Ground Unit Design

[Nori (OP)]

I've been reading several other posts about ground unit design and wanted to get clarification on some things and feedback.

First up, I like to model a mostly realistic combined arms setup and I figure my base size will be 10k. Calling that a battalion. Mix and match to get up to 100k and that is a division. I intend to have long range, heavy and light bombardment in every division. I've got a lot of that setup but I'm not sure of the optimal way to setup supports.

This is how I have it setup currently:


I erroneously thought I could have the howitzer and mortar companies support the whole division but it seems I can only set them to support the Infantry Battalion.
Below are all the templates I'm using.
Am I going to have to have a bombardment for each and every front line unit or is there some way to share those? Do the engineers work just by being in the division HQ?

105mm Howitzer Company
Transport Size: 10,000 tons
Build Cost: 788.3 BP
81x 105mm Howitzer - 2133
76x Heavy PW Infantry 2103
1x Armor HQ 10k - 2133

Bradley Company
Transport Size: 10,000 tons
Build Cost: 949.4 BP
38x Heavy AC-MG 2103
20x Bradley Tow AC - 2133
40x Bradley MG - 2133
20x Bradley HCAP - 2133
5x Bradley AA - 2133
1x Armor HQ 10k - 2133

Division HQ
Transport Size: 5,000 tons
Build Cost: 270 BP
70x Logi Truck 2107
70x Heavy PW Infantry 2103
1x Mobile HQ 100k - 2133
4x Heavy MG Infantry 2103

Infrantry Battalion
Transport Size: 10,000 tons
Build Cost: 406 BP
1330x Heavy PW Infantry 2103
150x Heavy MG Infantry 2103
50x Heavy LAV Infantry 2103
20x Heavy AA Infantry 2103
5x Heavy FFD Infantry 2103
1x Heavy HQ10 Infantry 2103

Infrantry Mortar
Transport Size: 5,000 tons
Build Cost: 203 BP
240x Heavy LB Infantry 2103
35x Heavy PW Infantry 2103
1x Heavy HQ Infantry 5k - 2137

[nuclearslurpee]

First up, I like to model a mostly realistic combined arms setup and I figure my base size will be 10k. Calling that a battalion. Mix and match to get up to 100k and that is a division. I intend to have long range, heavy and light bombardment in every division. I've got a lot of that setup but I'm not sure of the optimal way to setup supports.

This is an... interesting way to do it. While nomenclature is a roleplay decision and entirely up to you, I will note in case you're not aware (though I'm sure you probably are) that a battalion is usually closer to 500 men (give or take a fair bit either way) and there is usually a regimental and/or brigade level of command between battalions and divisional HQs. Your infantry battalion for example would probably come out at close to 1,800 soldiers using typical manning requirement for the heavy weapons, which is more commonly considered a smaller regiment or brigade.

This has no effect on the mechanics, again I am just sharing knowledge in case it is not already known. 

Am I going to have to have a bombardment for each and every front line unit or is there some way to share those?

A formation can only support one other formation. This has led many players to do things such as, e.g., using smaller artillery units (e.g., artillery companies to support infantry battalions) so that each front-line formation can be supported. In my view, it is better or at least easier to just leave the artillery formation at the same size as the front-line formations and accept that it will only support one front-line formation at a time. In the big scheme of things, with multiple millions of tons of ground units in major homeworld invasions, it's not worth worrying about in the aggregate, and concentrating fire this way is probably more advantageous for secondary mechanics like breakthroughs.

Do the engineers work just by being in the division HQ?

What you have will work fine, as construction units will work on elements in any formation in this order: (1) their own formation, (2) formations subordinate to their own formation, (3) their parent formation, and (4) any formations subordinate to their parent formation. This allows for potential fine control of which formations are being fortified or you can just set-and-forget so to speak.

105mm Howitzer Company
Transport Size: 10,000 tons
Build Cost: 788.3 BP
81x 105mm Howitzer - 2133
76x Heavy PW Infantry 2103
1x Armor HQ 10k - 2133

You should be aware that non-bombardment combat units contribute nothing, aside from acting as mediocre meatshields, in support or rear-echelon formations. In other words, components like PW, CAP, LAV, LAC, etc. only contribute if their formation is on front-line attack or defense stance. Therefore the PW Infantry you have there don't do anything for you aside from costing money and minerals. You can of course leave them for roleplay but I would remove them if you care about mechanical efficacy.

Bradley Company
Transport Size: 10,000 tons
Build Cost: 949.4 BP
38x Heavy AC-MG 2103
20x Bradley Tow AC - 2133
40x Bradley MG - 2133
20x Bradley HCAP - 2133
5x Bradley AA - 2133
1x Armor HQ 10k - 2133

Roleplay comment: It is rather unusual to see Bradleys (I assume these are M2/M3s?) without infantry since they are after all Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Also, typically we would expect to see 40-50 Bradleys in a (mechanized infantry) battalion, so calling a formation of ~120 Bradleys a company is rather unusual, though of course you may do whatever you want.

