HQ Layers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series



Message

O.O. Howard -> HQ Layers (11/27/2007 2:43:07 AM)

In the old People's Tactics the HQ system allowed for layers of command, so that the supreme commander gave a bonus to even the smallest unit several layers below on the command chain.

In Advanced Tactics if I have a division unit with a HQ, the HQ gives a bonus to the division. OK, but if I have a corps HQ for that divisional HQ, is the Corps HQ supplying any bonus also? Or is it more of a supply conduit?

And if the Corps HQ also has a 'supreme HQ?

In People's Tactics it was a must to have every layer of command possible because the highest level of Command influenced every unit in the field.

So is Advanced Tactics the same?



Twotribes -> RE: HQ Layers (11/27/2007 4:52:33 AM)

Seeing as influence is so small a radius I doubt it.



TPM -> RE: HQ Layers (11/27/2007 4:40:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: O.O. Howard

In the old People's Tactics the HQ system allowed for layers of command, so that the supreme commander gave a bonus to even the smallest unit several layers below on the command chain.

In Advanced Tactics if I have a division unit with a HQ, the HQ gives a bonus to the division. OK, but if I have a corps HQ for that divisional HQ, is the Corps HQ supplying any bonus also? Or is it more of a supply conduit?

And if the Corps HQ also has a 'supreme HQ?

In People's Tactics it was a must to have every layer of command possible because the highest level of Command influenced every unit in the field.

So is Advanced Tactics the same?


I'd like to know the answer to this as well...



Vic -> RE: HQ Layers (11/27/2007 9:05:28 PM)

No. There is no reason to put staff in a HQ of a HQ. The higher HQs are basicly supply and production conduits.



Barthheart -> RE: HQ Layers (11/27/2007 9:08:50 PM)

Ahhhhhh..... interesting.....[X(]



rickier65 -> RE: HQ Layers (11/27/2007 9:38:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

No. There is no reason to put staff in a HQ of a HQ. The higher HQs are basicly supply and production conduits.



Ok, that explains why OKW only has a 30 Rifle SubFormation int the final Netherlands Scenario I couldn't figure that out. Now I understand.

I've been going over the tuturials a lot, and I've started putting together a Salerno scenario. I've decided not to worry about loading transports, I'll simply have the Allied units arrive on landing beach at the appropriate turn.

Probably better that way for my first real scenario anyway, that way I can keep it simple.

The more I look at the editor and at events, the more impressed I am. I find I'm spending more time (and having great fun) with going through the editor, than I am actually playing!

Thanks,
Rick




Max 86 -> RE: HQ Layers (11/27/2007 10:37:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

No. There is no reason to put staff in a HQ of a HQ. The higher HQs are basicly supply and production conduits.


If I understand you correctly,

1. There is no need to have staff in the upper level HQ, but must have staff in all subordinate HQs?

2. If you create a sub-HQ (3rd level HQ), under another sub-HQ (2nd level HQ), it must have staff to pass along its bonuses but the 2nd level HQ no longer requires staff?

3. What if you have a HQ still controlling units and has suordinate HQs? (Ex: Corps HQ with independent brigades as well as Divisions with HQs, all part of one corps). Need staff in both HQs?




Barthheart -> RE: HQ Layers (11/28/2007 2:13:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Max 86


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

No. There is no reason to put staff in a HQ of a HQ. The higher HQs are basicly supply and production conduits.


If I understand you correctly,

1. There is no need to have staff in the upper level HQ, but must have staff in all subordinate HQs?

2. If you create a sub-HQ (3rd level HQ), under another sub-HQ (2nd level HQ), it must have staff to pass along its bonuses but the 2nd level HQ no longer requires staff?

3. What if you have a HQ still controlling units and has suordinate HQs? (Ex: Corps HQ with independent brigades as well as Divisions with HQs, all part of one corps). Need staff in both HQs?




1. Yes.

2. Yes

3. Yes.

At least as far as I see it...



TPM -> RE: HQ Layers (11/28/2007 6:03:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Vic

No. There is no reason to put staff in a HQ of a HQ. The higher HQs are basicly supply and production conduits.


Interesting....this clears up some matters!



Max 86 -> RE: HQ Layers (11/28/2007 6:38:01 AM)

Thanks Barthheart.
Thats what I thought he was saying. Boy does that change things a bit. Not sure if I agree totally, seems strange to not have staff pukes at the highest level HQs but only at the frontline HQs. 



Barthheart -> RE: HQ Layers (11/28/2007 2:10:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Max 86

Thanks Barthheart.
Thats what I thought he was saying. Boy does that change things a bit. Not sure if I agree totally, seems strange to not have staff pukes at the highest level HQs but only at the frontline HQs. 



Yeah, but I always like to keep staff in the higher HQ's incase lower ones need more, due to loses or new units, or I need to make a new sub HQ...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375