From: Bedfordshire UK
I wish someone could provide me a historical rationale for the 'splitting' feature in this game. Chocolino and I have outlawed the practice in our game.
One mitigating factor in it, which I did not understand till today, was that there is a PP charge for splitting. I thought it was willy-nilly free.
Having thought some more and going back to the original question.
There are at least two historical precedence for splitting units.
Firstly, splitting existing units to spread the experienced personnel and vehicles over more units, e.g. the Germans doubled the number of panzer divisions, before Barbarrosa, by spreading the available AFVs over twice the units. They produced more PZ Divs, but each with much fewer AFVs, therefore did not achieve any great increase in overall strength points, just more units.
Secondly, the splitting of units to cover more distance of front in defence, or dropping off parts of units to cover flanks, or strategic points during advance.
These are two different features, both useful and can be justified in the game, provided the time penalty and costs are reasonable, to avoid the procedure being used as a cheat, or an easier way to create strength points.
In the first case there should be a PP cost and a time delay before the new unit can be used, the problem comes later when the split units could be used as an easy way to get more full strength Corps units, by cheaper reinforcement. The time delay and PP cost can be adjusted in the scenario const.ini file, but there is already a six week freeze on the newly created unit and a significant PP cost, which means that the game handling of this event seems OK.
In the second case it is useful to be able to split units, to overcome the limitations of no stacking in the game, where Corps units are essentially stacked divisions concentrating strength points, but with little flexibility in spreading strength when you need to. I am experimenting with reducing the time delay (you already lose one turn's move by doing the split) and minimising the PP cost (you are not gaining any strength points, just spreading out what you have).
The two situations are incompatible, as the const.ini settings will not be optimum for both cases. I am going for the second option, reducing time penalties and PP cost to give more flexibility, with house rules to stop misuse. Split units are renamed 54/1 INF Korps, 54/2 INF Korps, etc., any upgrade of these previously split units should pay full cost, through the F12 feature (e.g. buy any extra strength points at the going rate). In any case, the original units can be restored using the merge feature, bringing the split units back together again.
In short, I would like to use both options, split and merge units for operational flexibility, at minimal time and PP cost (adjusted in scenario const.ini file), but also a more strategic splitting of units, as the Germans did t, but with house rules - perhaps split only on home territory if you are going to reinforce to get two full strength Corps and pay for any additional strength increase with F12 (although there isn't a big PP cost advantage over normal unit build cost).
It's worth noting that you cannot split units which are at a higher level than your general tech level, some scenarios start with various units at a higher level than research has achieved and some higher tech units are offered in events, these won't split.
So thanks for starting the discussion, I learnt something of how the game works and how to adjust it, easier than I thought, but still experimenting. It leads into adjustments for other items that I thought needed a change, improving the game for me (keeping RAZZ's advice on game balance in mind, I can always change back if it doesn't work). It says a lot for the game that this is possible.
< Message edited by Rasputitsa -- 8/4/2012 10:17:16 AM >
"We have to go from where we are, not from where we would like to be" - me