Is it better to destroy one unit or weaken several?

[godfather]

Which is typically most effective, destroying one unit or weakening multiple units? How do you decide when it's "better" to choose one over the other? Can I assume that the AI has limited prestige in each mission?

[P5138]

If you're trying to minimize losses and be turn-efficient, fully killing off the most possible units is more effective than weakening all units. The enemy's prestige pool is big enough that they will be able to reinforce during their turn, partially negating your previous turn. As far as I know, the enemy has limited prestige, but it isn't really worth it to try for a win by total prestige attrition.

This is really apparent in the Spanish Civil War with air units: Planes are cheap to repair, and will be able to break off every turn where they can repair and come back at full strength. The most efficient way to deal with the enemy air force, is therefore to swarm individual units to guarantee a shoot down. All spreading out the damage does is buy you a turn or two before they come back to do more damage.

The exception to this is if you have a mass encirclement and are trying to chain overruns or attempting to get a bunch of surrenders. Then you might be better off whittling them down as they have no way to repair.

Edit: In other words, removing an enemy unit from the field denies the enemy any more chances to use that unit against you. That is worth more than whatever prestige drain you will cause them by forcing them to repair a damaged unit.

[dalfrede]

In the main campaign the Poles have no prestige.
By the time you get to Africa the British have plenty of prestige.
In USA1 the AI starts with 10000 in prestige.

The AI does not buy units so killed units are not replaced.
AI reinforcements are all scripted.

The only time to not kill one over damage several, is if the AI unit[s] are expensive and you think you can force a surrender later.
AI uses green replacements so will lose experience when reinforcing.

[Tassadar]

The only time to not kill one over damage several, is if the AI unit[s] are expensive and you think you can force a surrender later.

As obvious as this seems, it only occured to me after a couple of scenarios.

It's indeed a great way to gain prestige and equipement - works best when artillery is attacked by AT units with little soft attack, can really provide some nice gains.

[monkspider]

There is not necessarily a hard and fast rule, there are likely going to be some situations where weakening several units is better but in general it is best to completely destroy a lesser number of units to prevent their getting replacements.

[Plaid]

Regarding planes disengaging every turn - If you surround them with 6 air units - they won't.
Flexible command trait works great here, but even without it you can keep couple empty core slots and split cheap recon planes.

[Schwarzvogel]

If you're trying to minimize losses and be turn-efficient, fully killing off the most possible units is more effective than weakening all units. The enemy's prestige pool is big enough that they will be able to reinforce during their turn, partially negating your previous turn. As far as I know, the enemy has limited prestige, but it isn't really worth it to try for a win by total prestige attrition.

This is really apparent in the Spanish Civil War with air units: Planes are cheap to repair, and will be able to break off every turn where they can repair and come back at full strength. The most efficient way to deal with the enemy air force, is therefore to swarm individual units to guarantee a shoot down. All spreading out the damage does is buy you a turn or two before they come back to do more damage.

The exception to this is if you have a mass encirclement and are trying to chain overruns or attempting to get a bunch of surrenders. Then you might be better off whittling them down as they have no way to repair.

Edit: In other words, removing an enemy unit from the field denies the enemy any more chances to use that unit against you. That is worth more than whatever prestige drain you will cause them by forcing them to repair a damaged unit.

As far as I can tell in the Spanish Civil War DLC, the opfor seems to have unlimited reinforcements--you can't clear the map of enemy units like you can in the base game. They don't seem to have any limits on prestige either. But you are correct that the best (if not only) way to deal with the enemy air force is via swarm tactics, since the enemy aircraft are vastly superior to whatever you can field.

The other alternative is to rely on AA guns and AA veteran, but even then, you can only have so much AA especially since AA units switched into ground mode are surprisingly poor at engaging soft targets. You'd think that a 20mm cannon would tear up whatever infantry are unlucky enough to be on the receiving end, but even a Flakvierling in the base game isn't an effective anti-infantry tool. I guess that makes sense, since an infantry attachment (as indicated by an infantry unit in game) would quite outnumber an AA detachment, and would definitely come with far more personnel trained in direct combat than a unit of flak gunners...

