From: Bedfordshire UK
ORIGINAL: Mark Clark
This is historical.
well, yes and no.
IRL, corps are made of up divisions. But the game makes it a B&W affair. A given "box" is either a corps or a division, full stop. In a real army, I could combine 3 divisions to make a corps. Or, really, there would a seperate HQ unit and "attach" several divisions to that and make a corps.
But in terms of gameplay, the decisive issue is the size of a given unit occupying one hex. Divisions in that sense are useless.
Perhaps if the "combine" feature allowed the player to take 3 divisions and make a corps that would be more fair than making us pay 229 PPs and wait 10 turns.
The point is, at least on the Eastern Front, this is a corps scale game. The scenarios shouldn't have any divisions in them at all, I don't think. Were I playing from the beginning, I would build zero as the SU.
Divisions are useful to defend cities against partisan, or airborne attack and to throw out as forward defensive positions, when the opponent has committed to an attack, then the Corps can be moved in as the main strength of the defence.
I think the game split and merge feature adds a lot of flexibility, the problem is that a Corps will split into several more Corps, rather than into division sized units. The high cost of the split has been done to stop players splitting and then re-enforcing the split Corps units, getting more Corps than the straight cost of building them.
If you have house rules against re-enforcing the split units beyond a certain % of the original unit, the cost and time delay could be reduced. In the scenario 'const' file I am using modified numbers :
FreezeTimeModifierAfterUnitSplit_Land = 0.25 - was 0.67
CostModifierOfUnitSplit_Land = 0.25 - was 0.67
This drops the cost of the split considerably and reduces the freeze time to 2 turns, you could rename the split units as 1st Corps/1, 1st Corps/2, 1st Corps/3, so that the correct units can be merged later if you want. This will not apply to the AI, but that doesn't use splitting much anyway. If you want to reduce the cost and time delay even more, then just ease the numbers down until you get what you want.
I look on this as a way to make the game system provide a more flexible and realistic management of units when there is no stacking available. It would be better if the game system had a way to break Corps down into Divisions, but the above adjustment is the next best thing.
< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 2/5/2013 3:27:42 PM >
"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me