Subordinate To Commander Ratio

[Charles22]

This is something thsat has been pounding in my head for some time, and while something has been achieved I haven't reached the point where I'm sure what to do about it. Perhaps you will get to thinking about this as I have.

The subject is this basically: What is the best unit-to-commander ratio?

Yes, there are different instances where the reverse of what seems desirable would be very desirable indeed; whatever position you take.

Let's take the USSR formation of 10 tanks in a platoon (one command, ten tanks). Let's also compare that to the more traditional one command formatiosn we see. I have ssen 6 tank platoons, 5 tank platoons, 4 tank platoons, and ones with 3 tanks, and of course there are the 2 tank sections and the lone tank.

I will take as a given that most thinking players are wise to expose their commands to little or no intense fire (please approach this problem from a campaign perspective, if you're not campaigning, losing the commander is only of very temporal loss, but in campaigns the commander could be losing a lot of built up assets if lost), but I want to know where the ideal is.

What do we find? First the USSR 10 tank platoon (I call it a platoon for lack of better words, but it has only one commander nonetheless) has, if you're concerned, far too many to one command most likely for helpful commander rallying purposes, as the commander has 10 to rally instead of the more traditional sizes. However, it's poison is also a bonus, because the subordinates can fight, until they're suppressed heavily, with considerably more firepower, because there is only one HQ to be careful with. 9 tanks being fearless, 1 tank being very cautious. 90% of them are fearless.

Now how about the more traditional 5 tank platoon? Apply the same principles. Your force is 4/5 fearless, but much more able to be effectively rallied as a whole, due to the lesser amount of fearless tanks to command ratio.

You can keep going down the line and see how the lesser the formation has in numbers, the less fearlessness it can achieve, but also the more easily they can be rallied.

I think all these formations can shine in limited situations, but some of them have severe limits overall, with the opposite ends of the pole being more severe. For example, take the lone tank. He has no command to rally him, unless of course he attachs to some other command. He just has his intrinsic ability to rally. Since it is a command, it can't be fearless, in a sense, but protecting it's command ability is somewhat pointles as well, because it has nothing under him to rally, unlike most commanders.

Now another factor I thought of. This could especially be helpful when playing humans. A deviation from the norm, the 10 unit platoon, and the singular unit platoon, can both achieve comabt surprise by their severity from something more normal. For example, the enemy sees one tank, and he expects, normally, 2-4 more, because he knows the enemy is likely to keep the platoon within reach of each other. Place the 10 unit platoon in there, and if the enemy thinks that way, then he's in for a surprise against 10. Now, naturally, this formation is so large that it could be mistaken for 2-3 platoons, somewhat removing the shock value, as it's not anything new to see people bunch that many normal sized platoons together.

OTOH, look at the lone unit section. You see a unit, you expect a platoon, even if the rest of the platoon is hidden. Yes, there you have it. The waste of being it's own command gives it further powers than it really has, because on it's own, on a flank, it will often be mistaken for having more units to it than it has, at least initially. This is particularly more important when in an area devoid of other units. This can allow, for a time, another more important area to be more highly protected because there could be the mistaken impression he comes with friends, and unlike sending a subordinate tank from some ordinary platoon to that spot instead, since he is his own command, he is not going to suffer suppression from being out of contact. Attach him to some company CO however, and I cannot guarantee he will have that independence.

So what do you think? I'm thinking the 5 tank platoon (middle ground) may be the most ideal, as it can fight fearlessly to a good degree and be rallied by the CO to not too bad a degree. There is also some merit to say that the tanks who have a higher command ratio can fight better because the ratio to be rallied is higher, but since the command is somewhat protected, they have a lower ratio of firepower when there is no suppression for instance.

I focused on tanks here but that needn't be, though other types of units may bring other factors into the subordinate-to-command ratio that I haven't given thought to.

[Mobhack]

Unlike normal tabletop rules, you do not pay any buy points for command units in SP.

Therefore the best formations in SP would be as many sections of 2, or even singletons as you can get without running into the maximum formations limit.

The Russian 10 tank companies are there only to provide the low-experience situation around Barbarossa. They are designed precisely to make command and control bad, especially WRT casualties, and the need to keep all 10 tanks withing 5 hexes of "father" if you want to ensure contact.

