Matrix Games Forums

I'm asking this from an Allied perspective though I'd imagine the same answers apply on the Japanese side too ..

Some divisions start deployed as regiments / battalions (US / Aussie / etc).

My question is whether it's better to combine them or not.

As i see it -

Advantages to combining
- Combined unit might have a larger TOE
- Divided units might move at different speeds making coordinated moving harder (Aus Div Cav comes to mind)
- Losses allocated to entire division - not focused on one element (not sure on this one if it really applies)

Advantages to staying separate
- can divide division into pieces other than thirds (Aus divs that have battalions)

Are there other considerations? What's the consensus opinion - combine them or keep separate?

If you're going to use them in combat, in my opinion you should combine them. The only reason I would not combine a division is if I wanted the specific parts (the battalions you mention) for specific garrison duties. As the Allies, this is rare. As Japan, I think about it a little bit more but in general combine the divisions with >60 Experience and use other troops for those small garrisons (Naval Guard comes to mind) rather than a crack Inf Battalion.

It's been somewhat well documented in various threads that larger units are affected less by adverse combat results than smaller units.

When you are rebuilding them after losses, however, you should split it into parts.

A good reason to keep them seperated would be to send reinforcements to different areas as you see fit if you're holding the units back, vs sending one big division to only one spot...

as time passes, most LCUs will be able to 'upgrade TO&E' for better combat ability, units can only upgrade if enough new stuff becomes available from fixed-rate production.

if 1 or 2 of the 3 sub-units upgrade, they won't be allowed to re-combine until all the sub-units have made the same upgrade (this is also true for divided airgroups).

if the sub-units aren't widely dispersed, it's best to allow upgrades only when the unit is combined.

I try to combine units, but as Japan the need to attack (and later garrison) multiple points at once, plus the PP expense in pulling useful units out of Manchuria, means that I am often not successful at this. I have a few divisions that are spread out pretty far and are unlikely to end up being combined.

ORIGINAL: olorin42

Are there other considerations? What's the consensus opinion - combine them or keep separate?

Division commanders?

Do you ever get Vandegrift in the commander replacement pool if you keep the three regiments of the 1st Marine Division separate, or do you have to create the division to get him?

ORIGINAL: olorin42

I'm asking this from an Allied perspective though I'd imagine the same answers apply on the Japanese side too ..

Some divisions start deployed as regiments / battalions (US / Aussie / etc).

My question is whether it's better to combine them or not.

As i see it -

Advantages to combining
- Combined unit might have a larger TOE
- Divided units might move at different speeds making coordinated moving harder (Aus Div Cav comes to mind)
- Losses allocated to entire division - not focused on one element (not sure on this one if it really applies)

Advantages to staying separate
- can divide division into pieces other than thirds (Aus divs that have battalions)

Are there other considerations? What's the consensus opinion - combine them or keep separate?

It is pretty simple:

Advantages combined:
- better resilience to combat attrition/losses, better total performance in battle
- easier handling
- only one leader required (this can make a huge difference, there are not so many really great leaders out there)

Advantages separate:
- versability (you can attack three targets at once instead if one)
- better total replenishment/reinforcement (there is a limit to how many devices a unit can replenish per turn, so the regiments replenish 3 times as much as the division would)

If you require raw combat power ofer an extended period of time against a tough target, nothing beats the full formation. Same for strategic relocation of forces. As a rule of thumb I would always let a divisions´ sub
components operate in the same TOO.

If you need fast recovery from losses, attack small weakly defended targets, or garrison bases, the subcomponents are the better choice.

I think that most threads and thus most vocal players agree that for combat purposes a combined larger unit is more effective for a number of reasons than its constituent parts. However there are always caveats to any rule and some are mentioned above. Even as an Allied player I've need of smaller units and thus keep some from combining (Battalions combine into Regiments who combine into Divisions which then combine into Corps - which combine into armies??). This is especially true early in the war when PPs are not available to change HQ yet you still need a unit to go into action overseas!

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: olorin42

Are there other considerations? What's the consensus opinion - combine them or keep separate?

Division commanders?

Do you ever get Vandegrift in the commander replacement pool if you keep the three regiments of the 1st Marine Division separate, or do you have to create the division to get him?

Whenever US divisions arrive by regiment, the division commander is in the slot of the lowest-numbered (by ID # in the editor) regiment. In case of the 1st Marine Division (5648) Vandegrift arrives in command of the 1st Marine Regiment (5649).

When the regiments combine, the game engine is supposed to make the commander of the lowest-ID # regiment the division commander. However, I'm not certain if that is working as designed.

All in all, you want to take divisions to a fight if you can.

I combine everything as soon as I can, with 1 exception (that I wont mention).

In my latest game I did not (could not) combine the 1st Marine until late '42. When I did, Vandegrift was not put in command, nor could I place him there. He is, however, leading the I Amph Corp.