Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

heliodorus04 -> Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 12:31:22 AM)

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?



56ajax -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 12:48:54 AM)

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..



cookie monster -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 1:07:19 AM)

You should save yer bitchin' for the War Rooms ''Where did my HQ's go thread''[:D]

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.



Farfarer61 -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 5:02:59 AM)

Just give HQs a CV of 1 and this whole silliness will be over. useful to the SU in 41 :)



randallw -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 7:43:42 AM)

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.



squatter -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 2:08:21 PM)

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



pompack -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 3:02:55 PM)


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? [&:]



Panama -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 3:06:41 PM)


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. [;)]



pat.casey -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 3:08:27 PM)


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.



squatter -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 4:58:32 PM)


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



PaulWRoberts -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 6:07:49 PM)

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.



Smirfy -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/6/2011 8:11:19 PM)


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.



Uhtred -> RE: Is this HQ displacement aspect WAD and if so is it realistic (3/7/2011 5:48:48 PM)

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.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625