Making Divisions & Brigades indivisible like in Russo-German War

[Cpl GAC]

Does anyone mind sharing how in the Editor you make a Division or Brigade a Section yet still have the Icon show the XX or X symbol? I want to try editing Soviet Rifle and Armoured Divisions and Brigades to be indivisible in TGW 1941-1945 like it was done in Russo-German War. Right now when I change the unit size to Section the Icon symbol changes as well.

Like this:

section v division.png (208.75 KiB) Viewed 768 times

Thanks in advance.

[sPzAbt653]

Unzip this zip and put the files in the Scenario's Graphics Override Folder.

[Cpl GAC]

Ah. Thank you. That simple solution never crossed my mind...and there they are - also sitting in the Russo-German folder...

[rhinobones]

Ah. Thank you. That simple solution never crossed my mind...and there they are - also sitting in the Russo-German folder...

Note that you cannot have both divisions and brigades indivisible. The section unit identifier can only be hijacked to represent one or the other. You’ll need to make the decision.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Cpl GAC]

Note that you cannot have both divisions and brigades indivisible. The section unit identifier can only be hijacked to represent one or the other. You’ll need to make the decision.

Thanks for confirming a suspicion as I started to wade into it. I think my rationale will be "Not enough rifle brigades to worry about." and "Who doesn't like tank battalions in support of an assault or in tactical reserve."

[Curtis Lemay]

There is one other way to make units indivisible: Start them out divided. (See my Kaiserschalcht 1918 scenarios for examples of this).

[rhinobones]

There is one other way to make units indivisible: Start them out divided. (See my Kaiserschalcht 1918 scenarios for examples of this).

You should also mention the downside to this design tactic. That is, after units are subdivided in the editor, the OOB will no longer accept changes until such time as all subdivided units are returned to an undivided status. I’ve been thru this before. The only benefit I saw was that units subdivided in the editor retained the full value of their proficiency, not diluted as when units are subdivided in the game.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Curtis Lemay]

There is one other way to make units indivisible: Start them out divided. (See my Kaiserschalcht 1918 scenarios for examples of this).

You should also mention the downside to this design tactic. That is, after units are subdivided in the editor, the OOB will no longer accept changes until such time as all subdivided units are returned to an undivided status. I’ve been thru this before. The only benefit I saw was that units subdivided in the editor retained the full value of their proficiency, not diluted as when units are subdivided in the game.

Regards, RhinoBones

Subdivision should be the last step in OOB formation. But there are loads of scenarios out there with subdivided units in them - it is imminently doable.

[Cpl GAC]

Rhino, Curtis, and PzAbt - question; what is the benefit of having a unit that will not divide? I'm trying it for a housekeeping reason (avoiding what I call the popcorn explosion) and thought copying what PzAbt & Co. did in RGW might help.

I am unsure if doing this will cause units to evaporate faster or become more tenacious because they cannot divide or some other result affecting the game balance that I don't have the experience to foresee. Any advice?

I did test it on the AGN v Northwest Front opening move a few times and it seemed the two Mechanized Corps behind the lines faired slightly better but nothing else noticeable. The German first turn AGN advance was about the same in each run.

[rhinobones]

Rhino, Curtis, and PzAbt - question; what is the benefit of having a unit that will not divide? I'm trying it for a housekeeping reason (avoiding what I call the popcorn explosion) and thought copying what PzAbt & Co. did in RGW might help.

It puts a lower limit on unit size. As an example, if Bn is the smallest unit to be played (no Bns are to be broken down to Co level) Bns are assigned as sections and the graphics adjusted accordingly.

Regards

[Cpl GAC]

Ugh. somehow misusing the XML editor I screwed up the units...

always back up your data...

bad XML use.png (47.61 KiB) Viewed 638 times

[Cpl GAC]

I did not convert the Airborne divisions to sections thinking that I need to divide them into regiments if I need to load them into planes.

Wrong assumption?

[sPzAbt653]

You need to check your Air Capacity compared to your Unit Weights. It is also possible that both can change during a scenario.

[rhinobones]

Ah. Thank you. That simple solution never crossed my mind...and there they are - also sitting in the Russo-German folder...

Note that you cannot have both divisions and brigades indivisible. The section unit identifier can only be hijacked to represent one or the other. You’ll need to make the decision.

Regards, RhinoBones

There is an alternative way of making units indivisible which can be used for multiple unit sizes in a scenario. For any unit that you do not want to divide, add HQ as the secondary unit icon. The unit will not divide however it will act as a supply enhancer which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Another option is to add an aircraft icon as the secondary. That has possibilities you might want to explore.

