Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it real... - 3/6/2011 12:31:22 AM   
heliodorus04


Posts: 1647
Joined: 11/1/2008
From: Nashville TN
Status: offline 		I had an isolated Soviet unit retreat from an Axis attack such that it retreated next to an Axis HQ that had no combat unit stacked with it. The combat retreat also resulted in surrender.

The Axis HQ was nevertheless forced to displace. This screwed things up beyond all repair (in this specific case, moved the HQ in question 20 hexes away when it's SUs were needed to break the Finnish no-attack line).

Is this scenario intended?
SHOULD units that are forced to Retreat/Route, and more importantly, Surrender/Shatter, activate a mandatory HQ displacement move?

I don't think units that Route should force displacement. God knows Routed units get enough perks as it is.

I think units that retreat should force the displacement move. They're still ostensibly in good order. In that case, the HQ shouldn't have been there.

But when a unit Shatters or Surrenders, forcing HQ displacement moves seem unrealistic. You won to the highest degree possible allowed by this combat system. I don't think it's realistic that surrendering units/shattering units could be logically expected to force the relocation of a combat command. The HQs I've been a part of, which include Regimental size, had adequate protection elements to prevent that kind of disruption.

Thoughts?

_____________________________

Fall 2021-Playing: Stalingrad'42 (GMT); Advanced Squad Leader,
Reading: Masters of the Air (GREAT BOOK!)
Rulebooks: ASL (always ASL), Middle-Earth Strategy Battle Game
Painting: WHFB Lizardmen leaders
Post #: 1
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 12:48:54 AM   
56ajax


Posts: 1950
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Carnegie, Australia
Status: offline 		tend to agree with this,especially when the Soviets move eastwards over eg the Polish border, surrender and displace your HQs all in the one action..

(in reply to heliodorus04)
Post #: 2
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 1:07:19 AM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline 		You should save yer bitchin' for the War Rooms ''Where did my HQ's go thread''

Thats where everyone gets it off there chest

I once had a Axis unit retreat right next to my tank corps HQ

I almost laughed it was sooo not funny.

_____________________________


(in reply to 56ajax)
Post #: 3
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 5:02:59 AM   
Farfarer61

 

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Just give HQs a CV of 1 and this whole silliness will be over. useful to the SU in 41 :)

(in reply to cookie monster)
Post #: 4
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 7:43:42 AM   
randallw

 

Posts: 2057
Joined: 9/2/2010
Status: offline 		The HQs may have combat support units attached, but where are they physically located?  The sense would be they are with the HQ, but if they are 'spread out' ( whatever that means ) then the HQ elements have no protection. 

Even if the support units are with the HQ they won't provide much on-counter CV, unless there's armor.

(in reply to Farfarer61)
Post #: 5
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 2:08:21 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline 		This is a hateful rule. Should be done away with immediately.

(in reply to randallw)
Post #: 6
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 3:02:55 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

This is a hateful rule. Should be done away with immediately.


Then you would prefer that HQs have to be attacked by combat units to get them out of the way?

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 7
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 3:06:41 PM   
Panama


Posts: 1362
Joined: 10/30/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

This is a hateful rule. Should be done away with immediately.


Then you would prefer that HQs have to be attacked by combat units to get them out of the way?


Something like an over run attack and chance of kill/capture the leaders in the process. Just like in real life.

_____________________________


(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 8
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 3:08:27 PM   
pat.casey

 

Posts: 393
Joined: 9/10/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

This is a hateful rule. Should be done away with immediately.


Then you would prefer that HQs have to be attacked by combat units to get them out of the way?


Personally I'd settle for a rule that said retreating units who started the turn isolated do not cause automatic displacements to adjacent units.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 9
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 4:58:32 PM   
squatter

 

Posts: 1033
Joined: 6/24/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack


quote:

ORIGINAL: squatter

This is a hateful rule. Should be done away with immediately.


Then you would prefer that HQs have to be attacked by combat units to get them out of the way?


No.

Please read OP

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 10
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 6:07:49 PM   
PaulWRoberts

 

Posts: 897
Joined: 4/22/2001
Status: offline 		As I understand it, a HQ's location is kind of an abstraction. They don't really represent a single coherent "base" so much as a vague center of gravity for leadership of the Corps/Army/Whatever. Routing is supposed to represent the disruption of C&C and the sudden displacement of rear-echelon units from a variety of locations.

So maybe, instead of HQ's routing a large number of spaces to the East/West, they should still rout but be placed immediately with the closest of their subordinate units, stacking limits permitting. If stacking limits prevent this kind of move, maybe *then* they should bolt for the rear.

edit: I've reread the OP and realize that I'm replying to some imaginary thread in my own head.

< Message edited by Paul Roberts -- 3/6/2011 6:08:38 PM >

(in reply to squatter)
Post #: 11
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/6/2011 8:11:19 PM   
Smirfy

 

Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/16/2004
Status: offline
I cant get the image of a gaunt Von Paulus surrendering with X amount of staff to square with a HQ teleporting a hundred miles whatever the abstaction is.

(in reply to PaulWRoberts)
Post #: 12
RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it ... - 3/7/2011 5:48:48 PM   
Uhtred

 

Posts: 11
Joined: 12/31/2010
Status: offline 		Perhaps a solution would be the following...

If an HQ gets caught in an encirclement, you have the option of relocating it and taking the losses in men and material as it is currently designed. However, choosing to relocate the HQ should also come with a fairly significant admin point cost (i.e. organizing transport for all high level officers, destroying equipment and information so that the enemy doesn't get hold of it, reorganizing the HQ once its out of the pocket, etc.). As the size of the HQ increases, this AP cost would go up accordingly.

However, the player could also decide to risk it and leave the HQ in the pocket, which would result in one of two things. It could get attacked as it happens now (A combat unit simply moving adjacent to it) and the HQ could transport out of the pocket losing men and martial in the same way as is currently designed. This would represent the HQ being a dispersed organization that simply leaked out of the pocket. The chance of this happening could be around say 30-50% depending on circumstances such as HQ size, morale, leadership checks, etc. The HQ's supply state would also be an important factor. For example, an HQ that is not surrounded and in really good supply would have about a zero chance of being destroyed and would just displace normally.

On the other hand, an isolated HQ or one that is otherwise in really bad shape could be destroyed or surrender with its commander killed or captured (think of Paulus here). If this were the case, The HQ could be newly created again by the player, but the admin point cost would be even greater than had the HQ been evacuated in the first place.

So in the end, if the player has an HQ surrounded, he can decide for himself just how important that HQ is. He can then call for its evacuation or leave it to its own fate with the understanding that, if it does get destroyed, it might be very expensive to replace later.


< Message edited by Uhtred -- 3/7/2011 5:57:29 PM >

(in reply to Smirfy)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.359