Continous Line or more Powerful Units

[kevinkins]

Early in a game or with a large maps you have to make a choice. Do you avoid open flanks at all cost?

Kevin

[tweber]

I prefer continuous lines due to the concentric bonus.  You do not want to give up the easy border hex.  If you must have a flank, it is probably better to anchor it on rough terrain or back it up a little so you do not get horribly flanked.  Also, isolated units are easy to surround and cut off from supply, especially on plains and if a good road infrastructure exists.  Worse thing that can happen is getting powerful units hopelessly cut off.

[Willburn]

continuous lines hands down wins. There is only one exeption, the square you MUST capture but only can attack from 1 or 2 sides you mass up to attack. But you can just as well attack with a lot of smaller units than 1 big unit from that 1 square.

[Awac835]

I have a PBEM game going with Seille and he massed smaller units and cought with some supprise.
 
From now on im smaller units all the way

[Pergite!]

ORIGINAL: Willburn

continuous lines hands down wins. There is only one exeption, the square you MUST capture but only can attack from 1 or 2 sides you mass up to attack. But you can just as well attack with a lot of smaller units than 1 big unit from that 1 square.

Is it just me that like to stick with modern tactics and manuever warfare? I create an "elastic" defensive line, then go forward with my battlegroups, massing my power before each battle tearing through key enemy positions. Follow on forces are used to clear up any surviving enemy units, as well as guarding those vital supply routes. I dont feel that I afford constructing any "continuous lines", ending up in some kind of slow moving attrition warfare al´a WW1.

[tweber]

I would not say that a continuous line is something that is not manueverable.  Manueverability is a function of the make up of the unit.  I believe that it is very important to have a force completely mobile if possible.  I think the tactic of moving, surrounding, and then fighting works well.  However, there is no reason why you can't do this from a well protected starting position. 

[Willburn]

Yup best of both worlds. And as said earlier you can just mass a lot of smaller unitsd and spearhead a formation and flank around it. Point is smaller units can be both used for long elastic defences and focused pushes. So you got the best of both worlds. And the more flanking bonuses you get for attacks the better. totaly makes up for the 1 pp cost extra per unit. Think of it this way if you just loose 500 points less due to flanking for a turn you have allready made up the loss of making the unit in strategic cost.

I think this is what happens more and more in modern warfare too. Much better communication equipment allows more troop based action and selective use of heavier support when needed. The firepower is much more mobile. (I wrote an article about how for any strategy game or real life tactics you have firepower and you have true firepower, and thats the firepower you are able to pinpoint to an exact point where its needed. For true firepower you need high mobility and lots of independant but able to cooporate units (like pieces of a puzzle fitting together when needed.) )

[kevinkins]

This question came about after playing the standard ladder scenario which has a small map and only 10 turns.
 
Kevin

[serg3d1]

I had only started, and playing vs AI. I did blitzkrieg fictional scenario for federation and started Russia 1941 for russians now. I prefer not to have continuous line, but tightly packed defensive nodes on the crossroads/bridgeheads instead - "hedgehogs" in schwerpunkts. The enemy had to move between them, and then its often possible to cut off it's spearhead with flanking conterstrikes. That way I also have good supply (roads) and the enemy have worse supply moving through the ground. If nodes surrounded they get deblocked next turn sometimes by surrounding the forward element of the enemy.
Historically that was German tactics during the 1941, both in offence and defence.

[seille]

ORIGINAL: Awac835

I have a PBEM game going with Seille and he massed smaller units and cought with some supprise.

From now on im smaller units all the way

Same resons like Tweber.

1. Concentric attack
2. Cutting off enemy lines
3. Protecting own flanks.

[Pergite!]

Which is in the game harder for the staff units to controll, many small sub units or fewer but bigger units? IRL my qualified guess would be that the staff efficency would be greater with the fewer sub units to order around. Anyone know how this the game handles it?

(I really must read the the whole manual some day)

[Barthheart]

I believe that it's based on power points..

1 staff point can "control" 10 power points. 1 INF = 1 power point and 1 Light Tank = 20 power points for example.... or something like that...