Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Your views on HQs

 
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] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> The War Room >> Your views on HQs Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Your views on HQs - 6/1/2011 11:03:34 AM   
EmTom

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 5/25/2011
Status: offline 		I have been experimenting with different HQ configurations and to be honest it's hard for me to decide how to use them... There are basically two problems to solve and I find it hard to address them both.

1) It is better to send new production to front line HQs because you won't lose as much readiness when reinforcing units.

2) It is better to have your HQ as mobile as possible to maximize HQ bonuses during battles.

I tried to use lighter HQs with one unit attached to it as reserves. This way you can transfer reinforcements from this reserve unit to units under same HQ which reduces readiness loss a lot, but it is much harder to reinforce forward units cause non-HQ unit has no transfer capacity even if it contains trucks/trains. So to reinforce any forward unit it needs to be relocated behind the front line for at least one turn.

This solution has a drawback however. Reserves unit (especially with a lot of reserve forces) requires HQ to have lots of staff. Otherwise HQ bonuses are lowered making this solution a failure.

There is another way to handle it. There are some HQs that collect production and send it to front line corps when needed. I don't really like this because you get huge readiness penalty when you transfer to a unit under different HQ. This makes sending troops directly to front line units futile as they get hammered there without readiness. It is better to relocate some units behind lines to reinforce them before they return to fight. Those units in most cases need two turns to get back to 100% readiness I think...

So I thought about a solution that does that on a higher level... I considered creating more corps than really needed on the front. Then if some corps forces on the front get hammered I can replace it with the reserve corp and rebuild it's units behind my lines. I haven't tried that yet so If you have some experience with such a tactic please let me know.

I'm very interested in your opinions and your ways of handling production and reinforcements so please reply!

< Message edited by EmTom -- 6/1/2011 11:08:39 AM >

_____________________________

I'm with you since People's Tactics and I love it!
Post #: 1
RE: Your views on HQs - 6/1/2011 11:27:06 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		At present I do not reinforce my line units. As they are eaten up I condense them into each other. I simply over produce and build more units. I assume if you have the troops the Reserve Corps idea would work well.

(in reply to EmTom)
Post #: 2
RE: Your views on HQs - 6/1/2011 12:53:18 PM   
henri51


Posts: 1151
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline 		Although it is not optimum, I do it mostly the way you suggest: that is I create new units on a HQ near the front, and only get it into combat two or three moves later when its readiness and XP have gone up. Occasionally I will fuse two units together, but I find that to do this universally is too much management, not to mention that the units required are not always near each other; but let us say that a unit is down to 7 infantry and a couple of mortars, then I will usually join it with the nearest unit that can use its elements. Units that have taken casualties are usually filled up unless that would lower their readiness too much, in case they are pulled back from the front first.

In addition this way of functioning is closest to the way it was done historically in WW2. Units were not usually joined together, but battered units usually kept their cadre units and were pulled back from the front to be refitted or reinforced.

Henri

(in reply to EmTom)
Post #: 3
RE: Your views on HQs - 6/1/2011 9:06:31 PM   
phatkarp


Posts: 131
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline 		I usually try to do what you propose, EmTom. I try not to send new units directly to the front line. I create a corps HQ in back of the front, and route production to it for the 3-6 turns required to build the brigades/divisions I plan for it to have. If I have time, I let the corps sit for a while and train up. Then I send it to war. If the corps is replacing a front-line corps, I will pull the battered, depleted front-line corps back, merge survivors into veteran divisions, and route production to that HQ to build up new replacement divisions. I believe high-exp Staff are supposed to train new divisions faster, which is something to keep in mind.

I have tried doing this process several different ways, and I've played several 1v1 PBEM games where I routed production directly to the front-line corps HQ. This is okay if necessary to head off a disaster, but you tend to take heavy casualties due to the low training, which is almost as destructive as low readiness.

(in reply to henri51)
Post #: 4
RE: Your views on HQs - 6/2/2011 9:09:52 AM   
Josh

 

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline 		I go for option 2) use your HQ as mobile as possible, almost no troops are sent directly into that HQ. And only a very few Inf are inside that HQ for defensive purposes only.
So I send my reinforcements directly from the Supreme HQ to the units, thereby lowering readiness and Exp.... but if you send only a few reinforcements at a time readiness and Exp drop won't be that bad. Say a few Inf. men or a few mortars will only decrease Exp from 65 to 63 or so. If they get hammered real bad I fuse two/three units into one, so to keep a unit with high Exp.

