Having issues maintaining cohesion in an attack

[Nox0s]

By cohesion I don't mean the cohesion stat, but rather the formation as a whole's cohesion. Frequently in a battalion sized attack for example, only one company will become decisively engaged, while the other two keep going. And this is the case even if I have a very narrow frontage (many times this has happened even with the other 2-3 companies being within a couple hundred meters of the contact)

The end result is that I'm faced with a dilemma: Do I split the engaged company off from the main group thus causing both it and its parent formation to re-org? Or do I leave things as they are and leave it behind (and often leave its parent formation vulnerable on whatever flank that unit occupied)

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

By cohesion I don't mean the cohesion stat, but rather the formation as a whole's cohesion. Frequently in a battalion sized attack for example, only one company will become decisively engaged, while the other two keep going. And this is the case even if I have a very narrow frontage (many times this has happened even with the other 2-3 companies being within a couple hundred meters of the contact)

The end result is that I'm faced with a dilemma: Do I split the engaged company off from the main group thus causing both it and its parent formation to re-org? Or do I leave things as they are and leave it behind (and often leave its parent formation vulnerable on whatever flank that unit occupied)

My experience is if some subordinate units aren't moving toward the point of contact a command is ordered to attack, they are maneuvering to provide support to the remaining subordinate(s) performing the close in attack. The attack isn't necessarily going to end up in a hand to hand melee for all command units, so those that aren't directly approaching an attack target can still provide supporting fire, or occupy space to maintain the formation's assigned coverage zone while still honoring the intent of the attack.

If it appears that the unit(s) in contact can sustain the pressure successfully, I'll select them from inside the original order and issue another attack order to them alone.

Once they are given a second order, selecting the original command unit allows me to cancel the command's attack order and issue a separate order.

Those remaining units from the original formation may have to reorganize (go from an attack to a movement formation for example), but I haven't noticed any reorganization on the part of the units which had the original attack order and were given a second task group order to maintain the attack.

[wodin]

An attack unit\units order would come in handy for this situation. Though I haven't really had issues as is to be honest, they may go abit further on being the left or right wing of the assault but they still maybe engaging where necessary.

[vandorenp]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum
...Frequently in a battalion sized attack for example, only one company will become decisively engaged, while the other two keep going. And this is the case even if I have a very narrow frontage (many times this has happened even with the other 2-3 companies being within a couple hundred meters of the contact)

I am wondering if you left the default (leave) Stragglers (behind) checked? I know a unit that is out of fuel or slower than others will be left behind. Try it with Stragglers unchecked.

I have grown accustomed to ordering a battalion attack by giving a defense order with various waypoints along the way I want the battalion ore regiment to attack through. And i select attacks. Often this is not satisfactory because the formation may set its sights on enemy too far afield. The Attack setting out to have a throttle like ROF. Attack on when fired on, attack anything in line of sight, or attack anything the map boss knows about within <selectable # km>.

When I give a battalion an attack order straight out on a small front and it does what you describe (i have seen it before) I ascribed it to the inability of the battalion command to process what is happening and respond in a swift enough manner to my satisfaction. Or could be the mission is more important. For instance once I "lost" two of my three platoons (not to enemy fires) in the space of 30 minutes and the battalion commander ordered me to keep going with the one remaining platoon. I knew he was correct in ordering me to do so.

Well i am going to give this a try right now with Stragglers set off.

[wodin]

ORIGINAL: vandorenp

When I give a battalion an attack order straight out on a small front and it does what you describe (i have seen it before) I ascribed it to the inability of the battalion command to process what is happening and respond in a swift enough manner to my satisfaction. Or could be the mission is more important. For instance once I "lost" two of my three platoons (not to enemy fires) in the space of 30 minutes and the battalion commander ordered me to keep going with the one remaining platoon. I knew he was correct in ordering me to do so.

I do too..I honestly feel you shouldn't have exact control or expect perfect attacks in this game..because we have commander and unit stats..I would like to see how much difference these stats make though. For me it's a feature that should mean we can model great moments like Frost at Arnhem, it should mean a unit with a very high stat commander doesn't retreat after a couple of casualties but if set to defense and max loses he will stick it out with his men until the end and on the other hand a poor stat commander MAY attack badly sending in coys at the wrong time and unsupported etc ..I'd really like to see an obvious difference between low stat commanders and high stat..at the moment I don't notice it to be honest.

[Phoenix100]

I do, Jason (notice it). I'm playing a modded Arnhem campaign at the moment with 1 para and 2 para adjusted so that they are super-units, with outstanding commanders etc. They perform very noticeably better, no doubt about it. To see the difference in an obvious way you should just take a little scenario (Joe's Bridge, for example) and use the scenmaker to make a unit of choice outstanding (100%) in all stats and attributes. Then do the same again and make it useless(20%, say). Then play the two versions properly. You'll see the difference in unit behaviour very quickly.

Of course, in reality the differences were quite small. So if you open scenmaker and look at Frost's unit stats in the original, you'll see that Frost isn't drawn there as an outstanding commander, nor is the unit drawn that way. There can be discussions about what kind of commander he was and how effective 2 para was by comparison with, say 506 PIR. Many would say 506 PIR was an outstanding unit, in reality, whereas 2 para weren't quite so impressive - until they held out so long at Arnhem. I think it's reasonable the way the units are drawn in the original scenarios. But it's very easy to change that in scenmaker to get the effects you might wish for.

Anyway, you said a couple of posts ago that you didn't play the game anymore and hadn't for ages, so presumably when you say you 'don't notice it' you're talking about from ages ago? It could be that this is something that has improved with the age of the game. I'm not sure. But I certainly notice it.

[wodin]

Last time I played was about three months ago..I play about 1 scenario every few months. From what i can see in patch notes and new game features I'm not sure much work over the years\games was put into the unit stat side of things.. it's a very versatile feature that if developed well could really give the units personality.

I suppose very few scenarios are small esp in BFTB so these things wouldn't be really noticed. I think Dave with the future games mentioned something about getting even bigger scenarios..where I'd like to see alot more smaller ones as I think you can really see the engine working to it's full effect then.

The only reason BFTB gets little play is the setting not because of the game engine.

I think some here think I don't like the game or pick fault when really I'm thinking of ways to improve..anyway so be it.

[Nox0s]

I'll have to try without stragglers, thanks for that recommendation. I'd assumed that it only applied to when a unit is moving (i.e. not assaulting) and/or when a unit falls behind because of fatigue (rather than falling behind because it's engaging an enemy unit), but I'll have to test it and see what happens.

[Nox0s]

Well I can't tell yet if turning stragglers off makes a formation stay together more during an attack, but I did just witness some maneuvering by a battalion commander with good stats to deal with an enemy unit on the battalion's right flank that was causing major problems, which was encouraging.