USA and German 5 tank platoons actually did not operate as "lumps", but usually a 3 tank heavy section and a 2 tank light section, or 2 2s and a roving platoon command. 4 tank platoons generally operate as 2 sections of 2 in close proximity. But SP does not have a section able to be placed under a platoon's command.

3 tank platoons do not tend to operate in sub-sections. They do have command benefits though IRL.

This tanknet thread should be of interest:
http://208.84.116.223/forums/index.php?showtopic=27105

Cheers
Andy

[Charles22]

I was approaching the question I put to everyone, as a means of figuring of what the best gamewise use is, irrespective or not irrespective of the fact of real life history. There is historical interest and there effectiveness within game parameters too.

Sure one might desire hordes of 2 tank sections, not exceeding the limit, but as I already ascertained, IMO, if you are campaigning you have a lot more, or should have a lot more need to preserve a platoon commander, than you would have for a one battle scenario, but obviously campaigning for a long period and doing only one battle for your core, places a very dramatic difference in how one should handle commanders.

My perspective, at least in campaigning against the AI, is that I want as many non-HQ units as possible per platoon, without handicapping too severely the ability to HQ rally them. So, half your section is only effective (2 total tanks) if you are going to protect the commander very well; possibly greatly reducing your firepower, comparatively. The brave ones therefore, ones who have no qualms about fighting full force in that situation, have a much higher rate of fighting within a 5 unit platoon than a 2 unit section. I thought I made that clear.

If people think losing a great many commanders while long campaigning is a wise idea, I would have to question that. Yes, while they last, and probably very shortly, the rally ability is prime there, but even short term, if the leader isn't protected much, there's NO commander rally ability if it's destroyed, and then you have the lone unit that isn't even a command itself; probably significantly worse off than if the tank were one of the 1 tank sections instead.

For long campaigning, it seems to me the general best pick might be the 5 tank platoon. You are willing to suffer somewhat in the ability to rally, but your fearless tanks (the subordinates within the platoon, remember?) have a high ratio within the platoon (80%) compared to the section's ratio of only 50%.

Most forces are probably better off with a blend of different sizes, but what ideas are there out there?

When I described what the enemy would think when spotting a single tank, I drifted over into the zone of PBEM play, and didn't mean to, because as far as I know the AI doesn't think that with seeing one unit, there is other units of that same platoon around it that are unseen (such that a single tank platoon would cause more worry than it really deserved). Even so, I think people can easily differentiate what parts of the discussion drift into PBEM-only and which are AI-only.

As I stated earlier, the 9 subordinate to one 1 commander ratio would seem close to disasterous, but considering the high amount of units that are able to fight without qualms, it's just too much of an advantage to not be applicable somewhere. So I think I have it. The 10 unit 'platoon' if you will, is best suited to a nation with high experience/morale, where the commander rallying ability may not be as important. That sort of outfit, however, is probably only available to the USSR, who may never get high enough in those attributes to benefit. OTOH, the nations experienced very weak experience/morale will be likely better off with more sections, therefore more rally ability, but necessitating they expose more commanders to more active fighting, in order to keep anything resembling a constant effective fire.

But the differences raised between platoon sizes isn't any the less a concern because the most exaggerated of them, the 10 unit one is only a USSR one.

You will note, that the USSR seems to have a higher ratio of 3 tank platoons than most nations, and in my mind anyway, as a long campaigner, that has always made me cringe, as it's too few subordinates. As well, this brings up the whole aspect of the ability of the commnder to rally itself. At least the beginnings of the USSR campaign sees the rally ability so pathetic, that while preserving the HQ for later is a good idea, ironically enough, when seen from that angle the 10 unit platoon takes on more life. If you can accept the rallying from HQ won't work anyway then at least for 6 months to a year, the firepower gained in having a lot of subordinates to one HQ can pay off. I'm sorry is this just too complicated to understand? I'm not having a problem with it.

