Historical Unit Composition

[Khancotlette]

Alright, we're back. Let's take a look at later early-war Panzer divisions!

GERMANY
Early War (1940) Tank Division Templates

By the moment of Battle of France all German tank divisions were very heterogenous in its equipment, so, I guess, we'll need to make at least two templates here to show the most common combinations.

Planned strength of a typical tank division was around 300 machines (the number ranged from 218 to 324). However, there were both the divisions that could outdo these numbers by far — like the 3rd Panzer, which had 341 tanks or the 5th with 318 machines, and the divisions with much smaller tank park — 153 machines in the 9th, 212 in the 8th, 218 in the 6th and so on. Even the 'old guard' 1st and 2nd Panzer Divisions had only 259 and 265 tanks respectively. So, I guess, it would be the right thing to follow the 'paper' structure rather than try to replicate some actual state of things.

So.

The layout didn't change much, the divisional structure was the same with 1939. However, the process of using smaller tank formations had already begun (for example, the legendary 7th Ghost Division had only 1 tank regiment and 1 additional tank battalion in its ranks in France), but it wasn't a strict rule, so we shouldn't portray it yet. The machine park was seriously renewed, too, and this came to having 'mostly German' and 'mostly Czech' divisions in terms of tank armament. So, I guess, we have to make both of them.

Template 1: German Tanks


German Tank Division. Belgium, Spring 1940

Majority of German tank divisions used their own national equipment by the spring of 1940, so this should be the more 'basic' setup. I should again mention, that we're more following the 'paper' state of affairs rather than portraying the actual equipment, because there were no two same-armed divisions in the German army.

The bulk of the formation is still the same with the '39 model. We still have our Rifle Brigade with a Rifle Regiment (Infanterie + Opel) and Motorcycle Battalion (7-strong Kradschützen).

The Sapper Battalion (Pioniere + Opel, strength 10) is here, too. No changes for the divisional Artillery (leFH 18 + Opel) and Anti-Tank (PaK 36 + Opel, strength 7) units.

And then go the changes. Firstly, let's upgrade our Reconnaissance Battalion to a newer SdKfz 222. And then goes the main meal — the tanks.

Let's keep our previous structure (2 Tank Regiments meaning 4 Tank Battalions and also Mixed Companies to show the division's heavier tanks), but of course we need to change the model park. And it's kinda tricky, because the modernisation of the German Tank Corps was a slow and uneasy process with a lot of peculiarities, but we'll try to figure something out.

Mixed Companies should be the easy one. We wanted to make them Panzer IV even for a '39 template, but since we had no early modifications, we chose Panzer IIIE (accessible only via editor) or maybe some Czech tanks as a buyable alternative. For the Battle of France we finally have it! Panzer IVD would make a nice addition to the division, am I right?

Then go the 'regular' tank battalions. Historically we could probably name two common types of German tank divisions by that moment — those who still vastly used Panzer I's and those who almost stopped doing it. I guess, for the sake of gameplay we should stick to the second type, since Panzer I's are weak tanks and we should have enough fun with them in Poland. Then, a most general setup would look this way in terms of strength: around 100 Panzer II's and 50 to 100 Panzer III's. Basically it means that you could make either "2 II + 2 III" or "3 II + 1 III" variants. I'll go with the second one, because it seems to be more historically accurate — three battalions of Panzer IIC and one battalion of Panzer IIIF (that's the only Pz. 3 modification that is available by the Battle of France).

That should be it!

TEMPLATE TOTALS
3 x Panzer IIC, 1 x Panzer IIIF or 2 x Panzer IIC, 2 x Panzer IIIF;
1 x Panzer IVD;
1 x Wehr Infanterie + Opel Blitz (strength 15);
1 x Pioniere + Opel Blitz (strength 10);
1 x 10,5 cm leFH 18 + Opel Blitz;
1 x 3,7 cm PaK 36 + Opel Blitz (strength 7);
1 x Kradschützen (strength 7);
1 x SdKfz 222;

This layout would cost 30 core slots and around 2320 prestige depending on your tank choice.

Template 2: Czech Tanks


German Tank Division. France, Spring 1940

Divisions, which were on paper equipped with mostly Czech tanks, were the 6th, 7th and 8th. In reality, however, Pz. 35(t) and Pz. 38(t) were found in nearly all Wehrmacht tank divisions. The 6th Panzer Division used the 35s and the other two used exclusively 38s. These differences, I guess, should be 'combined' in our template to show some kind of middle ground.

So. Two Tank Regiments making 4 battalions in total, and also mixed tank companies to show the heavier equipment. I guess, three battalions should be the Czech machines — for example, two battalions of Panzer 35(t)s and one of Panzer 38(t)s. Or otherwise. It's up to you, as I've said before, the historical divisions were using exclusively one type (at least on paper). One battalion should still be equipped with early light tanks — like Panzer IIC (on paper there should be 40 of them in each division, but in reality there were much more).

All other assets should be the same with the previous template.

