quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces
One problem I see is that some of the consequences of a HQBU don't start to accumulate until a Soviet player as already resigned.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dinglir

Well, I did say people tend to surrender if they loose Leningrad and/or Moscow - not that they should play on having lost Leningrad, Moscow, Voronezh and Rostov. :-)

I would certainly argue that you should surrender if you have lost all four. However, I would do so because there is obviously a large gap in player capability - not because you have lost four population centers. In population, Moscow is no greater than the area from Stalino (including the cities) to the Don (some 135 pop points if I recall correctly). With 40 men pr pop point pr turn, that's about 5.000 men pr turn (or half a division) from Moscow.

Assuming relatively competent play, I believe that most players managing to take either Leningrad or Moscow would do so because they have brought resources from other areas, meaning that the German progress should fall short in those areas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Its not a secret that perhaps the biggest part of the 41 advance is two basic things - capture large groups of Russian units and move fast. Although Russian units rebuild, they do so as new units, requiring many months of rebuilding experience before they are competent. The more units are destroyed, the thinner their MLR. There reaches a breaking point. Be merciless.

Russians cant counterattack into fall unless you make a huge deployment mistake - go fast!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0
XII reassigned to 3PzG (14 AP) to eliminate Guderian's CP deficit

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

Then a bit of a silly move of mine into the Pripyat marshes. But there are so many units (10-15) trying to escape via there that I thought to send 29th Mot from XXXXVII Pz and 3rd Pz from XXIV Pz on a little holiday in the swamp [8D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericv

Hello pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: ericv

Obviously i am not talking about ewaldvonkleist

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

quote:

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

I don't think it will slow down the tempo so much that it doesn't feel like WW2 anymore. But that's exactly why I'd like to do this experiment. HQ BU is a ridiculous and artificial mechanism to boost the Germans operating far away from their railhead. Is that really needed? Perhaps the speed of rail conversion could be increased a little (RCC of 2 instead of 3 and max 5 hexes instead of 4?). When fighting closer to the railhead the fuel situation is pretty good and sufficient for 'kesselschlacht' warfare. But let's see, talk is cheap. Hopefully I can put it in practice.

Has this NO HQ BU not been tried before? Does anyone know the history of HQ BU? Was it originally there from the start or added later? If the latter, why exactly?

Just for discussion /.. It does give the player an option to deliver resources now at the expense of trucks and supplies to other HQ .. outside of historical arguments .. I look at these rules / features adding to the concept of a game as long as it as a decisional matrix and consequences.
One problem I see is that some of the consequences of a HQBU don't start to accumulate until a Soviet player as already resigned. Like spending AP's on HQBU rather than maybe fortified positions .. or replacing leaders, shifting units, etc ..

I think you answered your own discussion point... 'no' consequences but unrealistic advantage for Germans especially in 41. In principle I love hard trade-off decisions but HQ BU is not a trade-off at all. And as Telemecus noted it closes off AP spend in other areas significantly.

With this experiment I'd like to see what the balance is like without BUs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

LOL! Thanks for the compliment ericv... I think. But wrong guess. I'm just a WITE noob, not a Eastern Front noob mate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

Sil01 seems to be busy so we'll just have to be patient. I could expand this AAR to another game I have going on at the moment which is going along very similar lines and has reached T3 now. Any appetite for that? So the fuel shortages will now start to show. This AAR is not so much about individual matches but about the overall experiment of NO HQ BU between newish players. As I gain experience it would be good to expand this same experiment to more experienced Soviet opponents. I expect that to be a lot tougher without HQ BU...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psych0

Good point Crackaces. At least the first 500 AP will be no probkem but after that I'm not sure. Lots of SUs, leaders and command structure to fix before winter but after that indeed probably not enough to spend on without HQ BU.