Thanks for the prompt and comprehensive answer, Andy.
I do agree on the main (flawed) points of SP3:
1. Any damage resulted in a loss.
2. Company and higher command units identifiable at plain sight.
3. Incredibly accurate artillery model.
4. Rudimentary AI.
I also agree on the compulsory command and control system matter. At this high scale I feel it is a must. I am even a staunch supporter of using it at the WinSP scale (my dislike of ASL for the lack of C&C is notorious
).
I think the Camo Workshop has done a very good job at improving problems No. 3. and 4 above. So what could be done to solve 1. and 2.?
The solution perhaps is going the abstract way.
No. 2: Company and higher command units identifiable at plain sight.
Command units should be abstracted. I.e., the command tank or the infantry command section should be "floating somewhere" inside their company areas, and they should not be specifically represented on map (thus avoiding being individually targeted by enemy fire). Effects on command structure would be randomly assigned by the computer ("bad luck - they knocked out the captain's tank").
E.g.: this way, you would see three tank platoons of a Soviet tank company, each probably with a generic icon representing 3 tanks (one of them, even with the same 3-tank icon, might physically be 4 to account for the company command tank). Command & Control would be working if the 3 platoons were within "X" 200-meter hexes of each other. Otherwise, the separated units would be "out of command" (determine randomly which two are OOC if all three are too far away from one another - meaning the command tank is temporarily attached to the not-out-of-command platoon).
1. Any damage resulted in a loss.
This is a good one. I concur creating new sub-units with immobilized individual vehicles would be a no-go.
I remember Frank Chadwick's "
Command Decision" (up to 3rd Edition I think) and "
Sands of War", where vehicle platoons where treated as single vehicles and consequently were treated as damaged vehicles when they suffered a "step loss" or "damage" result. Tch tch tch...
AFAIK the most satisfactory way of representing losses to a platoon.sized unit is via "cohesion hits" or a similar concept. Games like "
Panzer Command", The "
Grant Tactical Series" and "
Clash of Armor/
Kampgruppe Commander" work like that. Meaning that progressively successful attacks against a platoon-sized unit will make it suffer progressively worse (and normally cumulative) results: from "suppressed" to an outright "step loss" (the former similar to the current WinSP suppression resuults and the latter meaning effective loss of vehicles/heavy weapons/manpower). You would be able to "rally" a platoon that has several "cohesion hits" - but not a step-reduced one.
One last thing: sprinkle a bit of battlefield chaos and C&C degrading due to losses and C&C structure failures on top of the above and you can have a nice brigade group turning into a mass of routed units running for their lives and surrendering en masse.
Thanks in advance for putting up with all this.