Subordinate To Commander Ratio

[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

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by 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

I quite agree, but sometimes I think lone units are better off with what I imagine, or heard, that A0 has a longer command reach than company CO's. My lone units (or semi-alone) are at times so far from other help, therefore making for some interesting battles at times, that it may be important they remain under A0, but no command, no matter what they're assigned to could possibly rally them, at least not in their intitial deployment.

Most anything I bought as seperate platoons, in core, gets assigned a CO from a company.

I was not talking about completely removing a platoon CO from any danger. I was emphasizing protecting. Now it may take some time to acquire this, but I have a feel for when they're in danger and when they are not, so they behave accordingly. I always make them less appealing to the AI by making sure they're behind their subordinates 2-3 hexes, and don't fire as much as the others. If they don't get a kill whiloe the primary fighting is going on it doesn't concern me too much, as in most battles they will do some cleaning up with the routed enemy infantry.

So you see how while I am using them, their more crucial fighting during the height of the battle is more limited, such that I don't depend on their firepower very much. So you can see how having more subordinates to such a view of things leads to a higher firepower ratio. I just think the CO surviving is a very important thing. It does depend somewhat on what nation you play though and what they can expect. I see absolutely no reason to endanger them in the Polish battles, for they are being saved, and I may even save them there, for France and/or the USSR.

Some tricks of the trade, so to speak, with leaders. Never fire first at a new target. When firing, if there is return fire, discontinue temporarily and fire with another unit. I do those things not just with leaders, but primarily them. I often take my chances and keep firing with the same subordinate until he is out of shots, even if the entire time he keeps drawing fire from the same unit. Of course a lot of times the unit countering him is the unit he is firing upon.

[narwan]

Hi Charles,

for armor I prefer platoons of 4 tanks for medium and good quality troops and platoons of 3 for low quality troops.
I use the command units to command the others; ie to use their rally to keep the subordinates as effective in fighting as possible. By keeping the command unit within 5 hexes behind the others it automatically becomes a sort of tactical reserve unit. Also very handy to deal with suprises.

While you're right in the percentages of vehicles being fearless, fearless and blind (low experience combined with even a little suppression) makes for a very bad combo. You need as many combat capable fearless units as you can get. Don't forget that the game uses a three step fire sequence with the third shot on the same target in sequence gives you the highest hit percentage. That means you need a ROF of at least 3 for your main gunat the moment of firing (which often means after moving one or two hexes, not a ROF 3 before moving those hexes).

Narwan

[Charles22]

Originally Posted by narwan

Hi Charles,

for armor I prefer platoons of 4 tanks for medium and good quality troops and platoons of 3 for low quality troops.
I use the command units to command the others; ie to use their rally to keep the subordinates as effective in fighting as possible. By keeping the command unit within 5 hexes behind the others it automatically becomes a sort of tactical reserve unit. Also very handy to deal with suprises.

While you're right in the percentages of vehicles being fearless, fearless and blind (low experience combined with even a little suppression) makes for a very bad combo. You need as many combat capable fearless units as you can get. Don't forget that the game uses a three step fire sequence with the third shot on the same target in sequence gives you the highest hit percentage. That means you need a ROF of at least 3 for your main gunat the moment of firing (which often means after moving one or two hexes, not a ROF 3 before moving those hexes).

Narwan

Hello Narwan,

Yes, I think I have come to agree on that point, that you are better off with the lower subordinate ratio with the weaker forces. With weaker forces over the course of a campaign, you can see that if you preserved your CO's that it's becomes more and more inportant not to lose them. With that in mind, I have to hope the nation I'm playing has some early fairly easy battles (USSR and Germany for example) in order to get CO's to ratings that will be a loss should they be destroyed.

While we have been talking only about platoon CO's rallying subordinates, realize that the majority of the rallying will come from the subordinant itself. What would that ratio be for early USSR units? I have only now been applying any sense to this matter, but have observed things along the way nonetheless.

In the case of the Germans, it seems clear that the CO's have a higher rate of success of rsllying themselves and subordinates, than the subordinates do of rallying themselves. It also seems that the USSR is so poor at doing it, that if the CO has a greater rato of success, it didn't seem very apparent.

