Capacity and Load Question

[emcgman]

I joined an infantry HQ and an Aromored HQ together to form a battlegroup with orders to attack an enemy position. Each HQ has approx 3-4 subordinate units.

The AI designated the armored HQ as the senior HQ for this battlegroup. So I can understand why the `Load' on the armored HQ is `7' with a capacity of `4'.

The thing I don't understand is why the `Load' on the infantry HQ is `9' with a `Capacity' of 3. Is this trying to model the logistics of both HQ's trying to communicate sideways with each other?

Is there another way to group the 2 HQ's or the units under them together in a battlegroup to reduce the `Load" in at least one of the HQ's?

Thanks.

[HansBolter]

I am no expert on command loads and can't address that part of the question, but I learned from Simovitch (who can most likely answer your question in detail) that subordinating one HQ to another that are of the same hierarchy (ie..batallion) will almost always result in a command overload.

The best way to combine them both together into an integral fighting force would be to use a higher level HQ. Take the regimental HQ of one of the batallions, give all of it's other subordinate units individual orders (detaching them from direct command) keeping the desired Bn under organic command and then attach the BN HQ from the other regiment to the chosen regimental HQ. Use that regimental HQ to command both the organic and attached formations as an integral combat team.

You will incur a greater orders delay from a regimental HQ than you would from the BN HQ under normal circumnstances, but the heavily overloaded BN HQ trying to command both it's own and another BN will likely suffer such a heavily increased delay by being so overtaxed that it would end up being as long as the regimental HQ delay anyway.

[emcgman]

Cool, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

Thanks Hans

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: emcgman

Cool, that's exactly the kind of information I was looking for.

Thanks Hans

Glad I could help.

One word of caution though. You might find that the "team" works better as individual commands. There is at least one scenario in BFTB that I have beta tested where the American force is not structured according to TOEs but according to actual field implementation as combined combat teams where infantry battalions have armored battalions integrated into their command as a part of the organic whole (ei done by scenario design rather than by player orders).

I found those formations unweildy to operate. While combined arms is essential and armor almost always needs infantry support, that doesn't necessarily mean that they will function well at the tactical level as combined commands. In many tactical situations you would probably prefer to approach an objective through covered terrain, if possible, with the infantry component, while preferring the open terran for the armor approach. Having them function as seperate entities means they can each be given orders that suit them best. This does require more attention to detail and corrdination of orders by the player, but in my opinion, is a more tactically flexible command approach.

[chrisol]

I'm impressed that COTA even models squabbling between units of similar level HQ about who is "really" in charge and penalizes this with delayed orders !

[goodwoodrw]

Oops wrong thread [:D]

[Arjuna]

Command Load is not linear - ie one point of capacity does not equal one unit per se. The load is determined by the relationship of the two units. Organic subordinates cost less to command. Peers ( ie units at the same level such as Bn HQs ) cost more to command etc. Check out the Staff Cost table on page 197 of the Reference manual. See also pages 109 and 140.
 
You don't need to mathmatically work out all the nuances. Just follow your common sense. Units that train together in a certain structure ( ie organic units ) will function better in battle. They will be know each other, know the common procedures and in general will have ironed out any of the potential misunderstandings. Once you start mucking around with the command structure you break up the "usual" groupings and increase the probability of things being misunderstood. To overcome this things need to be spelled out and coordinated in orders groups and command briefings. This all adds to the time it takes to get going. Hence the increase in orders delay.