Attaching/Unattaching Brigades

[Steelslayer]

Just to throw it out there: perhaps before scenarios start you could slightly alter core units by utilizing 'brigade attachments" that enhance the unit ability and they can be added and removed in between scenarios (See H of I). Some units would be enhanced very specifically with AA brigade, or heavy tank brigade, or an anti tank brigade, or a recon brigade. You could buy them with prestige and tailor your units the way you like.

[Sourdust]

I really think this would take PC to a very interesting new level... but it would also be a huge departure from the structure of the game. AA and AT units would pretty much become support brigades and not stand-alone units, the challenges with balance and graphics would be considerable. And would this apply to air and naval units as well? Certainly makes sense for some units, like bridging engineers, which should be a bonus capacity for certain infantry units, not a stand-alone unit.

[Steelslayer]

I think those units could stay in the game. For example, the brigade attachment of anti tank on an,anti tank unit would increase the firepower slightly maybe reflect some platoon, or a company of heavy assets within the larger unit like a number of jadtigers. Attaching an engineer may allow units to move over swamp like clear terrain or cross a river unimpeded, or increase/modify defensive numbers to reflect the fact that the engineer brigade could design better entrenchments for the entire division. The true bridging unit would,still be needed as they would get all other (non engineer units) across rivers as they do presently in the game. Each of the core units in the game could be allowed to attach 1 or 2 brigades for exmple, infantry units 2 brigades, armor and spg 1 brigade??/

[Steelslayer]

Air units could have recon attachments to increase view range, or increase fuel with additional tanks. You could offset the greater range by then decreasing the attack/defence factors. Same for land units, for example you want to bulk up on hvy anti tank attachments then movement and fuel ranges are cut

[Steelslayer]

Here is a further thought. What about the ability to attach and unattach leaders? They would aquire certain skills along the way like, "ace tanker" or "defenaive specialist" These items would be random and performance based and would be, like the examples above be both specific to certain unit types and non specific.

[ErissN6]

PanzerGeneral3D had a good feature yes.

[JaM2013]

yeah, i think this is a good idea, as those supporting units are often seen as a waste of core slot anyway.. this way, player would be able to tailor his units with supporting brigades/battalions, to increase certain particular areas (adding AAA to increase survival agaisnt air attacks, recon for better spotting, AT for better defense against tanks etc...) Of course, these supporting units would be unit specific (no point attaching ATG to tank unit...)

This could actually allow to use game-play viable units instead, which at the other side would allow to reduce amount of core units available to player, which could have positive impact on actual difficulty, as player would be not able to over-strength his entire army making late scenarios too easy.

[fdbetancor]

The core units in Panzer Korps already are brigade sized units; supporting forces (Art, AAA, Eng) are usually battalion- or regimental-sized detachments. As an example, the Afrika Korps campaign starts with core units that include the Panzer Regiment 5 of the 3.Panzer Division, Panzerjäger Abteilung 605, a battalion of Pzjäger IB, and two brigades of the Italian Brescia Division.

The game is never totally explicit on this point, but historical accuracy and consistency are sacrificed for gameplay: you have maps that shift from a 40-kilometer wide theater to a 400-kilometer wide theater with no change in unit size and composition. The game does force you to make choices in your core units in order to incorporate those vital auxiliary forces, which might breakdown if we could include them as attachable units. I think this would start to turn the game into Hearts of Iron light rather than the simple mechanics that it currently enjoys.

The idea of detachable leaders is nice, however; at least, it should be more visible - I hate having to go into the battle history every time to see the special abilities of the unit.

Just my two cents!

[Steelslayer]

The core units in Panzer Korps already are brigade sized units; supporting forces (Art, AAA, Eng) are usually battalion- or regimental-sized detachments. As an example, the Afrika Korps campaign starts with core units that include the Panzer Regiment 5 of the 3.Panzer Division, Panzerjäger Abteilung 605, a battalion of Pzjäger IB, and two brigades of the Italian Brescia Division.

The game is never totally explicit on this point, but historical accuracy and consistency are sacrificed for gameplay: you have maps that shift from a 40-kilometer wide theater to a 400-kilometer wide theater with no change in unit size and composition. The game does force you to make choices in your core units in order to incorporate those vital auxiliary forces, which might breakdown if we could include them as attachable units. I think this would start to turn the game into Hearts of Iron light rather than the simple mechanics that it currently enjoys.

The idea of detachable leaders is nice, however; at least, it should be more visible - I hate having to go into the battle history every time to see the special abilities of the unit.

Just my two cents!

It has long been the games point that unit sizes and distances have been an abstract construct. Instead of attaching the name "brigades" they could just be called "attachments" I guess. I don't think that the mechanics would get too complicated though. I appreciate your thoughts.

[Steelslayer]

yeah, i think this is a good idea, as those supporting units are often seen as a waste of core slot anyway.. this way, player would be able to tailor his units with supporting brigades/battalions, to increase certain particular areas (adding AAA to increase survival agaisnt air attacks, recon for better spotting, AT for better defense against tanks etc...) Of course, these supporting units would be unit specific (no point attaching ATG to tank unit...)

This could actually allow to use game-play viable units instead, which at the other side would allow to reduce amount of core units available to player, which could have positive impact on actual difficulty, as player would be not able to over-strength his entire army making late scenarios too easy.

I agree with all that you have said here.

It does become silly in some scenarios that you "buy" certain units using core slots, only to get rid of them before the next scenario.