I used to go for option number one, send all the reinforcements to the local HQ, and then send it from that HQ to its units. But those front HQ's would become overbloated (with too many troops and trooptypes) so much it felt too artificial.
So in short, local HQ's act only as HQ and not as a staging area.

(in reply to phatkarp)
Post #: 5
RE: Your views on HQs - 6/2/2011 9:13:35 AM   
EmTom

 

Posts: 40
Joined: 5/25/2011
Status: offline 		Thats a smart solution. 

Do you also use some HQs behind your lines to collect reserves? Do you rotate production between those HQs and corps when needed? How do you handle supply? Tell me more! :)


_____________________________

I'm with you since People's Tactics and I love it!

(in reply to phatkarp)
Post #: 6
RE: Your views on HQs - 6/2/2011 7:49:25 PM   
phatkarp


Posts: 131
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline 		I am always rotating production among the "back line" HQ's. In fact, in my PBEM games I've started charting a production plan, listing what units I'm going to build in each HQ, each turn. This helps me coordinate my "grand strategy" with my actual production goals and capacity. Except for the very start of a game, I usually try to focus production on only one or two HQ's. On a medium sized map, I can often build up a full corps (4 Inf divisions, 2 Armored, 1 Artillery, 1 Engineer) in 3-5 turns.

As for supply, I usually play on medium maps or smaller. I do not have or need any forward supply dump HQ's. I either have them directly subordinate to the Supreme HQ, or I may have an intermediate "Army" HQ. In some past games, I've tried to route all production through two intermediate "Army" HQ's, then directly reinforce the frontline divisions. This works, but the effect of the reinforcements always seems to be lessened. There is a big difference between slowly reinforcing your frontlines with 2-3 divisions at a time, versus reinforcing with a full corps that suddenly appears on scene, fully trained!

(in reply to EmTom)
Post #: 7
RE: Your views on HQs - 6/2/2011 10:59:54 PM   
british exil


Posts: 1686
Joined: 5/4/2006
From: Lower Saxony Germany
Status: offline 		At the start of random games I concentrate on 3 HQ's. the surpreme HQ which gets all supplies and 2 other HQ's which get the fighting power.

As the game moves on I build a more HQ's which build a cadre in the rear area, these then move as an Army to their battle zone. If I am in control of a lot of production (cities/factories) and am in a major retreat on a frontline, I will build a new Army in a sector that will come into contact with the enemy in 2-3 turns. My vetrens on the front can do a retreat in an orderly fashion, knowing the enemy will meet up with an entrenched army, that should stop their advance.

I try to build the armies for the terrain they'll be fighting in. Plains get armour or mech Inf. Jungle, paddies and swamps will always have horses, but I try to cut down on the heavy items such as Art and flak, as they hinder a rapid movement esp when the horses get reduced.

I always try to keep a HQ in the 100% for the moral and training of the units uder their control. And if a unit gets severed from it's parent HQ and runs danger of getting out of supply, I try to attach it to another HQ.

Mat

_____________________________

"It is not enough to expect a man to pay for the best, you must also give him what he pays for." Alfred Dunhill

WitE,UV,AT,ATG,FoF,FPCRS

(in reply to phatkarp)
Post #: 8
RE: Your views on HQs - 11/2/2012 3:50:59 AM   
johnsirk

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 11/2/2012
Status: offline 		Interesting to read the posts regarding various methods of using HQ's (creating new units, withdrawing units for replacements etc.) and how closely the game ends up modelling various doctrines adopted by counties in WWII--i.e. the soviets basically creating a unit far in the rear, sending it to the front, and leaving it there until expended...the US keeping units largely on the front and sending replacements, the Germans temporarily withdrawing units to be refitted and re-organized. There are times when the game can seem tedious, and it would be nice if there were some "shortcuts" to minimize clicking, but when considered in totality, an amazingly flexible and interesting simulation of WWII strategic/operational level warfare...

(in reply to EmTom)
Post #: 9
RE: Your views on HQs - 11/4/2012 5:32:10 PM   
Meanfcker


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline 		I tend to do a bit of both methods. At the start of the game when you need to get organized right freakin now, I create a HQ right at the front and feed into it. As soon as the shooting starts I create "distribution hubs", that is HQ's that I use to reinforce the established combat HQ's, and where I start forming my reserve HQ's. This way I get the benefit of quick preparation and then I get the experience bonus because I quit messing with combat HQ's as soon as they start getting experience.
Like johnsirk pointed out, an extremely flexible engine.
Meanfcker.

