Subordination problem (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message


vandorenp -> Subordination problem (4/28/2011 2:49:16 PM)

I tried to duplicate the subordination accomplished for the FGB in Advance to the Sure and it did not work.

1. I created a HQ with the FBB brigade HQ estab, just like the FGB HQ, and subordinated under it a unit with the WF - PzD - Pz Gren Rgt (mot) Tac HQ estab and a VGR with WF - VGD - Gren Regt HQ estab. This produced errors for both.

2. The FGB HQ has both a PZ regiment HQ and a WF - PzD - Pz Gren Rgt (gp) Tac HQ subordinate to it. All three HQ's estab's are Brigade sizes. This does not produce an error in Advance to the Sure.
a. I changed the FGB's PZGR to a WF - PzD - Pz Gren Rgt (mot) Tac HQ. No error resulted.
b. I put a VGR under the FGB and an error for the VGR did result.

I can circumvent this easily by elevating the HQ estab level but I want to know why this is no problem for the FGB in Advance to the Sure.




simovitch -> RE: Subordination problem (4/28/2011 6:49:00 PM)

quote:

The FGB HQ has both a PZ regiment HQ and a WF - PzD - Pz Gren Rgt (gp) Tac HQ subordinate to it. All three HQ's estab's are Brigade sizes.
Why are your Rgt HQ's brigade sized?

Are you starting a whole new scenario? What error are you getting exactly when you put the VGR HQ under the FGB HQ?




Lieste -> RE: Subordination problem (4/28/2011 7:23:24 PM)

Because the force size list goes:

... platoon, company, battalion, brigade, division, corps ...

I guess because regiment means so many different things ;)

In this case, FBB is a "brigade" but is organised like a small Division, with subordinate Regiments* and other supports.. The Regiments are 'groups of battalions' without major supporting arms - perhaps the FBB should be re-designated as a divisional formation. I don't think it was ever subordinated directly to a division, but acted independently, so this shouldn't break anything?

*Actually looking at the formation list, it seems to treated as a giant Regt HQ with 5 Bn plus artillery, directly attached.

The FG Bde is more what I had in mind originally, which does have two regimental HQ attached, and uses the same HQ as the FBB






vandorenp -> RE: Subordination problem (4/28/2011 7:42:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

quote:

The FGB HQ has both a PZ regiment HQ and a WF - PzD - Pz Gren Rgt (gp) Tac HQ subordinate to it. All three HQ's estab's are Brigade sizes.
Why are your Rgt HQ's brigade sized?

Are you starting a whole new scenario? What error are you getting exactly when you put the VGR HQ under the FGB HQ?


All the regiment HQ estabs in BFTB have force size set to "Brigade". There is not a "regiment" option anyways.

The VGR under the FGB in the "Advance to the Sure" is just a test. I made a copy of the scenario. Used it. It worked fine. I made the change putting a VGR under the FGB. Got the error. The error was "xyz VGR HQ(Unit ID=nnn) is senior to its organic superior FGB HQ (Unit ID=nnn)". I also changed the PzGR to mot from gp. Was NOT cited in the error list.

This is the wording in the new scenario I am making for KOAD. It is a "Group xyz". I am subordinating 2 regiments to the group. I have two groups like that. Each has a VGR and a PzGR. For one group both regiments (a VGR and a PZGrR(mot)) are cited in the error list. In the other grouop only the VGR is. The PzGR in this group is a gp like the one in the FGB.

I went back to the first Group and changed the PzGR to gp. The regiment was still cited.

The question remains why in Advance on the Sure do the FGB subordinate regiments not trigger the subordination error? How can that success be repeated?




Lieste -> RE: Subordination problem (4/28/2011 8:07:31 PM)

Not having any trouble actually using the two saved force compositions (FGB and FBB) the only thing that occurs to me is that you might be using it as your super-force?
Try a Corps HQ or Army HQ as the off-map boss.

Or... maybe you've inadvertently attached the Rgt HQ to the Bde Base (Bn sized unit)?




vandorenp -> RE: Subordination problem (4/28/2011 8:50:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

Not having any trouble actually using the two saved force compositions (FGB and FBB) the only thing that occurs to me is that you might be using it as your super-force?
Try a Corps HQ or Army HQ as the off-map boss.

Or... maybe you've inadvertently attached the Rgt HQ to the Bde Base (Bn sized unit)?

Have a Corps level map boss. These groups are two levels down.

No inadvertent assignments to bases.

I know how to get on with the scenario design by elevating all the superior HQ's estab types.

I am just very curious why there are no errors for the FGB in Advance to the Sure when the superior BDE HQ and the subordinate rgts are ALL Force Size "Brigade". When the same is done elsewhere the errors are triggered.




Lieste -> RE: Subordination problem (4/28/2011 9:17:14 PM)

I've tested it 'just now' with both FBB and FGB attached to an Army Super-Force (not present on map).

FBB became the on-map boss, no errors were thrown. So there must be something peculiar about the arrangement you are using (the FGB has both a PzRgt Tac HQ and PzGr Tac HQ present as subordinates)




vandorenp -> RE: Subordination problem (4/29/2011 1:34:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lieste

I've tested it 'just now' with both FBB and FGB attached to an Army Super-Force (not present on map).

FBB became the on-map boss, no errors were thrown. So there must be something peculiar about the arrangement you are using (the FGB has both a PzRgt Tac HQ and PzGr Tac HQ present as subordinates)


I would not have expected anything different. (FBB does not matter - no subordinate regiments)

To duplicate what I have done:

1. Put a VGR under FGB and see what happens.

2. Create a new brigade using the FBB brigade HQ estab. Put two regiments under it, a VGR and a PzGR gp or mot. Or even try a PzR.

What I am trying to do is replicate the very common GE practice of temporarily elevating a HQ to the next level responsibilities and calling it Group <commanders name>. Easy to accomplish by just using the proper estabs. I have made the adjustment and it plays. Nevertheless I would like to know why FGB works and my two examples do not.

Incidentally I thought you had something there regarding the map boss being off map. Discovered that I had left the map boss off the map [8|]. Put it back to at start and problem persisted.




Lieste -> RE: Subordination problem (4/29/2011 1:56:19 PM)

Just removed FBB, leaving FGB. Added a VGD Regt HQ, containing VGD Regt Base, VGD Bn HQ (containing 3 VGD Gren Coy).

No Error thrown, so there is a problem with your scenario, not the insertion of Regt HQ into the FBB/Regt HQ.

What you can never do is add a Division HQ under Regt, or Regt HQ under Bn.




vandorenp -> RE: Subordination problem (4/29/2011 7:23:37 PM)

Interesting.   The simplest test I made was to take Advance to the Sure, move a VGR under the FGB. No other changes. Then ran it. It gave the subordination error. How does that come off for you?




simovitch -> RE: Subordination problem (4/29/2011 9:40:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vandorenp

Interesting.   The simplest test I made was to take Advance to the Sure, move a VGR under the FGB. No other changes. Then ran it. It gave the subordination error. How does that come off for you?

Paul, I tried both creating a new subordinate VG Regt under the FGB and moving one from the 79th VGD to subordinate under the FGb and neither one caused any error or crashes when I started.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.539063E-02