posts: 167
Joined: Thu Apr 01, 2010 5:25 pm

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Devonport »

I really don't see why the issue can't simply be addressed by self-restraint if playing the AI or House Rules in a PBEM if people think it is a problem. Why mess with it for those who want to play the way they want. As I said, I exercise self restraint, as I do wth the other issues loki raises, and it works perfectly [:)]
User avatar
IslandInland
Posts: 1137
Joined: Mon Dec 08, 2014 3:54 pm
Location: YORKSHIRE
Contact:

RE: Corps Composition

Post by IslandInland »

ORIGINAL: Devonport

I really don't see why the issue can't simply be addressed by self-restraint if playing the AI or House Rules in a PBEM if people think it is a problem. Why mess with it for those who want to play the way they want. As I said, I exercise self restraint, as I do wth the other issues loki raises, and it works perfectly [:)]

That's what I was intimating in one of my earlier posts.

If people feel that strongly about it then don't do it. It really is as simple as that. If people feel it's somehow "wrong" then don't mix nationalities at corps level or even at army level.

If such a rule were to be introduced I would also expect a similar penalty for mixing Italian and German units at corps level.


War In The East 2 & Steel Inferno Expansion Beta Tester
War In The West Operation Torch Beta Tester
Strategic Command American Civil War Beta Tester
XXXCorps
1941 Hitler's Dream Scenario for WITE 2
HMSWarspite
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Corps Composition

Post by HMSWarspite »

I have commented before that the real issue I see is seamless transfer of divisions to other corps without penalty. In reality there ought to be a week or two where they don't quite gel properly. I hate that you can swap command half way through the turn (in the midst of an encirclement operation say). This restriction would limit the swapping around. It would also allow am assignment to another nationality to have a bigger deficit, which takes longer to wear off. Say attaching to a new HQ takes 10% off unit morale (not because I am saying the morale actually drops, but to simulate a loss of effectiveness). this could be doubled for attaching cross nationally. This could then be recovered at say 10% per week (so T1, change attachment. T1 & 2 have a 10% loss, T3 back to normal. For foreign units, 20% loss T1&2, 10% T3, normal T4). I will have the wronng magnitude and parameter but you get the point - it forces planning and measured change over the 'swap 'em round every week approach. Could also do it with SU permanent attachments (not HQ throwing them into support a unit in combat)
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 33034
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Corps Composition

Post by Joel Billings »

There is a 1 week penalty for any unit that is transferred to a different HQ. It's -1 on all admin rolls.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
HMSWarspite
Posts: 1404
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 10:38 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Corps Composition

Post by HMSWarspite »

Is that new? I seem to have missed it in the past?
I have a cunning plan, My Lord
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the West”