LoBaron -> RE: Regiments vs Divisions (3/19/2013 11:50:57 PM)
|
quote:
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.
|
|
|
|