TEMPLATE TOTALS
1 x Panzer IIC, 1 x Panzer 38(t) Ausf. A, 2 x Panzer 35(t);
1 x Panzer IVD;
1 x Wehr Infanterie + Opel Blitz (strength 15);
1 x Pioniere + Opel Blitz (strength 10);
1 x 10,5 cm leFH 18 + Opel Blitz;
1 x 3,7 cm PaK 36 + Opel Blitz (strength 7);
1 x Kradschützen (strength 7);
1 x SdKfz 222;

'Czech' Panzer Division would cost you the same 30 core slots and 2360 prestige. That makes this template a bit more expensive than the 'German' one, but technically they are almost the same.

Thanks for attention! Eager to hear your thoughts about these ones And stay tuned for more! I think, in the next update we'll talk about the 7. Panzer Division in person!

[Gfot]

Just a quick note on the heterogeneous nature of German Panzer divisions in 1939/1940. Initially (1935), the Germans created 3 Panzer divisions (numbered 1-3) out of cavalry units. Later (1937-1938) they created two more (4 and 5) and 4 "light" (numbered 1-4) divisions. The 5 panzer divisions included a panzer brigade, with two regiments of two battalions each (both Regiments and the brigade had a HQ, so they could be coordinated in any conceivable grouping). The light divisions were successors to light cavalry formations, and they included a single tank battalion with no regimental or brigade command. After Poland, the German command decided to convert the light divisions to Panzer divisions (numbered 6-9) by adding a panzer regiment to them. So the former light divisions ended up with 3 tank battalions. After France, the Germans decided to reduce the tank strength of Panzer divisions to one regiment, and transferred the second to infantry divisions to convert them to panzer divisions. The former "light" divisions, which never had a second tank regiment, were mostly not affected by this process, so by late 1940, the former "light" divisions (6-9 Panzer) had more tank battalions than the original, "heavy" Panzer divisions. So it's tough to find a structure that can cover all that, but I love what you've done.

[Khancotlette]

Just a quick note on the heterogeneous nature of German Panzer divisions in 1939/1940. Initially (1935), the Germans created 3 Panzer divisions (numbered 1-3) out of cavalry units. Later (1937-1938) they created two more (4 and 5) and 4 "light" (numbered 1-4) divisions. The 5 panzer divisions included a panzer brigade, with two regiments of two battalions each (both Regiments and the brigade had a HQ, so they could be coordinated in any conceivable grouping). The light divisions were successors to light cavalry formations, and they included a single tank battalion with no regimental or brigade command. After Poland, the German command decided to convert the light divisions to Panzer divisions (numbered 6-9) by adding a panzer regiment to them. So the former light divisions ended up with 3 tank battalions. After France, the Germans decided to reduce the tank strength of Panzer divisions to one regiment, and transferred the second to infantry divisions to convert them to panzer divisions. The former "light" divisions, which never had a second tank regiment, were mostly not affected by this process, so by late 1940, the former "light" divisions (6-9 Panzer) had more tank battalions than the original, "heavy" Panzer divisions. So it's tough to find a structure that can cover all that, but I love what you've done.

Thanks! That's helpful Going to post the famous 7th 'Ghost' Division quite soon

[Khancotlette]

And now it's time for a good early-game legend. The Ghost Division itself!

GERMANY
7th Tank "Ghost" Division (1939—1945) Template — as of 1940


Rommel's tanks in action. France, May 1940

First and foremost — we do see this division in the game, in quite a few of Axis Operations 1940 DLC missions. However, I wouldn't call this portrayal any bit historical — starting from their strange yellow-ish camouflage and ending with their set (and number) of units, these guys have nothing in common with the real 7th Tank Division. But these missions are still fun and Rommel is portrayed greatly, anyway!

So. What should we have in order to portray an actual Ghost Division in our game? Well, I guess the solution is not too hard (however, of course, there are always conventionalities and compromises, just like in the each of our templates).

Let's start from the most important part — the tanks. The 7th Division was one of those which were converted from the former 'light' divisions, and thus it was smaller than older tank divisions. The armoured part consisted of one Tank Regiment and one additional Tank Battalion. According to our 'standard' M40 tank template we would portray them as three tank units. However, I wouldn't suggest in adding mixed companies unit for the division, because historically it had only 24 Pz IV's — definitely not enough for another battalion-sized unit to be represented. What was the other armament (omitting the Panzer I's)? Circa 60 Pz II's and 100 Pz 38(t) — that was one of the 'Czech' divisions. This count gives us one unit of Panzer IIC and two units of Panzer 38(t) Ausf. A. That's the main fighting core of this formation. Also notice that the tanks look a bit black-ish, that's the "Real Panzer Gray" camo skin and it's quite close to the actual paint set of the 7th Tank Division, you could use it if you like this look and total authenticity

However, being weaker in tanks, the Ghost Division was much stronger in terms of infantry, having two Rifle Regiments instead of a standard one for the most other divisions. We will use two Wehr Infanterie on Opel Blitz trucks to represent them. The Rifle Brigade also had its own Motorcycle Battalion, so a 7-strong unit of Kradschützen will make it.

The rest of the setup is 'classic' — a Sapper Battalion (10-strong Pioniere + Opel Blitz), an Artillery Regiment (motorised 10,5 cm), an Anti-Tank Battalion (motorised 3,7 cm, strength 7) and a Recon Battalion (SdKfz 222) — all assets are like in a standard Panzer Division.

