HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (Full Version)

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



Message

traemyn -> HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 3:35:01 PM)

I've read a few times on the forum that you can HQ-Buildup and then later attach tanks and they will get the benefits of the extra supplies therefore have high movement points. Is that the extent of this tactic or is there something else to pull it off?

In relation to that, would it be a similar result (as Axis) to rail back an empty HQ to a railhead and let it accumulate supplies (no HQ-Buildup) and then rail it back to the front and reassign tanks?




KenchiSulla -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 4:52:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: traemyn

In relation to that, would it be a similar result (as Axis) to rail back an empty HQ to a railhead and let it accumulate supplies (no HQ-Buildup) and then rail it back to the front and reassign tanks?




If you rail it back it was already on a railhead wasn't it? Moving an armoured HQ out of command range for a 2 turns in 1941 summer campaign is in my op. a really bad idea.



traemyn -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 5:07:11 PM)

quote:


If you rail it back it was already on a railhead wasn't it?


True. I guess the next question is if you let an HQ 'fill up' on a railhead, then move (non-rail) it back to the front does it use up enough supplies moving itself that this process would have no benefit?




KenchiSulla -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 5:38:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: traemyn

quote:


If you rail it back it was already on a railhead wasn't it?


True. I guess the next question is if you let an HQ 'fill up' on a railhead, then move (non-rail) it back to the front does it use up enough supplies moving itself that this process would have no benefit?




It might benefit you if you use a "spare" empty HQ unit to accumulate supplies and then reassign units to that (build up) HQ. I am not sure how much it will pull though. Also, moving a really full HQ up will cost you extra strain on the motorpool.

Going out of range with units attached will only hurt you I believe as units will get depleted for not receiving many supplies. Anything you add after that is just making up for lost time.



Peltonx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 5:59:46 PM)

Hi,

Yes this can be done, but down side his when you do HQ build up with no units attached the unit do not get extra supplys.

The up side is you can use these supplys when you panzers start to out run the rail heads.

Now both these things require advanced planning or yes to cannonfodder they are a total waste of time if your not planning ahead.

Its is best that you HQ build up withen 19 MP's of a railhead.

Many poeple think I HQ build up many times a turn, but the fact is most games I simply HQ build-up once a turn starting on turn 2.

Planning ahead an knowing the mechanics of the supply is key. Many poeple just really have no idea how it works.

There is a limit to how far you can go even planning ahead. Kharkov and Stilino is about the limits of railhead/HQ. The real trick to the hole thing is how fast can you get to the limit.

Remember once your mech units units reach there goals if they are defending/ not fighting they have supplys on hand to fight.

Here is one example of good planning and average resistance in south.

Check out where railhead is located each turn.

Pelton

[image]local://upfiles/20387/4C9AF7A3759343C89217E9C457363E07.jpg[/image]



Peltonx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 6:01:32 PM)

5

[image]local://upfiles/20387/9847AEFE30524B07AD565D9EC4537DEB.jpg[/image]



Peltonx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 6:02:12 PM)

6

[image]local://upfiles/20387/1D7405ACA9EB4BD3BD8B85F1993311BE.jpg[/image]



Peltonx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 6:03:19 PM)

Start of turn 7

[image]local://upfiles/20387/F60AC77794084ACD904F70CAC6088B9A.jpg[/image]



Peltonx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 6:04:02 PM)

End of turn 7

[image]local://upfiles/20387/59AB68D5747945ABA53B253EE40CC6EC.jpg[/image]



Peltonx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 6:11:00 PM)

Turn 8

At this point I am at supply limits and have spend all my saved up supplys.

I was forsed to retreat from Stalino area and lost a panzer division, but with 1.05 that would probably be the war because I bagged all the armerment points around the Donets.

I was not able to retake Stalino until turn 13.

I was able to do all that damage with 5 HQ build-ups.

Its not how many you do, but how and when they are chained together.

I use allot of pts attaching units from one HQ to another every turn. If you balance out your mech units on turn one you will have several extra HQ's you can use. You can use any HQ as a fuel dump, even infantry. You can mule supplys to front.

The best way to learn how all this works is playing vs computer. save every turn so you can go back and find best opening and supply systems.

Then play vs yourself so you know as German just what can be done IF anything to stop your advance. If it can be stopped then what opening that gives you on other fronts.

