Corps HQs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> The Operational Art of War IV



Message

BK6583 -> Corps HQs (8/28/2019 7:36:38 PM)

From reading the rules I know these HQs (and Army HQs) play a key role in keeping forces organized and supplied. BUT - what's the best mode to put them in to maximize this capability?



VHauser -> RE: Corps HQs (8/28/2019 8:16:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BK6583

From reading the rules I know these HQs (and Army HQs) play a key role in keeping forces organized and supplied. BUT - what's the best mode to put them in to maximize this capability?


Keep them stationary. HQs that move don't give their bonuses during a turn in which they move.



Hellen_slith -> RE: Corps HQs (8/28/2019 9:35:25 PM)

If ranged, I put HQ in tactical reserve during my move.

At the end of my move, I dig them in (to entrenched or defend status) at the end of my move.

Your mileage may vary!



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Corps HQs (8/28/2019 9:36:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: VHauser


quote:

ORIGINAL: BK6583

From reading the rules I know these HQs (and Army HQs) play a key role in keeping forces organized and supplied. BUT - what's the best mode to put them in to maximize this capability?


Keep them stationary. HQs that move don't give their bonuses during a turn in which they move.

I don't think that's true.



VHauser -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 10:36:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curtis Lemay
I don't think that's true.


BK6583,
I apologize. Curtis is correct. I don't know what I was thinking, but whatever it was, I was incorrect.



VHauser -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 6:02:26 PM)

sPzAbt653,

I was reading the old HQ threads and I noted your concerns that changing the way HQs work might damage/ruin some scenarios. If you gave HQs commando as a second unit symbol, would that help save scenarios ruined by altered HQ rules?



Lobster -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 7:15:21 PM)

Like many of the new features added to TOAW IV a simple new rule/old rule switch is all that is required. Nothing is 'ruined'. You can have scenarios where a HQ acts like it would in real life or you could have the same scenario where the HQ acted like it would in a beer and pretzel game, no holds barred. [;)]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 7:55:31 PM)

10.4.10.
Disengagement is automatic if:
Your unit is either a Headquarters or Artillery unit, and the destination location is occupied by a friendly unit.

It's a rule, therefore I think there is no reason to try to come up with work-arounds. It's a design decision. If you don't like it, do another design. Unfortunately, our 'project manager' has decided that he doesn't like it, so it must go.



VHauser -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 8:01:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster

Like many of the new features added to TOAW IV a simple new rule/old rule switch is all that is required. Nothing is 'ruined'. You can have scenarios where a HQ acts like it would in real life or you could have the same scenario where the HQ acted like it would in a beer and pretzel game, no holds barred. [;)]


This sounds like common sense. But.
I'm working on a big project that has human player (the Allies) vs. PO (the Axis) only. There is no provision for PBEM (or human vs. human). Anyway, the PO (Axis) HQs are totally different than the human (Allied) HQs. The TO/Es, structure, function, etc., of the opposing HQs have almost nothing in common.

In that scenario, it's not very important to me what happens to the human's HQs. The human player will (for the most part) be able to decide whether to risk the consequences of putting his HQs in harm's way. The human player has a planning and adaptable brain. But not so with the PO's HQs. The PO will constantly find its HQs under attack by the human.

As a scenario developer, and in the interests of trying to create a suitable challenge for the human player, I want HQ rules that won't get the PO's HQs slaughtered (what happens to the human's HQs, not so much). A simple ON/OFF switch might not work very well in this case.



Zovs -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 9:52:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

10.4.10.
Disengagement is automatic if:
Your unit is either a Headquarters or Artillery unit, and the destination location is occupied by a friendly unit.

It's a rule, therefore I think there is no reason to try to come up with work-arounds. It's a design decision. If you don't like it, do another design. Unfortunately, our 'project manager' has decided that he doesn't like it, so it must go.


What???

Disengagement has been fine since 1998! Why remove it?



Blond_Knight -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 11:05:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

10.4.10.
Disengagement is automatic if:
Your unit is either a Headquarters or Artillery unit, and the destination location is occupied by a friendly unit.

It's a rule, therefore I think there is no reason to try to come up with work-arounds. It's a design decision. If you don't like it, do another design. Unfortunately, our 'project manager' has decided that he doesn't like it, so it must go.


What???

Disengagement has been fine since 1998! Why remove it?


If its been in there that long why not make it optional instead of just removing it?