So, that's the legendary division's template! Feel free to use it in your own campaigns and scenarios (and don't forget to turn Sabaton on while playing with them ).

TEMPLATE TOTALS
1 x Panzer IIC, 2 x Panzer 38(t) Ausf. A.;
2 x Wehr Infanterie + Opel Blitz (strength 15);
1 x Pioniere + Opel Blitz (strength 10);
1 x 10,5 cm leFH 18 + Opel Blitz;
1 x 3,7 cm PaK 36 + Opel Blitz (strength 7);
1 x Kradschützen (strength 7);
1 x SdKfz 222;

The price for that is 27 core slots and roughly 2155 prestige. Cheaper than a usual tank division due to less tanks, but its combat potential is still great with a more balanced combined-arms approach which would allow you to make this division a much better city-capturer.

Thanks for your attention! '41 Panzer Division is going to be next

[P5138]

I really like these templates. I tried to do something like this a while ago, but settled on a unit name generator and a sort of ad-hoc order of battle.

I was always working on the assumption that, at least in the AO DLCs, each unit was (roughly) one battalion (with artillery units being a battery, and air units being a single attached Gruppe). It made more sense to me than each unit being a regiment, since the battles don't seem like they're scaled that big. It also means that my core is huge, with an infantry division and tank division split into battalions, with attached regiments of paratroops, mountain troops and other units.

[Khancotlette]

Yeah, I know I've promised to make '41 Panzer Division. But I'm still kinda scared to begin these series of templates due to their complexity, so let's do something lighter for now

GERMANY
1939 Light Division Template


German Light Division. Poland, Autumn 1939

First to say — basically, there were two quite different things in the Wehrmacht, which were called "Light Divisions". They were coming from the same source, however. One type of division was the formation that we're discussing today — basically a 'cavalry tank' division. It existed mostly during the Polish campaign and majority of such divisions were converted to standard Panzer divisions by the Battle of France. So, they existed from 1937 to 1940. The other thing is "Africa light division", which was quite similar in layout and existed until 1942 or even 1943 in some cases, but fought exclusively in Africa. We'll cover it a little bit later.

The main difference between a regular Tank Division and a Light Division was their strength (that's why it's called light, obviously). Being almost the same in auxiliaries, the latter was much weaker in the sense of main combat arms. Let's take a look.

Formally it was still mostly a tank division, but it had only one Tank Battalion. The 1st Light Division with a full-strength tank regiment in its ranks was a notable exception, but we're here for the rules, not for exceptions, right? So, 1 tank units, and I think, it should be represented by a Panzer IIC. Panzer I was still a majority in quite a few divisions, but for the balance sake, I think, we should choose the newer armament.

The supporting combat units were not motorised infantry like in a usual Panzer Division, but cavalry. Two Mounted Rifles Regiments (Kavallerieschützenregimenter) to be represented, for sure, by 2 Kavallerie units of full strength.

And that should be it for the unusual parts. The rest of the division is classic and was seen before. Sapper Battalion (10-strong Pioniere + Opel), Artillery Regiment (10,5 cm + Opel), Anti-Tank Battalion (3,7 cm + Opel) — everything the same with the standard Panzers.

The only funny difference is the organisation of the reconnaissance. The number of the units, unexpectedly, stays almost the same with the basic Tank Division, but the principle is a bit different. If we had a Motorcycle Battalion of the Rifle Brigade and a Recon Battalion of the Tank Division itself in previous cases, now we have a whole Reconnaissance Regiment, which is composed of two battalions. I. Recon Battalion was equipped with armoured cars and II. Recon Battalion was equipped with motorcycles (the battalion numbers could switch vice versa, but that doesn't really matter, the equipment was still the same). So there are SdKfz 222 and Kradschützen again, but now the latter would have full strength due to being a part of formally armoured unit. Quite funny, right?

TEMPLATE TOTALS
1 x Panzer IIC;
2 x Kavallerie;
1 x Pioniere + Opel Blitz (strength 10);
1 x 10,5 cm leFH 18 + Opel Blitz;
1 x 3,7 cm PaK 36 + Opel Blitz (strength 7);
1 x Kradschützen;
1 x SdKfz 222;

This division costs 21 core slots and circa 1805 prestige. Of course it's way cheaper than a regular Tank Division, but it's much weaker as well. So it's completely up whether to you to buy this quite bizarre example of combined arms formation or not

More to come! Stay tuned

[Khancotlette]

I really like these templates. I tried to do something like this a while ago, but settled on a unit name generator and a sort of ad-hoc order of battle.

I was always working on the assumption that, at least in the AO DLCs, each unit was (roughly) one battalion (with artillery units being a battery, and air units being a single attached Gruppe). It made more sense to me than each unit being a regiment, since the battles don't seem like they're scaled that big. It also means that my core is huge, with an infantry division and tank division split into battalions, with attached regiments of paratroops, mountain troops and other units.