[PoorOldSpike]

Which is typically most effective, destroying one unit or weakening multiple units? How do you decide when it's "better" to choose one over the other? Can I assume that the AI has limited prestige in each mission?

Depends on the scenario of course , but I usually always gang up on one unit in a feeding frenzy and hopefully kill it in one turn.
If you just "weaken" them you might just as well be tickling them because they'll usually just bounce back bright and bushy-tailed in the next turn or two.

Gen Norman Schwarzkopf- "We need to DESTROY, not attack, not damage, not surround. I want to DESTROY the Republican Guard"

Gen George Patton- "War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts"

Gen William Sherman- "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueller it is the sooner it will be over"

Gen. Michael Moseley USAF- "The preponderance of the Republican Guard divisions outside of Baghdad are now dead. I find it interesting when folks say we're softening them up. We're not softening them up, we're killing them"

Churchill- "When I look round to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path...and that is absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland"

Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, VC, RAF Bomber Command- "Already, only twenty-three minutes after the attack had started, Cologne was ablaze from end to end, and the main force of the attack was still to come"

Margaret Thatcher- "I ordered the sinking of the Belgrano because it was threatening our boys in the Task Force"

Montgomery defeats the Afrika Korps at Alamein- "At 2 a.m. I directed two hard punches at the 'hinges' of the final break-out area. That finished the battle"

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)- "Never do an enemy only a small injury"

[Retributarr]

Yes!...the general best procedure is to exterminate them one-by-one!... but!!!... on occasion.. other alternate methods are what is required!.

Such as when one of your 'Precious- Units' faces serious damage loss or annihilation... you can instead elect [At some cost/sustained damage to your other healthier Units]... to instead 'Inflict' enough 'Damage-Hits' on the 'Enemy-Unit' that proposes to exterminate your weakened "defence-less" vulnerable Unit!... so that... then... that Enemy-Unit will not now be able to destroy the Unit that you desire to save!.

[Patrat]

Gen Norman Schwarzkopf- "We need to DESTROY, not attack, not damage, not surround. I want to DESTROY the Republican Guard"

Gen George Patton- "War is a bloody, killing business. You've got to spill their blood, or they will spill yours. Rip them up the belly. Shoot them in the guts"

Gen William Sherman- "War is cruelty. There's no use trying to reform it, the crueller it is the sooner it will be over"

Gen. Michael Moseley USAF- "The preponderance of the Republican Guard divisions outside of Baghdad are now dead. I find it interesting when folks say we're softening them up. We're not softening them up, we're killing them"

Churchill- "When I look round to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path...and that is absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland"

Group Captain Leonard Cheshire, VC, RAF Bomber Command- "Already, only twenty-three minutes after the attack had started, Cologne was ablaze from end to end, and the main force of the attack was still to come"

Margaret Thatcher- "I ordered the sinking of the Belgrano because it was threatening our boys in the Task Force"

Montgomery defeats the Afrika Korps at Alamein- "At 2 a.m. I directed two hard punches at the 'hinges' of the final break-out area. That finished the battle"

Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)- "Never do an enemy only a small injury"

All nice phrases, but I think that anyone who really understands war, would agree the best way to win a battle is, not necessarily to kill or annihilate the enemy troops. The best way to win, is to get them to surrender with a minimum of bloodshed.

I don't care how much you outclass an enemy. If he keeps fighting instead of surrendering, you are going to end up with taking losses. Sometimes serious losses. The germans in operation barbarossa is an example. If the Russians would just have surrendered when surrounded, it would of cut German losses a lot.

That's what's modern "Shock and Awe" is really about. It's to induce in the enemy a feeling that he doesn't stand a chance, so he will surrender rather than fight and be killed.

The US army was vastly superior in quality to the Iraqi army in both gulf wars and took remarkably few causalities. If the Iraqis had fought like the 1941 Russians, the US troops would of taken much greater casualties.

The game actually does a pretty good job of reflecting this approach. Since the best way to succeed at the game is to induce the enemy units to surrender rather than bludgeoning them to death.

[PoorOldSpike]

..the best way to succeed at the game is to induce the enemy units to surrender rather than bludgeoning them to death.

But bludgeoning is more fun..
How about it Lawrence?



https://youtu.be/Mc7kQL8huRw