HQ russian problem (Full Version)

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



Message

gids -> HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 6:01:13 PM)

ok i apllied the patch and in my GC al my army HQ went to cap 18 where my front HQ are 81!3 times 18 is 54 so what do you do with the rest of that front HQ cp you have left
my question is whats the best new way to handle the Cp cap as a russian ,i didnt find any decent post about it



stone10 -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 6:09:05 PM)

build more army HQs and get more airbases probably?



gids -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 6:19:25 PM)

actually that more HQ thing......stupid i didnt think of it



Flaviusx -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 6:22:59 PM)

Also put Zhukov in STAVKA.




Q-Ball -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 6:59:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Also put Zhukov in STAVKA.




What do we do with 'ol Boris? I guess he can command a front (or an MD, which actually are no longer useless)



Flaviusx -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 7:03:19 PM)

He can hold down a Front, sure. That 8 admin rating is still quite nice.




Joel Billings -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 7:10:36 PM)

In a new game, you can plan to have more HQ's per front. In addition, you can leave some low CV units (artillery are especially good for this) directly attached the the Fronts (be sure to have a good leader at Stavka when you do this). Historically quite a few units were attached directly to the fronts.



Flaviusx -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 7:42:58 PM)

Here's the way it breaks down in a fresh game, for those who are curious.

You start off with 22 armies. Over the course of the game you will receive 32 more -- this includes two conditional Polish armies and 5 shock armies. Don't disband any of these now, obviously. Assuming no overloads, you've got room for 216 corps sized units spread out among those armies (at four per army), with 2 command points left over in each army for odds an ends.

Tank armies must be built from scratch. Historically the Sovs fielded 6 of them. You may want more or less of these. If APs allow I'd be tempted to build more, they're pretty nice now.

An interesting wrinkle: you have 10 airborne corps that will not autodisband. (5 at start and 5 more arrive for the blizzard.) Those begin with 8 cap. I'm not sure if they increase now or not. Regardless, these little darlings are now all of a sudden quite interesting. You could park 4 artillery divisions in them, for example, assuming the don't increase in command capacity. More if they do. This leaves your armies free to absorb the big maneuver units with high CVs.

These guys could remain attached to Front or perhaps better yet STAVKA. (Front capacity is kind of tight.)




JAMiAM -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/4/2012 8:05:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
An interesting wrinkle: you have 10 airborne corps that will not autodisband. (5 at start and 5 more arrive for the blizzard.) Those begin with 8 cap. I'm not sure if they increase now or not. Regardless, these little darlings are now all of a sudden quite interesting. You could park 4 artillery divisions in them, for example, assuming the don't increase in command capacity. More if they do. This leaves your armies free to absorb the big maneuver units with high CVs.

The Soviet Airborne Corps HQs do increase in CC, at the same rate as all the other Corps.



Q-Ball -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/5/2012 6:27:32 PM)

While the C and C changes are overall a negative for the Russians (for continuing games, as well as new ones), there is one change that does help: The free transfer from Military Districts.

Rather than overload fronts, I have always put units in STAVKA-attached armies.

First, those armies will actually get a benefit from STAVKA now, which is a bonus.

Second, I am finding that several sectors are within the 45-hex command range of Volga MD, or Moscow MD. You might as well attach these "orphan" armies to one of those commands. You can always attach them later to something else, for "Free".



Tarhunnas -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/5/2012 7:27:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

While the C and C changes are overall a negative for the Russians (for continuing games, as well as new ones), there is one change that does help: The free transfer from Military Districts.

Rather than overload fronts, I have always put units in STAVKA-attached armies.

First, those armies will actually get a benefit from STAVKA now, which is a bonus.

Second, I am finding that several sectors are within the 45-hex command range of Volga MD, or Moscow MD. You might as well attach these "orphan" armies to one of those commands. You can always attach them later to something else, for "Free".


That was a great tip! Thanks Q-Ball!



mmarquo -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/5/2012 8:27:02 PM)

I have placed the surfeit of Army Units into the respective Fronts; this way they can be placed in reserve and have a chance to help support; as APs permit, I will build new HQs and transfer from the front to the new Army HQ.



Farfarer61 -> RE: HQ russian problem (2/5/2012 10:02:25 PM)

Very useful info Flavius - timely too.

I'm hoping to repeat the phenomenon in my latest game wherein a leader who made successful admin rolls in an overloaded Army HQ climbed to admin rating 9 in summer 41. He got promoted to greater repsonsibility :)

Ironically, a tactic being advocated is to use Airborne Corps HQs as Artillery HQs, as the Parachutists will be sent to their deaths as rear guards, or sent to auto-convert to Guards Infantry after digging trenches for a year. Of course, this is not an ahistorical expoit, but moving into shelter to avoid a blizzard is, using HQs as mobile supply depots is, chaining HQs is...

One overlooked use for those Corps HQs is running around rallying troops. That's my recommendation for their use before they disband.

Finally, a Corps attached to an HQ should cost less in command points as you are paying AP up front to create a subordinate command structure which takes the load off the Army. Of course if historically they didn't bring much CnC to the table then this idea is incorrect.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.765625