|
gradenko2k -> RE: Penalties for fixed fronts??? (6/16/2011 3:04:39 PM)
|
quote:
So game allows any army to be attached to a front HQ which is over 1000 km from it and fight as effectively as it would be attached to its origin front, but too much overloaded?! I feel it's a bit gamey style and probably those Caucase fronts should be restricted as well as their units, if this game follows history in some way.
If you attach a unit directly to a Front, without going through the Army structure first, there is a direct command penalty.
If you attach a unit directly to STAVKA, without going through the Army nor the Front structure first, there is also a direct command penalty.
If you attach a unit to an Army, and that Army attaches to a Front, and that Front attaches to STAVKA, then there is no command penalty.
However, several mechanics in the game, such as Support Unit commitment and a multitude of other things, rely on passing leader rolls. If the roll of the Army leader fails, then the Front tries to roll instead. If the Front also fails, then STAVKA tries to roll instead.
What Helpless is saying is that the chance to fail a roll is influenced by both the distance of the unit from its various HQs, and also by command limit of the HQ.
If the Front is very far away from the unit, then the chance to fail the roll when it gets to the Front-stage may be high. If the Front is overloaded with units, then the chance to fail the roll may be high as well.
The point is that we cannot conclusively say whether if it's better to use a nearby-but-overloaded Front, versus using a frozen-and-far-but-unoccupied Front, since it may shift between the two as circumstances dictate. However, I believe it's pretty much always better to use a Front, period, rather than try direct attachment to STAVKA.
|
|
|
|