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Giant Sections and platoons simulate disorganised armies, but grabbing too much small sections and platoons make them call for the A0 faster, making it hard to rally everyone

[Charles22]

Thanks, but I wasn't really wanting a definition of why there's a 10 tank platoon. It's nice data, but I was looking for an observation of what it means to actually use these diffeent sizes and what are the advanatges. I have pointed out a few of the 10 unit squad advantages and where they could be used well, and I bet nobody believes that. I almost starting to believe that people see the reasons it was designed, as a bust basically and therefore it "cannot" work to an advantage, so nobody wants to entertain that it can, and after all that time I expanded on that point.

Nonetheless, the 10 unit one was something of a minor point, but it is an extreme anyway. So if people want to rule it out, oh, perhaps they're not going to use it themselves so there's no point in talking anything substantive about it concerning the direction of the thread, well fine, but at least open up on the ones that aren't busts.

How about the 6 unit platoon compared to the 1 or 2 unit section? What implications do the different sizes have for the ability to rally or fight? I'm starting to think this is over people's heads, but I wouldn't think so; maybe it's just too boring or too microscopic? If you had a choice, for a long campaign, what amount would you give these platoons out of the options available:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10? Would you go with a blend (most of us have to anyway)? Have you ever thought there's advanatges to rallying and firepower based on how many there were in a platoon?

[PanzerBob]

In my units, while it's nice to protect the Commanders of various sized units everybody fights. And yes in my Campaigns I take causalities, combat units do this it is the nature of the beast. I for the most part always try to ensure that my units are Company formation even if it means deleting a platoon. This ensures I have Coy CO’s as well as Plt CO’s or NCO’s. Combat Leaders need to be with their Units, IMHO.

Bob out

[narwan]

Keeping the CO's back to preserve them doesn't equate to suffering greatly in terms of combat effectiveness. On the contrary, it increases combat effectiveness.
First off, because it is not directly involved in the combat it doesn't need to rally itself. All of it's rally attempts should be reserved for the subordinates. With 3 or 4 tanks per platoon depending on experience that means that most of the subordinate tanks will be at full combat ability for most of the turn and for most of the turns. Increase the number of tanks and that quickly drops.

What is important is the total ROF at high percentage a platoon can project. What is better, 5 tanks each with 2 shots for the main gun (after moving one or two hexes) or 3 tanks each with 3 shots for the main gun (after moving one or two hexes)? Even though the first have a total of 10 shots these are only at 1/3 and 2/3 full percentage for a total score of 5 for the platoon. The three tanks fire at 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3 for a total score of 6 for the platoon. In terms of likelihood to hit the opponent the three tanks are more likely to hit than the 5 tanks are!

narwan

[Charles22]

To me, the leader must be taken out of the quotient to affirm his main mission isn't firing, and will fire little or none at all against superior fire. For example, unless I was dead certain he was safe, I wouldn't fire with a PZIVB against a T34 if that firer were the CO. The others will fire at that same superior tank, simply to suppress it if for no other reason (or perhaps track hits).

With that in mind, your comparisons, though valid in a lot of situations (Germans vs. Poles for example) must be looked at differently. IOW, you can always count on the subordinates to fire, so think fire terms on them alone in this case.

In terms of subordinate firepower alone, your comparison is set further apsrt. One thing is unclear to me, however, why it is that you expect the 5 unit platoon to have less shots for the exact amount of movement, when I have never found that to be the case. I have never seen smaller platoons with any variance. In any case, discounting the CO, we are loooking at 4 units vs. 2. A greater ratio than 5 vs. 3. My experience that the smaller units don't have less shots, makes the difference greater still: 4x3=12 and 2x3=6. Since that is so, the only question that I can come up with, is if I am better off with a 4 unit platoon, or two 2 unit platoons for example. Because they cost the exact same thing, and come with the exact firepower potential, that is, if you want to fight full force with the HQ. Since I conclude that is not such a good idea for long campaigning, then we have to figure out whether the increase in the firepower with fewer CO's, is worth the somewhat less ability to rally.

