Breaking Down Units Into Smaller Units

[wwiiguy]

I saw some discussion on a post in this forum in regards to breaking down units into 3 smaller units and rotation of one unit into tactical reserve. It has been my understanding that when you break down the units they are not as strong as the whole unit in combination. Is this a common best practice? Or is it a situational tactic based on the type of scenario you are playing?

[Silvanski]

Depends on the situation: filling gaps in your line, guarding supply lines against enemy guerillas or paradrops ...

[golden delicious]

Because of the proficiency drop, it's ideal to be able to do everything with intact units. However it is important to bear in mind the possibility of dividing units, to allow you to vary the strength of your line; if you have ten brigades to cover a stretch of the line ten hexes long, you may want to cover six of those hexes with battalions, three with single brigades, and a road blocked by two brigades, leaving three in reserve, or some other combination.

The tactical reserve setting is to be used sparingly. I wouldn't apply it as a matter of course or you might find it having a detrimental affect on your defences.

Dividing units is also good if you need to convert hexes, to complete encirclements or to force your opponent to present a front, as well as dealing with guerrillas (particularly the event effect) as mentioned by Silvanski.

[hank]

Over at the SZO forums much has been discussed about this.
 
Basically what I've learned, it all depends on the situation.  Breaking down units for defense can be helpful (key word - 'can').  The broke down units are weaker but you can create deeper lines of defense.  I tend to break units down on defense more than of offense.  Plus, for me anyway, I try to keep the broken down units close so I can re-combine them when needed w/o a lot of moving around. 
 
If you need more info search the SZO forum for TOAW.  Another thing discussed there in depth is how to maximize rounds of combat per turn.
 
good luck

[shunwick]

A few years ago I bought TOAW 2 although I didn't have much chance to play it.

Under the TOAW 2 rules breaking down a unit and then recombining the parts resulted in a 12% permanent loss of proficiency. I always thought this was odd and I am glad to see that TOAW 3 allows units to recombine with no permanent penalties.

Just curious though, does anyone know the thinking behind the original scheme?

Best wishes,

[FaneFlugt]

Here is my take on breaking down units in a defensive situation:

If you are contemplation breaking down a unit. Break it. Its better to Scatter and die, than Group up and be destroyed.

By scattering, you deny the enemy the chance to encircle you with a few troops, and speed advance with the rest towards his objective.

I always think of my units as partisans after i have broken them up. Seek forest, highgrounds, cities go into fortified mode if you can and

choose ignore casulties. Leave some long range art behind to boost your defences. Entrench and bye time, while you build up a new front.

[rhinobones]

Sometimes I find it advisable (and sometime regrettable) to break down units (usually on the defense and into two rather than three subunits) just so that the enemy cannot break them down for you.

Really find it annoying when a defending unit crumbles and retreats two or three different directions. Really, really annoying when all three subunits are then rendered to the “re-organize” status.

Maybe a switch can be added to TOAW III Mk1 that allows the scenario designer to decide which units can, or can not, be divided. Something like the current selection whether a unit can, or can not, be reconstituted.

Regards, RhinoBones

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: rhinobones

Maybe a switch can be added to TOAW III Mk1 that allows the scenario designer to decide which units can, or can not, be divided.

One can already acheive this to a certain extent by using the section size icon, or by flooding the formation with dummy units up to the maximum size. Of course these approaches have their limitations.

[freeboy]

Playing Fite another use for deviding units is to more rapidly fill back areas which are behing the front but not yet converted to your Zone of control..

[wwiiguy]

Thanks for all the ideas. I've been playing around and definitely found that breaking units down can be useful to:

1) Cover a longer line when you need to.
2) Scout a large area when you break out from your enemy's defenses.
3) Provide an early warning recon screen when on the move behind the lines.
4) Provide a reguard force to get in the way of an on coming force when withdrawing.
5) Repairing railroads more quickly.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: wwiiguy

5) Repairing railroads more quickly.

N.B. that dividing units can actually reduce their rail repair capability. If the sub-units have repair levels of less than 50% for half-units or 33% for third-units, you're better off with just the one as this avoids the proficiency loss.

[wwiiguy]

Don't they regain some of that proficiency after a couple of turns though? It appears that way to me.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: wwiiguy

Don't they regain some of that proficiency after a couple of turns though? It appears that way to me.

Only if they are in combat or receiving replacements.

[Graymane]

In some cases, you might have units with 90%+ profiency. When you attack with units like that, they tend to always pass prof checks and will remain in combat for longer than you probably want thus eating your entire turn. In those cases, if you break the unit down to 2 or 3 pieces and do the same attack, you will probably use less of your turn.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Graymane

In some cases, you might have units with 90%+ profiency. When you attack with units like that, they tend to always pass prof checks and will remain in combat for longer than you probably want thus eating your entire turn. In those cases, if you break the unit down to 2 or 3 pieces and do the same attack, you will probably use less of your turn.

True. Of course, such high proficiency is desireable on the defence, so one could just employ such units elsewhere.

[Graymane]

Well, I have to admit, I just like lots of units =) I really wish more scenarios had more units and a lot less fluffy stuff that should probably just be folded into the other units (AA, AT etc).

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Graymane

Well, I have to admit, I just like lots of units =) I really wish more scenarios had more units and a lot less fluffy stuff that should probably just be folded into the other units (AA, AT etc).

Ant units should just be amalgamated- but it's nice to have variety in an OOB.

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: wwiiguy

I saw some discussion on a post in this forum in regards to breaking down units into 3 smaller units and rotation of one unit into tactical reserve. It has been my understanding that when you break down the units they are not as strong as the whole unit in combination. Is this a common best practice? Or is it a situational tactic based on the type of scenario you are playing?

..go for it, if the designers allow it, use it..

..one use..divide into three, involve one third in an attack, that third at min loss lmtd attack, then recombine, voila, a tried unit..[8D]

[a white rabbit]

ORIGINAL: golden delicious

ORIGINAL: Graymane

Well, I have to admit, I just like lots of units =) I really wish more scenarios had more units and a lot less fluffy stuff that should probably just be folded into the other units (AA, AT etc).

Ant units should just be amalgamated- but it's nice to have variety in an OOB.

..if the designer puts in

fluffy stuff

, nice phrase, ...then he knows what he's doing, milk it..

..imo, they shouldn't be there, or if they are only with a proficiency of 10%, butttt, it's a bit " let's show i studied the oob " time..