Thanks! Regarding the scale — well, as I've said, it's tricky. In one battle you fight for each quarter of Stalingrad and in another you conquer half-a-Norway. I guess, the perfect scale is achievable only in a fully pre-designed custom campaign But my point for using mostly regiments at least for infantry was that it's virtually impossible for an infantry battalion to capture the whole city/town hex, while a regiment effectively can. And it allows to avoid the over-crowdedness of infantry and artillery. But, of course, there is no perfect system, every approach has its pros and cons

[P5138]

I really like these templates. I tried to do something like this a while ago, but settled on a unit name generator and a sort of ad-hoc order of battle.

I was always working on the assumption that, at least in the AO DLCs, each unit was (roughly) one battalion (with artillery units being a battery, and air units being a single attached Gruppe). It made more sense to me than each unit being a regiment, since the battles don't seem like they're scaled that big. It also means that my core is huge, with an infantry division and tank division split into battalions, with attached regiments of paratroops, mountain troops and other units.

Thanks! Regarding the scale — well, as I've said, it's tricky. In one battle you fight for each quarter of Stalingrad and in another you conquer half-a-Norway. I guess, the perfect scale is achievable only in a fully pre-designed custom campaign But my point for using mostly regiments at least for infantry was that it's virtually impossible for an infantry battalion to capture the whole city/town hex, while a regiment effectively can. And it allows to avoid the over-crowdedness of infantry and artillery. But, of course, there is no perfect system, every approach has its pros and cons

I disagree that a single in-game infantry unit can effectively take or hold anything on its own. It pretty much always needs artillery and other units to take a city. If a regiment is 2 battalions, and if each infantry unit is a battalion, then it makes sense since it's about the in-game effective minimum for taking a town hex from a single unit (without massive casualties). A single infantry unit in PzC2 is like an exposed pawn in chess: it always needs cover from other pieces to do its job effectively.

The battalion scale would mean that each strength unit of an infantry unit is roughly 50 people (a fully overstrengthed unit being 1000, with a fully over-overstrengthed unit being 1250). A regiment scale would make each strength unit be double that (so each represents a company, roughly). I could never see myself wiping out entire companies with plinks of damage, so a battalion made more sense to me. It also made custom naming things so much easier.

[Khancotlette]

I really like these templates. I tried to do something like this a while ago, but settled on a unit name generator and a sort of ad-hoc order of battle.

I was always working on the assumption that, at least in the AO DLCs, each unit was (roughly) one battalion (with artillery units being a battery, and air units being a single attached Gruppe). It made more sense to me than each unit being a regiment, since the battles don't seem like they're scaled that big. It also means that my core is huge, with an infantry division and tank division split into battalions, with attached regiments of paratroops, mountain troops and other units.

Thanks! Regarding the scale — well, as I've said, it's tricky. In one battle you fight for each quarter of Stalingrad and in another you conquer half-a-Norway. I guess, the perfect scale is achievable only in a fully pre-designed custom campaign But my point for using mostly regiments at least for infantry was that it's virtually impossible for an infantry battalion to capture the whole city/town hex, while a regiment effectively can. And it allows to avoid the over-crowdedness of infantry and artillery. But, of course, there is no perfect system, every approach has its pros and cons

I disagree that a single in-game infantry unit can effectively take or hold anything on its own. It pretty much always needs artillery and other units to take a city. If a regiment is 2 battalions, and if each infantry unit is a battalion, then it makes sense since it's about the in-game effective minimum for taking a town hex from a single unit (without massive casualties). A single infantry unit in PzC2 is like an exposed pawn in chess: it always needs cover from other pieces to do its job effectively.

The battalion scale would mean that each strength unit of an infantry unit is roughly 50 people (a fully overstrengthed unit being 1000, with a fully over-overstrengthed unit being 1250). A regiment scale would make each strength unit be double that (so each represents a company, roughly). I could never see myself wiping out entire companies with plinks of damage, so a battalion made more sense to me. It also made custom naming things so much easier.

That's not exactly what I've meant I was saying that in the game we have quite a lot of situations, when a big town or city is represented by only one hex, right? And what unit size can effectively take such a vast territory on its own? I guess, only a regiment. Of course you would be right if you say that the game allows us to "occupy" that hex with any type of unit, even with an AA-gun, but that's of course some kind of gameplay conventionality. If we try to play historically and roleplay some kind of actual warfare, then we should imagine that an infantry unit taking a city (and that's their primary and probably only task in the game — to occupy the victory hexes) would be able to do the job to control it on its own, and then it would be logical to consider it a regiment. But, as I've said before, I'm not insisting at all that my method is right and your method is wrong, there's no perfect method, at least when we're talking about the base game with its VERY different map scales from mission to mission

[P5138]

Thanks! Regarding the scale — well, as I've said, it's tricky. In one battle you fight for each quarter of Stalingrad and in another you conquer half-a-Norway. I guess, the perfect scale is achievable only in a fully pre-designed custom campaign But my point for using mostly regiments at least for infantry was that it's virtually impossible for an infantry battalion to capture the whole city/town hex, while a regiment effectively can. And it allows to avoid the over-crowdedness of infantry and artillery. But, of course, there is no perfect system, every approach has its pros and cons

I disagree that a single in-game infantry unit can effectively take or hold anything on its own. It pretty much always needs artillery and other units to take a city. If a regiment is 2 battalions, and if each infantry unit is a battalion, then it makes sense since it's about the in-game effective minimum for taking a town hex from a single unit (without massive casualties). A single infantry unit in PzC2 is like an exposed pawn in chess: it always needs cover from other pieces to do its job effectively.