_____________________________

www.meanfcker.com

(in reply to johnsirk)
Post #: 10
RE: Your views on HQs - 3/19/2013 9:17:47 PM   
phatkarp


Posts: 131
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline 		I am curious about your distribution hub HQ's - what's in them, where do you put them, how do you use them, etc.

(in reply to Meanfcker)
Post #: 11
RE: Your views on HQs - 3/20/2013 4:17:31 AM   
Meanfcker


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline
quote:

I am curious about your distribution hub HQ's - what's in them, where do you put them, how do you use them, etc.



Direct distribution is what happens when you assign a city or group of cities directly to a combat HQ.
This method lets you get ready really quickly but constantly lowers the experience of your HQ.
I usually do this to get organized.
As soon as the shooting starts, I create a "distribution hub", which is merely an HQ that never sees combat, it is just a place to send all of your production. From here you may reinforce damaged units from existing HQs, or create new units to attach to said HQs, or create new combat HQs. All of the HQs in the theater are usually subordinated to the distribution hub for organizational reasons. The reason for this bother is to let your combat staff gain experience without transfers in and out reducing their experience, or if you prefer to think of it this way, they gain familiarity with thier regiments. By leaving your combat HQs stable like this, they gain experience quickly in a slugging match.
Hope this helps.

(in reply to phatkarp)
Post #: 12
RE: Your views on HQs - 3/20/2013 2:56:48 PM   
phatkarp


Posts: 131
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline 		But your distribution hub sends reinforcements to your combat HQs, right? Which lowers the staff experience? So you don't really save anything there, other than perhaps controlling when the experience hit happens.

I ask because I've tried something similar, and always found it more trouble and expense than it's worth. My hubs have had trains to distribute the reinforcements, which is wildly expensive, especially once your production ramps up and there are a lot of reinforcements to send out. I've always found it much more efficient to reinforce directly to combat HQs, or simply create new combat HQs.

(in reply to Meanfcker)
Post #: 13
RE: Your views on HQs - 3/20/2013 11:21:47 PM   
Meanfcker


Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline
quote:

But your distribution hub sends reinforcements to your combat HQs, right? Which lowers the staff experience? So you don't really save anything there, other than perhaps controlling when the experience hit happens.

I ask because I've tried something similar, and always found it more trouble and expense than it's worth. My hubs have had trains to distribute the reinforcements, which is wildly expensive, especially once your production ramps up and there are a lot of reinforcements to send out. I've always found it much more efficient to reinforce directly to combat HQs, or simply create new combat HQs.



That is definitely easier. It depends on how much under pressure you are. If you can get your first reserve army ready and start pulling others out for refit, it works well. If you get caught in a knife fight early on, you are probably better to keep popping out new combat fomations and throwing them right into the mealstrom as you wont have time to let them ready up. One of the big advatages to using a hub, is that by the time your guys readiness is okay for fighting, their experience is approaching 40. They survive better and then they send more experience up the chain to the HQ.
These days, not many team games wait very long till the shooting starts so it is hit and miss whether I bother or not.
If you go with the hub here are a couple of sugestions.
Try to take smashed up units out of the line and refit/rebuild them as much as possible, as this does not seem to lower experience any observable amount. Adding a new unit every couple of turns does not seem to hurt too much, and if you are slugging it out, somtimes you just have to, the experience takes care of itself under those circumstances though.
You have seen how I run things, I try to pull one of my mobile groups out of the line for refit as a new one cycles in. This isn't always possible but it is generally do-able. I have had lots of games where several of my Mobile Groups HQ staff experience was in the 90s using a hub.
It is much more possible to attain than purchasing staff II

(in reply to phatkarp)
Post #: 14
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/5/2013 2:02:20 PM   
cbardswell


Posts: 21
Joined: 10/24/2012
From: Berkshire, UK
Status: offline 		Another quick couple on HQs - does it matter how big your HQS are in terms of staff bonuses. To give a hypothitical example, if I have an HQ with 500 staff (all that gold braid and red tabs visible from space...) to maintain a large number of units below (so staff ratio 100%, does that reduce the combat bonuses that the sub units receive? .

Intuitively I feel that the max staff should be 100 before there is an impact on its effectiveness.

I may be missing something...

Also meanfcker - units gain experience being held at a distribution HQ? I may have misunderstood - surely they only gain readiness?

