I'm not convinced that separate companies gain fatigue faster than a combined battalion. In most books I've read when it gets down into a lot of small unit details, most soldiers didn't know or care what was going on outside their own company because those are the guys that they always see and depend on for survival.
That isn't the issue - the reason for the higher fatige for equal casualties/losses is because it is generally a smaller pool of men/manpower, so an equal loss would be a higher percentage of the smaller unit's strength and so would presumably impact that single unit more. Now this comparison only works within a company vs its own battalion's strength, there are companies stonger than entire battalions in some rare cases, but the rule doesn't use the percentage lost.
So that is the reason for company components of a battalion taking triple fatigue compared to the battalion - otherwise you break down all units to companies, gain the same fatigue for that single company that the full battalion would but still have 2 companies with no gain in fatigue, so it would be a gamey way to GREATLY reduce overall fatigue from the same losses. As it is, by having the triple fatigue, it keeps the total fatiuge the same, just all on one company rather than spread across the entire battalion's companies.
Rick
Right, a battalion is losing strength across all units within said combined formation, where as a company or platoon is losing strength to that one sub organization. The game mechanic to have company and platoon sized units gain more fatigue is simply to make it "fair" for small units to not be able to hold out for as long as a battalion would, a battalion that would be rotating companies in and out of the line or managing its frontage.
Otherwise, everyone would always split the battalion into companies and keep them in the same hex, rather than think twice about splitting them and spreading them out, or keeping them combined, or splitting them and keeping them in the same hex (in other words, there has to be a negative side to it, and that is what the higher fatigue accumulation covers). People split battalions already to make it less likely that a full hex might get disrupted, but they do so at the expense that their split companies will usually end up at max fatigue in very little time. They also split companies and spread them out to cover a broader front, and they also combine the companies to have the battalion suffer less fatigue. All of these are a good balance of pro vs. con, a fine and fragile balance that creates three different dilemmas for the user.
I understand the logic and accept it, but I still don't like the tripple fatigue for companies in MC. An underlying tenent (aka NATO propoganda if you are a Soviet fan) of the NATO defense in West Germany was that a NATO heavy line company was capable of defeating a WP heavy line battalion.
The work-around is to make the NATO company teams into KG's, but then they can't recombine into Bn's. Try defending using combined NATO Bn's and you cannot hold the line, become easily out-flanked or enveloped and large holes in the blue FLOT appear all along the FEBA. Split 'em up and they become battle exhausted in two or three turns, especially against a WP player who recognizes and targets company sized units for "special attention" from arty and attack helo's. This is also one of the down sides to using a two-hour turn rather than the designed three hour turn in MC. The defense takes a pounding and deployed companies vaporize even faster.
Of course, using the KG as a fatigue work around does allow a scenario designer to simulate cross attached battalion-sized mixed tank/mech task forces such as the US Army and the BOAR used in the '80's, so maybe it is a moot point. I sure wish that one could allow KG's to recombine into Bn's though. It would cut down on counter density for things like road marches and assemby areas.
Taffy
Does this rule apply universally to all less than Battalion size units or are there exceptions to the rule? I'm thinking mainly of Engineer Units in N44 which are deployed in Company size units in the Beach Landing scenarios.
Mike
If the unit is setup as a company or platoon sized formation, then yes, it does apply. Any company or platoon can be designated as a battalion (in the OOB) to avoid the higher fatigue, but it also means that the unit cannot combine if you do this.
EDIT: clarification
Two points: This tends to favor the offense as it is usually the defender splitting up battalions to hold fronts. Combined arms in WWII often involved attaching a tank company to an infantry battalion or vice-versa. Such lone companies cannot be really attached and suffer the fatigue penalty.
True, but I have split battalions into companies on the attack in order to cover the flanks of a breakthrough / salient. So it can work both ways but yes, I agree that it mostly works against the defender if he is spread thin. If you have adequate forces then it is not so much an issue.
The truth is though, if anything changed in this area then it would result a heap of gameyness that seems to be out of sight of those that dislike the way this works. If there was no higher fatigue accumulation, then you have no reason to have units combined, and as such, the first order of business would be to split units down to their lowest level to avoid loss, avoid disruptions, and to hold ground better (stacked companies). I just think it would be absurd from a gameplay standpoint to adjust this rule. Now whether or not it should be something less than 3x accumulation, (like 2x for companies, 1.5x for half battalions (2 companies), well, who knows but that too is very risky at breaking things.
I suggest that in games where KGs are formed, with split off companies, then it is probably better to make those companies as battalion sized formations in the OOB. This is actually done in some PzC titles AFAICR.