Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Divisons v. Corps

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Divisons v. Corps Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Divisons v. Corps - 2/2/2013 11:02:41 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
So, in my play so far, I am finding divisions almost wholly useless, especially for the Russians. Infantry divisions are complete junk but even armored aren't much good. Every time I try to use them for that are intended--spearhead attacks through German lines--they get killed. Basically, if even a full strength armored division can be attacked on three sides, it's toast. Two at most is safe. Which means they must always be part of a coherent, linked front line. Which means you can't use them for their intended purpose.

So, is the solution to upgrade all armored divisions to corps? That is insanely expensive and takes two turns.

What is the proper way to use these?
Post #: 1
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/2/2013 11:40:17 PM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1386
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
A lot of factors play into the combat effectiveness of a unit. I'm going through Winter War right now and I built a number of Soviet divisions to attack the central Finnish front. They are very useful. I suspect you will find they are useful in stopping the Germans when supply is an issue and weather is bad. Depends on how the v104 supply rework comes out.

So, if your country has a high land warfare doctrine level and good research advances, your divisions will be useful against lesser countries and less useful against Germany. Of course, German divisions are useful. Allied divisions are useful when not facing German corps.

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 2
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/2/2013 11:41:46 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
Playing as Russia right now and finding them useless against Germany.  Even armored divisions.  The problem is that I have like 5-6 of them in the scenario and upgrading them all would be insanely expensive and take forever.

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 3
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/3/2013 1:04:33 AM   
rmonical

 

Posts: 1386
Joined: 4/1/2011
Status: offline
This is historical.

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 4
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/3/2013 1:06:02 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

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.

< Message edited by Mark Clark -- 2/3/2013 1:07:22 PM >

(in reply to rmonical)
Post #: 5
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/3/2013 9:29:47 PM   
doomtrader


Posts: 5305
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
Divisions are good to patching the front, and slowing down enemies.
You can just pop those lvl1 divisions around and slow German tanks

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 6
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/3/2013 10:21:01 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline

quote:



You can just pop those lvl1 divisions around and slow German tanks

As a speed bump, maybe, but they always die on 1st contact with the enemy.

(in reply to doomtrader)
Post #: 7
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/4/2013 2:47:09 AM   
JLPOWELL


Posts: 409
Joined: 5/5/2011
From: Pacific Time Zone
Status: offline
I understand what Wasteland has done with divisions/ vrs Corps. I don't agree completely, but this is what I think is the rationale: Given the design decision to not permit stacking (lots of valid reasons for this from a design simplicity point of view) The primary reason is to balance attack and defense. This is a sequential game the non moving side sits while the phasing side gets to do LOTS of stuff with no reaction. This requires some kind of limit to prevent easy the offence from becoming unstoppable. Larger units represent higher concentrations of units and I suppose the logistical difficulty involved in organizing for an attack. Why it takes so long to build a corps is likely a play balance control and completely arbitrary. it does not model any real world historical consideration but is likely needed to keep the game playable within its structural limitations. Obviously if you are General Patton and you command an Army, you can add and subtract divisions from a corps with a phone call and the actual merge and movement would likely take less than a ToF game turn if the units were in any kind of proximity. Also however in the real world of different 'hexes' would need different stacking limits as the factors which determine how many men can move effectively thru a piece of ground are very numerous complex and interrelated. (soil slope terrain communications networks weather type of unit, familiarity with the area etc...)

This game as designed is pretty workable, IMO the land movement and combat portion of the game much stronger than other aspects such as air and naval movement and combat. Given its relative simplicity (relates directly to playability) this is one of the better WW2 theater level simulations available.

Some of the scenarios just work better than others. IMO the least 'broken' scenario is the 1940 scenario which is pretty playable as either side.

In most scenarios (vrs the AI) The USSR is likely the most difficult to play, and when the USSR is handled by the AI it is given HUGE advantages. As the allies sometimes it makes sense to just let the AI handle the USSR The 1944 scenario is a good example.

_____________________________

"Don’t you think that if I were wrong, I’d know it?"

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 8
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/5/2013 3:05:03 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1616
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Clark

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmonical

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 :

[UnitSplitting]
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

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 9
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/5/2013 9:04:15 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
I totally get the issue Re: stacking and gameplay.

My frustration is that I am playing the GD scenario.  I haven't even been able to make it to D-Day yet.  All my Russian divisions are totally useless.  At least the INF can be upgraded at reasonable cost and delay.  The ARM cost a fortune and take forever.  In the meantime, I have no idea what to do with them.  They are useless and cannon fodder.