Pelton

[image]local://upfiles/20387/86A96079A3C74F0690448326D163C90D.jpg[/image]



mllange -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/13/2011 11:36:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

Turn 8
...

I was forsed to retreat from Stalino area and lost a panzer division, but with 1.05 that would probably be the war because I bagged all the armerment points around the Donets.
...


Interesting! So what is the story with armament points in v1.05? Why have they suddenly become the make all end all for victory?



Flaviusx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 12:17:50 AM)

Pelton, not gonna lie: this seems pretty over the top to me and a logistical fantasy. It's pretty much laying out a case for scrapping HQ buildups in their present form. Stuff like this simply shouldn't be possible, period. You are bypassing the game's logistical system entirely.






Michael T -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 12:42:17 AM)

There has to be a way for a player to perform a logistical build up. That is prioritise supply to units at the spearheads. If you nuke HQ/BU then you better have something else that allows a supply buildup. Every (good) operational game on this subject has a method to give the Panzers the extra supply they need. I am not saying HQ BU is perfect but its better than nothing. I hear your calls for HQ BU to be scrapped Flaviousx but what are you going to replace it with?

I have stated this elsewhere. It is perfectly reasonable to allow a player to stockpile supply in a few select HQ's/Dumps. That is how real campaigns were run. Some responsibility for Peltons advances must rest with his opponent. The Soviets need to conduct a competent defence. Don't blame the logistics model for inept play. If the Soviets leave the door open don't blame HQ BU if the Germans walk thru it.



marcpennington -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 1:05:13 AM)

It does seem like rather an exploit to me. A way for a designers to close the loophole might be to alter HQ Buildup so that it only builds up supply in the attached divisions, not in the HQ itself.

But it does raise the issue that I think armored units seem to get a bit too little supply (though that is only a subjective opinion on my part). Perhaps altering the supply system so Panzer corps/armies and Tank Army HQs get a bit more supply than infantry HQs and are a bit more effective when far from a rail-head might do the trick, and also might be a way to model more effectively deep operations doctrines and their change throughout the war (i.e. Soviet Tank armies could get a relatively larger supply bonus as the war goes on.)



Michael T -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 1:30:42 AM)

I am on the same wavelength. Why not give the units say 200% gas and leave the HQ out of it. Or nuke the BU rule and just add a toggle switch to units like "Priority Supply". With some range limits. And some negative effects on other units that aren't being prioritized.

For example IIRC in Schwerpuncts AGW there is a system of allocating a supply level to each unit. Something like subsistence, defend, normal, attack. You could do that kind of thing with HQ's in WITE and their attached units get the supply levels allocated by the HQ. Limits would be the number of trucks available and the range from railheads.

Whatever, a better system could be worked out. But you can't blame players for trying to maximise their logistics system under the current rules. I do the same thing. Plus I use the Luftwaffe as flying fuel tankers.



Flaviusx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 1:31:39 AM)

We could perhaps put a 1 turn debuff on units who have switched HQs to prevent this logistical musical chairs business. They would need a turn to sort out their supply chain rather than instantly being able to jump over and take advantage of a handy HQ.



Michael T -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 1:37:27 AM)

quote:

We could perhaps put a 1 turn debuff on units who have switched HQs to prevent this logistical musical chairs business. They would need a turn to sort out their supply chain rather than instantly being able to jump over and take advantage of a handy HQ.



Sorry but if there is fuel available at a dump (read HQ) a player (commander) should be able to give that fuel to whatever unit(s) he desires.



Flaviusx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 1:43:16 AM)

Micheal T: do you seriously think it's ok to be able to spam this turn after turn and keep moving the panzers at 50 MPs 5 turns in a row like this?

I mean, c'mon man.




Michael T -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 2:12:25 AM)

It's not normally the same units going forward. More a leep frog thing, for me anyhow. Honestly some responsibility rests with the defender. He needs to deploy his units to slow the enemy down. You have to think how far could these guys go with no resistance in front of them and no pressure on the supply line from the enemy either. I think its perfectly feasible under those conditions given the German is throwing all his gas in to one focused drive.

Its up to the Russian to offer some credible resistance. If they do you won't see this kind of penetration.

I am all for a better method of a supply buildup. But if there is nothing but open space in front of the Panzers and they have fuel…..well watch em go. No matter what supply system you employ.




Peltonx -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 2:43:34 AM)

Flaviusx had questions about HQ build up so I am being 100% up front about it just the very same as I was about 1v1=2v1.

