Optimal size for moves

[madmickey]

What are people experiences in the optimal unit size for an attack (Regiment, battalion)? Smaller units move faster but you spend more time recombining for an attack. What works better moving 2 or more battalions separately and recombining for a big attack or move all at once? This is a separate question from attacking at 2 or more angles, which is always an optimal strategy. This question also assumes you need a regiment to overcome the defenses.

I found that in AA that tanks worked best in an aggressive defense and you would attack with infantry. If you know the enemy disposition move your tank in at right or oblique angles to the direction of the attack (keeping the tanks out of personal AT range in open ground) and let rather small infantry unit do the attack. Does this tactic still work with HTTR?

[JeF]

Hi,

ORIGINAL: madmickey
What are people experiences in the optimal unit size for an attack (Regiment, battalion)? Smaller units move faster but you spend more time recombining for an attack. What works better moving 2 or more battalions separately and recombining for a big attack or move all at once? This is a separate question from attacking at 2 or more angles, which is always an optimal strategy. This question also assumes you need a regiment to overcome the defenses.

I tend to use move commands on bigger formations because I'm lazy. It's 1 order instead of 3 or 4.
On the attack I tend to give orders to Bn-sized units. This gives me more flexibility. Though, depending of the scenario, situation and force size, I might give orders to Bde.
The beauty of HTTR is that you can choose. And even change you mind in the middle of a scenario.

I found that in AA that tanks worked best in an aggressive defense and you would attack with infantry. If you know the enemy disposition move your tank in at right or oblique angles to the direction of the attack (keeping the tanks out of personal AT range in open ground) and let rather small infantry unit do the attack. Does this tactic still work with HTTR?

As far as can tell : yes. Very usefull to cross bridges under fire, for example, your tanks covering the advance of the infantry over the bridge.

JeF.

[Arjuna]

madmickey,

For the patch due out next week we have tweaked further the code relating to armour. We have modified its reaction under fire and the effects it has on other unit types as well as their effect on it. This will further enhance the changes we implemented with armour in the original HTTR version. You should find that armour in the assault will stand-off more and fire as soon as they can see the enemy and they are within effective range. You will also note that armour subjected to arty bombardment will generally either go forward or retreat a little rather than just stay under the bombardment. If they are alone in urban or covered terrain with enemy infantry they will be prone to retreat. So make sure if you are attacking covered terrain that you have inf support.

[Mr.Frag]

The key thing is that Armor tends to not play as Infantry in HTTR unlike in RDOA ... they stop and shoot when in range so you don't need to be so tricky peeling them off to the sides so they don't run in too close and get creamed.

[MarkShot]

How you attack is also very much a matter of personal style.

However, do keep in mind that each new order cycle has some associated overhead. So, if the plan is to travel from A to B and attack C, I, myself, will order that all via an [A]ttack order (possibly combining the HQs that I need for a larger force) as opposed to a [M]ove followed by an [A]ttack order. The only reason I might do the latter is when the attack is dependent on other assets also being in position prior to jumping off; such as arty fire bases or supporting direct fire heavy weapons. However, the other reality is that a large force ordered to attack will generally occur significantly long delays that individual arty or heavy weapons units will generally arrive and deploy where they need to be before the attack jumps off even when all orders are issued concurrently.

Well, not to contradict myself, but one other possible reason to [M]ove then [A]ttack is if the forces you want to combine are quite separated geographically. Leaving it completely up to the AI to guide the various contigents to the FUP might be precarious. Whereas, if you [M]ove, then you have greater control over individual paths relative to their starting points.

I hope that helps.

[Tzar007]

Like JeF, I usually give orders to regiments or brigades when moving up into contact with the enemy, or when moving towards an objective. When I am ready to attack, I then often take command myself of various battalions.

I found out that when you attack with a full regiment or brigade, you need to give time to the AI to develop a good plan and execute it to completion. It seems long sometimes, taking hours to realize, but it usually works OK, although the AI won't plan any sophisticated flanking manoeuvers involving 1 or more battalions. When I want stuff like this to happen, I do it myself.

I especially watch the different delays and timing of each battalion, since this can really screw up the momentum of an attack when your left pincer is still forming up while your right pincer is already battling his way in the middle of the enemy positions.