When you say 1/3, 2/3 and 3/3, I'm not sure what you're talking about. It sounds to me as though you're counting on some radical rallying ability by the CO, but even the CO's, excluding company commanders, I haven't seen any difference in their ratings to rally based on the platoon size (though I never bothered to look). When comparing the 4 and 2 unit subordinates, it is only when the 4 unit one reaches the third unit that you might see any difference because of increased units, and both CO's could fail to rally, since they do have the same ratings, on the very first unit if it failed to rally itself. The CO just has more units to cover percentage-wise in the one case. You could have the 2 subordinates never rallying themselves and the CO always failing, and you could have the 4 subordinates never needing the CO to rally them if they rally themself always, but we know that there is an average somewhere where the CO has a tougher time being helpful with rallying. The only question remaining therefore is if that general lesser rallying is worth the decreased firepower.

Remember, it's not just the CO doing the rallying and actually it probably does the minority of the rallying for the platoon. If the CO has to rally itself as in my prior example, that complicates things still more. Take this as a typical example of a 5 unit platoon, with the leader not needing rallying (fairly typical in how I use them). All units will require three rallies ot get them to 1 supp. point. Unit one rallies itself twice and the player leaves it alone. Unit two rallies itself twice and the player leaves it alone. Unit three rallies itself once, but fails the next time, thereby generating a successful CO rally. Unit four fails the first time, the CO rally fails, and now look at what you have (this being perhaps a typical German force). You have 5 rallies to subordinate self-rally, while only 1 CO rally. Oh, should the CO be more successful, say 3 rallies, he is still down 5 rallies to 3. IOW, for a stronger force, as we concluded earlier, the ability to rally with the CO is less important in the very immediate short term. What I conclude, therefore, not that all my rallying is due to the CO and therefore very important, but only that though he rallies seemingly at a highe rate than any of his subordinates, his rallying often doesn't play as big a part as we may think. In the much poorer nations, that rallies are so far and few betwen that it's almost a joke to count on them.

I think I'm starting to come to the conclusion I was seeking. The conclusion is that a higher subordinate to CO ratio is the better thing, but not entirely, because when fighting against units that are entirely superior (PZIVB vs T34) rallying can be at a premium, that is, if the dreaded unit "also" can fire greatly too. A T34 has one major disadvantage over a PZIVB that has seen 3-4 battles already, that it clearly will down in number of shots, given equal circumstances such as both having moved one hex, in that it will be down close to a 2-to-1 count in being able to fire, not even getting into the inability to fire there may be from not being able to rally as well as the PZIVB's. Should the general superior unit have just as great experience OTOH, then it is probably better that the player's platoon have a greater rallying ability of a 3-4 sized platoon against superior firepower.

I guess the conclusion I am drawing, and there are exceptions, that when you are expecting a bad time of it, it is better to have a lower subordinates to CO ratio, and it is better to have a higher subordinate to CO when your experience is higher and you want something of a firepower edge. The higher subordinate to CO ratio vs. the lower subordinate to CO ratio, in certain circumstances, will arguably flip-flop, because we can see in certain circumstances that what we have may had come out quite differently if we handled the situation the other way.

Oh, one other thing I thought about concerning the CO rally ability. If you use him in the heat of battle, and he gets heavily suppressed, but let's say still safe, part of the problem you then run into, is that the ability to rally the others is affected, because the next turn may find that he has to rally himself one or two times first. How likely is he to rally others when he has done such thing? If the subordinates are on a hill, and he along with them, just further back, and bombardment comes, that's the situation you may face, but if he is behind the hill, he may get no suppression whatsoever. Was having him there to fire, if even safely, worth his getting good suppression from the bombardment and therefore very likely less rally ability to the others?

[narwan]

The difference in number of shots is based on the assumption that the tanks have either started with some supression or get some suppression during the turn. The 3 tanks plus commander (4 total) will have more rallying attempts so a better chance than the 5 tanks of actually getting the 3 shots each. The example is just a theoritical case where three unsuppressed tanks (supp<4) actually have a better hit combined hit chance than 5 tanks with low suppression each (between 4 and 10 approx). For main guns around the 75mm range for medium exp crews (the most common actually) that means the ROF for the main gun will drop from 3 to 2. Especially if moved first for one or two hexes. The tanks with suppr less than 4 will still have 3 shots each. Which makes a big difference.

