Dividing units (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III



Message

golden delicious -> Dividing units (4/30/2007 8:18:28 PM)

I'm in a PBM match at present and my opponent (who shall remain nameless) has raised an objection to the amount of use I am making of my ability to divide units (in the scenario in question, his force is unable to do so). I have agreed not to divide battalions into companies (the scenario is at 10km/hex) but reserve the right to divide larger units.

I've never thought of dividing units as being something forbidden. Indeed, when dealing with surrounded units, you might need six regiments to encircle one battered division if you are not allowed to divide them. The alternative would be to wind up using engineer regiments and other odd bits to complete encirclements whilst the infantry pushes on. Hardly realistic.

What do other players think? Is this a legitimate complaint? Doubtless I have gained substantial benefit from using this ability, but I don't think it's outrageous to do so. In any case, my opponent has in fact taken advantage of the weak screens I throw up around pockets by blasting out of them and going on the rampage on more than one occasion.



cantona -> RE: Dividing units (4/30/2007 8:26:16 PM)

I do not think its gamey. In reality units were always broken down, had bits and pieces attached to otherr commands and so on. If one force cannot split, eg soviet in FitE, its because you already outnumber your opponent.

I for one cant see any legitimacy in his complaint, anyhow doesnt the unit sufer proficiency drops when split/reunited?



JAMiAM -> RE: Dividing units (4/30/2007 8:47:33 PM)

I am assuming that the scenario in question has the OPFOR's units unable to divide through some intention of design. For example, to mirror a certain operational inflexibility. Possibly, this is optimistic on my part, and it is instead, simply a case of sub-standard design work, with formations either overstuffed, or the counter limits being reached in a monster scenario that attempts to bite off more than it can chew. In any event, it's my opinion that by deliberately hamstringing yourself you are doing neither your opponent, yourself, or the scenario designer any long-term good.

Your opponent suffers by not learning how to deal with such situations as they arise. Particularly if they are intended as such by the scenario designer. You suffer from having to play with one hand tied behind your back, while your opponent can take advantage of his larger units and perhaps greater number of units. Given your skills, vis-a-vis, your opponents, this might not be too much of a handicap, but it's still the point of the issue. The scenario designer suffers because his creation is either not getting played as it was intended, with a false impression made of the scenario because of some aritficial constraints, or is not receiving feedback on what could instead (inspite) of being a intentional design feature is merely an oversight.

Your mileage may vary, but if it were me, I would probably have suggested to the opponent to suck it up and drive on...[;)]



wolflars -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 5:05:59 AM)

I think this is a design issue. That is, poor versus good design. If the scenario author is intentionally trying to demonstrate operational flexibility then he should design accordingly, thus limiting the number of units that can break down.

And I wholeheartedly agree with Ben’s aversion to using combat support units, like engineers or RR construction units and HQs to encircle enemy forces. It is far more realistic to break down combat units for this task.

However, I can say that it is very irritating to see a relatively healthy division (for example) cut off by 3 decent units on 3 sides and then 3 infantry companies on the other 3 sides or something similar. Hmmm…that’s not to clear is it?

Here is an example I conjured up to illustrate what I think is a problem. The scenario is everyone’s favorite FITE. I loaded it, moved some units out of the way to illustrate the problem. Prior to my breaking down the Brandenburg Bn into 3 companies, the Russian Inf Div was supplied and in good order. I then attacked with orders to ignore losses. The Russian Div is evaporated. Had the 3 companies not been present it is simply pushed back with losses.

The problem, as I see it, is these really small units cutting off much larger units. In reality, I think a Russian Infantry Division would have attempted a breakout and likely overrun the much smaller infantry company OR retreated THROUGH the tiny unit. While there are certainly a few historical examples that indicate otherwise, they are exceptions to the rule. Hence, I think it is a design flaw to allow some units to break down. I think another thread offered an idea to somehow flag units, rendering them incapable of breakdown. This is a much better solution than simply filling up a formation with units. Then you could have, for example, a infantry division formation where the infantry regiments could breakdown into battalions but it’s attached anti tank company cannot breakdown into platoons. Or something to that effect.


