Matrix Games Forums

Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

What is the cost/benefit of breaking down units

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> What is the cost/benefit of breaking down units Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
What is the cost/benefit of breaking down units - 7/26/2012 11:18:23 PM   
Bolkonsky

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 7/16/2010
Status: offline
What I know so far:

1) A unit loses some of its combat capacity proportionally after breaking down.
2) Quality breakdowns seem to be extremely resilient barring being utterly overwhelmed or using them stupidly.

This makes me believe that if you are defending this is often not a bad option. After all an overwhelming attack against a full strength unit will likely force the unit to breakdown anyway. At least this way the defeat of a full strength formation will often require your opponent to use up more of their turn.

What hazards are there in doing this?
What advantages are there in doing this?
Post #: 1
RE: What is the cost/benefit of breaking down units - 7/27/2012 5:41:07 AM   
Oberst_Klink

 

Posts: 1354
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bolkonsky

What I know so far:

1) A unit loses some of its combat capacity proportionally after breaking down.
2) Quality breakdowns seem to be extremely resilient barring being utterly overwhelmed or using them stupidly.

This makes me believe that if you are defending this is often not a bad option. After all an overwhelming attack against a full strength unit will likely force the unit to breakdown anyway. At least this way the defeat of a full strength formation will often require your opponent to use up more of their turn.

What hazards are there in doing this?
What advantages are there in doing this?


Division into Sub-Units
Sub-units will have only about 80% of the parent unit’s proficiency. If you recombine your units, the newly recombined parent unit will have 125% of the average sub-unit’s proficiency. This means that the act of dividing a unit and recombining it will result in no permanent loss of the unit’s Proficiency. During the game, units are frequently sub-divided automatically due to adverse combat results. Also, an Airborne unit might be sub-divided during an Airborne Landing operation. To determine if a unit has been subdivided, consult the Formation Report. Air, Naval, Coastal Artillery, Fixed Artillery, Supply, and Headquarters units may not be divided. Formations with a large number of divided units are more likely to be forced into Reorganization as a result of combat losses.

The obvious advantage depends on your 'Lage'. To defend a long front-line and defence in depth with a large unit split into 2-3 'Kampfgruppen'.

Klink, Oberst

_____________________________

Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam
(Marcus Porcius Cato Censorius)

Visit the Gefechtsstand!

(in reply to Bolkonsky)
Post #: 2
RE: What is the cost/benefit of breaking down units - 7/29/2012 11:33:50 PM   
Bolkonsky

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 7/16/2010
Status: offline
I was already aware of this equation and clearly the situation needs to be taken into account. I guess my question is: Is breaking down units intentionally, wide spread, or is it generally avoided whenever possible? That's too innocuous...What does "Lage" mean again?

So far, it appears that in most cases one wants to be the attacker. While there are rare positions that force heavy attrition on the enemy, and there seem to be configurations that lend themselves to winning an artillery duel against an attacker, most of the time the defender seems to get the worst of it. This certainly makes sense WW2 and after. I'm sure I am missing a lot of details still but it seems that creating a line is only worth while if it either covers your counter attacking force, allows other units to escape or otherwise buys time for some endeavor such as an attack against an adjacent weak point.

< Message edited by Bolkonsky -- 7/29/2012 11:34:39 PM >

(in reply to Oberst_Klink)
Post #: 3
RE: What is the cost/benefit of breaking down units - 7/30/2012 10:09:10 AM   
USXpat

 

Posts: 358
Joined: 8/26/2010
Status: offline
Breaking down units also makes it easier for units in that formation to go into reorganization. Depending upon the unit and the attacking force, it can be easier for the enemy to force your broken down units to "retreat before combat" - likely suffering further from disengagement and possibly setting up additional RBC's. It's all situational though, there are times where you want to, need to and have to; just as there are times where it is the last option to consider.

(in reply to Bolkonsky)
Post #: 4
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Norm Koger's The Operational Art Of War III >> The War Room >> What is the cost/benefit of breaking down units Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.065