Dividing units

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Scout_Pilot

Another problem exists with the myriad combat support units present in scenarios such as FitE and DnO (the AT, AA, etc.). Yes, these units existed. But historically they were often "broken down" and their components "attached" to support larger units. The designers of FitE and DnO crafted their OOB's to reflect this. Example: In both DnO and FitE the German infantry divisions consist of three "infantry" regiments and a HQ. By design the individual "companies" of the division's engineer, pzjgr and recon battalions are divided among the division's infantry regiments and the division artillery regiment is incorporated into the division HQ unit.

The trouble is that the recon assets in particular will want to be consolidated and fighting some considerable distance from the rest of the division in a lot of cases. In fact the Germans made a habit of forming ad-hoc motorised units to rush ahead of the main body when resistance was light.

However the Corps/Army-level AT, AA, engineer, and artillery units appear separately. Some players also take "liberties" with their employment and use them ahistorically to reconnoiter or fill gaps in their line, a "cheesy" [:D] practice no matter how you slice it (imho).

Well, when push comes to shove an AA regiment or an engineer regiment can get thrown into the front line. The battalions will probably RBC if pressed. I don't see this as too bad. "Too weak" units getting used for encirclements is more of a problem. Perhaps something as simple as checking for RBCs against each neighbouring stacks if an attacked unit has nowhere to retreat would be sufficient.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

This really sums up the design deficiency in the scenario.

And you've probably guessed which scenario it is we're discussing. Happy to see someone else making these remarks.

[BillLottJr]

With the existing system, a designer can limit the problem by making the smallest desired units section sized, which cannot be divided. So the Brandenberger Bn would have the section symbol (which even sortta looks like the Bn symbol) & thus can't divide.

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

ORIGINAL: tiberius
The best example to illustrate your point would have been an AA battalion split into companies. Oh and use one of the tank divisions as the Soviet unit.

This really sums up the design deficiency in the scenario. Why in the world does a purported operational scenario have units that range from division down to company size? This differential in unit size guarantees that so called “ant” units will appear in completely unrealistic operational situations.

Think this scenario is ultimately the result of designing to the OOBs rather than to a rational scenario/battle model.

Regards, RhinoBones

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
"Too weak" units getting used for encirclements is more of a problem. Perhaps something as simple as checking for RBCs against each neighbouring stacks if an attacked unit has nowhere to retreat would be sufficient.

The problem with this is that the cure is probably worse than the disease. Units that retreat are units that have failed morale checks and are assumed to be in flight mode. Often they are already routed. To say that these fleeing units have the presence of mind, and cohesion, to simultaneously disengage from pursuing units which have just thrashed them in battle, organize an attack against encircling units that have infiltrated into their rear, and remain an effective fighting force is more of a stretch than to assume that a unit in such dire straits would instead evaporate.

The problem is primarily one of designers pushing the system beyond what it reasonably simulates and running up against limitations of unit density and scale differentials in their quest for achieving the perfect monster, with all the chrome. Instead, like a Filipino Jeepney with one too many disco balls hanging off of it, it simply collapses under its own weight. No particular scenario is being singled out here, and I think Rhinobones said it most succinctly, when he noted the disconnect between planning and design.

Then again...it's the scenarios that push the envelope that often drive development of the engine, so what's a poor developer to do?[;)]

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The problem with this is that the cure is probably worse than the disease. Units that retreat are units that have failed morale checks and are assumed to be in flight mode. Often they are already routed. To say that these fleeing units have the presence of mind, and cohesion, to simultaneously disengage from pursuing units which have just thrashed them in battle, organize an attack against encircling units that have infiltrated into their rear, and remain an effective fighting force is more of a stretch than to assume that a unit in such dire straits would instead evaporate.

If the unit can no longer operate as an organised body, then in TOAW terms it has already evaporated- it won't try to retreat so it won't produce this test. If it can fight, why can't it in this case? If we're talking about a division being held of by a company, all it needs is for some Major to pull together enough men to shove them off the road. Moreover, at 10km/hex the company will simply be unable to stop the division moving past them. They can hold their positions firmly- but their position will be a few square kilometres out of 100.