[image]local://upfiles/20950/5BBF213ECCFB415A9ACA801847BA6946.jpg[/image]



freeboy -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 5:44:42 AM)

It is a hard choice, as a unit that is retreeting for its life and unable to fight, may surrender. the unit has lost unit cohesion, and the individual troops  have no "mindset" of the larger unit , only the desire to escape. Either taht or the unit should not be retreating .. perhaps a design issue.



tiberius -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 9:29:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

The problem, as I see it, is these really small units cutting off much larger units. In reality, I think a Russian Infantry Division would have attempted a breakout and likely overrun the much smaller infantry company OR retreated THROUGH the tiny unit. While there are certainly a few historical examples that indicate otherwise, they are exceptions to the rule. Hence, I think it is a design flaw to allow some units to break down. I think another thread offered an idea to somehow flag units, rendering them incapable of breakdown. This is a much better solution than simply filling up a formation with units. Then you could have, for example, a infantry division formation where the infantry regiments could breakdown into battalions but it’s attached anti tank company cannot breakdown into platoons. Or something to that effect.




Completely agree. The FitE/Braunschweig, etc. scale is by far my favorite, but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth using companies to surround divisions. Blech. I personally would rather use an at/aa/eng battalion to do it than a company even though that taste is also somewhat bitter. Of course I do it because I also agree with previous posters in this thread, but wouldn't it be great if the designer could prevent it by flagging his bats so they can't become coys (or whatever formations are appropriate at the scale used)? Hah! Imagine sections surrounding corps! Perfectly possible as it stands. Of course correcting the retreat rules so that the retreaters could overrun the innapropriate small/ passivily equiped surrounding units woujld also be great.



el cid -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 10:11:53 AM)

In the example by Wolflars, unless the unit had been surrounded the previous turn, a great part of the russian equipment would be sent back to the replacement pool, and not lost.

Had it been surrounded the previous turn, then the russians had 1 turn to break of the encirclement if they wished.

Even so, the russian unit evaporating might still look like an unfair result. But rather than not allowing certain units to divide (which would not solve being encircled by RR units or supply units), can a unit trying to retreat do so by attacking an ocupied hex?



cantona -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 11:13:30 AM)

I've always thought that this models the lack of will to fight in some surrounded units. Take the example above. Surrounded on three sides by elements of an armoured or mechanised division and their retreat routes are cut. In real life what would be the chances that a cut off infantry division would surrender in a scenario like this? IMO unless they had strong leadership or fanatical devotion, a high probability. Sometimes it takes a few rounds to destroy a surrounded division, especially if they are dug in, on good ground and have a stockpile of supply. If we look at the russian front, mp units, bau battalions, locally raised levvies etc were used to reduce cut off soviet units or indeed fight against the partizans. So though having these units on the front line seems ahistorical, using them for rear security duties or mopping operations seems legit to me. 



golden delicious -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 2:46:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona

I do not think its gamey. In reality units were always broken down, had bits and pieces attached to otherr commands and so on. If one force cannot split, eg soviet in FitE, its because you already outnumber your opponent.


Well, in truth, they don't have such a numerical superiority, because although their total force is 2000 units, a lot of those aren't on the map at one time.



golden delicious -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 2:48:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

I am assuming that the scenario in question has the OPFOR's units unable to divide through some intention of design. For example, to mirror a certain operational inflexibility. Possibly, this is optimistic on my part, and it is instead, simply a case of sub-standard design work,


I would say it's a combination of the two. The designer has reached the unit limit and decided to declare the problem to be a design feature.



golden delicious -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 2:51:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars

However, I can say that it is very irritating to see a relatively healthy division (for example) cut off by 3 decent units on 3 sides and then 3 infantry companies on the other 3 sides or something similar. Hmmm…that’s not to clear is it?


