Support Units Under Personal Command?

Panther Games' Highway to the Reich revolutionizes wargaming with its pausable, continuous time game play and advanced artificial intelligence. Command like a real General, under real time pressures to achieve real objectives on a real map all within the fog of war. Issue orders to your powerful AI controlled subordinates or take total control of every unit. Fight the world's most advanced AI opponent or match wits against your friends online or over a LAN. Highway to the Reich covers all four battles from Operation Market Garden, including Arnhem, Nijmegen, Eindhoven and the 30th Corps breakout from Neerpelt.

Moderator: Arjuna

Post Reply
MarkShot
Posts: 7506
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:04 am

Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by MarkShot »

It's a nice day (good weather) after lunch today, but I am trapped inside. :( Well, not exactly trapped, I am here, but it seems a little slow on the forum at the moment. :)

So, in line with Tzar007 question yesterday about arty, let me ask you folks under what circumstances and what is the best way to use support units? Let's leave anything which is bombard capable out it, since guns (indirect fire) and mortars belong in that other thread that Tzar007 started. So, we will say that support units are: MG, ATG (towed), ATG (SP), Infantry Guns, Tank Destroyers, and light flak.

Do you command them directly on the attack?

Do you command them directly on the defense?

Help me out here. So, I don't keep looking out the window. :)

Thanks.
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
User avatar
Tzar007
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by Tzar007 »

That's a damn good question. I seriously don't know what these units are for exactly, I know they are there to realistically reflect the composition of WW2 formations, but other than that I don't know what precise roles I should use them in to gain a real benefit.

Usually I find these support units too weak to do anything useful on their own. The usage I make of these units is generally one of the following:

A) If I am out of recon units, I detach them of their parent organization and order them on a recon mission alone (needless to say that usually means they end up chewed up and sacrificed).

B) I detach them of their parent organization and order them to stand their ground at some rear area unoccupied objective (I do this when my forces are really stretched thin and I evaluate that this objective is not likely to be attacked by the enemy).

C) I use them as minimal roadblock, or EWS (early warning system) that the enemy is coming my way.

But most of the time, I simply leave them with the parent formation and let the AI decide what they want to do with them.
KNac007
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2002 11:04 pm

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by KNac007 »

I just leave them organic to their formations or attach/dettach them to other units as I need.

I rarely command them directly, very few times. If I do I try to form support groups (for example AT groups, formed by mot and SP ATG), unfortunatly the commander delay it's too high because we don't have support elements HQ and a coy getting in command of other two companies won't work fine (as it's natural), so this is only done for semi-static defence where I don't need my commanders to response faster), anyway I rarely let them chose their positions, and I join them under one command when I have positioned them individually and with in-situ. Sometimes, in an established defence, if I want to change the position of the support elements I set the parent formation to in-situ and move that unit to where I want, and attach it again, but this again for established defensive lines (well entrenched).

Unfortunatly with the "gun units lead" bug I'm suffering innecessary support elements loses, but I'm too lazy to dettach them from the parent force each time I have to attack or something :D so I will wait for the patch.
MarkShot
Posts: 7506
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:04 am

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by MarkShot »

Ugo,

I'll answer later as I want to see what others have to say first. :)

But from your response, I see that you mainly consider them to be disposable. I guess your are not going to win any popularity contests among your troops! :)
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
User avatar
Tzar007
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by Tzar007 »

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Ugo,

I'll answer later as I want to see what others have to say first. :)

But from your response, I see that you mainly consider them to be disposable.

Yeah, indeed. I guess I just don't know what to do with them.
KNac007
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2002 11:04 pm

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by KNac007 »

Tzar posted at the same time. He has raised up an interesting question I wanted to make, he says "Usually I find these support units too weak to do anything useful on their own", I don't know if he refeers that they are too small or that they die and break fast.

Regarding to the second (they die and break fast), one of the thing I have liked on this games over it's predecessor (RDOA) it's that the british inf bn have been broken into companies, ¿why? you ask. Well I have the feeling (but it could be very wrong, I hope someone can anwer me this), that the bigger units are able to hold much longer and take casualties slower that smaller units, so I found these units a bit "uber", for an exmaple you have the current artillery bn (or regiments in case of the brits), with an stregth of more than 400 men, they are damn hard to break, IRL the commanders where very carefull to keep their artillery away of enemy line units, but here you can use them as excellent blocking units. So I think that it's not proportional, either small units brake too fast and take casualties too fast, or big units are too much strong, or a mix of both things, I just have that feeling. Someone can clear me this question?

