Splitting units

[genehaynes]

Does terrain prevent splitting a unit? Playing First Manassas I sometimes get the message "Can't split unit here". The units is in good order, 3+ MPs, and in command with open adjacent hexes. I didn't see any mention of this in section 6.6.5 of the manual.

[zakblood]

can you post a picture? then at least we can see the terrain, but for a guess i would say it would effect the split, and did you try on a fresh turn as well? or only once?

[genehaynes]

I'll see if the unit was fresh or not.

[Gil R.]

Yes, sometimes terrain prevents splitting units. If that's not in the manual it should be.

[genehaynes]

I may be wrong, but as near as I can tell, the unit created by the split (not the original unit) must be placed in an adjacent CLEAR hex. Therefore, there must be an empty CLEAR ADJACENT hex to the unit you want to split. The manual makes no mention of this requirement.

[Chromey]

yeah u can only place a split unit on a clear hex. Kinda dumb if u ask me.

[zakblood]

make sense to me as why would you split troops in a wood? or on bad ground where they can't form up etc?

[berto]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

why would you split troops in a wood?

Because you have a lot of ground to cover, and too few regiments?

[zakblood]

i would have thought it would have made better sense to do it in the open so both can go there own way, rather than rush it in bad ground, i understand the use, but not why it would need to be split up in anything other than then open, where as you can keep control? but each to there own, and it's how the games been done anyway so they must agree as well or wouldn't have done it, must be some reason behind it, while frontage is maybe better when split, take any casualties and suffer too much of a morale drop, then lets see how it fairs, i've played and enjoyed it so far without the need to split and will probable stick with it until someone makes it 100% clear cut it's better to,for me it's not needed and un used by me but we all play our own way and each to there own and good luck to everyone and enjoy it, no matter how you play it.

i've yet to encounter the need for more men as yet, well more is always nice to have in any battle agreed, but i either play with what iv'e got or mod it to suit, and can win any battle now from either side against the AI, against a real player is any ones guess as i'm not a online fan tbh.

which battle aren't there enough in berto? as all should be historic so you get to use what was there unless it's a alt history one, or a fantasy one of mine[:D][;)] where i mix up OOB from different years even to add max units into what are massive battles with 90K plus, i want to do the largest i can 120k but haven't had the time as yet, but map and engine can take it easily [8|][&o]

[berto]

There are now, and surely will be in future BaB battles, many situations where -- battlefield wide, or in a smaller sector -- there will be too few regiments available to cover the entire front. In many of those battles/situations, the terrain will be wooded. (Shiloh, Chancellorsville, Chickamauga, Wilderness, Spottsylvania, just to name a few.) No clear terrain nearby. Splitting up a regiment in woods will affect unit cohesion, no doubt, possibly also morale. But if thinning out the line is the only way to extend your flanks, you do what you gotta do.

[berto]

As I said, many situations, not just in future BaB games and battles, but in the ones we already have.

So in the Williamsburg Hancock vs. Early scenario, for instance, I might want to split the 7th Maine in the woods to the northwest of Redoubt 11 to have an extended picket line, in effect, guarding against a possible Southern surprise attack around my right flank. A Confederate attack may or may not come down that road; it could come anywhere through those woods. I would want troops here, there, anywhere to detect that. Yes, I might commit other entire regiments for that purpose. Or I might prefer to commit them to the main effort against Redoubts 9 & 10 to the south. My strategy might include having as few regiments as possible guarding my right flank against surprise attack. Being able to split those few regiments, and spreading their sub-units out along those woods, might be a good thing to do.

It might not be what Gen. Zakblood would do. Gen. Hardee might not approve. (See Hardee's Tactics.) But it's what Gen. Berto might think prudent.

(One could easily find other situations in the current BaB battles where, locally, in certain sectors, too few regiments are assigned to cover a broad, wooded front.)

The game rules should reflect real possibilities, not supposed desirabilities. (And should be written generally, to cover all feasible situations, not just the current battles and situations.) IMO.

[zakblood]

Gen. Zakblood doesn't follow history as tbh i don't still know it, it may be something they alter in the end in a patch, but i can't speak for them as i have no idea if they are planning it or not, but if enough want it, and it's easy to do i wouldn't mind either way if it happens or not, as i'm no the only one playing it, so bow to public opinion on the subject if enough make it's case for it and the change can even be done tbh...

either way i like the Gen. Zakblood tag, even though i'm more on a lower class imo as leaders need to be good, while i'm just mad when i play and do as i feel, not how i should maybe play, but if it wins keep doing it i say, if you lose then change...

so add it to the wish list and lets hope enough others want it, and it can be done for you[;)]

tbh after watching Scourge of War: Waterloo all day today, i think the ability to split in woods would maybe be a good idea as seeing the fronts and flanks there and in this game as well i know see the advantages and also the disadvantages also, like harder to command or takes longer with more single units involved etc, so can see it more now from both sides....

