HQs and Supply

[Good Soldier Svejk]

The rules talk about distances to cities and supply levels for units, but not for HQs as a source of supply (or if they do, I can't find it).

I'm not playing v1.04, so my HQs are not stringing supply to each other, by the way. I'm finding that my HQ supply levels aren't consistent.

Can anyone tell me, definitively, what the correlation is between HQ supply levels and their distance to cities and how, exactly they are calculated (I'm getting the impression that terrain costs are greater than the tables would indicate--not everything is there).

Maybe an example or two might be included in the FAQ section in the future to help out dummies like me.

Thanks!

Salute!

[redwilf]

Yes i would like to have some clarification about this subject also.

for example why does my german Hq's supply drop to five when i move it past dnieper near sevastopol.

[Hubert Cater]

Sorry guys, this was missed in the manual. HQ supply levels are as follows:

supply = 0 -> HQ supply = 5

supply <= 5 -> HQ Supply = 8

supply > 5 -> HQ supply = 10

Then subsequent units will feed their supply off of either the HQ supply value or a city supply value, whichever is greater.

Hope that helps,

Hubert

[Good Soldier Svejk]

Thanks, Hubert!

[pzgndr]

Hubert, a couple of related questions. Is a unit's supply, command rating and combat morale bonus affected by the HQ's actual strength? I would assume a HQ worn down to strength 5 would only be half as effective as a full strength HQ, but the manual is not clear on this. If they are affected, do units retain the bonuses calculated at the start of each turn, or are the bonuses recalculated as the HQ takes damage during the turn? Just wondering how important it is to attack HQs and whether attacking them first makes a difference. Obviously, the reinforcement cost of HQs and total loss of HQs is strong incentive to go after them, but if unit bonuses are not affected by HQ damage it may not make sense to in some cases.

[Hubert Cater]

Is a unit's supply, command rating and combat morale bonus affected by the HQ's actual strength?

Nope

Obviously, the reinforcement cost of HQs and total loss of HQs is strong incentive to go after them, but if unit bonuses are not affected by HQ damage it may not make sense to in some cases.

The combat morale bonus is derived from an HQ's experience, so whenever an HQ is reinforced it will lose some experience and thus this will translate into a lower combat morale bonus from the parent HQ.

Hope that helps,

Hubert

[sogard]

Thanks for the clarification of the supply values of a HQ Hubert. I was surprised in a recent game where an opponant opted to try an invasion of Britian and I thought that because he had failed to capture a city or a port, his supply value would be "0." But, I discovered that instead, because he had landed a HQ, he did have some supply.

STRATEGIC COMMAND always teaches me something new every game.

[ September 17, 2002, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[pzgndr]

Nope

Can't get much clearer than that! Piece by piece, the puzzle slowly reveals itself. Thanks Hubert.

[HankWWIIOnline]

"The combat morale bonus is derived from an HQ's experience, so whenever an HQ is reinforced it will lose some experience and thus this will translate into a lower combat morale bonus from the parent HQ."

So if I have an HQ at strength 2, but with 4 experience points...it translates the same as a strength 10 HQ with 4 experience points? If I knew my HQ wasn't in danger, I would keep it's strength relatively low for the increased experience bonus.

[Zeres]

So I suppose this means I should stop attacking HQ's everytime I get a chance. Pretty good tip!!!

[pzgndr]

So if I have an HQ at strength 2, but with 4 experience points...it translates the same as a strength 10 HQ with 4 experience points? If I knew my HQ wasn't in danger, I would keep it's strength relatively low for the increased experience bonus.

This was the point I was getting to previously. The core HQ staff may be as brilliant as ever, but if all those Army Group assets are whittled away you can't expect to have the same effect.

Combat morale bonus should be equal to HQ experience times % strength. That strength 2 HQ with 4 experience would then provide a combat morale bonus of about 0.8, not 4. That makes targeting HQs and maintaining HQs at full strength a more realistic priority. Maybe this can be reconsidered in a future patch.

[Zeres]

*This is a very solid thread with game-play issues that really should be examined for the patch. In my view HQ's should represent Leadership AND LINES OF COMMUNICATION. In modern American Doctrine these assets are taken out first precisely because they have a direct effect on Unit effectiveness and morale. Nothing more demoralizing then being cut off from HQ. In my view this should have a direct relationship on Air support and it's relative effectiveness as well. How do you call in tactical Air Support if your incommunicado?