Otherwise this looks fine, you don't really need so many subtly different weapon types in the same formation but there is no rule against spending your research points to do so.

Division HQ
Transport Size: 5,000 tons
Build Cost: 270 BP
70x Logi Truck 2107
70x Heavy PW Infantry 2103
1x Mobile HQ 100k - 2133
4x Heavy MG Infantry 2103

Same comment RE: PW and CAP infantry as above.

Infrantry Battalion
Transport Size: 10,000 tons
Build Cost: 406 BP
1330x Heavy PW Infantry 2103
150x Heavy MG Infantry 2103
50x Heavy LAV Infantry 2103
20x Heavy AA Infantry 2103
5x Heavy FFD Infantry 2103
1x Heavy HQ10 Infantry 2103

Mostly looks good, do be aware that AA are mechanically unnecessary unless you have multiple player races, since the NPRs (including spoilers) never use ground support fighters.

While I would never disparage the spelling and grammar of a strange alien language, in English the spelling "Infantry" with just the last 'r' is usually used. 

Infrantry Mortar
Transport Size: 5,000 tons
Build Cost: 203 BP
240x Heavy LB Infantry 2103
35x Heavy PW Infantry 2103
1x Heavy HQ Infantry 5k - 2137

I'm not sure what the intention is for this formation. If you intend to use the LB from the support echelon, the PW infantry are again not useful. If you intend to use LB in a front-line formation I would probably just include them into the main Infantry Battalion (they could replace the AA for instance) rather than having them in a separate formation which is a little bit more vulnerable to heavy losses.

[Garfunkel]

A convenient way to make units is to use 5,000 ton battalions since the Large Troop Transport Module carries that much and 25,000 ton regiments since the Very Large Troop Transport Module has that capacity. This means that you'll build 4 battalions per regiment and the regiment HQ/assets can be up to 5,000 tons as well. This also allows you to utilize game mechanics while keeping things somewhat realistic as well:

1. 2. 3. Infantry Battalions with PW/PWI/CAP/HCAP/LAV/HQ
4. Weapons Battalion with LB/MB/MBL/HQ
Regiment with HQ, LOG, CON

Now you can move the battalions on their own if necessary or move the whole regiment. You just have to set 1 formation for support per regiment though you could also just leave them for counter-battery work, especially if it's MBL type.

[nuclearslurpee]

A convenient way to make units is to use 5,000 ton battalions since the Large Troop Transport Module carries that much and 25,000 ton regiments since the Very Large Troop Transport Module has that capacity. This means that you'll build 4 battalions per regiment and the regiment HQ/assets can be up to 5,000 tons as well. This also allows you to utilize game mechanics while keeping things somewhat realistic as well:

I usually advise against doing 5,000-ton base formations, just because it makes it difficult to get the most from your ground forces commanders. If you need 5 million tons to assault an NPR home world (a very low estimate!), that's 1,000 formations which means you ideally want 1,000 ground commanders, not counting the fact that a large fraction of your ground forces will be dedicated to defensive missions on top of this. Of course, you don't need a commander in every formation, but it helps!

If you're concerned about matching the transport module sizes, I've found 12,500-ton brigades (matching the old VB6 brigade sizes) to be suitable, although it becomes difficult to develop a realistic OOB for those formations. Usually 15,000 tons is more useful for realistic formation modeling in practice, and I tend to use 20,000-ton formations in less realistic settings. I have seen people go up to 50,000 tons or bigger but even I think that is ridiculous.

4. Weapons Battalion with LB/MB/MBL/HQ

I would not recommend mixing MBL/HB with LB/MB as these have different support ranges. Technically, LB and MB do as well but they can both fire from the support echelon so they work fine together. MBL/HB should be held separately since they can fire from the rear echelon, but LB/MB cannot so a formation with the latter in the rear position will be wasting valuable weaponry.

Note that I say I would not recommend it, I do this all the time for roleplay reasons (with HB, anyways, there's no point with MBL as it's just a larger MB tonnage-wise in that case). However if you care about using the mechanics well it is not the best approach.

[Garfunkel]

Right, I didn't mean to recommend mixing all those together, just to give an illustration what can/should be in a formation like that.

[Nori (OP)]

This is an... interesting way to do it. While nomenclature is a roleplay decision and entirely up to you, I will note in case you're not aware (though I'm sure you probably are) that a battalion is usually closer to 500 men (give or take a fair bit either way) and there is usually a regimental and/or brigade level of command between battalions and divisional HQs. Your infantry battalion for example would probably come out at close to 1,800 soldiers using typical manning requirement for the heavy weapons, which is more commonly considered a smaller regiment or brigade.

This has no effect on the mechanics, again I am just sharing knowledge in case it is not already known. 

