The Competition & Teaser Thread

[jimcrowley]

OK, thanks for the explanation David; it makes perfect sense -I think.

Were there specific reasons for not having Company HQs in the OB? I know CS didn't have them but a subsequent mod, if memory serves, allowed one of the platoons to be selected as including the HQ leader and radio.

Will platoons and sections, where available, be more brittle on a individual basis than a company as a whole (expressed perhaps as the total attack and defence factors of the individual platoons/sections less than the combined company)? Or is it just about density per hex?

[Strela]

OK, thanks for the explanation David; it makes perfect sense -I think.

Were there specific reasons for not having Company HQs in the OB? I know CS didn't have them but a subsequent mod, if memory serves, allowed one of the platoons to be selected as including the HQ leader and radio.

Will platoons and sections, where available, be more brittle on a individual basis than a company as a whole (expressed perhaps as the total attack and defence factors of the individual platoons/sections less than the combined company)? Or is it just about density per hex?

We looked at company HQ's and after testing with them decided to exclude them. There is a whole section in the FAQ on this. We decided there was a significant difference between 'combat HQs' & 'administrative HQs'. HQ's as represented in Tiller games are usually admin types and we viewed that they were at Battalion or higher level. Including lower level HQ's added little other than issues around HQ regeneration, impact in combats etc. We did a lot of work around these and I'll explain the slightly different approach we used for tank companies in the future.

As far as platoons/sections, yes they will take fatigue quicker if standalone as compared to combined. That said there has been a big change around fatigue rules where recombining units averages fatigue rather than all units taking on the worst value. Companies (ie 3 platoons equivalents) are best. There is a caveat though. Once unit density hits 50% of the hex stacking limit(50% of 250 men = 125 men equivalent) then there are negative modifiers for density and you will take losses at a higher rate. It's all a trade off and you need to tailor forces to the situation.

Density in hex has further impacts on spotting (to & through) as well as movement, volume of artillery etc.

David

[jimcrowley]

I'm presuming that the FAQ is not yet available for public consumption, David.

Cheers
Jim

[Xaver]

No, FAQ is TOP SECRET like nuclear codes or Santa´s address

Ummm change in fatigue + combine units you talk about average values but this made me ask about an extreme situation, we have a company with 3 platoons, one have lets see 100 fatigue (78% strong) other 150 (60%) BUT the last platoon has max fatige and only 5 soldiers (10% strong) who works here??? i know that i am asking for a situation, the problem is that under certain % add this soldiers to the company dont have a great impact... if an unit has survivors (under 10 for example) they dont add more fatigue to the unit or at least not he big fatigue they have.

About company HQ... the problem is in Tiller engines where HQ units cant fight in offensive (except in SQB) and when you have a lot of them the HQ are more wasted resources and very weak, you need protect them, i dont say no to lower level HQ (or add special command units, i think in leaders, in NAP you need assault them to capture/kill them) but they need have offensive values to at least defend from enemy.

And finally, density penalties... ummm this affect in all over 50% stacking situations OR if the stack is made for units from same company doesnt have effects??? i see in all images that companies are over 125 soldiers, this means that you need lose soldiers to made really 100% effective the defensive value.

Again thanks for the info, i have in my mind "Force 10 from Navarone" when dam wall collapses

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I don't really agree with the rate of fatigue increasing with units broken down as mostly back in those days, a soldier's world was the guys he was with. Just because his platoon was detached doesn't mean his fatigue increases faster because he is still with his own world. Neighboring companies suffering doesn't really affect your guys other than they are glad it wasn't them. I have never liked that rule of faster or more fatigue just because they are not combined. That one a definitely disagree with. I just don't buy it. Usually a soldier only worried about the other company because he had a buddy over there or a brother, but that was his only concern was if he was ok, not how much fatigue he was suffering because his unit was detached.

[Ricky B]

OJW, using your example supports, in my mind, the entire reason for giving a smaller unit more fatigue than a larger one. A platoon by itself that loses 9 men out of 90 (just keeping the math simple) just lost 10% of its manpower and would have more JT fatigue than the same platoon that lost only 1 man. In your example, the soldier that survives has a much larger chance of losing someone his world.

Combine 3 90 man platoons and lose 9 men and the combined platoons suffered a much smaller percentage loss, and fatigue overall due to losses is smaller. This is your example of a larger command and the soldier's world has a smaller chance of being impacted by the losses, but some other group in that combined unit would have suffered the losses and fatigue - so some portion will still suffer heavily, and other parts none at all.

If you look at the combined platoons and assume one platoon lost all 9 men, then its fatigue would be the same as the lone platoon but the other 2 platoons would have 0 fatigue still, so their average would be one third the single unit's.

Only solution I see is track fatigue and losses by platoon (or company in PzC), or just leave it as is.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

I see what you are saying there. What I am talking about is for example, a man is worth 10 points of fatigue. You have a combined company loses 10 men for a fatigue of 100. A neighboring detached platoon from another company also loses 10 men and should also have a fatigue of 100 instead of more just because he is separated from his parent company somewhere else on the map. Just because a unit is not combined with it's parent unit still should not get penalized for it. A Company loses 10 men, whether they are all in one platoon or spread across all three platoons, it is still 10 men.

[FM WarB]

I hadn't thought about my distaste for single unit fatigue very much, but Josey explains it well.

[Strela]

Only solution I see is track fatigue and losses by platoon (or company in PzC), or just leave it as is.

That's the way it works - tracked at platoon level or the higher combined entity.


To answer Xaver's query. Both strength and fatigue are considered in the averaging. If say a 5 man, maximum fatigue unit was combined with a 100 man, zero fatigue unit then the combined 105 man unit would have a very low fatigue level (7 in the test I did).

David

[jimcrowley]

I don't really agree with the rate of fatigue increasing with units broken down as mostly back in those days, a soldier's world was the guys he was with. Just because his platoon was detached doesn't mean his fatigue increases faster because he is still with his own world. Neighboring companies suffering doesn't really affect your guys other than they are glad it wasn't them. I have never liked that rule of faster or more fatigue just because they are not combined. That one a definitely disagree with. I just don't buy it. Usually a soldier only worried about the other company because he had a buddy over there or a brother, but that was his only concern was if he was ok, not how much fatigue he was suffering because his unit was detached.

Platoons didn't exist in a vacuum; the command organisation was there for a purpose. Aside from being able to receive new orders and getting updates on the bigger picture, a platoon was reliant on its Company for ammunition resupply.

A solitary platoon was far more vulnerable than one that was in close contact with it's Company and the other platoons, which could provide mutual covering fire and, one would imagine, the morale benefits of nearby friendly troops would be considerable.

I'm still not sure about the absence of Company HQs or, at the very least the Company COs. These were very much front line units and while they may not have much fire-power, they were the glue that held a Company together, providing leadership and, often, inspiration in combat. There are numerous accounts, from all WW2 armies, relating to the very positive effects provided by good leadership at the Company level. Whereas from battalion, upwards, the leadership aspect became much more diluted and remote.