Makes me fearful of what will happen in the west when I try to land an army that is nearly all divisions.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 10
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/7/2013 1:06:15 AM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
Sorry, my experience is that divisions are everywhere worthless.  The whole American army in the GD scenario is divisions and it's 100% ****.  Can't do anything.

Let's face it, this is a corps level game.  Why do division units even exist?  They can't do anything but die.

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 11
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/8/2013 1:07:52 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1616
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Clark

Sorry, my experience is that divisions are everywhere worthless.  The whole American army in the GD scenario is divisions and it's 100% ****.  Can't do anything.

Let's face it, this is a corps level game.  Why do division units even exist?  They can't do anything but die.


Jumped threads, but showing divisions in use on the 'Game unplayable' thread. I am not saying that divisions are OK in most situations, but they can be useful and if you form a line, units being attacked get support from adjoining friendly units in the combat odds, alone they are vulnerable. If you have a serious task to carry out you mostly need Corps unit, but don't dismiss divisions, just use them where they can do most good.


_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 12
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/8/2013 7:16:31 PM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
Whenever I put divisions on the line, the AI zooms in on them and destroys them.

Armored are the worst because you can't use their superior mobility.

(in reply to Rasputitsa)
Post #: 13
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/9/2013 2:03:56 AM   
Mark Clark

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/22/2008
Status: offline
Sorry, I've been playing for a while now, admittedly always the GD scenario and always as the Allies.  But divisons are worthless.  There are only two outcomes:

1) The die on first contact with the enemy.

2) They go from 100% to 10% or less, and you spend all your time (and money) reinforcing them.

This is a corps level game. Divisions shouldn't even be an option.  They certainly don't belong the OOB of this scenario.  They are worthless.

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 14
RE: Divisons v. Corps - 2/11/2013 12:40:14 PM   
Rasputitsa


Posts: 1616
Joined: 6/30/2001
From: Bedfordshire UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Clark
Sorry, I've been playing for a while now, admittedly always the GD scenario and always as the Allies.  But divisons are worthless.  There are only two outcomes:

1) The die on first contact with the enemy.

2) They go from 100% to 10% or less, and you spend all your time (and money) reinforcing them.

This is a corps level game. Divisions shouldn't even be an option.  They certainly don't belong the OOB of this scenario.  They are worthless.


Don't doubt anything you are saying about the experience with the GD scenario, which I don't want to use until some of the main problems have been changed, but I don't agree that divisions have no place in the game. Obviously if you use a division to do a job that should be done by a Corps, you are likely to lose it quickly, likewise you don't want to waste you Corps units, around the map, doing minor tasks that can be carried out by divisions.

In any late war scenario the US must have Corps sized units, the scenario needs to be changed to provide those units, or start earlier so the units can be built.



_____________________________

"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 15
Proper Role - 2/11/2013 4:53:16 PM   
Omnius


Posts: 374
Joined: 6/22/2012
From: Salinas, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mark Clark

Sorry, I've been playing for a while now, admittedly always the GD scenario and always as the Allies.  But divisons are worthless.  There are only two outcomes:

1) The die on first contact with the enemy.

2) They go from 100% to 10% or less, and you spend all your time (and money) reinforcing them.

This is a corps level game. Divisions shouldn't even be an option.  They certainly don't belong the OOB of this scenario.  They are worthless.


Mark Clark,
Divisions make great garrison units, but are not so good at being frontline units when enemy corps are about. Think of divisions as speed bumps. Make sure to upgrade divisions to corps for frontline duty. Perhaps the GD scenario setup isn't so well thought out so try another one to see if that helps.
Omnius

(in reply to Mark Clark)
Post #: 16
RE: Proper Role - 2/13/2013 6:15:01 AM   
Razz


Posts: 2517
Joined: 10/21/2007
From: CaLiForNia
Status: offline
Divisions move faster.
They add to combat attacks for multiple sides.
The Russians can suck for two years or longer depending upon dice rolls.

It is your effectiveness that makes them useless.

Use them to slow down the Germans.
When it is winter you can attack.
Then in the next year repeat.
On the third year of combat it s all offense as your effectiveness is up and you have more PP's and units.

(in reply to Omnius)
Post #: 17
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Time of Fury >> Divisons v. Corps Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.083