Stacking lots of units

[Nox0s]

Are there any clear disadvantages to having units on top of each other other than just being one target instead of two for artillery etc.?

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

Are there any clear disadvantages to having units on top of each other other than just being one target instead of two for artillery etc.?

There is no concept of "stacking" units in Command Ops. Instead, units are located on the map and their man and equipment density is calculated for their various assigned formations.

The possibility of taking damage from any kind of fire increases as the number of personnel and equipment within the fire zone increases.

Click on a unit and you will see how its assigned formation is sited over the battle map's geography (width and depth). The smaller the width and depth combination the more dense the positioning of men and equipment in the area.

The programming takes into account the target density, the target's protective state (terrain and deployment within the terrain), the target's orientation to the firing unit weapons (except in bombardment), probability of a kill at the range for the weapons capable of targeting that area, firing unit rate of fire, and the firing unit (or indirect fire directing unit) capability to see into the target area. Place another unit formation atop that same location and it increases density for the calculations.

Page 167 of the Game Manual explains in significantly more detail.

[Nox0s]

Ok thanks for the explanation.

I'm a bit confused on one point though: in the manual it says that formation and frontage have no effect on a single unit, so does that mean that there is no way to change the amount of ground a single company is covering? If so, what is the unchangeable default size?

[Nox0s]

Ok so I knew I'd asked this question before but was having trouble finding the topic...

But I did finally find it.

One answer was:

Yes, it directly affects actual footprint, projected firepower and vulnerability. This is for every unit, whether operating as part of an order group, or on it's own.

For larger groups moving together there is also an effect caused by deployment laterally and in depth, which will further modify specific vulnerabilities for fire received from a given threat etc.

Doesn't this directly contradict the manual which says:

"Note that these settings apply only to the formation frontage and depth and not to the individual unit frontage and depth. So if you are issuing an order to a single unit, the frontage and depth will have no effect."
-page 61

Which is correct?

Thanks

[wodin]

In the HTTR tutorial you had to set formation and depth for individual coys..so not sure why it says it isn't relevant.

[Arjuna]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum
Doesn't this directly contradict the manual which says:

"Note that these settings apply only to the formation frontage and depth and not to the individual unit frontage and depth. So if you are issuing an order to a single unit, the frontage and depth will have no effect."
-page 61

Which is correct?

Welcome.

You have provided an answer but to what question. Without knowing what the original question was I can't really comment on any contradiction?

[Nox0s]

Sorry, what I wanted to know was whether changing the depth, frontage and formation of a single unit has any effect. If not, then what is the "default" non-changeable depth and frontage of a single unit?

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

Ok so I knew I'd asked this question before but was having trouble finding the topic...

But I did finally find it.

One answer was:

Yes, it directly affects actual footprint, projected firepower and vulnerability. This is for every unit, whether operating as part of an order group, or on it's own.

For larger groups moving together there is also an effect caused by deployment laterally and in depth, which will further modify specific vulnerabilities for fire received from a given threat etc.

Doesn't this directly contradict the manual which says:

"Note that these settings apply only to the formation frontage and depth and not to the individual unit frontage and depth. So if you are issuing an order to a single unit, the frontage and depth will have no effect."
-page 61

Which is correct?

Thanks

If you take a look at the lay out of a higher echelon organization's formation (say a battalion) you'll note that the space "controlled" by the box includes zones of overlapping fire and LOS rather than shoulder to shoulder (Napoleonic War) troop placements.

Annex B (Pg. 191) provides a view of the frontage and depth per man hard coded into the baseline unit spacings based on the selected formation type.

If the smallest unit that can be issued a command by the human commander is a platoon, it will always occupy the same "standard" space for the formation type selected, but, when assigned to operate as part of a higher echelon unit, the smallest individual unit commander will adjust the unit's position within the footprint desired by the higher echelon commander to support that commander's space control requirement.

Basically, the human commander can't control the activities of individual soldiers, but can issue orders far down into the organizational structure (the Army commander can assign a platoon commander a job) to accomplish his / her goals.

[dazkaz15]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

Sorry, what I wanted to know was whether changing the depth, frontage and formation of a single unit has any effect. If not, then what is the "default" non-changeable depth and frontage of a single unit?

Changing the depth, and frontage of a single unit has no effect. It will only have an effect on a formation with multiple units. i.e. a Battalion.
I think the buttons for this should be greyed out to prevent confusion in this instance.

Changing the formation of a single unit will have an effect on the footprint, if the formation selected has a vastly different shape, line and Vee for instance, show different footprint shapes on the map, and column when on a road.
The change in the footprint shape obviously reflects the change in the frontage, and depth of the individual unit, due to the new formation shape, but the number of men inside the unit still can only spread out to a specific distance as listed in the formations table meters per man, for the different formations. So the less men the smaller the footprint.

The other formations fill roughly the same area when it is abstracted into a square shape so there is no noticeable change in the footprint size in game on the map but the characteristic as shown in the appendix are in effect for them.

One day if we don't get fluid footprints, at least ones that look like the formation shape would be nice, instead of being abstracted into an open ended box.
You can see info on what formation is in effect for a unit by holding Ctrl and pressing the down arrow key.

Another important thing to note about changing formation, is that it will cause any entrenchment, and dug in status to be lost.
I think there is also a small hit on cohesion but this is soon recovered for being stationary.

[dazkaz15]

I have just done some tests on this. Here are the results:

[dazkaz15]

2

[dazkaz15]

This is the relevant sections from the manual to help you with understanding my tests.
The very relevant bit is highlighted in pink.

[Nox0s]

Very useful info thank you for taking the time to post that.

It seems like arrowhead and successive lines are very similar in strengths/weaknesses... I'm guessing successive lines is better if you want to move through a less wide space?

The conflict in the game/manual is indeed confusing (as to whether depth/frontage affect single units), Arjuna can you shed some light on this?

[jimcarravall]

ORIGINAL: NoxNoctum

Very useful info thank you for taking the time to post that.

It seems like arrowhead and successive lines are very similar in strengths/weaknesses... I'm guessing successive lines is better if you want to move through a less wide space?

The conflict in the game/manual is indeed confusing (as to whether depth/frontage affect single units), Arjuna can you shed some light on this?

As I understand it, "successive lines" assures a longer duration of average pressure at the point of contact with enemy forces (perhaps good for putting the enemy under duress by fatigue).

In effect, the "first" line fights until it exhausts it's resources and is replaced by another with the same resources for a duration that allows the first to recover (I think of multiple echelons where the "front" fires it's load, and retreats while the second moves forward after loading and ready to fire).

Means the formation fights at half strength at all times, but that strength is closer to (half) optimum for the duration of the contact instead of being high at first, and sequentially degraded over time as all troops are exhausted in the battle.

[dazkaz15]

I have not sent you a saved game for the test I did Dave, as it can be replicated, very easily just by giving any unit the orders, as listed above in any scenario.

Let me know if you do need one though for some reason.

[wodin]

So there is no point at all in giving single units formation or frontage depth orders?? I do remember the HTTR game and following the guide (IRC) in the manual and having to set frontage and depth to a coy who needed placing along a forest tree line.

Anyway would be great if this could be added at a later date.