Break Down Battalions or No??

[Bidermann]

this has been a good post, I have never thought of breaking down units but the comments I have read have made me think about the tactics I use.

[von Waldenburg]

One more important aspect of this is the following: a company can get fatigued faster as we all know, this means it can disrupt more easily (regardless of its morale) cause disruption depends (among other things) on the number of fatigue points incurred in a shot if I am correct.

Also a good thing of uncombining is that you can impress your enemy more easily with big stacks. Still I tend to combine most times, unless there's a need for more counters.

[Liquid_Sky]

Not sure why, but it just feels better to keep them in formation. When I break them down, they tend to scatter a bit on the map, and end up :kill: . When I keep them in Battalions...and the battalions in a regiment near the HQ, they seem to live longer :chin:

But that could just be me...

[Zemke]

The fatugue factor is another very good reason for keeping unit combined. Most of the time I want my enemy "un-impressed", prefering that him see a small stack, but a very mean one.

[Mr Grumpy]

Not sure why, but it just feels better to keep them in formation. When I break them down, they tend to scatter a bit on the map, and end up :kill: . When I keep them in Battalions...and the battalions in a regiment near the HQ, they seem to live longer :chin:

But that could just be me...

Well what you are describing here is the advantage of keeping your units "in command" by staying within the command radius of their HQ, any lone unit outside the HQ range will be less likely to recover from disruption and hence be more vulnerable to destruction.

Remember to use the "hightlight org" toolbar button, so when to click on a HQ all the units controlled by that HQ are highlighted and you can make sure they don't wander off.........;)

[Mr Grumpy]

The fatugue factor is another very good reason for keeping unit combined. Most of the time I want my enemy "un-impressed", prefering that him see a small stack, but a very mean one.

Oh the joy of your opponent assaulting a battalion thinking it is a company!

[Wien1938]

I tend to try and combine my companies. If the battalion becomes disrupted, it can still resist and is more likely to pack enough of a punch to beat off large assaults.

[Turner]

Are there any situations when you are forced to combine or break down battalions to have any chance at all? I mean, of course there are, but could you give some examples of what situations that may be?

This is one of the hardest decisions imo, combine or break down. For the german player many times the line is so thin there is no option but to break down into companies and that's the only line you have. Breaking through a single line defended by company strength units is not particularly difficult!

[Mike Bowen]

Generally defending I break down where I need to cover a long line.

I do try not to for attacks and I really try not to when assaulting to get more attacks in as thats very naughty in my view.

In some games I try and use house rules so the attacker has to combine and stay combined in part because I think it helps play balance - any N44 campaign game needs this to help the Germans and it fits with the allied use of units as I understand it.

The company/battalion thing has always struck me as odd the ACW and Nappy games display 2?? men why not in Pz Camp it could be anything from 101 to 999 men and I am sure most people with exoerience would say you would be able to guess within +/- 100

[Tbird3]

Battalions rock! I will only breakdown an unit if forced to by the size of a defensive frontage. Foul hit it on the head about the beauty of an enemy charging forward against a supposed company sized unit. I think most players automatically assume if they are the attackers then the defender will always try to breakdown their battalions. This is definitely a dangerous assumption.

Tbird3