I am not like some poeple full of bullst and smoke and mirrors.

Michael T - Katza (HQ build up chains) and others do this all time. Its never the same units that are going 44 to 48 MP's per turn.

You rotate the units, the units infront fight first, then the ones that are HQed up plow ahead. The back-up HQ moves up. The really sad part is in my example I could had done it better.

There are many ways to do this. So some simple fix is never going to do it. If you do the one turn debuff on we just do it 2 turns ahead of time ect ect.

If you remove HQ build up, then the game will need a 100% over haul, because it will be 100% impossible to get more then 12 armerment pts, if the Russian player has any idea hwat he is doing.

I thk the problem is you don't have anyone on the dev team that can think out side the box.

They are surpised when someone simply plays by the rules. I haven't even played the Russian side yet and I am 100% sure their are more then a few rules that can be used to there advantage.

Thats why its called beta.

I been playing games for yrs and every one that goes gold needs allot of tweaks the first yr. Why because closed betas are done in a vaccum, once the general public gets their hands on it all the weakness that the dev team never saw see the light of day quickly.

The **** hits the fan and dev team finds out if the game engine is any good. Can they code the fixes into the base programming or not.

The dev team has done a great job to date. I beleive the game engine is more then good enough and the devs will get it right at some point.

You wanted me to be not hold any punchs and I am not an never do.

I am playing the very same way in our game as I have in all my past games, because we are all beta testing so in the long run WiTe ends up being the best eastern front WW2 game ever and that War in the West is not a disaster when released.

Pelton



Great_Ajax -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 2:48:24 AM)

Sorry but this is fantasy. No way you can supply an entire panzer army 100-200 miles from a railhead for 5 weeks at anything close to movement capacity. Guderian's spearheads were stalling out in about a week after it launched Typhoon in late September/early October and those units were less than 100 miles from a railhead. The Germans couldn't even supply their normal units at anywhere near full supply much less ones that are 200+ miles in front of their railheads. The answer is to prioritize supply distribution for specific units while decreasing supplies to others and allow a measured stockpiling of supplies which is what Pavel is envisioning at some point.

Trey



PeeDeeAitch -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 2:56:25 AM)

I have to agree, this is gaming the system, finding loopholes that allow unrealistic and impossible end results. Frankly, and this is as a nearly exclusive Axis player to date, if this is the result of buildup, then it should go.



Michael T -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 3:07:40 AM)

quote:

The answer is to prioritize supply distribution for specific units while decreasing supplies to others and allow a measured stockpiling of supplies which is what Pavel is envisioning at some point.


Something I think we all can agree on. Bring it on. Sounds just like OCS works.

But I still say given feeble resistance, no matter what system you have in place you will see spectacular advances when someone focuses supply in one area.



Jakerson -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 10:28:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Micheal T: do you seriously think it's ok to be able to spam this turn after turn and keep moving the panzers at 50 MPs 5 turns in a row like this?

I mean, c'mon man.




I have been able to reach Stalingrad with this reserve HQ and HQ build up tactics while playing Axis side at 41 and take it just before first mud turn hits. (and also kill all armament cities along the way in south)

It is possible if you send most rail repair units in south and conserve all AP in south too.

People didnt beleve me when I reported this on the forum and I was too lazy to post it with pictures and examples.

This is pretty much same tactics I used to reach Stalingrad before mud at 41.

I have also used variants of this same tactic to take Leningrad before Soviet Side can even get reinforcements and twice as fast than German reach gates of Leningrad historically.



Encircled -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 12:41:45 PM)

 Anyone who thinks what Pelton is doing is even vaguely historical doesn't know anything about military logistics.

The closest military example I can think of is Rommel first attack across Cyrencia in '41, and that involved massive amounts of luck, far, far, far, far less troops and captured supply dumps.

If its going to be exploited by certain players like that, then it has to go



mmarquo -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 1:14:46 PM)

Well, you can't blame Pelton, Michael and Jakerson for using the tools supplied to them by the game engine. Jakerson, did you take Stalingrad like that against the AI or a human? I would like to see you do this in a short match against me; maybe the opening campaign in the South? If you get Kiev and D-town in 5/6 moves then I will not start any new new games until this is fixed. It is not so much the "daisy chain" tactic, rather the multipe reassignments of units to the HQs which I find pure fantasy.

