How can I express "attachment" units in roaster?

[exsonic01]

For example, in RoK army, back when I was active, 1 infantry battalion had 3 infantry company + 1 heavy weapon company.

1 infantry company had 3 infantry platoons + HQ with 60mm mortar team
1 heavy weapon company had 1 AT platoon, 1 AGL platoon, and 3 81mm mortar platoon.
Inside heavy weapon company:
1 AT platoon had 2 squads (total 4 x M67 90mm RR)
1 AGL platoon had 2 squads (total 4 x K4 AGL, K4 = Korean version of Mk 19 AGL)
1 81mm mortar had 4 mortars.

In very typical fashion, 1 squad of AT platoon (2 M67 RR) + 1 squad of AGL platoon (2 K4 AGL) and 1 platoon of 81mm mortars (4 81mm mortars) are attached to one infantry company. (But usually battalion HQ flexibly attached those heavy weapon company assets) Then, company HQ can decide how to control those attached units with his infantry platoon.

Now, then, in AB, how can I express this situation in the roaster?

Should infantry tab infantry company / platoon contains 90mm RR team, and AGL team, and 81mm platoon?
Or move RR team, AGL team, and mortar platoon to infantry HQ?
Or move heavy weapon company assets to support tab and leave infantry tab infantry free from heavy weapon company attachments?
Or do all above?

[Hub6Actual]

When I did my Canadian database, in the final version, I generated the line platoons under Infantry (dismount) or Mech (mounted) and the Combat Support Platoon went to the Support tab. I have three different platoons to try and fit the practices Canada used for the balance of the period covered in the original game:

One with Command Section and three sections with Carl Gustav (CG was issued as a section weapon, replacing M20 RL)

One with Command Section, two sections with CG, one section with M2 HMG (M113s would go into laager and the M2 was often dismounted from them and carried, heavy as it was, at the section level - not a popular option, I would imagine)

One with Command Section, two sections with CG, one section with 7.62 MMG on tripod (MMG would have nominally been with the Weapons Platoon, but my logic was that these would have been dispersed as required and not kept dumped together).

From that I could generate a Mech Coy that could have:

Coy HQ (two four-man teams, two M113s)
1 Platoon (CG) with 4 M113s
2 Platoon (HMG) with 4 M113s
3 Platoon (MMG) with 4 M113s
4 Platoon (HW) see below

or combinations thereof, as would have been decided by the Coy commander.

I created a Combat Support Platoon that would consist of two 106mm RCL Teams (later replaced by TOW) and two Medium Mortar 81mm Teams carried in 4 M113s. This was from the Combat Support Company, which is notional and not represented by me as again, the assets would generally have been split out as needed. Combat Engineers were also part of the CSC (I created them as basically a dismount section with the ability to breach obstacles and they carry satchel charges). M113 106mm RCL, and later equivalents, were also part of the Combat Support Company. These are represented by the standard two-per section/team the game uses.

A typical pre-1985 section would generally have

1 SMG
1 LMG (heavy barreled FN 7.62 with extended mags)
7 SA (7.62 FN C1 SLR)
1 Carl Gustav 84mm RCL
4 M72 LAW

There were of course many changes and equivalencies depending on time period, for example in 1985 the Canadian Armed Forces went from the SA 7.62mm to the AR 5.56mm, so all these had to be accounted for with different units. It’s almost impossible to come up with a correct TO&E because of the game engine constraints, but you already know that. This plus a bevy of other teams was the best I could come up with. I generated a couple of Coy sized formations, but I never use them, as it is more flexible to pick platoons.

Making the database was a real pain in the ass, and if I hadn’t wanted Canada in there so badly, I never would have bothered. Having one specific unit assigned to one specific transport is not helpful, and it would be great if once the dismounts leave their vehicles, they could be treated as a discreet formation. As it is now, the closer you get to the enemy, the more micromanagement you have to perform.

[exsonic01]

Thanks to share your opinion.

I was thinking of attach 90mm RR and K4 AGL to infantry HQ, but I guess I better put all assets of "fire support" company or platoon to support tab.

Back when I was active, infantry battalion had fire support company (81mm mortar + 90mm RR + AGL), and infantry regiment had fire support company as well (106mm RR or Metis-M, and 4.2 inch mortar). Assets of reginemtal fire support company were all motorized and they were supposed to be attached to infantry battalion HQ.

In this situation, if I depict the "attached fire support asset" in infantry tab as a member of infantry HQ team, regimental / battalion fire support assets will be mixed and roaster could goes to really messy.

So I think it would be better to depict individual teams of fire supports assets in the support tab. For mech infantry, I will make a motorized / mechanized version too. (I wish AI is well prepared with support infantry with taxi, I saw French AI used the Milan ATGM team from AMX-10P)

I'm not sure if "Combat Support Platoon" example would be a proper one for RoKA, because those assets in fire support company were supposed to be attached to infantry company / battalion and receive control from HQ of infantry company / battalion.

[Hub6Actual]

Well, the “Combat Support Platoon” was an entity I created in order to give some of the larger assets in the game a means to get around and keep up with the rest of the mech infantry when they otherwise would have been static. The Combat Support Company of a Canadian Mechanized Regiment (actually a battalion) in 1984 was supposed to have something like 9 Recce machines (like the Lynx, which replaced the Ferret), 8 ea 81 mm mortars, which at some point became M125 Mortar Carriers, 18 M113 TOW (before, 106mm RCL, after, M113 TOW Under Armour), and a dismount Combat Engineer Platoon. All the stuff for the Support Company was already in the game as teams or sections, and since these assets would generally have been divided out per mission tasking anyway, I didn’t bother to create a separate entity called Combat Support Company. So, I might create my Mech Coy as described in the previous post, and then add say, two sections of Lynx, a section of M125s, and two sections of M113 TOW to make my reinforced Mech Company. If I want to use some of the static eqpt, like a 106mm RCL team, I go to my generic CSP. I gave some thought to adding assets to Company HQ as well. I admit that none of it is 100% correct. I have a tendency to gravitate towards the American 80s practice of Company Teams when I play, because I like the balance of them ( 2 inf and one armour platoon, or vice versa, or balanced, with two of each).

Maybe since you like to play larger scenarios, it will be easier for you to achieve what you are trying to make. I tend to play smaller scenarios with a couple of companies and a handful of assets at most.