Regards, RhinoBones

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

I would generally say that splitting units makes them weaker (though sometimes more versatile as you can do it intentionally). This tends to favour the strategic defender over the strategic attacker. Attacking units never break down defending units often do - and when they do it is not uncommon for one of the three components to go into reorganization making it impossible to reform the unit until that is resolved (if it is ever resolved). The three components might also retreat in different directions which can allow the attacker to press the attack with RBC attacks later in the turn.

[rhinobones]

Agree with your analysis. I’ll just add that subdividing units in-game results in decreased unit proficiency and a reduced per unit combat effectivity. Units subdivided in the editor retain their full proficiency value which is one reason for subdividing in the editor.

Attacking units never break down defending units often do - and when they do it is not uncommon for one of the three components to go into reorganization making it impossible to reform the unit until that is resolved (if it is ever resolved). The three components might also retreat in different directions which can allow the attacker to press the attack with RBC attacks later in the turn.

This business about splitting into three subunits (never two) with one in reorganization is the single most annoying thing I’ve encountered with TOAW. What the hell was Norman thinking? Someone once mentioned that giving a force a small shock value reduces the chance that units will subdivide. Ever since I've made sure both sides have a 105 shock value. Never performed a test to verify if this really makes a difference, but anecdotally the incidences of units subdividing in my scenarios, with one of the subs in reorganization, seems to be a rare occurrence.

Regards

[Jeremy Mac Donald]

Never had a problem with units breaking up under attack. Seems pretty reasonable to me and even helps simulate Blitzkrieg.

[golden delicious]

Never had a problem with units breaking up under attack. Seems pretty reasonable to me and even helps simulate Blitzkrieg.

Likewise. If one imagines what's happening at the lower scale, the attacker may be hitting the middle regiment in a divisional line. That regiment is routed and left unable to act as a coherent unit until it has had time to regroup. The two flanking regiments are intact but are forced to retreat in divergent directions by the enemy's advance. Voila: a unit breaks down into three components, in different locations and with one of them in "reorganisation".

[rhinobones]

Never had a problem with units breaking up under attack. Seems pretty reasonable to me and even helps simulate Blitzkrieg.

Likewise. If one imagines what's happening at the lower scale, the attacker may be hitting the middle regiment in a divisional line. That regiment is routed and left unable to act as a coherent unit until it has had time to regroup. The two flanking regiments are intact but are forced to retreat in divergent directions by the enemy's advance. Voila: a unit breaks down into three components, in different locations and with one of them in "reorganisation".

That’s a very specific case. Can you make a reasonable general case where units “always” subdivide into three components with one of them in reorganization?

Let’s take Fall Grau as an example. One week turns, hex size 25Km. A division is attacked by a superior force and breaks into three regiments. At least two of the regiments end up 25 kilometers apart and one of the three cannot move or defend itself for an entire week. And this is reasonable? Even the Russians aren't haven’t been having this drastic of a problem.

I can imagine events where a unit breaks into subunits. And I can see where the readiness, supply, movement and proficiency are greatly diminished, but this business of going into reorganization for an entire turn is just too much. In your military studies, of all the assaults where a unit was forced to retreat, how many resulted in a subunit that could not defend itself for the duration of TOAW calendar setting?

Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

That’s a very specific case. Can you make a reasonable general case where units “always” subdivide into three components with one of them in reorganization?

No. Happily, units that retreat don't "always" subdivide and when they do, only sometimes does one of the fragments enter reorganisation (I think in game terms this is the result of the unit being subject to disengagement attacks, which in most cases will only affect the last unit to leave the hex). So it doesn't need to be a general case.

a subunit that could not defend itself

What are you talking about? Units in reorganisation cannot be given orders, but they absolutely can defend themselves.

It's an abstraction- and it's a great example of where TOAW as a simulation is much less effective at extremes of scale- but I think it does a fair job of reflecting the way that units which have been beaten in combat only come back under command and control after some time has passed.

Anyway, the "for a whole week" thing is a red herring. The game is supposed to simulate two forces acting simultaneously; the unit isn't sitting there for a week after an attack- it was under attack for some portion of the week and that pretty much took its whole attention for that time. What's often happening is that the unit is simply unable to get away from the attacker on its own and is either going to need to be rescued by friendly units or likely keep getting hit until it evaporates.

The implication of your argument is that, no matter how severe the combat, as long as the unit is still on the board it should be ready for orders at all times. That's just not what happens in warfare, especially highly mobile modern warfare. Units retreating in disorder from combat aren't actually wiped out, but they're certainly not going to go off in an orderly fashion to some other location because the general said so.