The battalion scale would mean that each strength unit of an infantry unit is roughly 50 people (a fully overstrengthed unit being 1000, with a fully over-overstrengthed unit being 1250). A regiment scale would make each strength unit be double that (so each represents a company, roughly). I could never see myself wiping out entire companies with plinks of damage, so a battalion made more sense to me. It also made custom naming things so much easier.

That's not exactly what I've meant I was saying that in the game we have quite a lot of situations, when a big town or city is represented by only one hex, right? And what unit size can effectively take such a vast territory on its own? I guess, only a regiment. Of course you would be right if you say that the game allows us to "occupy" that hex with any type of unit, even with an AA-gun, but that's of course some kind of gameplay conventionality. If we try to play historically and roleplay some kind of actual warfare, then we should imagine that an infantry unit taking a city (and that's their primary and probably only task in the game — to occupy the victory hexes) would be able to do the job to control it on its own, and then it would be logical to consider it a regiment. But, as I've said before, I'm not insisting at all that my method is right and your method is wrong, there's no perfect method, at least when we're talking about the base game with its VERY different map scales from mission to mission

I agree with that. My main method for roleplaying is (in my desired scale) I generate names for units as I need them. I created a google sheets based generator for that purpose. The one issue I always had was scale since it varies between battles but mostly between the main campaign and the AO campaigns. In the end I went with: main game unit ~= regiment, AO unit ~= battalion (And with a really special case naming scheme for the SCW campaign, because that one requires a lot of uses of the "experimental" prefix.). What I'd love to be able to do (but my excel abilities are a bit lacking here) is to combine the name generation* with the templates and just get out a whole division's worth of names in whatever scale it's set to.

*which is still sort of experimental, in-development, and in many ways broken. I don't know any good/easy way to generate unit numbers that isn't just picking a random one between a range.

[Khancotlette]

So, we're finally here. I guess, we had to do it, one day or another. So, let's begin.

GERMANY
Mid-War (1941) Tank Division Template


German Tank Division. Baltics, Summer 1941

Okay. As you may know, by 1941 a massive reform of tank divisions was made. In order to make the number of Panzer Divisions bigger to cope with the vast territories of the Soviet Union, the division itself became much weakened in the number of tanks. However, the firepower of the division didn't change much due to the use of more modern tanks. We should list two major changes established by this reform: only 1 tank regiment per division and 2 motorised rifle regiments instead of 1. By the beginning of the Operation Barbarossa there were no two same-looking tank divisions in the Wehrmacht, but, I guess, we have to do some kind of "combined" template in this case in order not to make things too difficult. Historically, there were both 3- and 2-battalioned tank regiments, as well as German- and Czech-armed tank divisions (the latter were always 3-battalioned). The only division in the whole Wehrmacht to use exclusively German tanks and to have 3 battalions was the 3rd one, but we should clearly understand that 35(t) and 38(t) would become definitely obsolete for the mid-game, so we would make an assumption that the player has an elite Panzer Division under his command, with full possible number of battalions (in order not to make the division look too weak) and most modern tanks possible. You could always take 2 battalions instead of 3 or use older Czech tanks to go full-history

With all particularities described, let's deal with the template itself. Since we're modelling a 3-battalioned Tank Division, there definitely should be three basic tank units — the Tank Battalions themselves. A typical number of tanks for such a division (which was never achieved in reality, however) was 65 Panzer II, 106 Panzer III (with 20—30 older 37-mm and around 80+ newer 50-mm ones) and 42 Panzer IV. If we take a look at the previosly-mentioned 3rd Tank Division, in reality it had 58 Panzer II, 29 37-mm Panzer III, 81 50-mm Panzer III and 32 Panzer IV. Panzer IV's were always a great deficit. Using both "paper" and real numbers, we should come to the conclusion to make one Panzer II and two Panzer III units to represent the battalions themselves and portray the Panzer IV's as "Mixed Companies". What should be the unit choice? One battalion would be Panzer IIC since that's virtually the only modification available right now, one battalion would be Panzer IIIF to represent the 37-mm ones and Panzer IIIG with a 50-mm gun. And for the Mixed Companies we would take a Panzer IVE.

That leaves us with 4 tank units for '41 division instead of 5 in '39 and '40 — I hope, that would be the best way to show both the weakening of the tank division in its numbers but strengthening of it in firepower. The change from two regiments to the only one wouldn't look so dramatic — with all pros and cons for historicity's sake. My main fear was always to make the divisional template too infantry-based (how it was in reality) for a tank-centered game. I hope, I did my best. But as I've said before, you always can make it historically hardcore and get rid of another tank battalion. Historically, there were 11 2-battalioned and 8 3-battalioned tank divisions, so it's up to you what to choose.

Then goes the Rifle Brigade. Since 1941 it had two Rifle Regiments instead of one, so let's portray them with Wehr Infanterie. I guess, it would be a right thing to give one regiment Opel Blitz as the main transport, and the other — the SdKfz 251/1 half-track, because it was historically used by the Panzer Divisions, and 1941 was the year of stadial transformation of the Rifle Regiments into Tank Grenadier ones.

