Attachment of Military Units

SeaMonkey · Post by **SeaMonkey** » Aug 30 2002

What scheme is being used for attaching differently equipped units into a battlegroup? Will there be an icon/symbol unique to the unit or a generic nato symbol or what? Will all the attached units be manageable as an integral unit? How many battalion sized units can be combined (limits). Will other assets (artillery, air, seaborne, etc.) be attached as dedicated support?

Post by **George Geczy** » Sep 01 2002

What scheme is being used for attaching differently equipped units into a battlegroup?

This is an excellent question and quite timely, as I was just going to start a new thread about it today myself.

First, the ground rule is that a battalion is a single equipment type (ie, a battalion of 44 M1A2 tanks, etc). Even though battalions often have different equipment attached in support roles, we simulate that as part of the battalion's attack/defense/spotting ratings.

After this, Battalions can be combined into Regiments (containing 2 to 5 Battalions). Regiments can be combined into Divisions, and in larger games Divisions into Corps.

Any combination of Battalion types can be assembled into a Regiment, ie two armoured, one artillery, one infantry.

You can then give orders either directly to an individual battalion unit, or you can give the order to the entire regiment. With Regimental orders, the AI would use recon and artillery to best benefit in supporting other combat battalions in the regiment.

Battalions can be removed/reattached to different Regiments on the fly during the game.

Now, the question of "Headquarters" comes into play, and that is what I would like some feedback on. Basically, we have three options:

1) No special 'Headquarters' unit. You can give Regiment-level orders by selecting any battalion and clicking on 'Give order to Entire Regiment'.

2) Have a Separate HQ unit that you must build, and then Battalions can be 'attached' to this HQ. To give orders to the Regiment, you click on the HQ unit.

3) Promote one unit of the Regiment to become the HQ unit. If the HQ is destroyed, another unit of the Regiment then becomes the new HQ, etc.

Having an HQ (choice 2 or 3) also gives us the ability to allow special HQ commands, and will allow the HQ to have a larger supply storage capacity and act as a supply point for its battalions.

Choice #2 could result in more micro-management as you'll have to deal with building HQs and making sure units get properly attached to a new HQ if one is destroyed, etc.

Thoughts?

-- George.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Sep 02 2002

I like it.
Could you however add in some things ?

1: If a hq unit is forced to retreat it loses some of its "command power",ie it gets downgraded to the next lower level command type for a time.

2: make it so Hqs cut off from supply cannot issue orders

XeroMan · Post by **XeroMan** » Sep 07 2002

Why lose the ability to give orders when cut off from supply? Agreed, an encircled command post would have great difficulty giving orders, but if they are uplinked or not jammed, why cut off communications? Command and control does not have the same requirements as actual supply. (Which requires transportation of physical goods)

[ This Message was edited by: XeroMan on 2002-09-07 11:13 ]

Post by **George Geczy** » Sep 08 2002

I would tend to agree that cutting a unit off from Supply would not affect communication. Not in the modern age, certainly. There are lots of ways to communicate these days.

-- George.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Sep 08 2002

In the gulf the majority of the 60,000 to 70,000+(depending on where you read) iragi prisoners claimed that they had stopped recieving orders.
This they said was one of the prime reasons many of them surrendered.It was said that even the local commanders had stopped issuing orders.

They were so cut off and under constant threat that communication seems to have ceased completely for many units.

Little to no food,little to no equipment,little to no communication -both inside and outside the units meant those who really didnt want to fight and die for irag could simply walk to the coalition lines and surrender.

Even the most favorable numbers reported show that at least 1 in 9 iraqi soldiers did exaclty this.Total troops deployed roughly 540k-smallest claim of prisoner count 60k.
The least friendly (to iraq) stats ive seen make this number roughly 1 in 5.

Also keep in mind the iraqi commanders had standing orders to kill any of thier own soldiers who tried to surrender .

Numbers given only include those based on frontline deployments and do NOT count republican guard units which were withdrawn prior to the air war to secondary defense positions.

This seems to clearly show to me that communications were indeed cut off as part of isolating the defense units.Also remember this was one of the prime targets in the air war stage-command and control centers were decimated with just this effect in mind.Although it was far more effective than anyone predicted.

[ This Message was edited by: tkobo on 2002-09-08 07:16 ]

XeroMan · Post by **XeroMan** » Sep 08 2002

I can see it if the command center is moderately to severly damaged and low on supplies...But just physically isolating them would not be enough.

Post by **Balthagor** » Sep 09 2002

I agree that just cutting them off would ot be enough. Also, there would never be anything cutting you off from giving a direct order to a unit you control so there would be no benifit to this. If I have a unit that is cut off from it's regimental leader, I can see your argument that a regimental level order wouldn't reach him. But I could simply select the unit and give him the same order. The only penalty I would suffer is having to give the same order twice. I think this would be far more annoying than anything else. Even if it is realistic...

Juergen · Post by **Juergen** » Sep 09 2002

Speaking of unit orders..

I recall that there was an covert ops option to give an enemy units orders.How is that going to work?

Post by **BattleGoat** » Sep 09 2002

I think I probably said it wrong... One of the "Covert Ops" will be to infiltrate another player's Military. If successful, you will see some of the orders that player is giving to their units (you will get EMail from your operatives informing you of what they've found out).

You won't be able to give orders to someone else's units, although that could make the battles infinitely more interesting

. An ally could "loan" you units, and as long as they are in your employ, you get to give the orders to them. (Maybe that's what you were thinking about???)

Hope this helps clear it up...

- David

SeaMonkey · Post by **SeaMonkey** » Sep 09 2002

I vote for #2, have HQs, isn't that the way its done IRL. The Leaders(HQ) have values/abilities and gains experience that adds to the combat prowess of the BG.

[ This Message was edited by: SeaMonkey on 2002-09-09 14:44 ]

Post by **George Geczy** » Sep 10 2002

Though the implementation of this is probably a few days off still, it looks like we're going with #3, which is to say that we'll have an HQ unit, but that it will not have to be build separately - one of the units built for the regiment will become the HQ.

It's probably a little too micro-managementish to have to worry about building a special HQ unit for each regiment separately; instead 'promotion' of one battalion to an HQ status will be a bit more automatic and easier to handle for the players.

Though David voted against giving the HQ unit any special abilities (ie, larger supplies capacity); it'll just be a way to give regiment (or division, or corps) specific orders easily.

-- George.