[ericbabe]

The routine seems to require an adjacent clear hex with a height difference of no more than one, with no unit, not across a river unless by bridge. It probably shouldn't require a clear hex; a unit should be able to split in the woods. I'll change the requirement to a movable hex for the next patch.

[zakblood]

thanks for listening as always

[berto]

ORIGINAL: zakblood

thanks for listening as always

+1

[genehaynes]

I may be wrong, but I think splitting units has the following effects:

1. Reduces the basic attack strength (i.e. More men equates to a more powerful attack, even if the initial strength is reduced due to frontage restrictions). For example, in the starter scenario, the 49 Pa. Reg. of 700 men is reduced to 537 men when attacking. If you split this regiment the initial strength is 350.
2.However, on defense the split regiment will not incur the 5% penalty for over 350 men.

I thought I posted a reply earlier, sorry if this results in a double reply.

[Geredis]

ORIGINAL: genehaynes

I may be wrong, but I think splitting units has the following effects:

1. Reduces the basic attack strength (i.e. More men equates to a more powerful attack, even if the initial strength is reduced due to frontage restrictions). For example, in the starter scenario, the 49 Pa. Reg. of 700 men is reduced to 537 men when attacking. If you split this regiment the initial strength is 350.
2.However, on defense the split regiment will not incur the 5% penalty for over 350 men.

I thought I posted a reply earlier, sorry if this results in a double reply.

This situation makes me wonder. Is the 'over-strength bonus' (for lack of a better word) important enough that if, say in the situation you bring up, the 49th PA would actually be more effective as two 350-man regiments in the field, since it'd give you two attacks on a single target instead of a single, flat, bonus to damage done, while also not only forcing the enemy to chose one of two targets, but also getting rid of the 'over-sized penalty' that comes from taking fire?

Thus it seems, aside from any out-of-command range issues, and of course the fact that you're doubling your frontage, and thus exposure to the enemy in most cases, is there any reason NOT to split your regiments into two maneuver elements?

I understand, generally, that there could be Command and Control issues, but since everything seems to work off of a command radius instead of the number of elements in the field, but is there actually a meaningful penalty to splitting regiments, aside from the fact that if they take casualties each man lost is more meaningful to morale? Similarly, there is the risk of being defeated in detail, but I'd imagine that if you split enough regiments up and operate them as linked but independent maneuver elements, shouldn't that risk be largely mitigated by what appears to be semi-randomized target selection based on what targets are nearby, their size, their threat, their range, etc?

Mind you, I don't have the game yet, but seeing this thread really made me wonder of the viability of doing so almost as a rule for all units above a certain size.

[zakblood]

get the game and join in the fun and you won't be disappointed, still my top 10 game of all day in 30+ years of playing

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Geredis

ORIGINAL: genehaynes

I may be wrong, but I think splitting units has the following effects:

1. Reduces the basic attack strength (i.e. More men equates to a more powerful attack, even if the initial strength is reduced due to frontage restrictions). For example, in the starter scenario, the 49 Pa. Reg. of 700 men is reduced to 537 men when attacking. If you split this regiment the initial strength is 350.
2.However, on defense the split regiment will not incur the 5% penalty for over 350 men.

I thought I posted a reply earlier, sorry if this results in a double reply.

This situation makes me wonder. Is the 'over-strength bonus' (for lack of a better word) important enough that if, say in the situation you bring up, the 49th PA would actually be more effective as two 350-man regiments in the field, since it'd give you two attacks on a single target instead of a single, flat, bonus to damage done, while also not only forcing the enemy to chose one of two targets, but also getting rid of the 'over-sized penalty' that comes from taking fire?

Thus it seems, aside from any out-of-command range issues, and of course the fact that you're doubling your frontage, and thus exposure to the enemy in most cases, is there any reason NOT to split your regiments into two maneuver elements?

I understand, generally, that there could be Command and Control issues, but since everything seems to work off of a command radius instead of the number of elements in the field, but is there actually a meaningful penalty to splitting regiments, aside from the fact that if they take casualties each man lost is more meaningful to morale? Similarly, there is the risk of being defeated in detail, but I'd imagine that if you split enough regiments up and operate them as linked but independent maneuver elements, shouldn't that risk be largely mitigated by what appears to be semi-randomized target selection based on what targets are nearby, their size, their threat, their range, etc?

Mind you, I don't have the game yet, but seeing this thread really made me wonder of the viability of doing so almost as a rule for all units above a certain size.

I'd be interested in hearing the answer to this (the bolded question above) as well. Since I've pretty much started doing just that, ie splitting units as a matter of course.

Thanks
Rick

[zakblood]

apart from unit integratie etc, i can't think of any but the developers may have some and chip in soon enough[&o]