Night Disruption M44, etc.

[Nitram Draw]

In the BOOTB scenario for Danube the designer had a problem with companies, they were too easily disrupted. So he changed all the companies to kampfgruppe's. Once you breakdown you can't recombine though but you don't pay the company penalty in morale loss/ disruption. I thought it was a great idea, made you think long and hard about breaking down units.

[Dog Soldier]

One final question on loss recovery - I am assuming if you have three companies combined into a single battalion each company rolls for loss recovery as compared to the battalion rolling once. Anyone definitively know?

I think when combined there is only one roll for the unit. This seeming loss of two other rolls is not real though. I explain below.

I have been tracking loss recovery in a couple of CG I am in. I would tend to agree with VM that in the long run it makes no difference. When a combined unit recovers losses, those losses are not at the company level. If you broke down the parent formation, the companies would still be evenly divided in terms of percentage of full strength.
Battle fatigue is the bigger limitation to consider when deciding to leave units to recover in companies or reform the parent unit. I really like the rule on BF as this forces some hard choices depending on the tactical needs.

The recovery rate is based on the difference between current strength and full strength. For example, a battalion at 20% of full strength is no different than if it is broken down into three companies all at 20% of full strength for determine loss recovery in that turn.
The difference you might observe is that with the companies:

• They will recover BF much slower than the battalion would.
  
• They will recover losses unevenly over time. One company might be at nearly full strength while the others are lagging behind due to pure luck skewing the mean recovery rate.
  

When a stack of companies is attacked or used in an assault instead of the combined formation, one company seems to sustain significantly more damage than the other two. For this reason allowing the battered company to recover on its own, or at least until it is roughly equal to the other two who remained in the line is a good idea. Being a company will not affect its ability to recover losses.

Dog Soldier

[larsonney]

...When a stack of companies is attacked or used in an assault instead of the combined formation, one company seems to sustain significantly more damage than the other two.

Dog Soldier

I have definitely noticed this...

[Dog Soldier]

To not confuse anyone new to the PzC system. The three company situation of one company take much greater damage than the others in the hex makes sense as the deployment inside the hex would be one company up and two back. There is no player control for this inside the hex deployment. The game engine simulates it very well.

Dog Soldier