Well, in this case the healthy division should be able to RBC the infantry companies and break out. Of course in this particular example I've agreed that it's unreasonable to divide battalions (something which I was doing for the purposes of hex conversion).

Admittedly in your example the Russian division did not have a chance to do this, but it's a bit of an extreme case.



golden delicious -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 2:53:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona

I've always thought that this models the lack of will to fight in some surrounded units. Take the example above. Surrounded on three sides by elements of an armoured or mechanised division and their retreat routes are cut.


This does apply even with small units in the rear. Reports of tanks or paratroopers in the rear can spread panic and defeatism pretty rapidly, regardless of how large these forces really are.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 5:17:04 PM)

There's some risk/reward aspect to this. Formations with a lot of sub-divided units are more likely to reorganize. That's something the victim player could try to exploit.



wolflars -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 8:46:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona

retreat routes are cut.



I'm not convinced the routes are cut. A single infantry company tasked with covering a 10km front (FITE scale is 10KM per hex IIRC) is a very tall order. If the terrain were constricted I might concede a km or two, but this is relatively open terrain and we are talking WW2 weapons and communications not M2A2 with TOW-2B having a range of 3750 meters.

Asking a couple of hundred guys--perhaps 300-- to stop thousands of advancing soldiers sounds like the plot of a really bad hollywood movie. [:D]

And even though they are technically retreating, try explaining the difference to some poor rifleman who only knows the enemy is coming towards him.



wolflars -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 8:47:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious



IThe designer has reached the unit limit and decided to declare the problem to be a design feature.



hehe.



wolflars -> RE: Dividing units (5/1/2007 8:54:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious



This does apply even with small units in the rear. Reports of tanks or paratroopers in the rear can spread panic and defeatism pretty rapidly, regardless of how large these forces really are.


True. which is why I like the idea of restricting (in the design) certain units ability to split. Certain units, especially those with high recon assets are likely to produce these effects largely because in addition to their screening efforts they are capable of calling indirect fire to channel or prevent movement of enemy forces. Airborne units are also effective in these situations because of the surprise element they produce.

In fact my example is probably a poor one because the Brandenburg Regt would be capable of such activities. a better example from Fite might have been just a regular leg Bn.



tiberius -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 2:01:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wolflars



In fact my example is probably a poor one because the Brandenburg Regt would be capable of such activities. a better example from Fite might have been just a regular leg Bn.



The best example to illustrate your point would have been an AA battalion split into companies. Oh and use one of the tank divisions as the Soviet unit.



tiberius -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 2:14:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cantona

I've always thought that this models the lack of will to fight in some surrounded units. Take the example above. Surrounded on three sides by elements of an armoured or mechanised division and their retreat routes are cut. In real life what would be the chances that a cut off infantry division would surrender in a scenario like this? IMO unless they had strong leadership or fanatical devotion, a high probability. Sometimes it takes a few rounds to destroy a surrounded division, especially if they are dug in, on good ground and have a stockpile of supply. If we look at the russian front, mp units, bau battalions, locally raised levvies etc were used to reduce cut off soviet units or indeed fight against the partizans. So though having these units on the front line seems ahistorical, using them for rear security duties or mopping operations seems legit to me. 


I enjoy making up fun and interesting rationales for the quirks of TOAW as much as the next guy ( those broken down AA units spread out across the desert converting terrain and scouting for enemies represent ad hoc recon elements made from rear area trucks and guns scraped together by local McGyver types. Or a similar unit on min. losses limited attack attacking over and over and eventually inducing the enemies now 33/1 front line regiment to retreat is a similar McGyver type artillery spotter.) , and I agree that the situations you are describing are very legitimate. I think there is definitley room to see some improvement in the overall situation with respect to on the scenario design side, units that are too small for their hex scale and on the engine side, units with the wrong types of equipment for their roles (of being the sixth unit in the ring).



rhinobones -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 5:55:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tiberius
The best example to illustrate your point would have been an AA battalion split into companies. Oh and use one of the tank divisions as the Soviet unit.


