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.