Subordinate To Commander Ratio

[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?