Thoughts on Commonwealth Army Makeup

Ask, comment, read.
JBerg2021
Captain
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2019 5:01 pm

Thoughts on Commonwealth Army Makeup

Unread postby JBerg2021 » Tue May 19, 2020 1:12 pm

I've been looking into a fascinating experiment the British conducted during 1942 and 1943 to establish Mixed Divisions, converting 6 Infantry Divisions to Combined Arms divisions (removing and Infantry Brigade and replacing it with an Armored/Tank Brigade). This was done primarily to try and improve combined arms operations after initial performance in the war was deemed a failure, and most of these divisions were converted back to basic infantry divisions before they ever saw combat. However, two of the Commonwealth Divisions did see combat in their mixed form: the 4th Division (in the Tunisian Campaign) and the 2nd New Zealand Division (in Italy, but also was constructed as such consistently from El Alamein onwards). The other divisions that were briefly constructed as such were the 1st, 3rd, 15th, 43rd, and 53rd Divisions.

In the game, only the 2nd New Zealand Division undergoes any real conversion, and its mixed status is represented by its conversion to an Armored Division. This definitely simplifies the translation, and I enjoy that the division has more robust attack stats to make it stand out, but I do feel there could be space to represent these Mixed Divisions in the game. Especially in NW Europe, a number of divisions spent much of their time with Armored or Tank Brigades attached. While the Support Battalions definitely help to represent that, and I get that they are supposed to be 'flexibly representative' (anywhere from a battalion to a brigade size), the concept of the mixed division was so different from a basic armoured division that I feel like it could almost deserve it's own representation in the game.

In most ways the Mixed Division operated more similarly to an Infantry Division than an Armoured Division - generally they were not motorized and were equipped with slower moving infantry tanks. These infantry tanks were not unique to the British (with their Matildas, Valentines, and Churchills), but the other major users of these types of tanks (the French and Japanese) are not (yet!) in the game. Seeing the Soviet Mechanized Division gives me hope that we'll see some more variety in future DLCs.

Right now, the 4th Division in Tunisia, the 2nd New Zealand Division, and a couple others in NW Europe are good candidates for being represented by a Mixed Division unit. I don't envision a major change from the Infantry Division - probably increase each base step's attack and defense rating by 1, give it 2 armor per step, and give it an infantry division's movement. Alternatively, you could only adjust the step attack value. In the game, the standard makeup of the support battalions would be towed Artillery and a Churchill tank (which the player could then customize). Ultimately, I think it makes sense to simulate the somewhat greater firepower of the Mixed Division while also making it depend on the equipment availability of support battalions.

I feel like this could make the Mixed Division a nice 'assault division' for the Allied Player, and a little more robust in defense against the German panzers without being super OP.

Eqqman
Captain
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2020 12:18 pm

Re: Thoughts on Commonwealth Army Makeup

Unread postby Eqqman » Tue May 19, 2020 4:17 pm

Sounds interesting. It would be nice to have some variations other than the 2x AT specialists to keep enemy armor from crushing your units.