Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Units Splitting After Combat


Have always wondered why a unit forced to split (due to attack) always slits in to three sun-units of which at least one is always disabled. Why not three subunits all disabled, or three subunits with two disabled or three subunits with none disabled? Why never splitting into two subunits?


Is this another “Norm” commandment?


Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: IainF

I always presumed that the disorganised one is the plucky rear-guard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Agree that this is probably an old code. An old code used to simplify downstream coding. However, I think it should be revisited for future updates.


Yes, the typical organization of a regiment is three battalions. But we both know that two, four and a few five battalion regiments have been fielded. This problem is even more evident when applied to brigades and divisions. Divisions and brigades can be organized as multiple battalions and or regiments, but TOAW still disperses them as three components. The scenario designer should have control over how parent units are subdivided into organic sub units. This includes subdivision due to unfavorable combat results.


My biggest complaint is that units are always spilt into three components, and always one of the components is disorganized. A unit disorganized for the entire turn is absurd. Imagine a retreated company that spends an entire one week turn disorganized to the point that it cannot fall back to friendly lines. I can see a disorganized unit spending the firsts few pulses getting reorganized and then becoming mobile, not being disorganized for the entire turn.


Regards, RhinoBones

quote:

ORIGINAL: winkr7

Historically in real battles formations almost always break into three pieces and one of the three is worse off than the other two. This is based on fact.