ORIGINAL: Panama
Divisions can be reduced to battalion size and still function as a cohesive combat unit. But I guess the line has to be drawn someplace. I still feel four weeks is far too short of a time. But that's simply my opinion. Thanks for your side of it.
I was just describing how the game works. For reconstitution there really is no consideration taken for whether the unit evaporated in the front lines or was isolated in a pocket. The term itself sort of speaks to this: "reconstitute" instead of "rebuild". Reconstitute means the unit was routed into scattered pieces that later were gathered back together into an effective unit.
I thought I was clear before, but if not, note that I'm not happy with this either. Getting a division trapped behind enemy lines and annihilated should be much worse than just decimating the frontline combat elements of it. Yet the game just isn't designed to address that. In fact, few games are. As I said, I usually make an effort in my designs to try to address it as best I can (by modeling some of the rear area stuff). But it's never very satisfactory. It would be nice if it could be addressed by the game itself. But it's a can of worms.
It would mean that, of those 18,000 men in the division, the 14,000 in the rear would have to be modeled in the game to have some significant effect without making them function as frontline combat troops. The 4,000 combat troops would have to be dependent upon them - unlike now.
I remember how it was handled in SPI's War in the East. German divisions were two step. The full strength division had a strength of 6. It could be reduced to a cadre with a strength of 1. But, in production terms, the cadre cost 4 PP and lots of time to make, while restoring the cadre to full strength only cost 2 PP and little time. So, divisions could be quickly and cheaply rebuilt after being reduced. But, if the cadre was destroyed, then there was a heavy cost in time and material. Yet 83% of the unit's strength was achieved with only 33% of the cost - the remaining 17% was achieved with 67% of the cost. The cadre obviously didn't model the combat elements. It modeled C&C, logistical, and intel elements and such.
This is what's missing in TOAW. We just have the combat elements, and they function more or less independent of the invisible structural elements. For that reason, there's insufficent payoff for successfully pocketing the enemy. And that makes a difference in game play.