This really sums up the design deficiency in the scenario. Why in the world does a purported operational scenario have units that range from division down to company size? This differential in unit size guarantees that so called “ant” units will appear in completely unrealistic operational situations.

Think this scenario is ultimately the result of designing to the OOBs rather than to a rational scenario/battle model.

Regards, RhinoBones




Scout_Pilot -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 8:46:07 AM)

One problem is the 2000-unit per side limit in TOAW. The solution - increase the number of unit slots (and formations, too). With TOAWIII we got events increased from 500 to 1000. Why can't we have more units and formations in a future patch/version?

Having units "flagged" by the scenario designer to not be divisible may be a double-edged sword. As the owner I lose flexibility when "I" want or need to divide it. But my opponent now faces a unit with unrealistic "cohesiveness".

Another problem exists with the myriad combat support units present in scenarios such as FitE and DnO (the AT, AA, etc.). Yes, these units existed. But historically they were often "broken down" and their components "attached" to support larger units. The designers of FitE and DnO crafted their OOB's to reflect this. Example: In both DnO and FitE the German infantry divisions consist of three "infantry" regiments and a HQ. By design the individual "companies" of the division's engineer, pzjgr and recon battalions are divided among the division's infantry regiments and the division artillery regiment is incorporated into the division HQ unit. However the Corps/Army-level AT, AA, engineer, and artillery units appear separately. Some players also take "liberties" with their employment and use them ahistorically to reconnoiter or fill gaps in their line, a "cheesy" [:D] practice no matter how you slice it (imho).



golden delicious -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 2:53:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Scout_Pilot

Another problem exists with the myriad combat support units present in scenarios such as FitE and DnO (the AT, AA, etc.). Yes, these units existed. But historically they were often "broken down" and their components "attached" to support larger units. The designers of FitE and DnO crafted their OOB's to reflect this. Example: In both DnO and FitE the German infantry divisions consist of three "infantry" regiments and a HQ. By design the individual "companies" of the division's engineer, pzjgr and recon battalions are divided among the division's infantry regiments and the division artillery regiment is incorporated into the division HQ unit.


The trouble is that the recon assets in particular will want to be consolidated and fighting some considerable distance from the rest of the division in a lot of cases. In fact the Germans made a habit of forming ad-hoc motorised units to rush ahead of the main body when resistance was light.

quote:

However the Corps/Army-level AT, AA, engineer, and artillery units appear separately. Some players also take "liberties" with their employment and use them ahistorically to reconnoiter or fill gaps in their line, a "cheesy" [:D] practice no matter how you slice it (imho).


Well, when push comes to shove an AA regiment or an engineer regiment can get thrown into the front line. The battalions will probably RBC if pressed. I don't see this as too bad. "Too weak" units getting used for encirclements is more of a problem. Perhaps something as simple as checking for RBCs against each neighbouring stacks if an attacked unit has nowhere to retreat would be sufficient.



golden delicious -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 2:54:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

This really sums up the design deficiency in the scenario.


And you've probably guessed which scenario it is we're discussing. Happy to see someone else making these remarks.



BillLottJr -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 4:17:39 PM)

With the existing system, a designer can limit the problem by making the smallest desired units section sized, which cannot be divided. So the Brandenberger Bn would have the section symbol (which even sortta looks like the Bn symbol) & thus can't divide.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhinobones


quote:

ORIGINAL: tiberius
The best example to illustrate your point would have been an AA battalion split into companies. Oh and use one of the tank divisions as the Soviet unit.


This really sums up the design deficiency in the scenario. Why in the world does a purported operational scenario have units that range from division down to company size? This differential in unit size guarantees that so called “ant” units will appear in completely unrealistic operational situations.