This brings us back to the importance of preserving leaders. IF the early USSR, for example, is as pathetic as I say in rallying and the leader so very bad in doing it that it isn't noticeable, then isn't the contrary line of wisdom better off? In other words, at least for the short haul, aren't the USSR's units better off for having ALL of them fighting and to have a higher ratio of subordinates to leaders whereas we have drawn the opposite conclusion? With the USSR, as time progresses, there should be less of a critical need for preserving any early CO's, in fact losing one in one month, may see the next month's replacement with better ratings.

So far, I draw the conclusion that a mixture of platooon sizes is best overall. While the extremes of the ratio might make us draw back in horror, they're not without purpose, even if just for a limited time and situation. The one or two unit formation has very little of a fearless unit element to it, and certainly isn't the sizes for preserving CO's, but is also good for independent action, because they are somewhat more dispensible.

I think I tend to favor the 4 or 5 subordinate to CO ratio, but I also have a place for the sections, and indeed plan to have 1 10 unit platoon when I play the USSR; if not for novelty and experimentation than anything else.

Let's say the following is true, that the majority of rallying comes from subordinates rallying themselves (a higher subordinate to CO ratio making this more true) but that the CO rallies better than anyone. You have to ask the question, that if the platoon is that much better off for the leader being out of it in bad situations. It seems that where a CO is really needed that much more, he often should not stay close enough to rally and also, a destroyed CO can help nobody.

So I think we can see that, the lower the subordinate to CO ratio, the more likely the CO will get destroyed, but also that should any real preservation of the CO be employed, that the platoon suffers greatly in terms of fire effectiveness, that is if you think that the CO staying behind and not getting too involved is the wise course. Is the increased subordinates ratio, supposing a great desire to preserve the CO, worth the decreased ability for the leader to rally, as, I pointed out before, more true in larger platoons, that the subordinates themselves account for the greatest amounts of rallying? For example, a five tank platoon with all suppressed to buttoned, may on average, with the Germans, see three or four successful rallies from the subordinates, while the CO may rally an additional couple of times. The early USSR, OTOH, may see only 1-2 total successful rallies, one of which probably came from the CO.

I don't know, but it just seems to me that, in general, you're better off with the majority of your platoons are in the 4-5 category, whereas the extremes are helpful in limited situations in limited times. A lower subordinate to CO ratio would encourage more daring, in a sense, since the unit is so small it's almost worthless without the CO sticking his neck out any, and then you have the other extreme, the 6 or 10 unit platoon, where preserving the leader holds a greater importance for it to be a good functioning platoon over time.

At this point, I would like to clear up what I meant about preserving the CO if I hadn't made that perfectly clear. By that I mean that it's not that he doesn't fight any, or takes part only in mop-ups, but that he only fires when it's apparent there is little chance of his destruction from return fire, and that he does takes steps to be less enchanting of a target. So you might say when comparing the CO to any of his individual subordinates, that he will fire far less at direct competition, such as tanks firing on tanks. I suppose the way I have used them the majority of the time, that is true, but they're also sort of the last straw. He is there to join the fight, if he's sure the AI will target him very little with direct competition, but he is also there once things become clearer. Either things get more desperate or they're more well in hand that he must fire in either case. In delaying fire during the opening firefight, he holds his fire, or at least waits till the other units have fired first, such that they draw the majority of counter attacks, so that his subordinates can hopefully whittle down the enemy by then, a factor further increasing his chances of survival. Over the course of a few turns he may lose some of his subordinates, and clearly, if the position is desired to be held and more enemy keep appearing, he must then be more willing to throw more caution to the wind. Clearly, even if he has only one subordinate left, he should never be the first one to fire, and when he does fire, and gets return fire, he should hope there's a unit somewhere, perhaps not even of his own platoon, which will drive any counter-fire back onto themselves, therefore upsetting the fix the unit he fired on had, possibly thereafter continuing that fire on that unit. The leader is about the only unit I would bother being that touchy about, that he doesn't keep firing at a unit, that could destroy him, without some other unit breaking the return fire's fix.

Should you get into very experienced units, while your new units performance weakens over time, like the Germans, then it becomes possible that you will have some subordinates which are more worth preserving than their leader, which throws a monkey wrench into all of this. It would be quite ironic to have a subordinate which is more important than the leader, though with a great deal of diligence the leader shouldn't be worth terribly much less.

BTW, when I used the word fearless a number of times, I only used it in relation to the CO. I'm not talking about weak units just looking to get destroyed, but that when something comes along that they can possibly have a positive effect against, then they will do so with no qualms. IOW, they fight as though they will succeed, whereas the leader fights as though he may fail.