The math is simple, the 1/3 refers to the first shot (at 1/3 of the max hit chance), the 2/3 refers to the second shot (at 2/3 of the max hit chance) and the 3/3 refers to the third shot (at the full max hit chance). The add the factor of the max hit chance for each round fire by the 5 tank platoon and do the same for the 3 tank (plus leader) platoon and you get a number which is an aggregate for the total hit percentages for the formation. That way you can compare formations of different size.
In this theorerical example the command tank of the 4 tank platoon does not fire at all but is assumed it's rally ability will get each of the three subordinate tanks to fire 3 times where the lack of additional rally attempts for the five assumes they'll be stuck at 2 shots each.

The previous example illustrates that even in absolute chance the 4 tanks have a better hit chance than the 5 tank platoon. But even if 2 out of the five tanks in the 5 tank platoon have three instead of two shots the 4 tank platoon (where only 3 tanks fire at all!) will still be more effective on a per tank basis. I'll save that math for later.

But in short, keeping commanders back to rally their subordinates tend to lead to more effective formations. The real trick is to find the right of ratio of commanders vs subordinates.

Narwan

[Charles22]

That's true, and that's what I have been trying to figure out.

In this theorerical example the command tank of the 4 tank platoon does not fire at all but is assumed it's rally ability will get each of the three subordinate tanks to fire 3 times where the lack of additional rally attempts for the five assumes they'll be stuck at 2 shots each.

That sort of doesn't make sense to me. The difference, between 4 and 5 unit platoons is miniscule and almost not worth bothering with. Probably looking more closely at 2-3 unit platoons, compared to the 5-6 unit platoons is more revealing. Just taking what you said above, however, I'm not clear of it's purpose, seeing as how it is in no way typical of what you could expect from a 5 unit platoon. The examples of either case could happen either way at any time.

Here's another thing to think about though. We say that a 3 unit platoon is generally more able to rally from the CO than a 6 unti platoon, but often that's not that case. But let's just say that in general that is true. Something else occurs to me. Now we already see clearly, since there is such a great disperance in numbers, that despite the 6 platoon likely a "bit" less likely to rally due to the HQ having to account for more subs, let's put this in a game situation.

Let's assume that both of these platoons run into the exact same enemy. That enemy is 6 enemy tanks. If the enemy has less tanks to shoot at, in the case of the 3 unit platoon, will they rally better than the 6 unit platoon? I say no. Why? Because as we discussed earlier, the majority of the rallies will come from the subs themselves, so having only three units to manage "in this situation" is even less likely to make a difference then before, but here's the thing. 6 AI units firing on 3 units will probably heavily suppress the 3 units. Run that enemy against the 6 unit platoon and the enemy suppresses them much less, because there are more targets. IOW, there are times when sheer weight of numbers benefits your rallying capability too, not just that the 6 have better firepower.

So considering that example, modify it a bit and think in more even terms. What if the enemy has what he did, but you have 6 units, only they're divided into 2 platoons instead of one? One sort of bad thing can emerge from such a split, and that is that you are more likely to use them apart from one another, even if they are in the same relative area, 3-4 of the units may encounter the enemy 6 instead of the whole bunch, just because the two platoons didn't have to stick together. As well, if you run into a decent enemy attack with 6 tanks, you may lose two or more in the exchange. This brings to mind what I said earlier on the reduction of platoon units making the HQ rally ability more and more pointless, and the firepower down to nil because we are still talking about at least taking some measure of precaution with the CO. It's real easy to get down to just 1 sub left in the platoon, if all you have is three in the first place. If the enemy knocks out one, you have all the rally potential you could ask for, but it's largely pointless just because one more good enemy shot and it will be entirely pointless and your firepower is severely curtailed since the CO was 33% of your platoon in the first place. Now you're down to only 1 full fledged fighter left, and how long will he last, lots of rallies or not?

So you can see, that if you really want to protect those CO's in the long campaign, there's something to be said for a formation that has enough in it, that it will probably not lose more than half it's subs in any given turn. So 2 3 unit platoons only has 4 units to lose, before the rallying advantage is entirely pointless and the 6 unit platoon has 5 units to lose before the same occurs.