If it wasn't clear I would say to try one thing, take 3 or 4 units that together are like other big unit, then place them in a similar area of that occuped like the single unit and attackk them or bombard them, and check which combination will get higher loses and rout faster. Hell, I'm so curoious that I think I'm gonna do it myself.
User avatar
Tzar007
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 3:57 pm
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by Tzar007 »

ORIGINAL: KNac007

Tzar posted at the same time. He has raised up an interesting question I wanted to make, he says "Usually I find these support units too weak to do anything useful on their own", I don't know if he refeers that they are too small or that they die and break fast.

In my book, it's pretty muchy both. In terms of combat power, AT and AA units are really weak on their own, much more than an infantry company (you can hit F1 or simply look at the Stats tab of the unit to see that they have limited power).

They do usually break out and get routing before infantry or armor coys do when under a hard bombardment or enemy attack.

That's why I was saying that on their own, I don't find them really useful except for the limited list of tasks I outlined in my post.
madmickey
Posts: 1336
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 6:54 pm
Location: Calgary, Alberta

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by madmickey »

If I am setting up an arty firebase I will use at and aa units as defense boundary. I may attach them to a divisional or corp HQ using an insitu defense.
EricGuitarJames
Posts: 498
Joined: Sun Feb 08, 2004 12:02 am
Location: Not far enough away for some!
Contact:

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by EricGuitarJames »

What I've been trying to do lately us to use AA units in a 'fire support' role.For example; Playing as the Germans in any of the full campaign scenarios, once I've cleared the paras out of Arnhem proper and control the road bridge I position 3 or 4 of the light AA units on the flanks of the bridge from where they have a good field of fire. They tend to attract 30 Corps artillery so I usually rotate them as there are plenty of them available. I find they are very effective in wearing 30 Corps down as they try to assault the bridge.

Recce units may sometimes be detached if I need intel or if I want to harrass an enemy position without necessarily committing more powerful formations. I may sometimes 'pair up' AT and AA units in a defensive role where they complement each other quite well - this being particularly true of para units.

It must be said though that my choices are normally dictated by the tactical situation at any one time. If I've detached the primary fighting units from the parent HQ I'll often order the HQ (with its support units) into a defensive position. It's unusual (although not unheard of[;)]) for me to order support units to attack unless I'm either desperate or foolish[:D].
It's Just a Ride!
User avatar
Stinger22
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 8:43 am

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by Stinger22 »

>>In my book, it's pretty muchy both. In terms of combat power, AT and AA units are really weak on their own, much more than an infantry company (you can hit F1 or simply look at the Stats tab of the unit to see that they have limited power).

Hey, that's why they call them support units That's how I use them. I haven't had HTTR long enough to speak directly to HTTR so much, still experimenting and learning. That being said as in other games and so far in HTTR I use them to support both defensive and offensive units. ON defense use thier range to star getting firepower on advancing enemy units, try to get thier suppressiong up and organization down before they hit my infantry. Hold some in reserve and try to get flanking fire, ambushing the flank from a line of woods onto an enemy in the open hopefully where you fields of fire will have them. On offense again using thier range to suppress defending enemy and if my troops get bogged down try to flank the defenders and fire like hell on 'em.

I agree with the comments on leaving them in low value objectives to suppress anything that advances on it until I can get some help there, another good use for them.
Golf33
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by Golf33 »

Technically most of these units are classed as "line support" rather than "support". My use of line support units is usually determined by their characteristics. There's three factors to consider: protection, mobility, and firepower.

Protection: armoured line support units like SP AT troops are more robust and can be used in a limited offensive role. They are still not as heavily armoured as tanks so cannot be exposed to the same intensity of combat without getting wiped out.

Mobility: not in the traditional sense of foot vs. motor vs. mech; rather, whether the unit needs to deploy to engage. Units that have to deploy to engage are best used in a pre-planned defensive role where they will be ready to shoot by the time the enemy appears. Units like SP AT that can fire off the move can again be used in a more offensive capacity.

Firepower: Generally these units are better at one task than others. For example, a 40mm AA troop is lethal against unprotected infantry in the open at quite long ranges and can do some damage to light armoured vehicles at short range; however, it's ineffective against medium or heavy tanks. A 6pdr troop is highly effective against light and medium armoured vehicles at reasonable ranges, and moderately effective against heavy armour from a flank and at close range, but has no APers ammo so is not capable of engaging infantry. A 17pdr troop is deadly against all armour at any range, and has a respectable HE shell so is moderately effective against infantry, but it carries very little HE ammo so cannot be relied on to hold out against infantry for any length of time.