The problem is primarily one of designers pushing the system beyond what it reasonably simulates and running up against limitations of unit density and scale differentials in their quest for achieving the perfect monster, with all the chrome. Instead, like a Filipino Jeepney with one too many disco balls hanging off of it, it simply collapses under its own weight. No particular scenario is being singled out here, and I think Rhinobones said it most succinctly, when he noted the disconnect between planning and design.

Then again...it's the scenarios that push the envelope that often drive development of the engine, so what's a poor developer to do?[;)]
[/quote]

[JAMiAM]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
If the unit can no longer operate as an organised body, then in TOAW terms it has already evaporated- it won't try to retreat so it won't produce this test. If it can fight, why can't it in this case? If we're talking about a division being held of by a company, all it needs is for some Major to pull together enough men to shove them off the road. Moreover, at 10km/hex the company will simply be unable to stop the division moving past them. They can hold their positions firmly- but their position will be a few square kilometres out of 100.

Yes, but retreating or fleeing when you know there is nobody in your way is much easier than retreating when there are enemy troops in your path. Given a situation where the flanks have already been lost and there are enemy units that have infiltrated or penetrated past on all sides, only the most disciplined troops will avoid a panic/surrender situation. Those are accounted for in the results by units that have high quality making the secondary morale checks to avoid evaporation. The lesser troops will fail that check and fold in such circumstances.

Besides the obvious scenario design questions that should be addressed, with respect to the current development of the engine, it can certainly be argued that some greater differentiation of combat results should be possible. I would agree with that. However, for the vast majority of situations, as the engine now behaves, the combat results are easily rationalized.

To flesh out one of the different behaviors that I would like to introduce in the future is making the lesser loss tolerances more usable. For example, tie behavior of the unit to them in ways beyond the simplistic current behavior of fight until such a loss level is reached. Minimize and limit loss tolerance units might be made more flexible in terms of progressively attempting to "advance to the rear" in situations like above, whereas ignore loss units would be less likely to run, but progressively more adversely affected when they do break. Mix this in with some better reserve unit behavior, like counterattacking enemy units (instead of just reacting into battles defensively), reacting into recently converted hexes, shadowing enemy penetrations, zone prioritization, etc. This would alleviate a lot of the concerns about the occasional odd situations that the IGO-UGO engine gives. We may not see any of this in TOAW III, but don't be surprised if this comes into future series releases.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Yes, but retreating or fleeing when you know there is nobody in your way is much easier than retreating when there are enemy troops in your path. Given a situation where the flanks have already been lost and there are enemy units that have infiltrated or penetrated past on all sides, only the most disciplined troops will avoid a panic/surrender situation.

Well a) in the situation we're discussing, the enemy units are only a light screen, b) it only takes one tenth of a division to act intelligently in order to brush aside a company and c) even if the men are panicking they will still flee through the gaping holes in such an encirclement, to reform on the other side.

And I repeat, if the unit is in such a state that it is unable to fight, it's already evaporated. We're talking about a unit which is undergoing a relatively orderly (if unplanned) withdrawal.

Besides the obvious scenario design questions that should be addressed, with respect to the current development of the engine, it can certainly be argued that some greater differentiation of combat results should be possible. I would agree with that. However, for the vast majority of situations, as the engine now behaves, the combat results are easily rationalized.

For the great majority of situations, probably. However no matter how good scenario design is, games will always produce ant units of one type or another, by losses and supply drain if not from the outset.

[a white rabbit]

For the great majority of situations, probably. However no matter how good scenario design is, games will always produce ant units of one type or another, by losses and supply drain if not from the outset.

..only if sub-dividing in the EvilEd is faulty..

..otherwise losses or supply drain ????..that's normal warfare, hardly ants..

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I'm in a PBM match at present and my opponent (who shall remain nameless) has raised an objection to the amount of use I am making of my ability to divide units (in the scenario in question, his force is unable to do so). I have agreed not to divide battalions into companies (the scenario is at 10km/hex) but reserve the right to divide larger units.