The rest of the setup is almost the same with the previous templates. The only change I'd like to produce would be upgrading the Anti-Tank Battalion to 5 cm PaK 38 guns carried by an Opel, but remember that it was used in much smaller numbers historically (each anti-tank company had 8 3,7-cm and only 3 5-cm by the beginning of the Barbarossa). The Recon Battalion could get SdKfz 232 instead of 222. All other assets are the same as before — Artillery Regiment (10,5 cm + Opel Blitz), Sapper Battalion (strength 10, Pioniere + Opel Blitz) and Motorcycle Battalion (strength 7, Kradschützen).

TEMPLATE TOTALS
1 x Panzer IIC, 1 x Panzer IIIF, 1 x Panzer IIIG;
1 x Panzer IVE;
1 x Wehr Infanterie + Opel Blitz, 1 x Wehr Infanterie + SdKfz 251/1;
1 x Pioniere + Opel Blitz (strength 10);
1 x 10,5 cm leFH 18 + Opel Blitz;
1 x 5 cm PaK 38 + Opel Blitz (strength 7);
1 x Kradschützen (strength 7);
1 x SdKfz 232 8-Rad;

So, what's the cost? 33 core slots and roughly 2630 prestige. That's not much different to the '40 version, and seems to be a reasonable price for the mid-game

Thanks for attention! I guess, that was my best attempt to re-create a 1941 Panzer Division. But still keep in mind, that this look and layout is probably more about the elite, well-supplied and armed German tank division, historically the majority of German Armoured Corps looked much older and weaker by the Barbarossa! But we'll allow this for gameplay reason, shouldn't we?

[adiekmann]

I haven't commented in a while on your models, but I like to think I had an influence on you.

I still find only one major fault (IMO) with them, however, from a historical and especially gameplay POV. I still strongly feel that your continued 1 artillery unit/regiment is far too weak and underrepresented. P5128 mentioned each art unit representing a battery, but that goes too far the other direction, but less so, especially if one of those three is a Sturmgeschütz type unit with only 1 range. (I think maybe he means an artillery battalion/abteilung, which is in between a battery and regiment in size?) But, as I have posted earlier, I find three art units is too much for gameplay. Therefore, I have long settled for 2 art units. It's somewhat historical (Panzer divisions before the big reoganization had only 2 battalions per art regiment then), plus more importantly it fits better game wise.

For years when I did this playing PC1 GC, I did indeed consider each artillery unit in PC1 as a regiment, and as a consequence I had 1 per "division." My core for most of the DLCs in the GC had only 6 artillery units, maybe 8 late war when you included Sturmgeschütz units. But artillery units are much more important in PC2 with the different entrenchment rules, so more art units are a must.

[Khancotlette]

I haven't commented in a while on your models, but I like to think I had an influence on you.

I still find only one major fault (IMO) with them, however, from a historical and especially gameplay POV. I still strongly feel that your continued 1 artillery unit/regiment is far too weak and underrepresented. P5128 mentioned each art unit representing a battery, but that goes too far the other direction, but less so, especially if one of those three is a Sturmgeschütz type unit with only 1 range. (I think maybe he means an artillery battalion/abteilung, which is in between a battery and regiment in size?) But, as I have posted earlier, I find three art units is too much for gameplay. Therefore, I have long settled for 2 art units. It's somewhat historical (Panzer divisions before the big reoganization had only 2 battalions per art regiment then), plus more importantly it fits better game wise.

For years when I did this playing PC1 GC, I did indeed consider each artillery unit in PC1 as a regiment, and as a consequence I had 1 per "division." My core for most of the DLCs in the GC had only 6 artillery units, maybe 8 late war when you included Sturmgeschütz units. But artillery units are much more important in PC2 with the different entrenchment rules, so more art units are a must.

I strongly agree that artillery is really needed, but I've also mentioned that you're usually having more than one division under your command while playing — basically, you're a corps commander, so you'll also have heavy corps artillery assets, I'll just cover them a bit later I hope that there would be enough artillery — one light howitzer or self-propelled gun per division plus heavier arty of the corps. Also, I have plans for covering Artillery Divisions and Artillery Brigades for even more firepower So you could have them to be added to your divisional guns to have more than enough, I think.

[Khancotlette]

In the index I've added the sections with corps-level composition templates (for now: Army, Tank, Mountain and Cavalry Corps, plus unique template for Afrika Korps) and corps-level additional assets to be filled, as well as with higher-level (Army, Tank Group, Army Group etc.) assets which would definitely be interesting for the player, re-enacting some kind of "High Command assistance" units to be attached to his corps

P.S. Also really eager to start the new Japan section! Just not really sure, which colour to use for them, since yellow would look pale on the white background Some kind of golden-orange, I guess...

[P5138]

I haven't commented in a while on your models, but I like to think I had an influence on you.