Lobster -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 11:18:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blond_Knight


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

10.4.10.
Disengagement is automatic if:
Your unit is either a Headquarters or Artillery unit, and the destination location is occupied by a friendly unit.

It's a rule, therefore I think there is no reason to try to come up with work-arounds. It's a design decision. If you don't like it, do another design. Unfortunately, our 'project manager' has decided that he doesn't like it, so it must go.


What???

Disengagement has been fine since 1998! Why remove it?


If its been in there that long why not make it optional instead of just removing it?


Exactly. No reason to remove it. If a scenario designer wants a scenario to mirror real life (a HQ unit is not a rear guard) then let them do it. If a player chooses to throw out realism let them do it. A simple switch would make everyone happy. Well, except Steve. I think a bottle of Seagram's 7 might help. [;)]



Lobster -> RE: Corps HQs (8/29/2019 11:33:56 PM)

If we are not trying to edge this game more towards real world mechanics then why even bother with a TOAW3 or 4? Could have just left it at COW and thrown on some new paint and called it good. [8|]



sPzAbt653 -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 2:03:00 AM)

quote:

real world mechanics

This is what you and Bob don't understand. You get some narrow idea in your heads and then proclaim that you are the only ones that have an understanding and that everyone else must fall in line. I already clarified it for both of you, it is a rule of the game, and it is already a designer option. There is no reason for you to get up on your imaginary pulpit and display your incredible intelligence, and Bob has no reason to spend our valuable and unrecoverable coding time on tracking it down and attempting to remove it [at the same time most likely breaking one or more other things, which is common procedure for TOAW]. You or Bob can think something is gamey or unrealistic all you want, but where in the universe does either of you get off forcing your opinion on the rest of the TOAW community?



VHauser -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 11:46:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653
This is what you and Bob don't understand. You get some narrow idea in your heads and then proclaim that you are the only ones that have an understanding and that everyone else must fall in line. I already clarified it for both of you, it is a rule of the game, and it is already a designer option. There is no reason for you to get up on your imaginary pulpit and display your incredible intelligence, and Bob has no reason to spend our valuable and unrecoverable coding time on tracking it down and attempting to remove it [at the same time most likely breaking one or more other things, which is common procedure for TOAW]. You or Bob can think something is gamey or unrealistic all you want, but where in the universe does either of you get off forcing your opinion on the rest of the TOAW community?


Here is a link to an old SPWaW thread you might enjoy.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1479760&mpage=3&key=

When I joined back in 2000, the only game MatrixGames had was SPWaW. Indeed, MatrixGames was started because of SPWaW. And since I was a fanatic SPWaW player back then, I was probably one of the first people who joined (May, 2000). I wonder if MatrixGames keeps player-joined lists. If anybody knows, I'd like to know victorhauser's join number.

Anyway, Post #77 in that thread is where things get "interesting" in a way that is relevant to your post.



Lobster -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 1:13:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

quote:

real world mechanics

This is what you and Bob don't understand. You get some narrow idea in your heads and then proclaim that you are the only ones that have an understanding and that everyone else must fall in line. I already clarified it for both of you, it is a rule of the game, and it is already a designer option. There is no reason for you to get up on your imaginary pulpit and display your incredible intelligence, and Bob has no reason to spend our valuable and unrecoverable coding time on tracking it down and attempting to remove it [at the same time most likely breaking one or more other things, which is common procedure for TOAW]. You or Bob can think something is gamey or unrealistic all you want, but where in the universe does either of you get off forcing your opinion on the rest of the TOAW community?


Not on a pulpit. That seems to be your job. I've always been a advocate of variety in this game. Give the scenario designers as much latitude as possible in what can be done so that each scenario can be designed to seem as though they are a different game instead of a rubber stamp of every other scenario. Let the scenario designer decide if he wants Monty and his command staff to hold off the Germans while his combat troops move off. If the players want a realistic scenario fine, they can have them and both players play it that way. If they don't fine, they can pick a beer and pretzels scenario. If the scenario designer wants to let the players play it either way then give them the means to do that.

Who are you to tell someone how their scenario is to be played? Let the scenario designer decide how much realism they want to introduce instead of Emperor Steve dictating terms. This is what you don't seem to understand. You think you are the only one who knows how everyone wants to do something. Here's a shocker. We are all different. And that's a good thing. So instead of you stuffing your ideas up our tail pipes how about we give people the means to have as much variety as possible. How is that a bad thing? I'm eternally grateful you don't control this thing. It would be checkers with chits.



