Disbanding Units

[Ardem]

Since there is no merging or splitting of units, I would like to see the option of disbanding a unit, so the troops will then enter the reinforcement pool.

This way if you got a couple of units that are combat ineffective now you can use the troopers in the next replacement phase.

[Sailor Malan]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Since there is no merging or splitting of units, I would like to see the option of disbanding a unit, so the troops will then enter the reinforcement pool.

This way if you got a couple of units that are combat ineffective now you can use the troopers in the next replacement phase.

Not very realistic for a short game (only in extreme situations would a shattered unit be immediately broken up and used for reinforcements). Troops are not just interchangeable - they have feelings as well!

[securityguard]

Thats an interesting proposal. What exactly happened to men who retreated from the field, without cohesion, totally broken and actually made it back to their own side? I would imagine they would get recycled back into the reinforcement pool as well, probably within short order too...

But I know nothing!

[JasonC]

In my campaigns, I have found it absolutely essential to reorganize, merge, transfer, etc units after each fight. I developed a set of standard weakened formation structures and reformed the available manpower to fit the nearest of them. I kept odd number totals in a floating pool, which along with a modest portion of the previous day's wounded to reflect returned to duty and replacement, would marginally rebuild them overnight.

Without such adjustments the units are rags in hours, and completely unable to function.

A typical sequence of minor adjustments in organization, for a company, is to eliminate the third squad in each platoon, then the third platoon in a company instead, then halve the heavy weapons section, then reduce the remaining platoons to 2 squads each, then eliminate the heavy weapons section, and finally to reduce the whole to a single platoon, then a reduced platoon of HQ and 2 squads. Below that, into the replacement pool they go.

The platoon was the minimum on-map unit in my campaigns, but the company was the basic unit of organization for the infantry (platoons for tanks), and any force generally had a parent company. The platoons float as attachments under the companies in varying strength, but the company operates as a unit. There is essentially zero point in an infantry force below reduced-company strength appearing in a CM battle. All they can do is have a look and run.

You have to be willing to decide, at this point they'd give up manning that MG and those mortars to get more riflemen. They did in reality, it is perfectly realistic. US units disbanded whole batteries of towed guns to feed the rifle line, Germans created alarm units from rear area personnel, weapons crews, leftovers, fresh draftees, etc.

After some time in combat, real formations reflect individual leaders of real character and the remaining manpower strength at a given location, however they got there - not tables of organization, nor prior formal assignment. That may get sorted out again after the unit withdraws from combat and takes replacement, but they don't try to stick to it every hour or every night.

[Ardem]

I don't think my suggestion is unrealistic at all, when a battalion was made combat ineffective the regiment rolled those troops into the losses of the other battalions, on the spot.

Also the creation of Alarm Units as JasonC suggested in many respects were also made up of disorganised companies.

[Slappy]

I think everyone is at least partially right here.

Survivors from formations that become combat ineffective or from other service branches were often put into service as needed, sometimes as separate units and often as replacements for the front line. These changes sometimes happened behind the line out of scope of a couple day CMC engagement, but they also happened very quickly and organically at the front itself.

I think that this sort of organic replacement should be in, but that the reformed units should probably suffer some hit in terms of readiness, fitness or command effectiveness.

Sure you can put drivers and cooks in the line, but that doesn't mean that they shoot as well or are as fit as men who have been fighting in the infantry for months.

Of course, you can take two shattered batallions and call them one. You could probably patch together squads and a chain of command within a couple of hours, but those men won't fight in as coordinated a fashion as men who have served in the same unit for a while.

Essentially, I'm all for battlefield disband and replacement, but it should have some consequences for the receiving unit.

[Sailor Malan]

My concern was the implication of free placement of reinforcements, especially if under player control. I have no issue with combining (say) 2 companies in the same Btn to make 1, or 3 to make 2. However, anything that smacks of 'disband into a pool' that allows reinforcements to be drawn later, even with quality loss, and delays, will allow gamey abuse IMHO. I could see continual disbandments of peripheral units to keep spear heads at close to full strenghth. I would think that something along the lines of sub-units of MEs only can reorganise in the same ME (possibly a little restrictive), or any 2 units in the same area can be reorganised freely (with excess troops lost, or extra independants created). Anything to avoid a player troop reinforcement pool.

Anyway - Happy Christmas for tomorrow (I will need reinforcements if my beloved catches me on the 'puter tomorrow, so forgive the day early). Think of it as making sure the people on GMT+12 get their greeting on time

[JasonC]

If you reorganize automatically after each battle, to handle losses, no issue of gamey strategic use can arise. If you only put "leftovers" in overall pools, they will grow to a few platoons in the course of a day. If you only let strength exit the overall pools in the first night turn of a given day, the delay will be entirely realistic, and people will much rather have their strength now, locally, than later and globally. These are all perfectly manageable design issues.

What isn't manageable is being given a German infantry "company" with HQ, -2 men, 1st platoon, HQ of 3 men plus one squad of 6, 2nd platoon of HQ, 2 full strength squads, one squad -2 men, 3rd platoon, HQ, one squad -2 men, weapons HQ of a single man with a pistol and one HMG -3 men. Instead, you'd get a count - 61 men - and a nearest approximate form for a company of that strength - Company HQ and 2 platoons, 3 squads in the first, 2 squads in the second, or 2 squads in each plus a single full strength HMG.

The second can be used like an infantry company, though a weak one. The first is a micromanagement nightmare and useless to the player. Your job is to make the player's jobs easy and pleasant and realistic as they manage and fight a large campaign, not to make your own job easy as a game designer.

[Count D'Ten]

Okay, but does anyone know what the game developers are planning to do?

[Slappy]

Nope. If we did, I expect that you'd see much more specific ranting rather than the general philosophical ranting we have here.