Thanks

< Message edited by cbardswell -- 7/5/2013 2:04:12 PM >

(in reply to Meanfcker)
Post #: 15
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/5/2013 3:37:32 PM   
ernieschwitz

 

Posts: 3893
Joined: 9/15/2009
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cbardswell

Another quick couple on HQs - does it matter how big your HQS are in terms of staff bonuses. To give a hypothitical example, if I have an HQ with 500 staff (all that gold braid and red tabs visible from space...) to maintain a large number of units below (so staff ratio 100%, does that reduce the combat bonuses that the sub units receive? .

Intuitively I feel that the max staff should be 100 before there is an impact on its effectiveness.

I may be missing something...

Also meanfcker - units gain experience being held at a distribution HQ? I may have misunderstood - surely they only gain readiness?

Thanks


No it doesn´t matter how big your HQs are. But remember they only have a certain range influence, and that does not go up, no matter how big the HQ.

And the 2nd Question. Units that are freshly made start with very low experience. There is something called free-experience, or we might call it training. In stock games i believe the level of free experience is 40. So units can gain some experience, before being put into the grinder...

(in reply to cbardswell)
Post #: 16
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/6/2013 2:27:40 PM   
Josh

 

Posts: 2576
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz


quote:

ORIGINAL: cbardswell

Another quick couple on HQs - does it matter how big your HQS are in terms of staff bonuses. To give a hypothitical example, if I have an HQ with 500 staff (all that gold braid and red tabs visible from space...) to maintain a large number of units below (so staff ratio 100%, does that reduce the combat bonuses that the sub units receive? .

Intuitively I feel that the max staff should be 100 before there is an impact on its effectiveness.

I may be missing something...

Also meanfcker - units gain experience being held at a distribution HQ? I may have misunderstood - surely they only gain readiness?

Thanks


No it doesn´t matter how big your HQs are. But remember they only have a certain range influence, and that does not go up, no matter how big the HQ.

And the 2nd Question. Units that are freshly made start with very low experience. There is something called free-experience, or we might call it training. In stock games i believe the level of free experience is 40. So units can gain some experience, before being put into the grinder...



Ernie says it, size doesn't matter... except ofcourse that a efficient use of your forces would mean (with a max stack per hex of 100..., preferably 2 units each of 50) a frontline of 6-7 hexes with 100% bonus and a few more hexes with a decreasing HQ bonus (each added hex is 20% less HQ bonus). So that makes about 20 units of 50 points each .. give or take a few. A HQ with 100% staff coverage would be about 200-250 large. Sometimes I have HQ's with less staff because that frontline isn't so hard fought for. I don't think I ever got 500 in one HQ.

(in reply to ernieschwitz)
Post #: 17
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/8/2013 2:02:30 PM   
cbardswell


Posts: 21
Joined: 10/24/2012
From: Berkshire, UK
Status: offline 		Ah - cheers guys. That makes sense.

I normally tend to keep my formations fairly light (so staff rarely gets much above 100) , primarily to give me more flexibility and retain staff bonuses if the front becomes fluid. However with officer bonuses, larger formations will get more of the officer bonuses which changes the trade off a bit.

As is often the case the game mechanics follow what feels "right" in intuitive and historical terms.

Charlie

(in reply to Josh)
Post #: 18
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/8/2013 9:09:39 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		My supreme Hqs receives all of my production until I establish what I call front Hqs. The front hqs receive the production after being formed and the fighting Hqs are subordinate to them and are formed manned and supplied from the front.

My Combat Hqs usually have 6 divisions assigned. 1 scout, 3 primary type, 1 secondary and an artillery.

Primary is either Rifle or tank and then the secondary is the other of the two. Sometimes I add an engineer division especially if doing an amphibious assault.

My front line Combat hqs usually run around 200 to 220 staff with trucks as transport and 2 flak. Exceptions would be a horse mounted Corps the Hqs would use Horses to be able to stay with the divisions.

the scout has jeeps armored cars and Light tanks with a small force of rifle and flak half track mounted or for horse Corps a cavalry force.

I modified my random game so that leaders come with between 170 and 230 staff points and stack points are 200 not 100.

