Chain of Command question

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Chain of Command question

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Chain of Command question

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Chain of Command question - 7/30/2011 4:16:20 PM

Scook_99

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline

From the rules:

"11.3.1.1. Chain of Command Rating Checks
If a leader fails their rating check, the leader of the next higher headquarters unit in the chain of command will then conduct the check, but with the base value of the check doubled."

My question, and we will use the Soviet HQ structure, if you have units directly attached to a Front HQ, is that counted as the direct control HQ, or would it be considered the second HQ in the chain, and an Army HQ still be considered the 1st?

I ask this, because my friend in the 1st Blizzard, will grab 2 Front HQs, attach 72 CP worth of units, put his best generals there, and attack in a 10 hex wide (or less) front. If there is not penalty in bypassing Army HQs I will have to determine if I can do this as Germany, and next game I will surprise him with a super-sized tank Army in the middle of 1942.

Yeah, it is rather "gamey", but we do play if the game allows it, fair game.

Post #: 1

RE: Chain of Command question - 7/30/2011 11:23:28 PM

FredSanford3

Posts: 567
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

I believe there's a combat penalty if you 'skip' a level of command. Take a look at the combat results, and you'll see a "-x%" above the units listed at the very right or left of each summary if there's a penalty. Mixing commands gets penalized also.

(in reply to Scook_99)

Post #: 2

RE: Chain of Command question - 7/31/2011 2:30:55 AM

Kumppi

Posts: 209
Joined: 10/21/2008
From: Somewhere between Sweden and Russia
Status: offline

As far as rating checks go the HQ that the combat unit is directly attached to will make checks at the base value no matter what type of HQ it is.

(in reply to FredSanford3)

Post #: 3

RE: Chain of Command question - 7/31/2011 11:54:45 AM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

You'll take a CV penalty for attaching units directly to fronts, and the command range of a front for its combat units where it can support them with support assets and leader rolls is still only 5 hexes like for all HQ's.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Kumppi)

Post #: 4

RE: Chain of Command question - 7/31/2011 2:29:07 PM

Scook_99

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

You'll take a CV penalty for attaching units directly to fronts, and the command range of a front for its combat units where it can support them with support assets and leader rolls is still only 5 hexes like for all HQ's.

But, for example, if you attach Zhukov to a Front command, and in December of 1941 launch an offensive and stay within 5 hexes of the headquarters, there are no penalties? My friend does this so he can switch out ragged units for refit and rotate fresh units in and not stop his offensive in an area.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 5

RE: Chain of Command question - 7/31/2011 6:15:53 PM

Vyper

Posts: 23
Joined: 10/24/2009
Status: offline

I can't see how that would be beneficial.

There maybe more to this, but here is what I see:

1) By removing the Army link, he is removing a leader roll check if any rolls fail. ie, no back up.
2) By having a full front attached to units, basically 36 divisions have to stay within 5 hexes "as the crow fly's" and 20MP's or risk having supply issues. You'll end up with a big, immobile clump of units that could be flanked with ease.
3) Attached support units all in one front trying to support the battles of so many divisions would be problematic.
4) Not sure but it seems like taking the Army link out of the mix would remove a supply depot level...I'll have to read more to see how this could effect overall operation.

Those are what I see off the top of my head. I don't know how it would possibly be better to get a +1/+2 check chances in loo of all the problems it would cause.

I'm sure some of the players with far more experience than I could add pro's and con's.

(in reply to Scook_99)

Post #: 6

RE: Chain of Command question - 7/31/2011 10:21:34 PM

ComradeP

Posts: 7192
Joined: 9/17/2009
Status: offline

quote:

But, for example, if you attach Zhukov to a Front command, and in December of 1941 launch an offensive and stay within 5 hexes of the headquarters, there are no penalties?

It depends on the version he's using, if he's using the release version or one of the first patches he won't face a penalty, but if he's using a patch that includes Pavel's revised C&C (a fix for CV being lowered for all participating units when all units were not attached to the same HQ) he's facing a CV penalty for attaching units directly to a front.

Vyper summed up most of the important negative consequences, the one I would add would be that the support need is even less likely to be met than normally (most Soviet units have poor to mediocre support) because there's one less HQ in the chain to pull support squads from.

The only place where it could work, if you intend to save army HQ's for some reason, would be near Leningrad where the defending units are generally so close to eachother that Northern/Leningrad front stationed in Leningrad could theoretically control the defensive stacks without the need of an army HQ as the Axis close in on the city, but I'd still prefer using army HQ's.

_____________________________

SSG tester
WitE Alpha tester
Panzer Corps Beta tester
Unity of Command scenario designer

(in reply to Vyper)

Post #: 7

RE: Chain of Command question - 8/1/2011 4:20:09 AM

Scook_99

Posts: 301
Joined: 6/20/2007
Status: offline

We recently finished up some long games and are now in version 1.04.36. It is something that really only works well in the 1st winter. Myself, I prefer using armies too, but one die roll with Zhukov on a Front HQ in December 1941 can be preferable to two die rolls with other commanders. Nice to see there is a revised C&C to make it not quite as attractive using Front HQs directly.

(in reply to ComradeP)

Post #: 8