Support Unit Headaches!

Support Unit Headaches! (Full Version)

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

Message

lastkozak -> Support Unit Headaches! (9/9/2013 8:18:52 PM)
I have read and searched every post for info on support units. Did not find the answer I was looking for. I understand attaching SU's to HQ units, but does this not mean they will return up the chain of command during logistics, and then may not return to the same HQ's you originally assigned them to? Does the lock mechanism just stop units traveling through that HQ? Or does it stop all units connected with that HQ; the manual implies this! That is, if I lock Stavka, will my su's attached to fronts, only move up to the front HQ and back down? I don't mind the SU's traveling around, I just want them to stay within a certain front command structure! What I want to do! Have my best and heaviest SU's attached to my Front HQ, and a few lighter one's attached to the Army HQ's. I do not want them going back up to Stavka and redistributing to other Front and District HQ's. But I want my Army HQ's to have access to the SU attached to the front, but don't want the SU's I assign to an Army going away the next turn! Further if I assign AA to my airfield HQ's, I want them there to support the Airfields if they are bombed, not disappear, but be there to be distributed to the airfields if they are attacked. It is confusing, how this works! What exactly does locked do? What exactly does the add sub number do? My understanding is if it is set to '0', then the HQ makes no attempt to send SU's down the chain of command. But if I use locked, then they also do not send any down the chain of command! Help me obiwan!

loki100 -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/9/2013 11:15:19 PM)
Here's my take (and some of this may be wrong) if you 'lock' the Supreme HQ you in effect lock the entire chain. So a Front/AG will lock all its armies/corps and so on. I've tried the auto assign and it may be I don't really understand it. In theory you should be able to prioritise particular sectors/armies by setting the value high for them and low elsewhere. In practice I tend to think that with the autoassign, it seems to even out everything first. You can't assign AA direct to airfields but to the controlling HQ. I think this is pretty good at then parcelling it out to cover airbases in need. I've had, and inflicted, some pretty heavy losses from AA on attacking bombers, so something is working. 0, if I recall from the manual means that HQ level will only take on engineers/sappers, 1 means it wants 1 of each of the main support unit types and so on. I've ended up with a keep it simple model - with the Soviets 3 or so art, some AA, some sappers in virtually all army HQs. Once the shock and Guards armies start to appear, more in them. And if I am converting to corps, try to anticipate by adding the support units a turn earlier.

Dangun -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/10/2013 3:22:46 AM)
Lastkozak, I feel your pain. The manual is, unsurprisingly, very unhelpful on this topic. My emotional response is that fiddling with attachments is a blackhole of time wastage and not fun. Perhaps more thoughtfully, I wonder: 1) Are there any significant costs associated with attachments? What's the trade off? Surely its not some free benefit given to the detail obsessed naval gazers who can be bothered with attachments? 2) I have found it is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of attachments, so there is always a nagging feeling of 'I am wasting my time' 3) Is this really what I play wargames for? Probably not.

pompack -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/10/2013 5:14:53 PM)
It's all really rather simple 1. SUs assigned to combat units always participate in combat (assuming the unit itself is in combat) 2. SUs assigned to Korps/Armies usually participate in combats involving subordinate units as long as the HQ is within five hexes of the combat 3. SUs assigned to Armee/Front will rarely (if ever) participate in combat unless the combat is with five hexes of the higher HQ holding the SUs (not a safe, realistic or even reasonable thing to do except in a breakthrough)

pompack -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/10/2013 5:21:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lastkozak I have read and searched every post for info on support units. Did not find the answer I was looking for. I understand attaching SU's to HQ units, but does this not mean they will return up the chain of command during logistics, and then may not return to the same HQ's you originally assigned them to? NO Does the lock mechanism just stop units traveling through that HQ? Or does it stop all units connected with that HQ; the manual implies this! That is, if I lock Stavka, will my su's attached to fronts, only move up to the front HQ and back down? I don't mind the SU's traveling around, I just want them to stay within a certain front command structure! Lock means lock: SUs will not move in or out OF THAT HQ unless you do it manually What I want to do! Have my best and heaviest SU's attached to my Front HQ, and a few lighter one's attached to the Army HQ's. I do not want them going back up to Stavka and redistributing to other Front and District HQ's. But I want my Army HQ's to have access to the SU attached to the front, but don't want the SU's I assign to an Army going away the next turn! Further if I assign AA to my airfield HQ's, I want them there to support the Airfields if they are bombed, not disappear, but be there to be distributed to the airfields if they are attacked. Yep, just lock the air HQ and they will support any subordinate a/f within five hexes edit: actually they will do this even if the air HQ is not locked but they may not stay there if the HQ is not locked or with the support level set appropriately. It is confusing, how this works! What exactly does locked do? What exactly does the add sub number do? My understanding is if it is set to '0', then the HQ makes no attempt to send SU's down the chain of command. But if I use locked, then they also do not send any down the chain of command! see above Help me obiwan! General note: SUs will flow downward from/to any subordinate/superior HQ that is not locked in accordance with the support level you have selected for each HQ.

