Order of Battle: World War II - OoB

[JTFox001]

One of the most interesting things I find with this game is the absence of a command and control structure.

I found the lack of a hierarchy with HQ units a bit strange compared to other war games I have played. However I have reached the Minsk scenario in the Blitzkrieg Campaign and though I might inject some structure along historical lines.

Using the book "Hitler's Army" by David Stone as a reference I created Infantry Divisions (1940 & 1944), and Panzer Division (1940 & 1944). Using the "battalion" as the base unit size this worked out well. Unfortunately when it cam to the play the Minsk scenario my 69 Command Points only allowed me to build one Inf Div. I did not want to invade Russia without tanks. Plan B required.

Using the book "Atlas of the Eastern Front 1941 - 45" by Robert Kirchubel as a reference I decided to look at which units were deployed. I was able use one unit per Corps and set up the 9th Army and 4th Army, along with the 2nd and 3rd Panzer Gruppen. This added up to 69 CP, happy days. Unfortunately I had no Artillery, Anti-Air or Anti-Tank units. I did not want to invade Russia without them. Plan C required.

While working on Plan C I'd be interested in any ideas around force composition.

Cheers

[terminator]

One of the most interesting things I find with this game is the absence of a command and control structure.

I found the lack of a hierarchy with HQ units a bit strange compared to other war games I have played. However I have reached the Minsk scenario in the Blitzkrieg Campaign and though I might inject some structure along historical lines.

Some Commanders have a range that can influence nearby units.

[JTFox001]

Some Commanders have a range that can influence nearby units.

That's a good point.

I have a commander attached to a unit but normally forget about him. I think I might add him to a recon unit as they are very mobile and move him around to where he's needed most.

Cheers

[prestidigitation]

Since I usually conceptualize my army around fairly static formations, I'd personally like an Order of Battle system that allowed me to create groups of units of arbitrary size with a commander and name associated with them. It'd also be neat if the formation itself had veterancy. The big advantage would be saving me the effort of typing the formation name into the unit name and allowing me to deploy them as a group (ideally with a set formation).

[StuccoFresco]

Since I usually conceptualize my army around fairly static formations, I'd personally like an Order of Battle system that allowed me to create groups of units of arbitrary size with a commander and name associated with them. It'd also be neat if the formation itself had veterancy. The big advantage would be saving me the effort of typing the formation name into the unit name and allowing me to deploy them as a group (ideally with a set formation).

I miss this too, so in my "operational" mod I created HQ at Corps and Army level and made them useful in two ways:

- they are the only land unit to have an active AA attack, so the player is encouraged to keep them close to their units
- when one gets destroyed, the "main" supply point of his faction decreases (usually by 10 for Corps and 25 for armies), so the player is encouraged to keep them safe

Testing in hotseat, it works quite well.

[Zekedia222]

Since I usually conceptualize my army around fairly static formations, I'd personally like an Order of Battle system that allowed me to create groups of units of arbitrary size with a commander and name associated with them. It'd also be neat if the formation itself had veterancy. The big advantage would be saving me the effort of typing the formation name into the unit name and allowing me to deploy them as a group (ideally with a set formation).

That idea reminds me of Civil War Generals 2. Each unit (be it cavalry, artillery, or infantry), was composed of a unique number of men. The more men, the more damage they could do, the more casualties they could take before breaking, the more expensive ammunition and new weapons are, etc. Unfortunately, you weren't able to actually make new units and deploy them to specific locations, but hey, it came out in like 1992, or something.

[Admiral_Horthy]

Since I usually conceptualize my army around fairly static formations, I'd personally like an Order of Battle system that allowed me to create groups of units of arbitrary size with a commander and name associated with them. It'd also be neat if the formation itself had veterancy. The big advantage would be saving me the effort of typing the formation name into the unit name and allowing me to deploy them as a group (ideally with a set formation).

I miss this too, so in my "operational" mod I created HQ at Corps and Army level and made them useful in two ways:

- they are the only land unit to have an active AA attack, so the player is encouraged to keep them close to their units
- when one gets destroyed, the "main" supply point of his faction decreases (usually by 10 for Corps and 25 for armies), so the player is encouraged to keep them safe

Testing in hotseat, it works quite well.