(in reply to cbardswell)
Post #: 19
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/8/2013 11:22:28 PM   
Hollywood7

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline 		@Twotribes - I'd have to question your usage of your Supreme HQ as a production point rather than a front line HQ as you are leaving ~+20% combat and morale modifier on your bench which is a HUGE factor in the field. Why not just make the Supreme HQ subordinate to a new non-officer, supply HQ? (Of course, if this is what you are doing then disregard :) )

My hats off to those of you with very structured methods. My method: get an officer near every major geographic area of combat and get my HQs as close to the front line as possible taking advantage of the 100% leadership bonus as much as I can. If my officers aren't racking up XP and advancing in Level then they aren't in the right spot. HQs with officers cost a LOT of PP when you are in a scrap fight and you just can't afford to crank out a new Officer very often, so I just load up on the Staffers to stay as close to 100% as possible and then make sure he can hear the shells whistling overhead.

As I read the posts, I think a lot of how you use HQs are dependent on the type of ATG game you play: random vs human/AI, scenario v human/AI, large or small maps. I am exclusively a random v human player and each game is very much on the edge as it relates to producing PPs v material v manpower, so Officers become a luxury after awhile when you are scraping PPs for new units or to upgrade to Raw2/Oil2 or Aircraft Factory - there just aren't a lot of PPs to spread around.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 20
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/10/2013 8:54:02 PM   
Jenska


Posts: 28
Joined: 5/11/2013
From: Boston, Mass
Status: offline 		Like Hollywood, as a random game pvp player using the new Officer MOD, I've adopted the HQ tree based on a central supply depot ("Central Depot") follwoed by a few offcier based HQ's and then non-officer combat HQ's as close to the front as possible. This provides less micromanagement of supply, makes it less likely any particular HQ will get cut off from supply and makes it possible to use that first (free $$) Supreme HQ as a real combat asset. Leave out the office part if you're not using them. Non-Combat SF's such as pure Enginner units get attached to te central Depot HQ, so they're not supply dependent on an HQ that could be cut off since they move alot and don't benefit from the HQ very often anyway. As Hollywood points out the PP cost of officers can be painful, and the problem with the lowest level HQ's is that they DO NOT APPEAR to pass their combat exp upward the their officer, slowing his promotion due missing out of the low level combat. If anyone knows for sure about this, please confirm or deny this impression, thanks.

As much a possible I try to get new units close to the front line and create SF's for them prior to engaing them in combat. Endgame this doesn't work so well since you need them right away, but its good until the final crunch time. Old savaged SF's get consolidated rather than reinforced.

A prodcution tip, depending on the type of game you play (random vs scenario), is to create those low level combat HQ's as far forward as you dare early in the game to get their SF units close to the front lines right away without any oil or time cost; don't move them out from your original staging areas, just make sure they're within the 100% supply range of their prodcution cities. While at higher risk of getting cut off or destroyed, this can be a significant advantage late in the game as well. Hollywood, I think you've recently learned this, so I'm not losing an advantage I once had.

Another tip to determine the supply coverage of a location since ATG seems to only display it properly for hq units: Create a bogus HQ (assuming you've got the points) at the origin location, production city or factory, then use the supply display (F5) to show its coverage. Then simply delete the HQ and you get the PP's back. Repeat as necessary. Do this at the beginning of your turn so you have the PP's, especially with the Officer HQ bug in effect.



One question about the supply chain though. I've noticed that even though all the HQ's and units dependent on my Depot HQ are within the green supply range, not all the supply requested gets fulfilled at 100%. I know that all requests are pro-rated if they can't all be fulfilled to 100%, but when my available supply is 120% of the total requested, why isn't it filled completely? I thought that the fulfillment only looked at the next level, not all the way down the tree, so that HQ B might request and get its 2000 supply but only deliver 1800 due to units being cut off or out of range, but that doesn't affect the delivery of the 2000 supply from the "Depot" or the delivery to any other first level HQ's, does it?

(in reply to Hollywood7)
Post #: 21
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/10/2013 10:13:59 PM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Hollywood

@Twotribes - I'd have to question your usage of your Supreme HQ as a production point rather than a front line HQ as you are leaving ~+20% combat and morale modifier on your bench which is a HUGE factor in the field. Why not just make the Supreme HQ subordinate to a new non-officer, supply HQ? (Of course, if this is what you are doing then disregard :) )

My hats off to those of you with very structured methods. My method: get an officer near every major geographic area of combat and get my HQs as close to the front line as possible taking advantage of the 100% leadership bonus as much as I can. If my officers aren't racking up XP and advancing in Level then they aren't in the right spot. HQs with officers cost a LOT of PP when you are in a scrap fight and you just can't afford to crank out a new Officer very often, so I just load up on the Staffers to stay as close to 100% as possible and then make sure he can hear the shells whistling overhead.

