Bypass/split unit capability

[Zumwalt_446]

I have encountered several situations similar to the below screenshot in which a unit that has 1 subunit remaining is able to hold in place a much larger enemy unit (or multiple enemy units) for several turns. If this situation occurred in real life, the most likely course of action would involve a bypass by the majority of the larger force, with a small party perhaps being kept behind to contain the small unit. However, this cannot be represented in-game as units cannot be split.

Are there any plans to either introduce a unit splitting capability or "bake in" mechanics to address situations like this?

single unit.JPG (277.18 KiB) Viewed 755 times

[CapnDarwin]

I am a bit confused at the image. You are NATO. Is the small unit in the hex with the West German unit? All NATO units are in screen. Are you trying to move certain units in the image and where are you going? As for splitting subs out of a unit, we have no plans to do that in the game engine. I need to understand what is the issue above to better answer. Thanks.

[Zumwalt_446]

Hi,

The scenario is "Brothers in Arms" played from the NATO side.

I've attached a second screenshot below (from an earlier save) with the Soviet unit on top. The small unit I am referring to is the PzGdr unit (2/2/PzGren, consisting of a Milan crew with no ATGMs remaining, hence only small arms capability), while the larger unit is the Soviet company.

While I can agree that in the majority of cases the overall game mechanics would "average out" situations like this, in this particular case that is not applicable. The Soviet objective is to penetrate to the NATO objectives in the lower portion of the map; therefore, a situation like the below one would (in reality) result in a small portion of the company being split off to contain the threat while the remainder of the company keeps moving towards its objective. I have previously seen up to four relatively large Soviet units get stuck in the same hex as the PzGdr unit, which has a significant effect on the Soviet battle plan.

With the Soviet right flank tied down in this way, I am able to execute a defeat in detail of the left flank (advancing down the road from the northern objective) while maintaining a minimal force of two Bradley units to guard my left flank. Had the Soviet force instead advanced through the town and towards my left flank, I would have been hard pressed to guard both flanks simultaneously with my available units.

Hopefully the above gives some more information on this situation and my thoughts regarding it; apologies for any remaining confusion/ambiguity.

single unit 2.png (272.96 KiB) Viewed 711 times

[Zumwalt_446]

It occurred to me that an easy way to avoid this situation, without changing any game mechanics, would be to modify the Soviet battle plan such that the right flank swings to the west of the urban area rather than moving through it. Against a defending force without long-range capabilities, that would mean that the Soviets could bypass the area and continue moving south.

[Zumwalt_446]

Hi all,

Apologies if this comes across as beating a dead horse, bur here goes:

I just ran across essentially the same situation with a new run of this scenario, this time with the eastern prong of the WP attack (a tank-heavy force consisting largely of T-55s). After crossing the bridge, multiple tank companies remain in the same hex as a PzGdr unit down to its last squad (an ATGM unit) that engages them with small arms. This persists for multiple turns as the tank companies engage the unit but are unable to destroy it.

Some ideas I had in relation to this:

1. Could a mechanic be introduced such that, if multiple units enter a hex with an enemy unit down to its last squad, only one of the friendly units remains in the hex while the remaining units proceed to their objective? This could be configurable as a SOP setting ("bypass" or similar).

2. Could there be a significant negative modifier on the chance for a lone squad to engage a superior force and/or a significant increase in their spottability once that squad engages? This would help with the issue of "unkillable" last squads.

Any comments are appreciated.

[CapnDarwin]

We will need to review and improve the AI logic for dealing with interrupted movement based on move order and SOP. Some logic is there, but apparently this type of case is not getting resolved in a reasonable manner.

[Zumwalt_446]

I think that one of the contributing factors is the attributes of urban tiles in-game. There is a combination of low spottability and high cover that greatly advantages the smaller units in these cases.

Not that this should necessarily be changed (it is largely true to life), but it contributes to the "unkillable" last squads issue. I definitely agree that the most straightforward path to avoid these cases is modifying the AI's decisionmaking process for interrupted/blocked moves.

[Tagüeña]

A request from the HQ of the unit involved addressed to the player to resolve the specific situation of an urban resistance focus?

Leaving a smaller picket to combat that residual threat and overcome the threat, or to go all out against it.

An ad hoc and temporary HQ could be established for that circumstance and the player could, in a dialog box, assign units -subtracted from larger ones- and supports.

In general, concrete interactions of the subordinate AI with the player, bottom-up, outside the stereotypical templates of the SOP, are missing. -SOPs are in any case, vertical up/down player-AI.