Think this scenario is ultimately the result of designing to the OOBs rather than to a rational scenario/battle model.

Regards, RhinoBones






JAMiAM -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 7:08:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
"Too weak" units getting used for encirclements is more of a problem. Perhaps something as simple as checking for RBCs against each neighbouring stacks if an attacked unit has nowhere to retreat would be sufficient.

The problem with this is that the cure is probably worse than the disease. Units that retreat are units that have failed morale checks and are assumed to be in flight mode. Often they are already routed. To say that these fleeing units have the presence of mind, and cohesion, to simultaneously disengage from pursuing units which have just thrashed them in battle, organize an attack against encircling units that have infiltrated into their rear, and remain an effective fighting force is more of a stretch than to assume that a unit in such dire straits would instead evaporate.

The problem is primarily one of designers pushing the system beyond what it reasonably simulates and running up against limitations of unit density and scale differentials in their quest for achieving the perfect monster, with all the chrome. Instead, like a Filipino Jeepney with one too many disco balls hanging off of it, it simply collapses under its own weight. No particular scenario is being singled out here, and I think Rhinobones said it most succinctly, when he noted the disconnect between planning and design.

Then again...it's the scenarios that push the envelope that often drive development of the engine, so what's a poor developer to do?[;)]



golden delicious -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 9:11:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

The problem with this is that the cure is probably worse than the disease. Units that retreat are units that have failed morale checks and are assumed to be in flight mode. Often they are already routed. To say that these fleeing units have the presence of mind, and cohesion, to simultaneously disengage from pursuing units which have just thrashed them in battle, organize an attack against encircling units that have infiltrated into their rear, and remain an effective fighting force is more of a stretch than to assume that a unit in such dire straits would instead evaporate.


If the unit can no longer operate as an organised body, then in TOAW terms it has already evaporated- it won't try to retreat so it won't produce this test. If it can fight, why can't it in this case? If we're talking about a division being held of by a company, all it needs is for some Major to pull together enough men to shove them off the road. Moreover, at 10km/hex the company will simply be unable to stop the division moving past them. They can hold their positions firmly- but their position will be a few square kilometres out of 100.

The problem is primarily one of designers pushing the system beyond what it reasonably simulates and running up against limitations of unit density and scale differentials in their quest for achieving the perfect monster, with all the chrome. Instead, like a Filipino Jeepney with one too many disco balls hanging off of it, it simply collapses under its own weight. No particular scenario is being singled out here, and I think Rhinobones said it most succinctly, when he noted the disconnect between planning and design.

Then again...it's the scenarios that push the envelope that often drive development of the engine, so what's a poor developer to do?[;)]




JAMiAM -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 9:43:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious
If the unit can no longer operate as an organised body, then in TOAW terms it has already evaporated- it won't try to retreat so it won't produce this test. If it can fight, why can't it in this case? If we're talking about a division being held of by a company, all it needs is for some Major to pull together enough men to shove them off the road. Moreover, at 10km/hex the company will simply be unable to stop the division moving past them. They can hold their positions firmly- but their position will be a few square kilometres out of 100.

Yes, but retreating or fleeing when you know there is nobody in your way is much easier than retreating when there are enemy troops in your path. Given a situation where the flanks have already been lost and there are enemy units that have infiltrated or penetrated past on all sides, only the most disciplined troops will avoid a panic/surrender situation. Those are accounted for in the results by units that have high quality making the secondary morale checks to avoid evaporation. The lesser troops will fail that check and fold in such circumstances.

Besides the obvious scenario design questions that should be addressed, with respect to the current development of the engine, it can certainly be argued that some greater differentiation of combat results should be possible. I would agree with that. However, for the vast majority of situations, as the engine now behaves, the combat results are easily rationalized.