I've never thought of dividing units as being something forbidden. Indeed, when dealing with surrounded units, you might need six regiments to encircle one battered division if you are not allowed to divide them. The alternative would be to wind up using engineer regiments and other odd bits to complete encirclements whilst the infantry pushes on. Hardly realistic.

What do other players think? Is this a legitimate complaint? Doubtless I have gained substantial benefit from using this ability, but I don't think it's outrageous to do so. In any case, my opponent has in fact taken advantage of the weak screens I throw up around pockets by blasting out of them and going on the rampage on more than one occasion.

..i think it's outrageous behaviour on your part Ben, making use of designer offered flexibility, something , as my many oponents know i only use in extreme situations, like turn 1 till game end..[;)]

[Dave Ferguson]

To satisfy everyone would it be possible to have voluntary unit division limited to a minimum equipment value set by the scenario designer. For example a divisional scenario might have divisions with approx 15,000 pieces of equipment each. Setting the divided unit limit to say 3,000 would mean battered divisions with less than 9,000 items would not voluntarily subdivide. Even better to have a different value for each side so you can stop late war russians from dividing their divisions which are probably little more than regiment sized anyway.
Coupled with code changes to allow for 'tactical outflanking' of tiny units within large hexes these changes for me go a long way to solving some of TOAW's problems.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

To satisfy everyone would it be possible to have voluntary unit division limited to a minimum equipment value set by the scenario designer. For example a divisional scenario might have divisions with approx 15,000 pieces of equipment each. Setting the divided unit limit to say 3,000 would mean battered divisions with less than 9,000 items would not voluntarily subdivide. Even better to have a different value for each side so you can stop late war russians from dividing their divisions which are probably little more than regiment sized anyway.
Coupled with code changes to allow for 'tactical outflanking' of tiny units within large hexes these changes for me go a long way to solving some of TOAW's problems.

..why ?

..the designer can divide units in the EvilEd, absolute last thing he does tho i believe they can be renamed. Such divided units can NOT subdivide during play, and can NOT recombine during play, they do suffer all the penalties of a subdivided unit. This function has been available since Toaw1 days so is hardly news...

..that nearly all designers don't use it is something you should take up with them..personally i found it a nice way of seriously stuffing French early WW2 B class and most A class divs, but i've yet to see a designer use it in Russia..

[Dave Ferguson]

As I understand it dividing units in the editor can cause problems and anyway the effect I want to see is to limit voluntary division, with the advantage that you maintain the players ability to divide and combine units as he sees fit. Dividing in the  editor does not achieve this?

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Dave Ferguson

As I understand it dividing units in the editor can cause problems and anyway the effect I want to see is to limit voluntary division, with the advantage that you maintain the players ability to divide and combine units as he sees fit. Dividing in the  editor does not achieve this?

..a unit divided in the editor can neither recombine nor divide further..

..another way is to fill all, or nearly all, the formation slots, which avoids subdivision penalties..

.. detestable house rules only work via a player, and not always then if it's a combat enforced division. It's a design choice, was/is this army unit really capable of subdivision and still functioning well, or not. You could probably list the armies that would be unable to operate divided and those that can, as well as i could

[Curtis Lemay]

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..a unit divided in the editor can neither recombine nor divide further..

Can't divide further, but CAN recombine, if all sub-units are available. Only if you permanently make one of the sub-units unavailable to its owner can recombination of that unit be prevented. You can't delete a sub-unit in the editor, so it would have to remain in the OOB, but never enter the map. There would be issues with that, of course.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay

ORIGINAL: a white rabbit
..a unit divided in the editor can neither recombine nor divide further..

Can't divide further, but CAN recombine, if all sub-units are available. Only if you permanently make one of the sub-units unavailable to its owner can recombination of that unit be prevented. You can't delete a sub-unit in the editor, so it would have to remain in the OOB, but never enter the map. There would be issues with that, of course.

..i live and learn..

..on the other hand, it'l still divide back to original (designer set) state soooooo, the choice is one French 1940 division, or three 1940 French regts (suB-divided units)..

..yahh, a great choice..