Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

why would you split troops in a wood?

quote:

ORIGINAL: zakblood

thanks for listening as always

quote:

ORIGINAL: genehaynes

I may be wrong, but I think splitting units has the following effects:

1. Reduces the basic attack strength (i.e. More men equates to a more powerful attack, even if the initial strength is reduced due to frontage restrictions). For example, in the starter scenario, the 49 Pa. Reg. of 700 men is reduced to 537 men when attacking. If you split this regiment the initial strength is 350.
2.However, on defense the split regiment will not incur the 5% penalty for over 350 men.

I thought I posted a reply earlier, sorry if this results in a double reply.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Geredis

quote:

ORIGINAL: genehaynes

I may be wrong, but I think splitting units has the following effects:

1. Reduces the basic attack strength (i.e. More men equates to a more powerful attack, even if the initial strength is reduced due to frontage restrictions). For example, in the starter scenario, the 49 Pa. Reg. of 700 men is reduced to 537 men when attacking. If you split this regiment the initial strength is 350.
2.However, on defense the split regiment will not incur the 5% penalty for over 350 men.

I thought I posted a reply earlier, sorry if this results in a double reply.

This situation makes me wonder. Is the 'over-strength bonus' (for lack of a better word) important enough that if, say in the situation you bring up, the 49th PA would actually be more effective as two 350-man regiments in the field, since it'd give you two attacks on a single target instead of a single, flat, bonus to damage done, while also not only forcing the enemy to chose one of two targets, but also getting rid of the 'over-sized penalty' that comes from taking fire?

Thus it seems, aside from any out-of-command range issues, and of course the fact that you're doubling your frontage, and thus exposure to the enemy in most cases, is there any reason NOT to split your regiments into two maneuver elements?

I understand, generally, that there could be Command and Control issues, but since everything seems to work off of a command radius instead of the number of elements in the field, but is there actually a meaningful penalty to splitting regiments, aside from the fact that if they take casualties each man lost is more meaningful to morale? Similarly, there is the risk of being defeated in detail, but I'd imagine that if you split enough regiments up and operate them as linked but independent maneuver elements, shouldn't that risk be largely mitigated by what appears to be semi-randomized target selection based on what targets are nearby, their size, their threat, their range, etc?

Mind you, I don't have the game yet, but seeing this thread really made me wonder of the viability of doing so almost as a rule for all units above a certain size.