Perhaps a better way to deal with this is to some variant of new Beachhead/air supply rule. Another thing to consider: any tank pushed as hard and as far as is currenly possible, would have a significant chance of breakdown. Perhaps punishing breakdown attrition for units pushed so hard could be a realistic deterrent?

Marquo [;)]




Great_Ajax -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 1:52:49 PM)

I don't blame anyone. It is a game and the players gamed it well. This HQ build up was a last minute addition (1 to 2 months prior to release) to the game that didn't get enough play before the game was released and everyone on the development team knows that this needs to be reeled in for some kind of more realistic logistic system. My two remaining pet peeves about this game is the logistics and the air campaign. I'm confident they will all get worked out in time.

Trey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marquo

Well, you can't blame Pelton, Michael and Jakerson for using the tools supplied to them by the game engine. Jakerson, did you take Stalingrad like that against the AI or a human? I would like to see you do this in a short match against me; maybe the opening campaign in the South? If you get Kiev and D-town in 5/6 moves then I will not start any new new games until this is fixed. It is not so much the "daisy chain" tactic, rather the multipe reassignments of units to the HQs which I find pure fantasy.

Perhaps a better way to deal with this is to some variant of new Beachhead/air supply rule. Another thing to consider: any tank pushed as hard and as far as is currenly possible, would have a significant chance of breakdown. Perhaps punishing breakdown attrition for units pushed so hard could be a realistic deterrent?

Marquo [;)]






marcpennington -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 3:30:25 PM)

It does seem an exploit that needs to be closed, but, until a better logistic system is implemented, perhaps the exploit could be best dealt with by house rules. These would probably need to be gentlemen's agreements not to do anything too gamey with the supply system as is, as the line between pulling back a panzer corps with attached units to use HQ buildup and the absurd cycling of HQ in and out might be a bit hard to pin down either with an exactly worded house rule, or for the designers to close with a limited change to HQ build up as is, rather then completely scrapping the entire system. Even if a limitation on HQ buildup could be found by the designers that would stop the exploit, likely it would mean less fuel to the panzers to those playing by the spirit of the rules as well, when I think the game in general needs to get a bit more fuel to the panzers, not less.



Jakerson -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 3:54:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el hefe

I don't blame anyone. It is a game and the players gamed it well. This HQ build up was a last minute addition (1 to 2 months prior to release) to the game that didn't get enough play before the game was released and everyone on the development team knows that this needs to be reeled in for some kind of more realistic logistic system. My two remaining pet peeves about this game is the logistics and the air campaign. I'm confident they will all get worked out in time.

Trey


I dont blame developers. It is fact that more complex the game it open more ways to bend rules.

One trouble is that removing HQ build up totally might punish German side too much but this reserve HQ + plus HQ build up + shifting mobile troops between reserve HQ's is freakingly effective if you practice it a bit over multiple turns and totally optimize use of it.



Michael T -> RE: HQ Build-up / Reserve HQ tactics (9/14/2011 11:17:48 PM)

From my experince it seems that breakdowns are the true limiting factor. A player could keep a Pz Korp going even with just air supply. But eventually there would be no tanks left. All would be damaged.

Another thing that allows me to keep going is doubling up my rail engineers. You get one or two extra hexes per turn. After 12 turns thats maybe 18 extra hexes. The summer campaign is all about fuel for the Germans. I reckon I have spent more time studying the supply aspects of the game than everything else together.

Taken together, air supply, HQ BU, doubling up rail engineers, treating fuel like gold and really good planning allows deep operations. Its not any one on its own. It only works when all are optimized.

I am happy to see HQ BU go as long as there is some other way that allows a prioritisation of available supply that can be allocated by the player. Untill then I will use whatever tool I have available to keep my motorized units fuelled. Its a game after all. I think that it is feasible (given weak opposition, clear weather and the ability to funnel fuel to a small number of units) that these deep thrusts would be possible. Just becasue 'historically' it didn't happen doesn't mean it could not have happened.

There are a lot of factors at play here. Not the least being the ability of the opposing players. Its a bit like compound interest. Even a 5% skill advantage will become a huge snowball after just 10 turns.

There is always this debate over what happened historically versus what 'might' have happened. I play any game within the rules as written unless a house rule is agreed. I am happy to play with any rule that falls within 'my' realm of possibility or reason. Obviously people have different views here.

I generally just avoid playing people who are sticklers with historical accuracy. So no problem. [:)]




Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375