C&C

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

C&C

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 >> C&C

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

C&C - 1/7/2012 4:29:59 PM

Viking67

Posts: 508
Joined: 5/5/2004
Status: offline

As Axis, when you create Fortified Zones, do you generally change HQ from OKW to a more local HQ or leave them in OKW COC?

Post #: 1

RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 4:33:50 PM

larryfulkerson

Posts: 39932
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline

I've been known to change the HQ of the forts from whatever local HQ they are attached to, to STAVKA as the Soviet........I'm pretty sure the same principle can be used by the Axis player as well.

(in reply to Viking67)

Post #: 2

RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 5:50:14 PM

krieger

Posts: 38
Joined: 1/13/2011
Status: offline

only ocasionally (to improve their supply and the construction value as a consequence). If they didnt load the command capacity of HQs I would do it more (they count as a brigade/regiment). I have one finnish fortified zone up north atached to a finnish corps and I know of one in Kerch that has been atached to 11th Army, 1st Panzer Army and now to AG Antonescu.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)

Post #: 3

RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 6:19:15 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

I wouldn't do it. Both sides have bottlenecks in command capacity, and changing fort zones just makes it worse. They have very limited combat value, so it doesn't make a huge difference anyway.

Fort Zones are not combat units; they are diggers and fort maintainers.

_____________________________

(in reply to krieger)

Post #: 4

RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 9:34:58 PM

Aurelian

Posts: 3916
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline

I leave the FZs with the high command.

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 5

RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 9:49:59 PM

Encircled

Posts: 2024
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline

Waste of AP's to change the HQ

_____________________________

(in reply to Aurelian)

Post #: 6

RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 10:19:02 PM

Farfarer61

Posts: 713
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

Only possible reason is if you need desparately need to assign SU's to the Fort Zone ( actually I have only done this with Sov FZ, so I am not sure if the Axis FZ can be assigned SU). As Sov for example, if you want to get a choke point of vital ground built up quickly, it may be worth it assign the FZ to a a Higher command with available Construction Bats or RR Construction Brigades. You can add any SU for that matter. So, defending in 41 you can have 1 less division in the hex, but have a Fort Zone + 3 arty, sappers etc. For the best C+C the fort should be in the same Army HQ as the other defenders. I suppose this should be "How to defend the Crimea" thread :) The RR Brigaes add a lot of digging capacity, then just through a shell division in the hex too. remove the diggers and put in fighters when the time comes.

(in reply to Encircled)

Post #: 7