What is the cost/benefit of breaking down units

[PrinceBolkonsky]

What I know so far:

1) A unit loses some of its combat capacity proportionally after breaking down.
2) Quality breakdowns seem to be extremely resilient barring being utterly overwhelmed or using them stupidly.

This makes me believe that if you are defending this is often not a bad option. After all an overwhelming attack against a full strength unit will likely force the unit to breakdown anyway. At least this way the defeat of a full strength formation will often require your opponent to use up more of their turn.

What hazards are there in doing this?
What advantages are there in doing this?

[Oberst_Klink]

ORIGINAL: Bolkonsky

What I know so far:

1) A unit loses some of its combat capacity proportionally after breaking down.
2) Quality breakdowns seem to be extremely resilient barring being utterly overwhelmed or using them stupidly.

This makes me believe that if you are defending this is often not a bad option. After all an overwhelming attack against a full strength unit will likely force the unit to breakdown anyway. At least this way the defeat of a full strength formation will often require your opponent to use up more of their turn.

What hazards are there in doing this?
What advantages are there in doing this?

Division into Sub-Units
Sub-units will have only about 80% of the parent unit’s proficiency. If you recombine your units, the newly recombined parent unit will have 125% of the average sub-unit’s proficiency. This means that the act of dividing a unit and recombining it will result in no permanent loss of the unit’s Proficiency. During the game, units are frequently sub-divided automatically due to adverse combat results. Also, an Airborne unit might be sub-divided during an Airborne Landing operation. To determine if a unit has been subdivided, consult the Formation Report. Air, Naval, Coastal Artillery, Fixed Artillery, Supply, and Headquarters units may not be divided. Formations with a large number of divided units are more likely to be forced into Reorganization as a result of combat losses.

The obvious advantage depends on your 'Lage'. To defend a long front-line and defence in depth with a large unit split into 2-3 'Kampfgruppen'.

Klink, Oberst

[PrinceBolkonsky]

I was already aware of this equation and clearly the situation needs to be taken into account. I guess my question is: Is breaking down units intentionally, wide spread, or is it generally avoided whenever possible? That's too innocuous...What does "Lage" mean again?

So far, it appears that in most cases one wants to be the attacker. While there are rare positions that force heavy attrition on the enemy, and there seem to be configurations that lend themselves to winning an artillery duel against an attacker, most of the time the defender seems to get the worst of it. This certainly makes sense WW2 and after. I'm sure I am missing a lot of details still but it seems that creating a line is only worth while if it either covers your counter attacking force, allows other units to escape or otherwise buys time for some endeavor such as an attack against an adjacent weak point.

[USXpat]

Breaking down units also makes it easier for units in that formation to go into reorganization. Depending upon the unit and the attacking force, it can be easier for the enemy to force your broken down units to "retreat before combat" - likely suffering further from disengagement and possibly setting up additional RBC's. It's all situational though, there are times where you want to, need to and have to; just as there are times where it is the last option to consider.