I still find only one major fault (IMO) with them, however, from a historical and especially gameplay POV. I still strongly feel that your continued 1 artillery unit/regiment is far too weak and underrepresented. P5128 mentioned each art unit representing a battery, but that goes too far the other direction, but less so, especially if one of those three is a Sturmgeschütz type unit with only 1 range. (I think maybe he means an artillery battalion/abteilung, which is in between a battery and regiment in size?) But, as I have posted earlier, I find three art units is too much for gameplay. Therefore, I have long settled for 2 art units. It's somewhat historical (Panzer divisions before the big reoganization had only 2 battalions per art regiment then), plus more importantly it fits better game wise.

For years when I did this playing PC1 GC, I did indeed consider each artillery unit in PC1 as a regiment, and as a consequence I had 1 per "division." My core for most of the DLCs in the GC had only 6 artillery units, maybe 8 late war when you included Sturmgeschütz units. But artillery units are much more important in PC2 with the different entrenchment rules, so more art units are a must.

I think my term of "battery" is definitely too small. It's more of a "small, consolidated artillery battalion from all guns in the division". So in the case of a early war Artillery Regiment, that would be something like 1x10.5mm and 1x75mm (or 15cm). Since my infantry units are "Battalions", the artillery spreads around fairly well (1 artillery unit per every 3 infantry).

In the end, though, I think the difference in the end with splitting between regiments and battalions is mostly one of semantics: the actual number of units you deploy will be the same, it's just what you call them. I prefer to name with battalions because then every unit, regardless of type, is representing the same rough idea. if one unit is a battalion, and it controls a hex, then a regiment would take up two or more hexes. If a unit called a "regiment" controls a hex, then a unit called a batallion should control only half of one at most. Since there are definitely cases where a unit would make sense to be called a "battalion" and you cannot control partial hexes, all the units are battalions to me (It's the least common denominator of the units).

[adiekmann]

I haven't commented in a while on your models, but I like to think I had an influence on you.

I still find only one major fault (IMO) with them, however, from a historical and especially gameplay POV. I still strongly feel that your continued 1 artillery unit/regiment is far too weak and underrepresented. P5128 mentioned each art unit representing a battery, but that goes too far the other direction, but less so, especially if one of those three is a Sturmgeschütz type unit with only 1 range. (I think maybe he means an artillery battalion/abteilung, which is in between a battery and regiment in size?) But, as I have posted earlier, I find three art units is too much for gameplay. Therefore, I have long settled for 2 art units. It's somewhat historical (Panzer divisions before the big reoganization had only 2 battalions per art regiment then), plus more importantly it fits better game wise.

For years when I did this playing PC1 GC, I did indeed consider each artillery unit in PC1 as a regiment, and as a consequence I had 1 per "division." My core for most of the DLCs in the GC had only 6 artillery units, maybe 8 late war when you included Sturmgeschütz units. But artillery units are much more important in PC2 with the different entrenchment rules, so more art units are a must.

I think my term of "battery" is definitely too small. It's more of a "small, consolidated artillery battalion from all guns in the division". So in the case of a early war Artillery Regiment, that would be something like 1x10.5mm and 1x75mm (or 15cm). Since my infantry units are "Battalions", the artillery spreads around fairly well (1 artillery unit per every 3 infantry).

In the end, though, I think the difference in the end with splitting between regiments and battalions is mostly one of semantics: the actual number of units you deploy will be the same, it's just what you call them. I prefer to name with battalions because then every unit, regardless of type, is representing the same rough idea. if one unit is a battalion, and it controls a hex, then a regiment would take up two or more hexes. If a unit called a "regiment" controls a hex, then a unit called a batallion should control only half of one at most. Since there are definitely cases where a unit would make sense to be called a "battalion" and you cannot control partial hexes, all the units are battalions to me (It's the least common denominator of the units).

True, the names are just for fun and flavor for those of us who find it that way.

Here's one of my "Panzer Divisions" in game that I just ended AO42 with.

6. Panzer-Division

I. / Pz.Rgt. 11 (Panzer IIIM)
II. / Pz.Rgt. 11 (Panzer IVN)

Pz.Gren.Rgt. 4 (Wehr Infantry)
Pz.Gren.Rgt. 114 (Wehr Infantry)
Pioniere-Btl. 57 (Pioniere Infantry)

I. / Artillerie-Rgt. 76 (10.5 cm leFH 18)
II. / Artillerie-Rgt. 76 (15 cm sFH 18)

Aufklärungs-Abt. 6 (Panzer IIF)

Panzerjäger-Abt. 41 (Marder IIIH)

Flakabteilung 298 (the 2 cm quad on a half track, but forgot what it's called)

Should have had a Kradschützen battalion, but this isn't a core that I imported from SCW so it's much smaller. No time or room to add and develop it. Besides, it will would be converted to something else in the next DLC anyway when Germany disbanded their motorcycle battalions because they became largely obsolete. One of my other "divisions" (2. Panzer-Division) does have a motorcycle unit, but its the only one of the three that I added it to. Otherwise, my other Pz.Divisions are all almost identical. (7th Panzer has a third tank unit; a flame tank.)

