Ground Units Order of Battle and HQs

[Uran (OP)]

I doubt that I understand correctly how the Order of Battle supposed to be composed.

Could anyone please explain if there is a difference between the Formation which includes its HQ element in itself and the Formation without HQ element but under the command of the same kind of HQ element in the Order of Battle?

Here is my try to attach images for better explanation of my question:

The Formation which includes HQ element


The Formation that has now HQ element but under HQ Formation


Additional question is what effect we will have if a Formation will have it's own HQ element and in the same time it is under an HQ Formation in the Order of Battle? Is it just wasting the size of formations? Will it work as redundancy for HQ means?

[nuclearslurpee]

Could anyone please explain if there is a difference between the Formation which includes its HQ element in itself and the Formation without HQ element but under the command of the same kind of HQ element in the Order of Battle?

Additional question is what effect we will have if a Formation will have it's own HQ element and in the same time it is under an HQ Formation in the Order of Battle? Is it just wasting the size of formations? Will it work as redundancy for HQ means?

A formation must have its own HQ element in order to benefit from an assigned commander. Note that I have seen commanders be assigned to formations without HQs, but those formations gain no benefits.

A formation can also be attached in the hierarchy to a formation with a (larger) HQ. Prior to 2.2 I think this had no effect due to a bug(?) but in 2.2 this is meant to be fixed so that subordinate formations gain 25% of the bonus from a commander in a superior formation in the hierarchy. Having a formation hierarchy is also necessary for several mechanics (artillery support, fortification by CON units, resupply, etc.) and to make such a hierarchy requires a succession of HQs with increasing capacities.

These wiki pages are mostly relevant despite their age and may be helpful:
C# Ground Combat Mechanics
C# Ground Unit Mechanics

[Aloriel]

You probably want something more akin to this for your infantry companies, with a mix of troop types and an HQ. And you'll want a battalion above that with enough supplies for the group. Supplies in your battalion HQ should be vehicles (LVH is fine), or else they won't transfer.

Troops have 5 days of supplies by default. Ground battles typically take much longer than 5 days.

[Uran (OP)]

Note that I have seen commanders be assigned to formations without HQs, but those formations gain no benefits.

Yes. I have done some statistics experiments with the formation without HQ elements and with assigned commander. It looks like the formation gain no benefits indeed.

Do you consider this as a bug?
There is "You can make a formation without an HQ. However, that would prevent a commander being assigned. Date 11.02.2018" on the wiki about ground units.

[nuclearslurpee]

Do you consider this as a bug?
There is "You can make a formation without an HQ. However, that would prevent a commander being assigned. Date 11.02.2018" on the wiki about ground units.

IMO it should prevent commander assignment, but a lot of what is on the wiki or in the C# development posts were plans that Steve may or may not actually have implemented. I would post it in the suggestions thread if it concerns you.

[Ulzgoroth]

Supplies in your battalion HQ should be vehicles (LVH is fine), or else they won't transfer.

Not only is LVH fine, it's the only option. Only light vehicles can carry the LOG module. (Infantry get the exclusive LOG-S module which is less tonnage-efficient but slightly cheaper per unit of supplies and, as you say, has to be directly in the formation where resupply is needed. Critical for boarding teams and potentially good for garrison forces.)

[nuclearslurpee]

Not only is LVH fine, it's the only option.

This is categorically untrue.

Only light vehicles can carry the LOG module. (Infantry get the exclusive LOG-S module which is less tonnage-efficient but slightly cheaper per unit of supplies and, as you say, has to be directly in the formation where resupply is needed. Critical for boarding teams and potentially good for garrison forces.)

You don't need very many INF+LOG-S in a formation in practice. You only need enough for the rest of the formation to draw supply, which is usually going to be 2-3% of your total tonnage. The majority of your infantry-based logistics should be held in the rear echelon and moved to the front automatically using the reinforcement/replenishment mechanics. The benefit of infantry-based logistics is that you get 25% more GSP per build point compared to LVH logistics, which is not negligible. 1000 GSP will cost you 2.48 BP for the LVH versus 2.0 BP for the INF. So it is true that having INF+LOG-S in your combat formations uses a little bit of tonnage, but the cheaper build cost is more than enough to offset this and with the BP you save you can just build more combat formations.

The benefit of LVH+LOG is that it is more tonnage efficient: 1000 GSP will take up 62 tons for the LVH versus 100 tons for the INF. This means LVH logistics are better in cases where tonnage is more important than build cost, which mostly means heavy armored offensive formations which are intended to make up the first drop wave of a major invasion force (when you are usually limited by transport capacity and need the most tonnage efficiency as a result). For defensive combat and smaller offensives where you are not limited by transport capacity, infantry-based logistics are usually going to be more efficient.

Also, note that boarding combat does not consume supplies, so you do not need logistics elements in a boarding combat formation.

For historical interest: It used to be that the benefit of LVH logistics was automatic resupply, whereas infantry-based logistics were MUCH more efficient but required manual replenishment during combat which was too much for most players. After the Unit Series and replenishment mechanics were added in 1.12, this was no longer the case and infantry-based logistics were strictly superior in every way, which is why the capacity of the vehicle-mounted LOG component was doubled to bring balance back to the Force, erm, I mean, the logistics.

[doodle_sm]

[LOG-S are] critical for boarding teams...

Most boarding actions don't last long enough to warrant LOG-S , especially when a boarded crew unit is weaker than PWL.

[Ulzgoroth]

Not only is LVH fine, it's the only option.

This is categorically untrue.

Not in the context where it was posted.

[Uran (OP)]

IMO it should prevent commander assignment, but a lot of what is on the wiki or in the C# development posts were plans that Steve may or may not actually have implemented. I would post it in the suggestions thread if it concerns you.

Is is hard to say.
I wish this game as good as possible. And I think if there is no HQ element in the formation then it should not be possible to assign commanders to it.
On the other hand, I already know about this nuance and perhaps there are more important things that could be fixed.