As I read the posts, I think a lot of how you use HQs are dependent on the type of ATG game you play: random vs human/AI, scenario v human/AI, large or small maps. I am exclusively a random v human player and each game is very much on the edge as it relates to producing PPs v material v manpower, so Officers become a luxury after awhile when you are scraping PPs for new units or to upgrade to Raw2/Oil2 or Aircraft Factory - there just aren't a lot of PPs to spread around.


I only play against the computer and would never risk my supreme Commander )

(in reply to Hollywood7)
Post #: 22
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/11/2013 4:32:24 AM   
Jenska


Posts: 28
Joined: 5/11/2013
From: Boston, Mass
Status: offline 		Twotribes: What's sacred about the "Supreme HQ"? Why not put it at risk for the benefits? With the new officer mod, he's no more valuable than an officer you can buy (for 10 or more PP's), and before the officer mod it was "just" the first HQ. In a recent game my Supreme HQ was cut off and bleeding to death along with the rest of its SF's, but I had several other HQ's with as much exp by then. Having him at the front significantly delayed my opponents advance, due to the combat boost he provided. It wasn't the loss of the HQ and officer that was my problem, but that the entire region had become untenable and I was in fact losing slowly everywhere on the map.

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 23
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/11/2013 4:50:16 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		If the officer that I get with the Hqs has enough Staff points I move him to a front line Hqs. I leave officers with too few points in Front and supreme HQs. I like having all Hqs with officers. But I will move one or more if I can not afford a new officer for the front.

My supreme Hqs has all my trains in it, has large truck numbers and if in a port has cargo ships as well. I add trains and trucks to front HQs so they can transfer their charges about too.

I have seen nothing that claims the mere HQs shell of the Supreme Hqs has any special bonus.

I modified my officers, they come with between 170 and 230 staff ability. My Infantry Corps need about 190 staff and my armor and mech corps need 210 to 220.

As PP permits I buy about 6 extra officers and if they are good enough as I add hqs I assign them to the front.This lets me know if I can properly command a Mech armor or Infantry Corps.

(in reply to Jenska)
Post #: 24
RE: Your views on HQs - 7/11/2013 6:53:42 AM   
Jenska


Posts: 28
Joined: 5/11/2013
From: Boston, Mass
Status: offline 		@twotribes: Okay, I get it, you move the officers around to your HQ's rather than using Supreme HQ as a combat HQ. That works. What I don't see is what good buying extra officers does before you need them, when the PP's may be more important for upgrades/tech/factories at the beginning of a game.

For those of you planning on creating a central DEPOT HQ for your supply chain (Supreme isn't usually in a very central location after all), make sure you create your HQ subformations BEFORE subordinating the HQ to the supply DEPOT. That way you'll avoid the readiness hit by preventing an HQ change for them; only the units still in the HQ SF will suffer the readiness reduction, though the new units will still suffer a reduction due to the SF change.

As twotribes points out, the supply HQ should have the bulk of your strategic transport capacity in it, since it should be centrally located. Each Officer HQ should have some strategic transport to bring SF's to it since the strategic transport distance is the sum of the distances from the original to the HQ to the final destination.

Huh you say? An example, hex notation aside.
If the SF is at location 3 and the HQ is at location 5; then

  • the distance to location 5 (the HQ) is 2
  • If the destination is loc 10, then the distance from 3 to 10 is 7
  • but the distance from 3 to location 4 is THREE (2 to the HQ at 5 and 1 back to loc 4).
  • Likewise, if the HQ is at loc 2 and the SF is at loc 5, moving to loc 8 is a distance of 9, not 3; 3 to the HQ at 2 and 6 back to the destination.

Cases like these can exhaust your transport very quickly if you're not careful. Using HQ's as close to the source or destination is important to minimize the actual distance the SF travels, as opposed to the apparent distance that it needs to move.

Three more important notes:

  • Strategic transport can take place after an SF has moved, so in example 2 (loc 3 -> 10) if the SF could first move to loc 4, then the distance is only 7, not 8, a 12% saving, and the strategic move from 3 to location 4 could be eliminated entirely.
  • SF's suffer a 50% readiness reduction after a strategic transport
  • After transport the SF has no AP's

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> The War Room >> Your views on HQs 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

0.750