HQ unit composition (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV >> Mods and Scenarios



Message


ncc1701e -> HQ unit composition (11/1/2019 10:56:23 PM)

I need your help for HQ unit composition.

Let's say I am doing an oob with an army containing several corps. and all these corps contained several divisions. I want to represent each division at regiment level. And I want to represent on the map the army HQ, the corps HQs and the division HQs.

Thus, what are you putting inside those HQ units as equipment composition ? I tend to not consider them as fighting units...

I have difficulties to translate written OOB sources into the game. I have checked several scenario but it seems there is no real rule here.

Anyone can share their own method ?

Thanks




Lobster -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/2/2019 2:12:39 AM)

When you start placing anything other than HQ TOE in a HQ unit you end up with a fantastically strong HQ. Sometimes even stronger than a combat regiment. At the level you are describing I'd put all divisional assets with the combat units or, if artillery, in their own unit. I'd make HQ as weak as they were in the real world.




cathar1244 -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/2/2019 9:24:37 AM)

quote:

I have difficulties to translate written OOB sources into the game. I have checked several scenario but it seems there is no real rule here.

Anyone can share their own method ?


One of the eternal questions of scenario design. I tend to go with the notion that only equipment of the combat units should be depicted. I define "combat units" as infantry, armor, artillery, recon, and engineers. AA support I show as spread out among the combat units.

Written OOB sources are essential but problematic. A late Second World War British infantry division in NW Europe had hundreds of authorized Bren light machine guns and PIAT projectors. But the actual amount of those that actually had to face off against the Germans varied by battle and dominantly were those wielded by the infantry battalions, not the rear elements of the division. Decisions!

Cheers




ncc1701e -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/2/2019 4:56:29 PM)

Thanks guys, yes sometimes I have seen HQ that is like the fourth regiment of a division... Not an easy choice to make indeed.




Lobster -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/3/2019 3:27:03 AM)

Here is a source that's about as complete as you will get for online TOE: http://niehorster.org/




ncc1701e -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/3/2019 12:55:21 PM)

Thanks




StuccoFresco -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/4/2019 5:58:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cathar1244

quote:

I have difficulties to translate written OOB sources into the game. I have checked several scenario but it seems there is no real rule here.

Anyone can share their own method ?


One of the eternal questions of scenario design. I tend to go with the notion that only equipment of the combat units should be depicted. I define "combat units" as infantry, armor, artillery, recon, and engineers. AA support I show as spread out among the combat units.

Written OOB sources are essential but problematic. A late Second World War British infantry division in NW Europe had hundreds of authorized Bren light machine guns and PIAT projectors. But the actual amount of those that actually had to face off against the Germans varied by battle and dominantly were those wielded by the infantry battalions, not the rear elements of the division. Decisions!

Cheers


I agree with this.




altipueri -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/6/2019 11:33:03 AM)

Here's something on division sizes I happened to have open when I saw this thread:

http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/services/dropoff/schilling/mil_org/milorgan_99.html

One thing that struck me was that in 1914 British and German divisions each had 24 machine guns, by 1917 it was about 300.


Also - the number of carbines in US divisions.




cathar1244 -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/7/2019 7:29:56 AM)

quote:

divisions each had 24 machine guns, by 1917 it was about 300.


Yeah, true rifle units at the start of that war. Looks like an interesting course.

Cheers




THW -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/12/2019 7:40:27 PM)

G'day,

My 2 cents is that headquarters units should be weak, and that you shouldn't be a slave to TOEs when creating them. I use HQs to simulate the command element, but also the logistics units within a formation. So for a division there might be a battalion or two (27-50+) supply squads, with a few LMGs and SRAAWs, along with some command squads. I have found out the hard way not to put in all of the trucks, otherwise you end up with super mobile headquarters/logistics units which is not quite right.

This means that the HQ can simulate the command and logistics support for the formation, but is vulnerable if an enemy combat unit ever reaches it. They can often fight off light infantry/SF battalions, but will normally get smashed by tank or heavy infantry brigades/regiments (as they should). While I try to be as accurate as possible with the combat units' TOE, headquarters should be created to mimic their functions, rather than the exact TOE.




altipueri -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/14/2019 8:23:34 AM)

I've just looked at the HQ composition in a couple of the Command Ops scenarios. These are I gather, based on actual or supposed actual numbers for US corps.

Corps HQ - about 100 people, trucks, jeeps a couple of MGs and a handful of bazookas. No tanks or artillery.
Divisional HQ - about 200 people - stuff as above
Battalion HQ - about 50 - stuff as above

So what I do in several games, shoving tanks and guns into HQ units, is wrong. HQ units are paper tigers.




Curtis Lemay -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/14/2019 4:18:46 PM)

I'll just mention that in my Germany 1945 scenario (which has corp/army sized units), I felt that leaving HQs about company strength in that environment would be ridiculous. So, in that scenario, HQs contain the reserves of their formations - usually making them significant combat assets.




StuccoFresco -> RE: HQ unit composition (11/15/2019 5:52:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: THW

G'day,

My 2 cents is that headquarters units should be weak, and that you shouldn't be a slave to TOEs when creating them. I use HQs to simulate the command element, but also the logistics units within a formation. So for a division there might be a battalion or two (27-50+) supply squads, with a few LMGs and SRAAWs, along with some command squads. I have found out the hard way not to put in all of the trucks, otherwise you end up with super mobile headquarters/logistics units which is not quite right.

This means that the HQ can simulate the command and logistics support for the formation, but is vulnerable if an enemy combat unit ever reaches it. They can often fight off light infantry/SF battalions, but will normally get smashed by tank or heavy infantry brigades/regiments (as they should). While I try to be as accurate as possible with the combat units' TOE, headquarters should be created to mimic their functions, rather than the exact TOE.


I used the same reasoning in my custom scenarios. I see HQ as precious units that dictates the logistic of their units, and must be protected at all cost. An HQ that can be used to stop dead an enemy attack doesn't feel right.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125