Using only one Front HQ (Full Version)

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



Message

beender -> Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 1:10:04 PM)

As a newbie I am wondering if this idea will work, namely, attaching all armies to one front HQ.

The cons for this practice is obvious: probably all leader checks on front level will fail, due to overloading.

The good side includes:
No battle will suffer inter-front penalty;
Air forces will always engage because now every airbase and army will share the same front;
Free all your good front commanders to fill in spots like shock armies, Zhukov, Rokossovosky, Konev, etc.;

Seems to me like there are more advantages. Of course the initial AP cost will be prohibitive but can do it gradually and most Soviet units come first under STAVKA so I suppose in mid-1942 most active armies can be attached this way.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 4:12:52 PM)

Good Idea, thought about the same probleme (in a less consequent way).
One more advantage: You don't need to reaattach armies to new front when shifting the focus, therefore reduced AP cost.

Possible improvement: Do not use fronts at all. If they are so redicolously overloaded, they nearly have a 0% chance to succeed while STAVKA can't be overloaded. But if there is no Front between the army and the STAVKA, STAVKA counts as a second level army so it has a better base multiplier.
So army-STAVKA with Shukov ist probably better than army-very overloaded Front-STAVKA with Shukov.






Telemecus -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 4:24:00 PM)

Can STAVKA work as a front when it comes to ground support air missions? Or would that be the trade-off, go front-less for the benefits given by EwaldvonKleist in exchange for losing one of your air missions? There will be times when that is not worth too much anyway. You could also do a hybrid version e.g fronts for flanks without Command penalties (where highest range modifier for STAVKA) in Karelia and Crimea whose geographical boundaries mean you could avoid inter-command penalties on the boundaries. Keep STAVKA as your central front-less front?



Stelteck -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 5:31:08 PM)

To check if this gamey tactic may work, we would have to known all leader check involved.

There is also a malus of cooperation if 2 differents armies of the same front fight together, the malus is only lower. If this malus use leader's check, you may have the same issue as before because all front leader check will fail.

I do not know all the check that involved leader, so it is difficult to say.

Not having a upper level leader able to succeed in leader's check is also a problem for all the parts of the front where you do not have very good leader at lower level. You cannot have genious commanding all armies and corps.




EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 6:53:52 PM)

I don't think it this gamey. The Soviets can decide whether they focus on a artillery or tank heavy army, can design their airforce, but the command and control should be fixed?
There is a very good post by morvael regarding the leader rolls: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3757207&mpage=1&key=
I didn't have the motiviation so far to dig into this, but there is a little bit space for optimization I think.



Stelteck -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 7:14:20 PM)

You're right it is not gamey, but still strange [:D]

It would be quite surprising to get benefit for overloading so much front level command.

It is also quite difficult to figure out how this method is working. So much leader check and calculation everywhere, most of them unknown.



beender -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 8:09:50 PM)


Yes that sole front HQ could be STAVKA itself. But I believe combat units under STAVKA direct command have a penalty of -10%. And probably you don't save much by doing this because attaching to STAVKA still cost AP.



beender -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 8:33:39 PM)

Having been following on your AAR, quite a enjoyment!

As for gamey, i actually learned this word from this forum[:D] Personally i don't feel a thing in this respect, positive or negative, because this is a "game" after all. Actually I come up with quite a lot of "gamey" ideas beside this one. I can understand people want to role-play in a historical way and that is why they stick to historical OOB, etc. Perfectly fine. It's just the Soviet-Nazi war was so complicated and complex and a game just can't reflect everything accurately and soon or later you'll realize it's just a game, sadly.

For example, I find the "historical" withdrawal thing quite abnormal, you are doing good/bad and all of sudden one of your major spearhead panzer division needs to be withdrawn(yes i am talking about the 10th panzer)? and somehow you are supposed to know it in advance? Come on, most of the withdrawal decision was ad-hoc ones and was planned no more than a few months or weeks in prior.

Back to the topic, the leader check on front level could make a difference if you don't have decent leaders on army level, and that is why many soviet player appoint Zhukov to Northwest first thing. I don't have much experience so someone might be willing to share if that practice brings noticeable better performance.

When later in the game you have qualified army commanders in position, i don't think front leader checks matter that much. and that's also why i believe many good leaders are wasted there, they should be demoted to lead an army, maybe a tank one[;)]



topeverest -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/26/2017 9:42:54 PM)

Very interesting idea. Of course forgo the in-command features for far flung armies. Wouldn't that offset any gains?



timmyab -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/27/2017 9:39:11 AM)

Unfortunately this would probably work.
I've never been convinced of the benifits of higher HQs in this game. A missed opportunity I think.



morvael -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/27/2017 9:57:22 AM)

Time to prevent overloading any HQ by more than 100%.



Stelteck -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/27/2017 11:18:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morvael

Time to prevent overloading any HQ by more than 100%.


Could be a good idea. But be carefull this feature will be probably "hidden" and people will ask all the time why they cannot assign some troops to this HQ without proper feedback from the game.



EwaldvonKleist -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/27/2017 12:11:47 PM)

It is quite safe to say that nobody will ever try this I think while it might be necessary to overload the fronts in "normal" games I think?

If you introduce Hardcaps, there should be ingame notifications explaining them. Ground bombing for example: If you try to bomb one hexagon more than two times, you get the notification "no aircraft availaible". This is really confusing to new players.



Telemecus -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/27/2017 12:54:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: beender


Yes that sole front HQ could be STAVKA itself. But I believe combat units under STAVKA direct command have a penalty of -10%. And probably you don't save much by doing this because attaching to STAVKA still cost AP.


I think the idea is their first command would be corps/army and then skip front in the chain of command. So there would be no battle penalty. Historically there were armies and corps directly reporting to Stavka. So you could use up your fronts, without overloading, and the remaining armies/corps report direct. No command or battle penalties. Having all in one front probably would be using the game mechanics. But in my first campaign game the AI put everything from Novgorod to Dtown in the NW front. If the AI does it?



Stelteck -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/27/2017 1:00:56 PM)

Maybe the AI have no coordination penalty, as it is difficult to code an automatic proper chain of command.
Maybe the AI never fail a leader check or have a simplify model to manage leadership too.



Telemecus -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (3/27/2017 1:09:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Stelteck

Maybe the AI have no coordination penalty, as it is difficult to code an automatic proper chain of command.
Maybe the AI never fail a leader check or have a simplify model to manage leadership too.


Stelteck is very politely saying the AI cheats! [:D]



mouse707 -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (8/13/2018 9:32:00 AM)

"while STAVKA can't be overloaded"

Is it still true that STAVKA can't be overloaded ? I'm trying to keep the size of the soviet army around 900 CP by merging units to avoid HHQ penalty, but it's costly in terms of defense capacity



Telemecus -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (8/13/2018 9:34:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mouse707

"while STAVKA can't be overloaded"

Is it still true that STAVKA can't be overloaded ? I'm trying to keep the size of the soviet army around 900 CP by merging units to avoid HHQ penalty, but it's costly in terms of defense capacity


STAVKA can no longer ever be overloaded - one of the patches removed this as a possibility for High Commands. So it could on earlier versions, but not now.



mouse707 -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (8/13/2018 11:16:53 PM)

Thanks. I've made a mistake merging too much units. At least, it's only december 41, I won't merge the coming ones, they will dig under the ruling of STAVKA.



beender -> RE: Using only one Front HQ (8/16/2018 11:54:32 PM)

lol, my old thread up again. I think this tactics or trick was probably doable, because later they disabled it in a patch[:'(]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125