‘Go home’

Disbanding units in WW2 was not really an option.

Though what was done was to take badly depleted units and use them to fill up the ranks of other damaged units.
This could be a viable option for the game. Move a damaged unit to stack with another one and merge them.
But before you get too excited, for your issue, you would never take militia to fill the ranks of a line infantry unit. Not going to put farmers on the front lines.


But of course the idea would go no where.

I would like to get rid of the subs I built in the great lakes (batch building got me)

The French actually disbanded entire divisions during WWI to send men back to the factories. That sort of thing happens in a war of attrition.

May be the “ ひめゆり学徒隊 ” ( student corps, star lily ) a forgotten fact in the sands of time...?

The ひめゆり学徒隊 was one unit sacrificed who get drawn into horrific battle, and also was disbanded at the place, 沖縄.

hahaha

Just send those useless units into arty fire and get em destroyed

Subs in the great lakes????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

I have suggested this before, it would be a decommissioning of units or combinations of 2+ weak brigades that could then be used in actual combat rather than being half-ass garrisons in the middle of nowhere.

If I can’t disband them, then I will put them into the line of fire of my nuke.

I use my weak units for scouts to get enemy count and I sacrifice them willingly.But they have to be really in the red sometimes I will regroup reasonably "ok damaged" units in a stack and place them somewhere to heal and regain strength,they have come in handy at times.

How about the ability to raise a city (destroy all buildings) after having conquered it?

I agree we should be able to deconstruct buildings for limited resources and to use the option for scorched earth.

If anything, I would't prefer rather to be realized disbanding a unit.
Although reason is a very personal story, because it conflicts with my personal view of war.
I regarded disbanding of a unit means that the unit is no longer under the control of a highest level decision-making organ ( referred to as HQ ).
But even if a unit takes damage, it is hard to think HQ's to disband any unit on impulse.
Because if units was disbanded, a possibility that the risk of unable apply military law or emergencies act may occur.
So I envision that HQ is going to choice to be Deactivated, Inactivated, or Disestablished.
On the other hand, if it were implemented based on laws and treaties I think also it would be interesting because it is going to become depicted the unpleasantness of commissioned officer as an organization man and bureaucratism as government official as a result.

I'll take some of that

I oppose it for another reason—historical accuracy.
Usually, when a unit was disbanded, the soldiers, aircraft etc. and sometimes even its organisational structure would be attached to or join other units.
It's not currently possible to move the HP of one unit into another to "merge" them, but it is very easy to stack units. This is basically the same as disbanding one and achieves the same effect.
Also if you detach it you can reorganise the unit, most units disbanded historically have been restarted when it became convenient.

Except in the case of treaties I see no reason to have disband units as an option. But I hate what I call "twenty-one demands players" who impose stupid laws or conditions on other people (outside of controlled RP, obviously). It doesn't show skill and it ruins the game experience. NO further provision in the game ought to be made for treaties.

The loss in speed does suck, though. It would make more sense for it to go at the same speed as the unit it joins, no?