Curtis Lemay -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 2:56:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

This is what you and Bob don't understand. You get some narrow idea in your heads and then proclaim that you are the only ones that have an understanding and that everyone else must fall in line. I already clarified it for both of you, it is a rule of the game, and it is already a designer option. There is no reason for you to get up on your imaginary pulpit and display your incredible intelligence, and Bob has no reason to spend our valuable and unrecoverable coding time on tracking it down and attempting to remove it [at the same time most likely breaking one or more other things, which is common procedure for TOAW]. You or Bob can think something is gamey or unrealistic all you want, but where in the universe does either of you get off forcing your opinion on the rest of the TOAW community?


Ant-Tactics were a rule in the game, too. But we fixed that - and didn't give anyone any option about it, either. Norm was human. He couldn't anticipate every consequence of each rule he coded. When real problems are identified, they need to be fixed. I am sure he didn't intend for HQs and Artillery to be rescuing front-line units via their special disengagement ability. (And if you think they should, what is your historical basis for such an ability)?

And Norm was a real dictator: My CFNA scenario originally had a Supply Radius of 50. Because Norm's supply line code used recursion, the calculation time increased far faster than exponentially with distance. So the value of 50 (and CFNA's huge map) was causing huge delays in many PCs of the day (and probably lots of complaints to Norm). So...one day, after an update, I discovered that the maximum Supply Radius had been reduced to 25! But, I used a common trick in the Event Editor: Change the limited effect to one that isn't limited, set the value to whatever you want, and then change back to the limited effect. That worked. But...next update, that trick had been squashed!! I had to redesign CFNA. Norm didn't just ignore the needs of my scenario. He didn't just accidentally break it. He willfully and relentlessly broke it!

Nevertheless, if and when this issue is addressed, it will be optional in some fashion. I anticipate that it will be a designer option (with the default set to the NEW way!). So, designer action can restore the old way.



Zovs -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 3:25:04 PM)

My idea is that Military Police should allow units to disengage. Part of their concept was traffic cops. In quite a few scenarios HQ units have MP units added to them for this purpose and I don't think it should be squashed. I think there is historical evidence that both MP and HQ can allow units to disengage.

As a player the other 'trick' I use it to divide a unit down and let two move out and one to stay, hopefully trying to prevent the full units destruction.

I also think that mobile units should have a percentage of disengagement.



Lobster -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 5:03:24 PM)

Disengagement is all about one unit being used as a rear guard, delaying an enemy attack on withdrawing units by action, not by directing traffic.

Definition of rearguard action
1 : a defensive or delaying fight engaged in by a rear guard (as in covering the retreat of an army or the evacuation of a besieged garrison)
2 : an effort put forth by means of preventive or delaying measures or tactics and usually against great odds in defense of a threatened existing order or situation or in opposition to a proposed new departure

Some MP units do have a limited ability to do this. Most do not. HQ units and artillery units definitely do not unless they are suicidal. But if someone wants to allow something like this in a scenario of their design why not let them? On the other hand if a scenario designer wants to stick to more of a real world feel then they should be able to disallow HQ and artillery from acting as rear guards.

Mobility does act as a factor in a successful disengagement in game. Breaking down a unit and withdrawing parts leaving the other to fend off the enemy is what is done in the real world.



Zovs -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 5:29:17 PM)

Jack what your saying is true but if you read the rule its just allowing a HQ, Artillery or Commando unit to disengage from an enemy unit, which is did happen historically, normally HQ and Artillery units packed up and bugged out.

10.4.10. Disengagement (Advanced Rules)
In the real world, it can be quite difficult to break contact with enemy units. When you order a unit to move out of a location adjacent to an enemy unit, that unit will attempt to disengage. Successful disengagement results in a normal ordered Movement.

Disengagement is automatic if:
• Your unit is a Commando unit,
• Your unit is either a Headquarters or Artillery unit, and the destination location is occupied by a friendly unit,

and/or
• Your unit is moving to a destination not adjacent to an enemy unit, and there is a friendly unit in the location being vacated.

