Corps

[VigaBrand]

Will be nice, if they had 10 Elements allowed. So they can put three divisions in a corps (9 elements) + Leader (in sum 10 elements).
At the moment you not save many CP. Because you can put two divisions and two brigades in a corps, that means 14cp without corps.
With 10 elements (three divisions) you can save 6cp which will be very nice.

[ohms_law]

Yea, agreed. I was thinking about this myself, the other day.

[caranorn]

Disagree. Even though it became common later in the war to have larger corps, this usually consisted of two divisions close to the front and others well in the rear. In other words two units under direct control of the corps commander and the others rotating in and out to relive those, but very rarely more than two divisions active at a time.

Also the major benefit of forming a corps in EAW is not command points (though I would not be opposed to dropping command point cost down to 10) but rather for the corps elements to fight as a single unit and of course corps commander stats and traits affecting said elements. If you have opposing force with say one side having 4 corps and 1 separate division and the other side 2 corps and 6 separate divisions the side with the 4 corps if otherwise comparable in stats and equipment will probably have an advantage as it should.

But as I already said, in part I agree that there should be slightly more CP gain for the more streamlined command structure (taking some of the strain from army command). As current you'd have 6 CP per division and 1 CP per artillery/engineer or whatever is attached in the two free corps slots. So if outside corps structure they'd cost 14 CP, inside 12, a slight gain, but maybe not enough...

[willgamer]

Disagree... As current you'd have 6 CP per division and 1 CP per artillery/engineer or whatever is attached in the two free corps slots. So if outside corps structure they'd cost 14 CP, inside 12, a slight gain, but maybe not enough...

Engineers are 0cp, but I agree that the current 8 points is a good fit for a prototypical corps of 2 inf. and 2 arty.

[VigaBrand]

Disagree. Even though it became common later in the war to have larger corps, this usually consisted of two divisions close to the front and others well in the rear. In other words two units under direct control of the corps commander and the others rotating in and out to relive those, but very rarely more than two divisions active at a time.

Also the major benefit of forming a corps in EAW is not command points (though I would not be opposed to dropping command point cost down to 10) but rather for the corps elements to fight as a single unit and of course corps commander stats and traits affecting said elements. If you have opposing force with say one side having 4 corps and 1 separate division and the other side 2 corps and 6 separate divisions the side with the 4 corps if otherwise comparable in stats and equipment will probably have an advantage as it should.

But as I already said, in part I agree that there should be slightly more CP gain for the more streamlined command structure (taking some of the strain from army command). As current you'd have 6 CP per division and 1 CP per artillery/engineer or whatever is attached in the two free corps slots. So if outside corps structure they'd cost 14 CP, inside 12, a slight gain, but maybe not enough...

Thanks. I read something about the corsp structure of I. Armeekorps before Tannenberg and you are right. 2 Divisions with support.
I was thinking in WW2 structures. My fault.

[caranorn]

Thanks. I read something about the corsp structure of I. Armeekorps before Tannenberg and you are right. 2 Divisions with support.
I was thinking in WW2 structures. My fault.

Yep, later in the war larger corps became more common, but that was often achieved by rotating divisions in and out, also when division size was reduced (triangular system instead of the square in practice at the start of the war). But even in WWII most countries started out with corps of 2-3 divisions only...