Creating HQ units is not bad actually. In scenario it can be done with tricks and commanders (I might create generic HQ commanders and Radio Truck to represent the unit). The supply stuff I solved with moving supply units that simulate actual traffic and provide some limited supply for local troops (like fuel value, or supply production value) so if encircled they last for some turns if they have their trains also encircled with them

[StuccoFresco]

How do those supply units work, mechanically? WHat traits and whatnot?

[Admiral_Horthy]

there's a value, production. It produces supply points. Like the ships, when at the coast. There, points per turn, type (air, land). Carriers produce air supply points. If they are damaged they produce less.

[StuccoFresco]

I thought I tried that already and didn't work. I'm gonna test it again.

[kondi754]

I rather gave up on specifying the type of units on the map - for obvious reasons.
We have maps in OoB where 1 unit symbolize a division - eg Sedan 40, Minsk 41, Kyev 41, Kursk 43 etc., these maps are on an operational-strategic scale.
These maps contain at least 1 army group or the Soviet front, and even several such huge HQs. There are the most of such maps.
Then each 1 tank unit is an armored division for me, and 1 infantry unit is an infantry division. I treat units such as artillery, AT or AA as independent units directly subordinate to the army or even a group of armies, which are assigned to these divisions as support.
In addition, there are also medium-sized maps - Mlawa 39, several maps from Winter War or Sandstorm, as well as Kuban, Demyansk, Rzhev where only a corps or a few corps on both sides are located on the map.
Then each unit should symbolize 1 regiment or 1 brigade - infantry or armored, then support units such as artillery, AT and AA can be considered as organic units within the infantry or armored division or subordinate to corps HQ and assigned to this regiments or brigades as support.
The third type of maps - the smallest/tactical - maps from the battles in the Pacific, Winter War, attack on Malta - each unit on the map symbolizes not even a battalion but sometimes a company.
And arty, AT and AA units are organic units within regiments or battalions in such situation.
For this reason, I gave up naming units and creating some sort of hierarchy or order in my core.
I think the basic thing would be to create a campaign where there is only one type and size of maps, and a specific number of units of one type, then you can play this way.

[Admiral_Horthy]

That's what the main issue here, the scale. In even regimental scale, the majority of art at aa, etc would be integrated to infantry, even tank battalions gone on divisional scale as Pz Divs have PzGren battalions and motorized arty as well... The combat system of OOB fits perfectly for company level, where a tank figure can represent a squadron, an assault gun having weak flanks no longer behaves like that on higher level, having attached support, etc.

[kondi754]

That's what the main issue here, the scale. In even regimental scale, the majority of art at aa, etc would be integrated to infantry, even tank battalions gone on divisional scale as Pz Divs have PzGren battalions and motorized arty as well... The combat system of OOB fits perfectly for company level, where a tank figure can represent a squadron, an assault gun having weak flanks no longer behaves like that on higher level, having attached support, etc.

In my historical mod, I wanted to remove some of the units from Purchase Panel - e.g. for the German faction: 37mm and 50mm PaK, 7.5cm leIG or 10.5cm leFH, similarly light AA guns (2cm, 3.7cm and S-P AA with these guns) because they were part of the Wehrmacht division.
So they are somewhat 'inside' the infantry or panzer unit in OoB. I was only planning to increase the anti-aircraft defense stats for both infantry and tank units.
I would leave only heavy artillery (15cm and above), heavy anti-aircraft and anti-tank artillery (e.g. 8.8cm Flak or 7.5cm PaK), self-propelled anti-tank guns (StuGs and other tank destroyers), because all these units were most often independent units at the disposal of the corps or army HQs and were assigned to support German divisions in the main operational directions, and later to defend the most important points on the frontline
This is the way to create the most realistic OoB operational simulator IMHO
Of course, a similar procedure should be performed for other fractions.

[JTFox001]

Hello all, interesting comments.