• Your Disengagement chance is improved if:
• Your unit has a large Reconnaissance capability,
• Your unit began the Turn with a very high Movement Allowance relative to the enemy units it is adjacent to, and/or
• Your unit is heavily equipped with armored equipment.
• Your Disengagement chance is reduced if:
• The enemy units have a large Reconnaissance capability,
• Your unit began the Turn with a low Movement Allowance relative to the enemy units.
• Terrain modifies the Disengaging unit’s Reconnaissance Capability:
• Badlands, Forests, Super Rivers, and Suez Canal locations offer the best cover for Disengage-ment (3x Recon).
• Bocage, Dense Urban, River, Canal, and Fortified Line locations (2.5x Recon).
• Mountains, Urban (2x Recon).
• Cropland, Hills (1.5x Recon).

Terrain modifications for disengagement regarding Reconnaissance Strength are not cumulative. Only the best (highest value) terrain type is considered. For disengagement purposes, unit Reconnaissance Capabilities are multiplied by an additional 0.5 on night Turns or if there is Heavy Rain or Snow in the location (which is cumulative).

Should your unit fail to disengage from the enemy, it will be subject to a Disengagement Attack. This is a short, one-sided shot at your unit as it attempts to move. The attack is based on the attack strengths of all enemy units involved, and the defense strength of your moving unit plus any supporting fire from eligible air and artillery units. Only the moving unit will take losses, which may force it to retreat, divide into subunits, or (in the worst case) disband.

If the units attempting to disengage are much weaker than adjacent enemy units there is an additional movement cost – up to 3x the normal cost to move out of the location. Relatively strong units will see no additional movement costs.

If you wish to avoid the effects of disengagement in your games, you can turn “active disengagement” off using the game options dialog.



So it is in the game and I still think its fine, despite your reality argument.

And yes Ma we still need more ants! (lol from the old GDW mag that I created the scenario Sudden Storm off of "Look Ma no ants!" from Europa Mag)...



Lobster -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 7:13:55 PM)

What Steve proposed is not what you suggest. He argues using them proactively. In other words, intentionally moving them into a hex to act as a rear guard. Moving out any units there. Then moving out the HQ unit. Whether or not the game allows it is not the argument. Whether or not proactively moving the HQ staff into a position to hold back an enemy is based on common practice is the question. Eisenhower never did this. But as it stands there is nothing keeping you from moving the Allied Command next to Panzer Lehr to hold them back so Capn Ron can get his guys out of there unharmed. Heck I've done it myself. I think Ike had a suit with a cape and a big S on the front.

The game allows a platoon sized unit to have the same ZOC effect as a corps sized unit regardless the scale. Do you think that's realistic? The game allows lots of stuff. And some people will use whatever gamey methods at their disposal to do as they wish because the game allows it. So, it's a matter of personal preference. Do you want to play anything goes or do you want to play with your feet grounded in some sort of real world abilities? I say let the players decide what kind of scenario they want to play. One that allows anything or one that attempts to simulate the real world. It starts with the scenario designers. I say give them all the tools humanly possible to do with as they will. Then let the players decide if they want to play the scenario based on what they want to see. This has always been my stand and always will be.



Zovs -> RE: Corps HQs (8/30/2019 8:15:55 PM)

Jack,

Good points.

In order for varying ZOC that would have to be coded in. I like that idea, it would be neat to have a scenario design mechanism that allowed the designer to set the 'base' ZOC'. So in my War In Europe scenario I would set that to be Division units, then I could have a waterfall effect of ZOC's so Regt/Brigades have a little lower ZOC and battalions more so. Or for my Anzio Beachhead I'd set the base ZOC to Battalion and companies would have a little less and platoons none. Or you can say all that plus make it so that HQ's and Arty's and AAAs dont have any ZOC or something like that. That would be great, but it would need to be coded because it does not exist.



Lobster -> RE: Corps HQs (8/31/2019 12:07:10 AM)

Yes. There is much to be done.



76mm -> RE: Corps HQs (8/31/2019 12:47:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Whether or not proactively moving the HQ staff into a position to hold back an enemy is based on common practice is the question.

I'm pretty much indifferent on this issue, but I have to say that when I read about this feature in the manual, I thought that the mechanic was meant to represent something other than "moving the HQ staff into a position to hold back an enemy": I thought it was meant to represent that the personal attention of the commander and his staff to a proposed withdrawal would mean that it was more likely to proceed smoothly (pulling back at night after extensive maskirovka efforts, etc.).

I think that this kind of makes sense, although it doesn't seem like it should work like a magic wand, it should just increase the likelihood that a unit could withdraw successfully.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.609375