There are four roles I use these units in:

1. Under direct command of an attacking unit. I may attach protected and mobile line support units to a battalion (especially infantry) to beef up its firepower on the attack. I don't normally use non-mobile or unprotected units in this role since they will be unable to bring their firepower to bear as effectively, and will be vulnerable to enemy fire.

2. Under direct command of a defending unit. I may attach unprotected and non-mobile line support units to a battalion (again, especially infantry) to beef up its firepower on the attack. I can afford to use these more delicate units here since they will be deployed before contact, so they can bring their firepower to bear, and they will most likely be dug-in so their vulnerability is reduced.

3. Independently as direct fire support for an attack by another force. Using Defend task with Rapid ROF and Max Aggro, these units can be quite effective especially from a flank. You need to make sure they are in position to engage the enemy, often this means gradually creeping them forward until they start firing. Any line support unit can be used in this role; site them in covered terrain so they will deploy before opening fire, or give them Min Aggro to start with so they won't give themselves away by firing. When they are in position and have a bright red TLOS line to the enemy, give them Max Aggro and off they go. I only bother with doing this in small scenarios however.

4. Independently, or as part of a small task force commanded by a line coy (usually Engineers), as a flank security or blocking detachment. The trick here is to create a nice combined arms force. An AA troop will provide long range protection against infantry; an AT troop will provide anti-armour defence; and a line company like engineers will provide the close in protection against infantry attack that all line support units lack. ROF Rapid and usually Aggro Max means these units will force the enemy to deploy at long range and will do damage out of proportion to their small size. You do suffer a command delay penalty but I've generally found it's worth it. In general these tasks are planned in advance and are not a matter of great urgency so it's no problem if the units take a little longer to get sorted out; putting the line support guys under an infantry or engineer company also limits the load on your on-map boss HQ to a single company, whereas commanding each one separately adds extra units.

There's another kind of unit that's in a special category and worth discussing here: the Flak 36 8.8cm gun. This comes in troops, batteries, and battalions and is normally used in the indirect fire role, where it has a long maximum range but also a fairly long (3000m) minimum range.

While the '88' was a moderately effective artillery piece, it really earned its reputation as a direct fire anti-tank gun. In some circumstances it's worth using them in that role instead of as indirect fire support. This is mainly the case where you are an infantry-heavy force with poor or mainly short range AT firepower, and are opposed at reasonably long range by an armour-heavy force. You can't get your infantry close enough for Panzerfausts to do the trick, and you haven't got any AT guns worth the name; but you do have a couple of batteries of 88s. Using a covered approach, sneak these units into a position where they are inside 3000m of the enemy tanks, and give them Defend in Line formation with Max Aggro and Rapid ROF. You will be amazed at how quickly a regiment of Sherman tanks can melt away in the face of 12 or 18 88s firing as fast as they can. Just make sure that the route to the firing position is clear of enemy; your batteries will be very vulnerable during their move.

Regards
33
Steve Golf33 Long
Image
User avatar
Panther Paul
Posts: 667
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:27 am
Location: Newcastle, NSW, Australia
Contact:

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by Panther Paul »

Playing as the British Paras I like to take an Anti Tank unit and combine it with a Glider Pilot company and position it on the tree line where a road enters. Pilots up front, AT just behind.

This makes a great blocking force against any AFV's comming down the road, they will usually get to within effective fire range of the AT unit before being able to spot and stop. They can buy you a lot of time so you can get the rest of your force into town!
Paul Scobell
Panther Games Pty Ltd
Barbarossa
Posts: 85
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: London

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by Barbarossa »

Generally (and probably because I enjoy the larger scenarios the most) I don't detach them for anything. It's just a little bit micro for me at the moment. The one thing I am using them for in my current Nijmegen scenario is to hold low value objectives.


Patrick
MarkShot
Posts: 7506
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:04 am

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by MarkShot »

Thanks, everyone. I really enjoyed the responses.

First, I want to ask a question. Steve, you talk about the Hvy Flak being a very effective tank killer even though the player could use it in an indirect fire role. The problem I see with your suggestion is that if you give a Hvy Flak unit (that is capable of indirect fire; as some are not due to training), it will by default provide "on-call" fire support. How do force it to only function in a direct fire role?

Thanks.

---

Now, some of my observations.

(1) ATG units have been vastly improved since RDOA in their ability to stand their ground. In RDOA, they were paper tigers when facing real tigers or anything else for that matter.

(2) Although support units need to deploy before engaging the enemy, I find that to really use them effectively it's best if they get dug-in in good terrain.