Well see what happened was I was shooting for sub 1k units, but then I filled up 10kt and I just kept the name. We'll just call it a reinforced battalion. haha

A formation can only support one other formation. This has led many players to do things such as, e.g., using smaller artillery units (e.g., artillery companies to support infantry battalions) so that each front-line formation can be supported. In my view, it is better or at least easier to just leave the artillery formation at the same size as the front-line formations and accept that it will only support one front-line formation at a time. In the big scheme of things, with multiple millions of tons of ground units in major homeworld invasions, it's not worth worrying about in the aggregate, and concentrating fire this way is probably more advantageous for secondary mechanics like breakthroughs.

Ok so this is jogging my memory on how I formulated it back in 2021... Do you like doing a LB/MB in support and a HB in rear for each front line? I thought LB would be useful because it fires with the front line instead of after, plus they are cheap and I can cram a lot in.

What you have will work fine, as construction units will work on elements in any formation in this order: (1) their own formation, (2) formations subordinate to their own formation, (3) their parent formation, and (4) any formations subordinate to their parent formation. This allows for potential fine control of which formations are being fortified or you can just set-and-forget so to speak.

Ok, this is what I thought but I wasn't sure.

You should be aware that non-bombardment combat units contribute nothing, aside from acting as mediocre meatshields, in support or rear-echelon formations. In other words, components like PW, CAP, LAV, LAC, etc. only contribute if their formation is on front-line attack or defense stance. Therefore the PW Infantry you have there don't do anything for you aside from costing money and minerals. You can of course leave them for roleplay but I would remove them if you care about mechanical efficacy.

Yeah I know. I do it for 3ish reasons. One is RP, two meatshields and three, well I like numbers that end in 0.

Roleplay comment: It is rather unusual to see Bradleys (I assume these are M2/M3s?) without infantry since they are after all Infantry Fighting Vehicles. Also, typically we would expect to see 40-50 Bradleys in a (mechanized infantry) battalion, so calling a formation of ~120 Bradleys a company is rather unusual, though of course you may do whatever you want.

Otherwise this looks fine, you don't really need so many subtly different weapon types in the same formation but there is no rule against spending your research points to do so.

The names were kind of temporary at this point. They are technically the same size as the infantry so should be called the same I suppose.

Mostly looks good, do be aware that AA are mechanically unnecessary unless you have multiple player races, since the NPRs (including spoilers) never use ground support fighters.

While I would never disparage the spelling and grammar of a strange alien language, in English the spelling "Infantry" with just the last 'r' is usually used. 

I kind of thought they didn't use AA, but figured a few here and there doesn't hurt. AFAIK they do attack other ground units, so they aren't dead wait.

I'm not sure what the intention is for this formation. If you intend to use the LB from the support echelon, the PW infantry are again not useful. If you intend to use LB in a front-line formation I would probably just include them into the main Infantry Battalion (they could replace the AA for instance) rather than having them in a separate formation which is a little bit more vulnerable to heavy losses.

This formation is support intended to fire with front line. The PW infantry are just used to get nice round numbers, though in a pinch they should help the LB die slightly slower.

So I wanted to have Long Range Bombardment because it's cheaper, smaller and takes less supplies, then to also have a heavy bombardment. Should I just mix these in the same template then to cut down on support units?

I still have armor units I need to make. I have a planet in hostile territory and I wanted to plot a few divisions down with some STO to protect it. It's a valuable planet as it's got the only neutronium I've found nearby in any decent amounts. Lost many freighters on my first enemy encounter...

[nuclearslurpee]

Do you like doing a LB/MB in support and a HB in rear for each front line?

I do this a lot as LB has lower supply consumtion + collateral damage, so it is good against infantry-heavy opponents. I like to put 2x LB on a VEH and call it a MLRS.

So I wanted to have Long Range Bombardment because it's cheaper, smaller and takes less supplies, then to also have a heavy bombardment. Should I just mix these in the same template then to cut down on support units?

It is up to you. MBL/HB aren't super necessary since artillery in the support echelon is already pretty safe. In principle there are benefits in terms of counter-battery but I haven't found counter-battery fire to be reliable for anything. I use these more for roleplay than anything else to be quite honest. At some point I should run some test combats and see if it is actually useful, but my intuition is that you get more benefit from artillery by degrading frontline formations so that you might get breakthroughs more easily.

[Nori (OP)]

Hmm interesting. Thanks for the responses. I figured the heavy bombardment might be nice since it has higher damage and penetration vs LB/MB.

[Garfunkel]

Note that HB does massive collateral damage so for most cases you probably do not want to use it.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I find that MBL are quite effective for counter battery purposes while MB and LB are used for direct support of line formations. Once enemy artillery have been degraded sufficienty you can use the MBL to support the front line formations.

At least I do find this very important when I control both sides of the fight as the formations can be quite effective and not just full of infantry in the way the NPR usually deploy troops with allot of infantry and not enough static or vehicle to support them. If enemy formation is mostly infantry then artillery in general is not very effective at all versus other weapon types.

HB units are in a rather strange place and in general is very rarely useful, their consumption of supplies just does not warant their actual damage output. Most stuff they hit they are either completely overkilling or the underperform against armour and overkill on hitpoints.