[P5138]

I haven't finished 1942 since I restarted the AO Campaign from SCW. I'm now at the Saar Offensive, and this is my setup for the Saarbrucken Scenario which will be going into Poland. Every unit is a Battalion, and infantry regiments are dropped to 2 Battalions from the 3 in reality. I'm also using "Infantry General" to counter the slot cost so I can field whole divisions:

1st Panzer Division (This is my heaviest tank division)
I. /Pz.Rgt. 31 (Pz.IIIF; Industry Connections, ftw)
II./Pz.Rgt. 31 (Pz.IB)
I. /Pz.Rgt. 32 (Pz.IIIF)
II./Pz.Rgt. 31 (Pz.38(t))
I. /Schütz.Rgt. 31 (Grenadiers with Opels)
II./Schütz.Rgt. 31 (Wehr Infantry with Opels)
Kav.Abt. 31 (Kavalerie)
Pi.Bat. 31 (Pioneers with Opels)
(Br.)/Pi.Bat. 31 (Bridging Pioneers with Opels; this probably should be a core level unit, but tank divisions did have bridging engineers, so...)
Aufkl.Abt. 31 (SdKfz 222; There's no other choices for recon in 1939 unless I got lucky with Industry Connections, but I'm only getting Panzer III's, woe is me)
I./Art.Rgt. 31 (15cm sFH18)
II./Art.Rgt. 31 (10.5cm leFH18)
III./Art.Rgt. 31 (10.5cm leFH18)
Pz.Abw.Abt. 31 (Pak 36)
(Flak.)/Pz.Abw.Abt. 31 (37mm Flak18, Flak units were attached to the AT battalion from my research. Luckily this means I have a second AT gun.)

Corps Panzer Division (Smaller division based on an "HQ Division")
I. /Pz.Rgt. 67 (Pz.IIC)
II./Pz.Rgt. 67 (Pz.IB)
I. /Schütz.Rgt. 67 (Grenadier with Opel)
II./Schütz.Rgt. 67 (Wehr Infantry with Opel)
(Fa.)/Schütz.Rgt. 67 (7.5cm FK 16 nA; this represents the collection of field guns in the infantry regiments.)
Pi.Bat. 67 (Pioneers with Opels)
Aufkl.Abt. 67 (SdKfz 222)
(V.)Pz.Jg.Abt. 67 (Panzer I Breda; gotta find a use for it somewhere; no incorporated Flak units for this division)
Art.Abt. 67 (10.5cm leFH18)

There's also attached Heer Flak Battalions and aircraft. There's also a third tank division and an infantry battalion in the corps to swap around. Even by 1939, it gets a bit unwieldy. I've numbered everything with the same numbers just so I can identify what's in what division. I wish Panzer Corps had a built in way to put a custom unit identifier on the icon itself. Even better would be a way to custom group units into "division templates" that we could move as blocks.

Edit: Right now, all the names are being generated mostly automatically using a spreadsheet. I've even figured out a way to plug in the templates from this thread into it to get something valid out the other end... sort of. I just spent way too long trying to convert the game's unit csv file into usable data to calculate slot costs, prestige costs, and get other stats on the fly without user intervention.

[Khancotlette]

I wish Panzer Corps had a built in way to put a custom unit identifier on the icon itself. Even better would be a way to custom group units into "division templates" that we could move as blocks.

Oh I totally agree! Right now my only solution is using different camo, which doesn't really help regarding the infantry, because they still look pretty much the same if you don't give them some kind of completely ahistorical colours...

[adiekmann]

I wish Panzer Corps had a built in way to put a custom unit identifier on the icon itself. Even better would be a way to custom group units into "division templates" that we could move as blocks.

Oh I totally agree! Right now my only solution is using different camo, which doesn't really help regarding the infantry, because they still look pretty much the same if you don't give them some kind of completely ahistorical colours...

I use different camo for my "divisions" to help make it easier to identify them. A lot of them look similar to one another, so I choose ones that stand out and are very different from the others. With infantry units I pick one that either matches as close as I can, and/or I do the red or blue thing to them. Like in my "from SCW Core" my 3. Panzer-Division's infantry all have the blue lines/marks on them, and my 4. Panzer infantry has red. 12. Panzer has a nearly black, and GD has the beige-like kaki colored one. This way they all are easily distinguishable from one another and have armor/vehicle camos that somewhat match (except for the red and blue vehicles, I don't use those on the tanks/art/recon/AT.

[P5138]

I've gotten to using ahistorical color coding for divisions with exceptions for any units that are special (Galland, Dir, Azul Infantry, etc.) Those units I highlight with the red stripe version of the default skin. The color coding, plus keeping the divisions distinctly numbered (blocks of 10; so, for example, all units in the 30s are from one division, all units in the 40s are from another) keeps things generally aligned.

It's still not great, though. Color coding makes all the infantry of a division look the same, and you can only choose so many colors before the army start looking psychedelic.

One of my concessions to this ordering is the SCW campaign. Because everything is screwed up in that campaign, I've taken to not customizing units' names. Once I get to the 1939 campaign, units get divided and infantry gets added in to make proper divisions. Also, I tend to keep my Panzer Is throughout the entirety of the SCW campaign, so I can field a full tank division without foreign units at the beginning of 1939, and slowly convert the T-26s et. al. to German armor (I always use slow modernization, so it takes 3 or 4 missions to convert/upgrade every plane and tank).