To flesh out one of the different behaviors that I would like to introduce in the future is making the lesser loss tolerances more usable. For example, tie behavior of the unit to them in ways beyond the simplistic current behavior of fight until such a loss level is reached. Minimize and limit loss tolerance units might be made more flexible in terms of progressively attempting to "advance to the rear" in situations like above, whereas ignore loss units would be less likely to run, but progressively more adversely affected when they do break. Mix this in with some better reserve unit behavior, like counterattacking enemy units (instead of just reacting into battles defensively), reacting into recently converted hexes, shadowing enemy penetrations, zone prioritization, etc. This would alleviate a lot of the concerns about the occasional odd situations that the IGO-UGO engine gives. We may not see any of this in TOAW III, but don't be surprised if this comes into future series releases.



golden delicious -> RE: Dividing units (5/2/2007 10:39:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JAMiAM

Yes, but retreating or fleeing when you know there is nobody in your way is much easier than retreating when there are enemy troops in your path. Given a situation where the flanks have already been lost and there are enemy units that have infiltrated or penetrated past on all sides, only the most disciplined troops will avoid a panic/surrender situation.


Well a) in the situation we're discussing, the enemy units are only a light screen, b) it only takes one tenth of a division to act intelligently in order to brush aside a company and c) even if the men are panicking they will still flee through the gaping holes in such an encirclement, to reform on the other side.

And I repeat, if the unit is in such a state that it is unable to fight, it's already evaporated. We're talking about a unit which is undergoing a relatively orderly (if unplanned) withdrawal.

quote:

Besides the obvious scenario design questions that should be addressed, with respect to the current development of the engine, it can certainly be argued that some greater differentiation of combat results should be possible. I would agree with that. However, for the vast majority of situations, as the engine now behaves, the combat results are easily rationalized.


For the great majority of situations, probably. However no matter how good scenario design is, games will always produce ant units of one type or another, by losses and supply drain if not from the outset.



a white rabbit -> RE: Dividing units (5/5/2007 9:59:41 AM)

quote:

For the great majority of situations, probably. However no matter how good scenario design is, games will always produce ant units of one type or another, by losses and supply drain if not from the outset.


..only if sub-dividing in the EvilEd is faulty..

..otherwise losses or supply drain ????..that's normal warfare, hardly ants..



a white rabbit -> RE: Dividing units (5/5/2007 10:05:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

I'm in a PBM match at present and my opponent (who shall remain nameless) has raised an objection to the amount of use I am making of my ability to divide units (in the scenario in question, his force is unable to do so). I have agreed not to divide battalions into companies (the scenario is at 10km/hex) but reserve the right to divide larger units.

I've never thought of dividing units as being something forbidden. Indeed, when dealing with surrounded units, you might need six regiments to encircle one battered division if you are not allowed to divide them. The alternative would be to wind up using engineer regiments and other odd bits to complete encirclements whilst the infantry pushes on. Hardly realistic.

What do other players think? Is this a legitimate complaint? Doubtless I have gained substantial benefit from using this ability, but I don't think it's outrageous to do so. In any case, my opponent has in fact taken advantage of the weak screens I throw up around pockets by blasting out of them and going on the rampage on more than one occasion.


..i think it's outrageous behaviour on your part Ben, making use of designer offered flexibility, something , as my many oponents know i only use in extreme situations, like turn 1 till game end..[;)]



Dave Ferguson -> RE: Dividing units (5/5/2007 10:31:55 AM)

To satisfy everyone would it be possible to have voluntary unit division limited to a minimum equipment value set by the scenario designer. For example a divisional scenario might have divisions with approx 15,000 pieces of equipment each. Setting the divided unit limit to say 3,000 would mean battered divisions with less than 9,000 items would not voluntarily subdivide. Even better to have a different value for each side so you can stop late war russians from dividing their divisions which are probably little more than regiment sized anyway.
Coupled with code changes to allow for 'tactical outflanking' of tiny units within large hexes these changes for me go a long way to solving some of TOAW's problems.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.65625