(3) Usually, they should be used at terrain boundaries: tree lines and town/city edges. However, I have wondered about the logic of perhaps sighting them somewhat further back from the boundary as opposed to at it. Despite being set back, there is still some LOS across the open ground. I wonder if they doesn't in part reduce their visibility and profile to attack forces. This might be an interesting research exercise. Also, as Paul pointed out with his road block example, it prevents the heavy weapon unit from being overrun while they are still able engage targets at range for the infantry holding the ground in front of them. I definitely need to try that.

(4) I have often used ATG and light flak units to interdict roads in a defensive posture. I find it best to do this for roads that traverse open spaces. I, also, find it best to not use them in a blocking capacity, but rather perpindicular to the road. These units don't do well at close quarters especially if they are being supressed by bombardment. One way to partially handle that is not to put them in the direct path of enemy columns. Thus, they can be disruptive with less risk of being overrun. Of course, the AI will mount an assault against defensive positions which are impeding its progress. But it takes hours for such orders to be put into action.

(5) These units can be very supressed by arty. The best solution to this is have your own arty on-call to bombard anyone they have a good contact to. Most likely if you are using them as I suggest in #4, then you are trying to halt enemy road traffic. In which case, hammering an enemy column which is exposed and scrambling because it is under direct fire is a superb arty target and works right into your plan.

(6) Not all these units seem frail. I have found SP assault guns and TDs to be very robust and effective when dug-in against moving armor and other light vehicles.

(7) I mainly tend to command these units on the defense. On the attack, I leave them with the AI. Granted they don't seem to do much, but when you dettach units from a larger force, you are then faced with the problem of how do you get them to the spot where you may later need them while providing them with adequate security? If you leave them as part of the attack force until after success and organizing the defense, then they will travel safely as part of the larger force. Now, of course, you could first [M]ove to the FUP area, then dettach them, and then order the [A]ttack; but this introduces additional delays which I prefer to avoid.

(8) These units can be used on the attack to cover the flanks of an attack if they can get positioned and dug-in before the attack is launched. This is best done when the enemy is holding largely open terrain and during a successful, the enemy will be dislodged and falling back toward the flanks. Dug-in heavy weapons on their flanks only puts more hurt on them when they try retreat away. :)
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
Golf33
Posts: 701
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:54 am
Location: Canberra, Australia

RE: Support Units Under Personal Command?

Post by Golf33 »

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

First, I want to ask a question. Steve, you talk about the Hvy Flak being a very effective tank killer even though the player could use it in an indirect fire role. The problem I see with your suggestion is that if you give a Hvy Flak unit (that is capable of indirect fire; as some are not due to training), it will by default provide "on-call" fire support. How do force it to only function in a direct fire role?
Stick them within 3000m away from visible enemy units, with max aggro defend orders. They certainly seem to engage direct fire in preference to on-call inthis situation. I am not sure if it's a hard & fast rule or not though.
(4) I have often used ATG and light flak units to interdict roads in a defensive posture. I find it best to do this for roads that traverse open spaces. I, also, find it best to not use them in a blocking capacity, but rather perpindicular to the road. These units don't do well at close quarters especially if they are being supressed by bombardment. One way to partially handle that is not to put them in the direct path of enemy columns. Thus, they can be disruptive with less risk of being overrun. Of course, the AI will mount an assault against defensive positions which are impeding its progress. But it takes hours for such orders to be put into action.
A roadblock doesn't have to be directly astride the road - if you can engage targets on the road with direct fire at any time of day or night then you have blocked the road, regardless of whether you have a physical presence on it or not.
(6) Not all these units seem frail. I have found SP assault guns and TDs to be very robust and effective when dug-in against moving armor and other light vehicles.
Remember that the German JgPz and StG units are actually classed as Line rather than Line Support, reflecting both the much heavier armour and the more aggressive historical role of these units. The British Achilles units on the other hand are relatively thinly armoured and were in any case used in a line support role, so they are classed as such in the game.
(7) I mainly tend to command these units on the defense. On the attack, I leave them with the AI. Granted they don't seem to do much, but when you dettach units from a larger force, you are then faced with the problem of how do you get them to the spot where you may later need them while providing them with adequate security? If you leave them as part of the attack force until after success and organizing the defense, then they will travel safely as part of the larger force. Now, of course, you could first [M]ove to the FUP area, then dettach them, and then order the [A]ttack; but this introduces additional delays which I prefer to avoid.
This is where putting them under the command of a loose line company like one of your divisional engineer units is a good idea.

Regards
33
Steve Golf33 Long
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Highway to the Reich”