Deciding what support level to give.

[Dili]

I would like to know the opinions of those that usually edit. What would be the levels of support for say an Armored/Motorised Division, Infantry Division, Para Division, Artillery Units etc?

This is what i think:

Armored/Motorised - I would say since thier employment is for breaking into enemy lines and exploration for encirclement they would get more support and are more self suficient.

Infantry - Less support since their speed makes possible following elements easier to reach it.

Para - This one is dificult. They have to be self suficient for a time but have not sustainable capability. In game terms i would say they should have a little more support than an Armored Unit.

Artillery - I think this should have least support of this list. Independent Bn/Rgt usually have the bigger guns, need all assets of an Army like aerial recon, communications and support to be effective. So i would say they should have the least support, also independent engineer units.


Now the Values:

From what i have learned every device needs support to function. I dont know how the game choose to what device should give priority or if makes an average. In bombardment i would think it will choose only between guns.

I reach this conclusions:

Para Unit: 80% (for smaller special forces-Bn level- i would put it at near 90%)

Armored Unit: 70% of self support, This is the usual values in current games.

Infantry Unit: 50%, This is the usual values in current games.

Artillery Unit: The bigger range the gun have more external support it needs to be effective. I would say 100%-3xRange. a 30km range gun have 10% self support and a 10km range have 70% self support.

I am also favorable of having static support in Cities. Independent from AA, Coastal units there.

Opinions?

[el cid again]

Support should be a function of many factors. And remember - if units don't need support - HQ have little value.

The worst support probably goes to Japanese engineer units. These units are intended to have expertise, but only approach their building capacity if some sort of other labor is available: civilian, other military units, prisoners, name it.

If you are doing something with RHS, you get support whenever you have a supply sink. In addition to its supply eating function, a supply sink provides support. This was not my design intent - but turns out support is divided by 10 in terms of squad counts in combat - so it turned out to be necessary. In the end, I came to like it: there is more support in a city.
And taking a major population center is more complicated than taking some other point.

With some exceptions, I tend to give motorized units (including big artillery which is tractor drawn) motorized support vice non-motorized support.

I am not sure I like your proposals in terms of who gets more support - but on the other hand in general I think your proposals are pretty light support wise. This will impact combat performance.

The answer may lie in testing: try things and see what you like effects wise?

[Dili]

Yes certainly motorised support for veichle mobile units.
 
I think Support can be said to represent the hability of an Unit to function independently from HQ. As such a small special force unit can function almost 100%, i dont say 100% because it doesnt have so easily updated information from recon, etc but it is not affected much by support. An artillery unit with various pre-prepared positions to move around, good communications (radio field telephone), recon including aerial observation recon, eventually sound ranging devices etc is much more efficient than an Artillery Unit that just arrived and is getting requests of fire support from Infantry Units, for example its counter battery would be non existent, or any other fire beyond the frontline, much less protected from enemy conter battery and eventaully less mobile since engineer units didnt reinforced roads and made preparatory positions.
For engineers since they give that support habilities to other units i might give them over 100% maybe 105% but in another hand they need communications, medical support etc. I'll have to think about it.
 
Heavier Devices(Weapons,Equipment) usually need more support so that is a factor too.

[el cid again]

Engineers are very different in different services. In Japan other units support the engineers!!! In the US the engineers support the line units - maybe - sometimes.

I think smaller units need MORE support than larger ones do - that you are expressing this backwards. A division (and to a lesser extent a brigade) has most functions organic. The term "brigade" meant originally "to combine different types of units into a more self sufficient type of formation than any of them are independently, and more self sufficient than several identical units would be (i.e. a regiment)". The bigger a unit is, the greater the fraction of support can be justified - unless it is a specialist unit designed to be truly self sufficient in the field - where your airborne comes to mind.
They lack heavy weapons, usually - or get very light heavy weapons - but they can pack ammo for it all (replacing the weight of ammo with packed casualties - theoretically - if need be). Thus a Aussie special forces platoon might be pretty close to self sufficient - but it has only a handful of squads.

[Dili]

I think smaller units need MORE support than larger ones do - that you are expressing this backwards.

