Disband?

[Heldenkaiser]

When would I want to disband a unit? I have occasionally clicked in the wrong place and been asked whether I wanted to disband the currently selected unit, so I know the option exists ... what for? Thanks. :)

[Secadegas]

When would I want to disband a unit? I have occasionally clicked in the wrong place and been asked whether I wanted to disband the currently selected unit, so I know the option exists ... what for? Thanks. :)

First, the option to disband unit will only show up if the unit is supplied.

When disbanding a unit 100% of its equipment will revert to your replacements pool. So if you have a isolated unit (still supplied) you can disband it and profit from its equipment before it gets destroyed. And that unit can reconstitute later (if setted to reconstitute) on a usefull place.

There are also some scenarios with events triggered by disbanded units. Some designers use that feature to obtain certain effects.

[Hank2]

I've disbaned several units that were surrounded but weren't yet disrupted or retreating. But I've only done it with the smaller broken down units that have no chance of fighting their way out of trouble.

I play like the units are real people so in some situations I'd rather see my guys give up to fight another day than be killed. Hitler and I have very different views of warfare. :-)

hank

[Secadegas]

I play like the units are real people so in some situations I'd rather see my guys give up to fight another day than be killed.


You'll never get good results in TOAW... :p

or in real war... :hush:

[Heldenkaiser]

You'll never get good results in TOAW... :p

or in real war... :hush:

I am not sure. In real war, the long-term morale of armed forces personell can very much depend on their feeling of not being needlessly sacrificed. So giving them that feeling can be militarily sound in a protracted conflict.

And then Hank's point of view could well be very historical, for some conflicts. And maybe he, like me, enjoys wargaming for the sake of a historically accurate simulation of conflict. That doesn't mean one doesn't try to win ... but maybe not at all cost. :)

[Hank2]

I concur ... I play for fun and education ... just look at my ladder records at the Blitz and Run5 ... obviously I'm not that good but I have a blast

heheheh ... when the chips are down my guys will sacrifice for me ... 'cause they know I'd do the same for them ... :-)

Ever read "Panzers on the Eastern Front" by Gen. Erhard Rauss ... his guy's motto was: "Rauss will get us through" ...

later
Hank

[Heinz57]

While not a universal, written rule, (appropriate to read the scenario briefing to see what is permitted), disbanding of units may be restricted. In some larger scenarios, disbanding of the Axis minor ally units may not be permitted. This applies in relation to their typically having a lower proficiency rate...and potential for minor ally nation units to be withdrawn in the event they country surrenders. Disbanding these units would apply to artificially increasing the replacement pool.

In other scenarios, a typical rule is for units to be in a city hex, usually connected by Rail, that can trace supply and is not in an enemy zone of control (enemy units adjacent).

Disbanding of units is actually a very interesting decision - if a unit has been mauled and is likely to take several/many turns to recover via regular replacements; if it has a lower proficiency; if it's parent headquarters has been eliminated; or if it is a reconstituted unit, consideration might be given to disbanding such a unit. This would place all of its equipment and personnel back into the replacement pool for use by "better" units on the front line.

While replacement rates are important in all scenarios, replacements are a critical dynamic of some of the monster scenarios...the mammoth games like DNO, Fire in the East, Goetterdammerung, and many others, including somewhat smaller (though still large scenarios) like Wintergewitter 42.

If you are sustaining casualties at a vastly higher rate than you are replacing them, eventually your offensives will stall...or your defenses collapse. There are catastrophes that "happen" and there are castastrophes that develop...not at once, but over time. Watching the replacement pool and keeping a close eye on the composition of your units is helpful in reducing that potential. Units having roughly 50%+ of their strength, in good supply and readiness are going to show with a green health indicator...so if that is the health indicator is the only thing you are looking at, you are really only getting part of the picture.

In the War College Curriculum, there is an Article on Replacement Rates by General Staff which I consider very important and very good, as well as complex, but of enough value to TOAW to try to understand. All things being equal, if you get 10 rifle squads in replacements each turn, and you have 10 units needing them, they may get 1 rifle squad each. It is usually not entirely that simple, but that is the basic idea - and where things get bad is when you have 20 units needing rifle squads, or a hundred...and some of them might get...1 rifle squad.

So...this is where you start looking at possibilities on how to increase the supply of equipment to the units that need it most. If you have one unit at say 80% strength and another unit at 40% strength...everything else equal (proficiency, headquarters still intact, etc.), you will probably want to disband the weakest one. The weakest one will take the longest time to recover and will be a long-term drain; if it gets a lot of replacements in one turn - it can lose its veteran status. Disbanding that unit therefore decreases demand (one less unit putting in requisition requests) and increases supply of equipment.

Historically, there are numerous instances where companies, battalions, regiments and entire divisions were dissolved, with their assets going to reinforce or reform other units. In Stalingrad, very frequently, when battalions reached 50% or less strength, one battalion would be merged with another in the same regiment. In TOAW, we don't really have that kind of direct control...of saying, I want to disband my 3rd battalion and have its equipment go to the 2nd battalion....and its anti-tank company given to 1st battalion. It all goes into the general replacement pool.

When units are destroyed, they may be eligible (as determined by the scenario designer, not by the conditions in which it was destroyed, unless it was disbanded) to reconstitute. Eligible units in the reconstitution queue get "one dip" into the replacement pool - to get what equipment it can. It does this FIRST ---- before replacements are distributed to front line units. So, reconstituting units can be detrimental...though it is nice to receive reinforcements - it is appropriate to examine the overall situation.

In the course of games that last 100 turns...ha...or more...you gradually develop...a deep, personal relationship with your units, knowing them by name, their history, and how they are managing their situation on a turn by turn basis. That's where the detail of TOAW excels...as every unit is different!

It's...beautiful!

:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

[Hank2]

good points ... imho its too easy to disband units

I would be all for making it more realistic ... like said, certain conditions should be in place before you can disband ... mainly because of the reallocation of equipment and such (path back to your lines, rail, etc. like 57 mentioned.

Its good there's scenario design tools to limit disbanding to realistic and maybe historic conditions.

regards