Dangun -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/11/2013 5:55:28 AM)
quote: 1. SUs assigned to combat units always participate in combat (assuming the unit itself is in combat) 2. SUs assigned to Korps/Armies usually participate in combats involving subordinate units as long as the HQ is within five hexes of the combat 3. SUs assigned to Armee/Front will rarely (if ever) participate in combat Are there any offsetting costs to assigning SUs? It sounds as though its just a free benefit to the pedant with time on their hands.

loki100 -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/11/2013 8:38:37 AM)
there are two costs. One each costs an AP to assign. If you are the Soviets you pay that cost regardless of whether the unit exists or needs to be built from scratch. If you build from scratch (only for the Soviets), its a good idea to check you have the components in your equipment pools. SOme are fine, sappers seem to be built to demand, but others may be taking hard to access equipment that could be used in your main combat formations. Going back to your earlier question about value. I struggled with this for a while and it helps to keep an eye on the detailed battle reports. Sappers are clearly good, they help you dig in, they reduce fort levels when you attack and sometimes you gain a huge boost to the combat value from them. Tank, ski and MC attachments all add a direct +1 CV to the counter, so helpful in that regard. Artillery is indirect. Try looking at the detailed report and you'll see a lot more 'disruption' to your opponent if the artillery is commmitted. My understanding is disrupted elements don't take part in the combat, so there are few direct losses but a lot of indirect damage (which seems a good bit of simulation). I'm still not sure of the value of some support units, but I will add AT units to Soviet armies in the Ukraine for example (on the grounds that I'm prepared to believe they work and if so, anything that harms the Pzrs is a good idea).

Dangun -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/11/2013 12:06:38 PM)
quote: I struggled with this for a while and it helps to keep an eye on the detailed battle reports. Sappers are clearly good, they help you dig in, they reduce fort levels when you attack and sometimes you gain a huge boost to the combat value from them. I have been struggling with this too. On a few occasions I've run an experiment by assigning a sapper to one digging in HQ and not to another and watch them race to see who can build fortifications faster. I don't always see much of a difference.

Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/11/2013 12:52:02 PM)
quote: If you are the Soviets you pay that cost regardless of whether the unit exists or needs to be built from scratch. If you assign from Stavka to Army the cost is free. If you want to micromanage your support units you can set all armies and fronts to 0 and Stavka to 9 at the beginning of the game. All artillery SUs will then move to Stavka. Then you can rail Stavka around and assign support units of your choice to armies for free. I'm only doing this for selected fronts which are totally overloaded (like southwest).

swkuh -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/11/2013 1:04:32 PM)
Support units provide some combat value for units to which they are attached. If the "lock," "level," and manual/auto assignment features are well used, then there will be reasonable assignments and effective results. Initial assignments by the "code masters" make little sense (one wonders why.) There are always a few corps HQs that are way over-furnished. So, look for these Easter eggs and correct them. Is it worth the trouble? Hard to say, but playing Axis vs. AI I've seen some desirable effects, always an improvement. I always reassign units from the Easter eggs, and try to level all when APs available.

Dangun -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/11/2013 3:38:26 PM)
Which SUs help more in fort building, sappers/engineers or construction? And if the answer is sappers, what's the point of construction SUs.

Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/11/2013 4:56:41 PM)
Just display the support unit and it will show the construction value. Regarding the combat values of support units you should look at the file from morvael in the following thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3243508 Amazing detail!

gingerbread -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/11/2013 6:25:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lastkozak quote: Have my best and heaviest SU's attached to my Front HQ Do note this limitation (15.4.): --- Headquarters units can only commit support units to attached combat units. --- That means that SU attached to Front HQ can only commit if a CU directly attached to the Front HQ is involved in the combat. The overwhelming majority of SU should be at Army level for the Soviets or shunted to an Eastern MD if they need to train.

Dangun -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/12/2013 11:17:37 AM)
quote: Just display the support unit and it will show the construction value. But can't you only do that after its been assigned? At which point... its too late to make a decision about which SU would have been better to assign.

swkuh -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/12/2013 12:06:08 PM)
Run some experiments, small scenarios, AI, etc. Think my prior post has undervalued support units. Using them well is essential unless your opponent is also clueless.

Dangun -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/13/2013 12:34:33 AM)
quote: Using them well is essential unless your opponent is also clueless. That's horrible, if its true. Who wants to play a wargame where pouring over the opaque minutae of support unit assignment is 'essesntial'?

Bozo_the_Clown -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/13/2013 4:18:19 AM)
quote: Who wants to play a wargame where pouring over the opaque minutae of support unit assignment is 'essesntial'? Well, there are people who like to micromanage. [:D]

swkuh -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/13/2013 12:43:05 PM)
If one does what's needed for auto assignment game engine takes care of things good enough. Micro-management not essential.

Maximeba -> RE: Support Unit Headaches! (9/14/2013 10:40:27 PM)
I guess I like to micromanage. On turn 1, I set all my hq's to 0 except Stavka, I set that at 9. I then manually send su's to Stavka from hq's that may be surrounded or are in danger of having to retreat. My feelings are why let those units suffer retreat attritions. Once my Corp, Army and Front hq's have no su's I lock them. After all my su's are in Stavka I disband all su's I don't want and then I lock Stavka down. By disbanding the su's I am freeing up manpower, which is critical early in the game for the Soviets. By locking Stavka I control what su's are being built and sent to my hq's. Any su's left over in Stavka I assign to army hq's. By doing this I am not spending ap's. Now, all I put in my army hq's are 3 artillery, 3 sapper regiments, 3 1941 aa battalions and 3 rr brigades. In my front hq's I put 3 rr brigades and nothing else (we have a gentlemen's rule no bombing hq's because of the easy death of leaders). In all my infantry, armor, mech. and cavalry corps I assign 2 sapper regiments and 1 aa battalion. All the rest of the su's I just don't bother with because they don't seem to make a difference.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.28125