 
Yes i  hinted to that and it is linked to technological complexity. Lets say an MG Battalion, what kind of support non organic it needs to 100% effective, i would say Medical; Mechanical repair for Trucks, Recon Info in time and not much more. I would say without that it can be 80-90% effective.
Like you said a Division has most Functions Organic. But unfortunately that "organic" are just a preambule, they preempt and fix few things but they get easily overloaded. They are good for peace time or small combat to keep the unit moving. To have 100% effectiveness a Divison needs essential recon information and all repair,medical support from upper levels. A Division makes a 200km march and it is probable to just loose dozen tanks to mechanical problems. Without upper level repair they would be probably lost, there is no capability to let a fix party to everyone of them. IMO the organic support of Divisons have not enough size. Now if you question a Combined Arms Regiment Vs Full Divison yes i agree the Division have much more support.

[el cid again]

The ability of a unit to support itself varies greatly with the unit, nationality, and neighborhood. Some units went into the bush for long periods - and this was done on both sides. [Anti Dutch Army units in the future Indonesia never left the field until independence was won. The same can be said of the Viet Minh. It wasn't always the Allies who pulled it off. But it took special political and economic situations to make it feasible - it was not the inherant support squads in these units] Something like Xenophon's "march up country" or the Czech Legion's oddessy in Imperial Russia (covering thousands of miles and years of time) is not generally possible for modern military units. Even Tammerlain's crossing of the Himilaya's is probably impossible for any modern military force of comparable size - unless we use the roads (and now rail lines) being built by China. This is a very complex and difficult matter - and whatever conclusions you come to - you have my sympathy for daring to attempt to get it "right."

[Dili]

thanks. Note that i am trying more to determine how higher levels affect efectivness than support over dificult terrain. What is the upper support neeeded for a Division  to reach 100% effectivness(all weapons and assets used with maximun efficiency) and what degradation in combat without it in %.

[el cid again]

It probably varies by nationality and even by service and type of unit. It is complicated by the fact IRL divisions would go into combat stripped of non-essential elements, but reinforced by other elements - so the IRL answer varies case by case. In PTO US Army divisions went in WITHOUT their inherant motorized support elements - using "historical" official TO&Es is probably actually wrong. They could not move any distance in most cases, and got supplies by naval landing craft and docks. Japan did the same thing - divisions went it with significant elements absent - in particular draft elements. And both sides then pressed natives into service as porters. I have a photograph of long lines of women (out of sight) bearing supplies for the US offensive up the Naguilian Road on the offensive toward Baguio City late in the war - near my wife's childhood home near that road. Yet these civilian Filipino women are not easy to model in WITP!
Is it right to rate the unit with its official support - which it didn't have - or not? because it got support in fact anyway?
Very hard to say.

[Dili]

I would say that Filipino woman are HQ support!

I was to make a thread about this issue but since it is not much diferent: i am giving field hand squads to Units that have handlers for mules and horses. An example is Alpini divisions that only with 2 Regiments had over 14000 men.

[el cid again]

Wow. Field hand squads are an RHS feature - I had no idea they made it into another mod - never mind all the way to ETO! Note that field hand squads are worth something (almost nothing) in combat - because they are hard bitten engineers/miners/etc - while Labor Squads are the same thing with absolutly no firepower.

[Dili]

I think i am using some file that Mifune sent me. The handlers have some firepower but i am still trying to know more how that worked. For Cavalry units if they were meant to fight mounted there was no need of handlers while if there was MG platoons and rifle companies that unmount to fire they need handlers.


Alpine Division

Bersaglieri/Alpini 40 Squads 162
Field Hand Squad 120
75mm/13 24
Breda HMG 54
81mm/14 mod35 Mortar 24
Support 270
Engineers 12

[el cid again]

Why use Field Hand Squads instead of Support Squads? Or instead of engineers?

They do not perform the same function.
A field hand squad contributes to contruction and repair, but it NEEDs support - it does not GIVE support.
Same for a labor squad. They are substitute for engineers - or motorized engineers - with less firepower.


I wanted it otherwise - but you cannot change it - only support and motorized support slots provide support - with the single exception of aircraft support - which self support and require no support squads.

[Dili]

Because i want that they be a burden for the unit and not an asset. Note that the value above is just a rough value and is open to tweaking.

[el cid again]

Well - it will be a burdon. But it WILL give the unit more engineer (construction type) power. Which, indeed, seems OK.