RUS game mechanics - Chapter 2: division composition
The fighting power of an army can be optimized if its divisions are constructed sensibly. Basically there are two prototypes: infantry divisions (forming the bulk of any army) and cavalry divisions (much higher speed but inferior combat power). Especially the Southern Whites start with a lot of cavalry which can be concentrated into a fast and powerful strike force.
Infantry divisions: obviously the main component is infantry. The second most important is artillery. In principle, the more artillery the better. However frontage limits the number of guns that can engage at once (in open terrain frontage is wider, in mountains, swamps, hills or woods smaller). From a certain point onwards more guns don't help. Moreover a division needs a sufficient number of infantry to absorb damage. During battle resolution infantry and cavalry take damage first, artillery last. It is not unusual to see the entire infantry component of a division wiped out while the artillery escapes without a scratch. Therefore I would advocate for 2 artilleries per division as minimum and 7 as maximum, all the while observing a ratio between infantry and artillery of at least 3:1.
Useful supplements:
- tanks: not more than one per division, anything more is a waste, pure tank divisions are stupidity (the Germans get one in the Drang scenario for example, split it up!). The tank doctrine in RUS is that of WW I rather than WW II. Tanks have the armoured support ability which grants infantry within the same division an initiative bonus (higher chance to fire first) and improves their combat effectiveness by +10%. Moreover there is a bug that seems to change the movement rules for infantry divisions if they contain a tank element. Basically such a division moves about as fast as cavalry. Never leave tanks on their own - it is a waste of the armoured support ability; never put them in a cavalry division since the ability only affects infantry.
- armoured cars: basically these are a poor man's tanks in RUS. The only important difference is that there isn't a bug affecting the movement of the entire division.
- engineers: I sometimes put them within a division but they are fairly soft and tend to suffer from it. The important thing is to have one per stack (entrenchments are built a lot faster), my impression is that it is more beneficial to leave them outside the divisional structure.
- cavalry: having a single element of cavalry per division improves its detection value (it will deliver more precise intelligence on opposing forces)
- tachankas: 1 per division (not more) is useful. They provide fire support (+1 initiative bonus). Common sense seems to indicate that this weapon was invented to support cavalry but they are just as useful combined with infantry.
- specialist infantry: mountain infantry for the Siberians, Cheka Line infantry for the Reds. Their special abilities affect the whole division. More than one per division is a waste.
Cavalry divisions: Everything that could slow down such a division has no place in it. This leaves three incrediants: cavalry, horse artillery and tachankas (1 per division, more is a waste).
The most important rule about divisions is the bigger the better. During battle resolution a single division often has to absorb the entire damage a stack with multiple units takes. A small division runs a high risk of losing elements in such a situation while big divisions fare much better.
The division in the picture above has absorbed 83 hits during a single turn (~5.000 men) yet it remains a formidable fighting machine. A smaller division would have lost most if not its entire infantry complement in such a situation.
Independant units: Some units can stay on there own within a bigger stack others should be integrated within divisions: artillery works fine on its own; tanks, armoured cars and tachankas waste their special abilities if they aren't integrated into a division. Infantry, cavalry and militia should be integrated into divisions as well. Otherwise it may very well be that a single militia unit with its 2 elements draws the fire of an entire enemy division during battle resolution.
Finally, divisions should never be regarded as static. Everytime I change the composition of a stack, I revisit the construction of its divisions. Often new units within a stack present the possibility for optimization. Equally after a stack has suffered heavy casualties, it can be wise to rearrange its divisions. Spread depleted elements equally between divisions or even better concentrate such elements in a HQ stack rather than corps. If corps and an HQ stack are present in the same region, the latter always engages last consequently the best/least harmed units belong in corps, depleted units into the HQ stack where they are comparitively safe.
The fighting power of an army can be optimized if its divisions are constructed sensibly. Basically there are two prototypes: infantry divisions (forming the bulk of any army) and cavalry divisions (much higher speed but inferior combat power). Especially the Southern Whites start with a lot of cavalry which can be concentrated into a fast and powerful strike force.
Infantry divisions: obviously the main component is infantry. The second most important is artillery. In principle, the more artillery the better. However frontage limits the number of guns that can engage at once (in open terrain frontage is wider, in mountains, swamps, hills or woods smaller). From a certain point onwards more guns don't help. Moreover a division needs a sufficient number of infantry to absorb damage. During battle resolution infantry and cavalry take damage first, artillery last. It is not unusual to see the entire infantry component of a division wiped out while the artillery escapes without a scratch. Therefore I would advocate for 2 artilleries per division as minimum and 7 as maximum, all the while observing a ratio between infantry and artillery of at least 3:1.
Useful supplements:
- tanks: not more than one per division, anything more is a waste, pure tank divisions are stupidity (the Germans get one in the Drang scenario for example, split it up!). The tank doctrine in RUS is that of WW I rather than WW II. Tanks have the armoured support ability which grants infantry within the same division an initiative bonus (higher chance to fire first) and improves their combat effectiveness by +10%. Moreover there is a bug that seems to change the movement rules for infantry divisions if they contain a tank element. Basically such a division moves about as fast as cavalry. Never leave tanks on their own - it is a waste of the armoured support ability; never put them in a cavalry division since the ability only affects infantry.
- armoured cars: basically these are a poor man's tanks in RUS. The only important difference is that there isn't a bug affecting the movement of the entire division.
- engineers: I sometimes put them within a division but they are fairly soft and tend to suffer from it. The important thing is to have one per stack (entrenchments are built a lot faster), my impression is that it is more beneficial to leave them outside the divisional structure.
- cavalry: having a single element of cavalry per division improves its detection value (it will deliver more precise intelligence on opposing forces)
- tachankas: 1 per division (not more) is useful. They provide fire support (+1 initiative bonus). Common sense seems to indicate that this weapon was invented to support cavalry but they are just as useful combined with infantry.
- specialist infantry: mountain infantry for the Siberians, Cheka Line infantry for the Reds. Their special abilities affect the whole division. More than one per division is a waste.
Cavalry divisions: Everything that could slow down such a division has no place in it. This leaves three incrediants: cavalry, horse artillery and tachankas (1 per division, more is a waste).
The most important rule about divisions is the bigger the better. During battle resolution a single division often has to absorb the entire damage a stack with multiple units takes. A small division runs a high risk of losing elements in such a situation while big divisions fare much better.
The division in the picture above has absorbed 83 hits during a single turn (~5.000 men) yet it remains a formidable fighting machine. A smaller division would have lost most if not its entire infantry complement in such a situation.
Independant units: Some units can stay on there own within a bigger stack others should be integrated within divisions: artillery works fine on its own; tanks, armoured cars and tachankas waste their special abilities if they aren't integrated into a division. Infantry, cavalry and militia should be integrated into divisions as well. Otherwise it may very well be that a single militia unit with its 2 elements draws the fire of an entire enemy division during battle resolution.
Finally, divisions should never be regarded as static. Everytime I change the composition of a stack, I revisit the construction of its divisions. Often new units within a stack present the possibility for optimization. Equally after a stack has suffered heavy casualties, it can be wise to rearrange its divisions. Spread depleted elements equally between divisions or even better concentrate such elements in a HQ stack rather than corps. If corps and an HQ stack are present in the same region, the latter always engages last consequently the best/least harmed units belong in corps, depleted units into the HQ stack where they are comparitively safe.