In the end I decided to create, what I call, "Combat Commands". These have no scale and can represent anything.

Each Combat Command has 3 primary units and 2 support units as follows.

Infantry ComCmd: Inf Unit + Inf Unit + Hvy Inf Unit + Art Unit + AA/AT Unit (switchable).

Mechanised ComCmd: Inf Unit + Inf Unit + Tank Unit + Art Unit + AA/AT Unit (switchable).

Armoured ComCmd: Inf Unit + Tank Unit + Tank Unit + Art Unit + AA/AT Unit (switchable).

If you want you could have Art/AT (switchable) + AA unit as your support units.

In Minsk scenario I was able to deploy 4 ComCmd formations: 2 x INF, 1 x PzGren (Mech) and 1 Pz ComCmd (Arm).

Cheers

[jeannot le lapin]

Hello all, interesting comments.

In the end I decided to create, what I call, "Combat Commands". These have no scale and can represent anything.

Each Combat Command has 3 primary units and 2 support units as follows.

Infantry ComCmd: Inf Unit + Inf Unit + Hvy Inf Unit + Art Unit + AA/AT Unit (switchable).

Mechanised ComCmd: Inf Unit + Inf Unit + Tank Unit + Art Unit + AA/AT Unit (switchable).

Armoured ComCmd: Inf Unit + Tank Unit + Tank Unit + Art Unit + AA/AT Unit (switchable).

If you want you could have Art/AT (switchable) + AA unit as your support units.

In Minsk scenario I was able to deploy 4 ComCmd formations: 2 x INF, 1 x PzGren (Mech) and 1 Pz ComCmd (Arm).

Cheers

No Engineers ?

[kondi754]

It's very good idea but I agree that engineers should be considered as inf unit or support unit

[Admiral_Horthy]

Guys, it's not ready but I have a concept under testing/developing, that - somewhat - eases this problem and makes the game a bit more clarified and interesting. I just need some demo units to make screens and better wording. Right now, I want to release AAA first, then think more after then.

[prestidigitation]

Since we’re talking specific formations now, here’s mine:

In general I structure as follows, adding support units based on the needs of the scenario. Note that this is the OOB I hit mid campaign usually, not the one I start with as CP is limited early and gradually expands over the course of a campaign.

2x Footmobile Formation
Mission: capture heavily entrenched areas, when necessary fight enemy armor formations
Avoids: open terrain
* 2-3x foot infantry
* 1x short range siege artillery (at least 4 range, at least 2 damage to entrenchment, best performance vs entrenched units)
* (scen dependent) 1x AA (prefer 2 movement, prefer footmobile)
* (scen dependent) 1x AT (prefer 2 movement, prefer footmobile, prefer AT+ART)
* (if CP permits) 1x Tank (prefer TANK+ART)
* (if CP permits) 1x ENG

1x Mechanized Formation
Mission: move quickly to capture distant objectives
Avoids: densely forested terrain, lots of hills/mountains, dense urban areas
* 2x Tank (prefer medium, 5-6 CP, best in class)
* 1x Recon (prefer best combat stats)
* 1x Heavy Infantry (motorized or mechanized)
* 1x Engineer (motorized or mechanized)
* 1x ART (prefer self propelled or if unavailable longest range)
* (scen dependent) 1x SP AT (prefer medium, prefer AT + ART)
* (scen dependent) 1x SP AA (prefer mechanized)
In jungle heavy scenarios or scenarios with frequent landings I will often have 2-3x Marines that I will sub in to other combat formations.

And here’s my explanation for why I pick what I pick in them:

viewtopic.php?f=264&t=101735&start=40#p893522

[kondi754]

Yep, like I mentioned earlier I liked this way too
And when we don't specify the types and names of units, it becomes a universal formula to apply.

I'm also curious about the concept of @Admiral_Horthy

[JTFox001]

No Engineers ?

Good point.

I should have mentioned that I use pre-deployed units in my ComCmds which frees up some CPs to spend on specialist units. I also use the SS CP for this as well. Normally 1 x Eng and 1 x Hvy Inf to support my other units.

Cheers