[Arjuna]

Actually, the code for complex attacks ( ie those involving more than one sub HQ ) can conduct assaults using mulitple axis. However, it will only do so where you do not specify an FUP - ie where you simply specify the objective and no other waypoints. Try it. Just select the Bde HQ and place an attack order down on the desired objective. More often than not it will put in a main effort along one axis and a subordinate effort on a flank approach. this may be a probe or a full flegded attack. If suffucient resources are to hand it amy also conduct a "soak off" attack or probe against a nearby enemy position.

The patch further modifies this by offsetting the objectives of the sub attacks. It also includes code that inhibits HQs from charging off to the FUP before their subordinates are ready and a number of other minor enhancements.

[EricGuitarJames]

For me it depends on the state of the battle. In the Arnhem 'historical' (or its varients) scenario I often play as the Germans. Initially any attack orders are given to the smaller, battalion size, KGs. I also ensure that the objectives are limited. Later in the scenario, especially once 30 Corps has arrived, I might start issuing orders to larger scale units. By day 8, if my strategy has worked and my artillery has worn 30 Corps down sufficiently, I'll launch a full scale counter-attack, issuing my orders at divisional level. To be honest it depends on how 'detailed' an attack needs to be. I don't trust the AI at a high level to organise a 'complex' attack - I've seen some very strange behaviour at times. So if I need a rapier, its a battalion level order, a bludgeon, then its brigade or higher.

[Golf33]

Good topic! Here's a repost of myself from a topic over at comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical:

I am 'cheating' a little here, because I am using the patch beta build - which includes an enormous amount of work done by Dave on the AI attack code. That said, I probably divide my orders about 40-40-20 at Brigade, Battalion and sub-battalion level. That is talking about the number of orders, rather than the proportion of combat power commanded at each level; if you wanted that, I guess it would be around 50-40-10 or maybe even more heavily tilted towards Bde and Bn levels.

Brigades are my basic manoeuvre unit, for anything important. More and more I am issuing attack orders by specifying only the objective and leaving it up to the Bde to sort out the details, and it does pretty well. It can choose between a coordinated assault (ie battalions attacking on line or in successive lines along a common axis from a common FUP), or an uncoordinated assault (ie battalions attacking independently from separate FUPs on converging axes) and generally plots a pretty good route and attack orientation. I also find that when it picks an uncoordinated attack the result is often quite a nice flanking move .

I use battalions for specific tasks like diversions, clearing a sticky roadblock position, or establishing a secure FUP for those occasions when I do want to specify the FUP for a brigade assault. On defence I probably issue more orders to battalions than on the attack as I want to hold more keypoints or conduct local counterattacks.

I use the sub-battalion counters for very small specific tasks, like covering a wide frontage with a small unit, or setting up standing patrols/recce screens to keep the enemy at arm's length from my main force. Often I will group together a number of the line-support and engineer units that come directly under a Div or Corps HQ into little task-forces that can provide fire-support, flank protection and even a limited offensive potential. An example might be an engineer company, commanding a MG coy, a SP AT troop, a LAA troop, and maybe a towed AT troop as well. These guys can set up a pretty convincing defence in the right location! In many cases where I split up a battalion to cover a set of tasks like this, once the units are all positioned correctly I give the Bn HQ a Defend In-Situ order and when it's processed that, I reattach the subunits. They will remain where they are but revert to command of the Bn, thus reducing the load on my own HQ and providing me with the ability to redeploy the battalion, as a whole, with a single command.

I have to admit I don't normally command at Div level but I'll have to give that a bit of a workout when I get the time.

As far as giving separate Move orders and then recombining for an Attack, I don't do that, since it imposes orders delay on the commanding HQ each time you give an order. A single Attack order only imposes orders delay on the whole activity at the start (you do get orders delay between the HQ commanding the activity and its subordinates but not actually at that HQ, if you get my meaning).

Regards
33

[Tzar007]

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

Actually, the code for complex attacks ( ie those involving more than one sub HQ ) can conduct assaults using mulitple axis. However, it will only do so where you do not specify an FUP - ie where you simply specify the objective and no other waypoints. Try it.

I did not know that. I always (unless I am very close to the enemy) specify FUPs. I will give it a try [:)]

[madmickey]

great advice, thanks every-one