SeaWolf_48 Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 After much thinking about the game, which is fun to do, I have come to the conclusion that the HQ units do not work like any other wargame HQ. What do I mean. Any other wargame the HQ's need to be along way away from harms way. They are weak and can be destroyed easily. Actually HQ's very seldom were destroyed, some were captured, but that was very rare, and usually when the army was beaten. But HQ's never served as front line troops, look at any OOB or TO&E and they did not have the men or make-up to be in the front lines. In SC you can be lazy and let the HQ's fight like a front line corps. This I think is worng. Another point is that you only have a few choises of Army commanders, Monty a 8, big joke, he never attacked unless he had three to one odds. Get rid of the names, to subjective, the Generals that lead Armies changed frequintly but the Army remains, Army names would be good enough, e.g. 1st Army Group, Army Group East or West, North or South, Ukraine, or whatever. Secondly, make HQ's indestructable and 0 points defense. The way they supply units now is good, but they should be able to supply more units. Germany attacked Russia with 3.5 mil men and only had 3 Army Groups, about five armies each, which was about 20 corps per Group, plus Air Support. Where am I going, when armor makes a breakthru and it cuts off front line troops from the HQ, the HQ would have to retreat and the frontline troops would be cut off from instructions and supplies. This was what modern tank warfare was designed to do, otherwise we will be fighting WW1 tactics. Make the HQ's weak but unable to be destroyed, make them retreat when next to the enemy. The HQ is important for leadership and supplies but not for defense, but if cut off from it's troops the corps would be unsupplies and loose their fighting ability-say half strength or something less, and could not be reinforced. I'm sure you have some comments....... [ February 12, 2003, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 SeaWolf Good points as usual. The problem with making HQs weak is the stacking issue. I find that often all the hexes in an offensive are needed. If the HQ gets in there it's defense factor plays an importnt role in holding some rear area, usually a city, linking hex or resource that might otherwise be taken by a stray enemy unit. Why not keep them as they are and also adapt your idea of making it immune from capture, it just relocates. That way it's defense factor hypothetically represents unassigned reserve units and replacement troops available for ad hoc defense in an emergency. Agreed entirely on the names. I'd suggest the bland listing of 1st, 2nd etc and also leaving the option for the player to rename the HQ as often as he wants, just like any other unit. As to abilities, why not make it random? Within national identities all HQs would cost the same to establish . Some are brilliant and some are not, but you don't know till they're in the field. Generals leadership, while subjective, should be ranked according to the abilities exhibited by those countries in actual campaigns/battles. Therefore, I'd also recommend having minimum and maximum values within given ranges as follows, Germany's being the best, Italy's the worst: Germany United States Britain USSR France Italy I believe they're already arranged this way with exceptions such as Zhukov and Montgomery , but I just wanted to state it as part of the concept. Perhaps each national group can be capable of producing a given ratio of outstanding to poor HQs. Again, I believe this is pretty much the way it's layed out at present. The difference would be there's an outside chance France and Italy might come up with a good commander. The worst German commanders would be merely competent, as they are now. [ February 12, 2003, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 I like the random idea, since the cost of HQ's are so close anyways. Or make the cost range more dramatically from best to worst. A question for anyone that might know the answer? 1. What is the difference between a 8 rated HQ & a 5 rated HQ? 2. If a HQ has been knocked down from its original 10 value down to 5 or 6, how does that affect supply and attack values? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 KDG Pleased you like the random idea. I'm not certain about the numbers but I believe the HQ value reflects the leadership ability affecting supply levels, readiness etc. of the attached units, and the 1-10 is entirely the HQs defense factor as a field unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Ahhhh... thinking about the game. That too, is one of my favorite pastimes. Again, JerseyJohn has the right of it. The HQ units have replacement troops and reserve units, that represent the people being cycled back and forth due to attrition. If not, then yes there is a problem, since it is too strong as a unit otherwise. While I agree that the HQ should cost the same, with a random leadership factor, can you imagine the complaints when someone got just "competent" Axis HQ's while the Allied HQ's were all "superior"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Right now with little cost difference, you buy the best guy, then work down the list. Imagine if you get a low rated guy, so you assign him to defense duties on some front, while that high rated guy leads your offensive, just some thoughts. The other thing that could be done is lower the lowest rated HQ by about 50 mrps, and raise the highest rated by about 50. That way the spread is greater in their costs. I found the formula in the manual (I love the fact it is in PDF, I just open it at work, take a glance, then close it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Shaka One of the joys of this thing is the complaint factor. If you happen to roam around a scittles/analysis room for a large chess tournament you'll notice one thing in all the post-mortems. No chess player ever lost a game! It was never mistakes that caused the loss, all distractions, noises only he or she could hear, etc., and somehow, the opponent had that old standby "Got Lucky!" Which I've never quite understood in chess as there are no dice or other factors of chance. Anyway, going by the SC Ladder Forum there's a healthy dose of that syndrome with SC players. But also, even on the [presumably] rare occasions if the player draws all minimum quality HQs how much difference does that make in the game as a whole? As long as he has HQs and his plans are sound the outcome of the game is ultimately between himself and his adversary; and without HQ names how does he know whether or not his opponent is any luckier than himself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 KDG Your approach is a valid one and I'm sure we all pretty much use it at present, perhaps with some variation. I like to chose the best HQs for areas where I'm launching offensives and lesser ones for areas where I'm only holding things defensively. No problem, that's the current system. But wouldn't be more exciting if you spend a standard amount and it's pot luck? How often does a high command know beyond doubt that one general is more qualified than another? Then there's seniority as a factor and political pull, etc.. The reason so many of Hitler's outstanding generals were in key commands was because he was the only one who had to pick them and he happened to be good at it; till after Moscow, when he became paranoid. On the other hand, his sole responsibility method went wrong in other areas, like giving too much power to personal friends such as Goering. All in all, while the present system is fine, I think a random element would be both more interesting and more historical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valadictum Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 My preference would be for HQ's to be more vulnerable than they are now, not less. Also I'd suggest steering away from random attributes. What I wouldn't mind seeing is a closer link between an HQ's attributes and the experience gained by units under it's command. This would translate into HQ's than can both gain and lose attributes as the game progesses. If HQ's were also more vulnerable then in addition to a starting "crop" of HQ's each side would need to be able to create new ones. This could perhaps be done by taking an army with experience and removing its experience when creating the HQ (or most of it anyway). The more experience the original army has, the better the HQ it can create. I know this is different from what others have expressed, b ut thought I'd add my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Valadictum It doesn't matter whether others share your views or not, we should all voice our opinions. The point for making HQs more vulnerable -- generals may be captured, such as Britain's O'Connor when he was most needed in North Africa -- and they may be overrun, but that's usually on a smaller scale than we have here. The SC unit is actually an Army Group HQ and there are few cases of these being overrun or destroyed by enemy action. I think the idea of giving them 10 points defensive value is good as it makes them a durable rear area unit not likely to be destroyed by a random enemy corps. The alternative would be SeaWolf's original suggestion of giving the unit no value but having it placed in the nearest friendly territory when overrun. Either way is okay with me but in the second case it would have to be made stackable, as hexes on this scale are too precious for a non-combat unit to occupy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 To JJ During Barbarrosa Germany had three Army Groups. Group North under Leeb, Group Center under Bock, and Group South under von Rundstedt, their front from Finland to the Black Sea was around 1200 miles. Divide by three that's 400 miles each. Divide by 50 mile hexes and you get 8 hexes area, supply units were behind air strike limits, so they were back aways. Making supply routes from supply units to the front about 200 miles behind the lines. HQ's should be able to supply units over a 6 hex limit putting the HQ away from the main line, so the precious hexes shouldn't be a problem. Also letting the HQ supply more than 5 of the closest units, more like 12 units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 SeaWolf We're thinking of different real estate. You're talking Texas and I'm thinking Rhode Island! What I had in mind was places like the Low Countries when Germany is first breaking through into France. Those are definitely precious hexes. Also Italy. If there's a campaign down there it's already a pain in the ass finding places for units. Never mind North Africa, which is a nightmare on many levels and effectively placing an HQ is one of them. Anyway, I don't see the point regarding Russia. Hexes there are still precious. If you're moving in the environs of Kiev or Smolensk with Soviet units in the vicinity and there's no stacking would you prefer occupying one of those cities with an HQ worth ZERO defensive points or one worth TEN defensive points? As I said, I agree with your idea but feel the HQ should be able to stack with another ground or air unit. Or perhaps you just don't care for the word precious! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Actually the main point of the weak HQ's was to allow Panzer breakthru's and then to surround enemy units which would become weak, thus the breakthru units being supplied by a cooridore of units wouldnot get destroyed by the surrounded units, like happens now. Also giving the HQ more units of supply, to 12 instead of 5. Finally which other wargame allows you to defend with HQ's? HQ TO&E's have a few Engineer Bat, some arty, a couple fat Generals, their girlfriends, a hairdresser, one Italian Chief, motor pool and signal groups. Hardly frontline battle troops. Tanks [ February 12, 2003, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 You could have HQs rated in about half a dozen categories I guess... 1. Offense-bonus when on the attack 2. Defense-Monty was good at this 3. Logistics-higher readiness 4. Manuever-units get a bonus movement point sometimes (dunno how to work this in current system-perhaps one bonus point per turn to be given to one supported unit) 5. Amphibious assault bonus 6. City assault bonus (close quarters fighting) Just some brainstorming here... John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 JerseyJohn But also, even on the [presumably] rare occasions if the player draws all minimum quality HQs how much difference does that make in the game as a whole? As long as he has HQs and his plans are sound the outcome of the game is ultimately between himself and his adversary; and without HQ names how does he know whether or not his opponent is any luckier than himself? Because he's losing his combats. And why? Because the opponent is getting a better combat bonus than him because his HQ has a better Leadership rating. Valadictum Why are you opposed to the random leadership? As was pointed out, you didn't know the ability of your Generals until they actually performed. I doubt seriously if the first Russian HQ someone buys is one of the "4" rating leaders. What I wouldn't mind seeing is a closer link between an HQ's attributes and the experience gained by units under it's command. This would translate into HQ's than can both gain and lose attributes as the game progesses. I think we currently get a combat bonus based on the leadership rating, and the HQ gains experience based on how the units perform under its command. Are you saying that you would want the Leadership rating to go up or down based on the units under its command? But what about the HQ experience then? SeaWolf48 Having HQ's supply six (6) or more hex's away is no problem. I believe they can do that now. But you're example does point out that the five (5) unit limitation appears to be a probelm. I think the problem is more that we are dealing with generic HQ's and units, that are difficult to translate into German, Russian, US, etc HQ's since they all operated differently. What other game allowed HQ's to defend? Grigsby's (?) did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by SeaWolf_48: Also letting the HQ supply more than 5 of the closest units, more like 12 units. Why not say... The HQ Command Rating = nb of units it supply... example: Zhukov (8) = can supply 8 units... It would give even more value to the best one! And the weak countries like Italy are stuck with poor HQ, like in the real war... And I think HQ should be destroyable too... remember Paulus at Stalingrad (BTW, He's not in the Germany HQ list ?!?)... So you must be careful where you use it, even if they can defend themselves... The high rating HQs would be a more tempting target because successfully killing it (or isolating it) would disorganize the enemy supply net... Hope you like my idea... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 SeaWolf I understand the point a little better now. In combat terms I never envisioned HQs as first line defenders, only for rear areas. But, as you point out using them even for defense in the rear can prevent a breakthrough. Interesting way to view it; I was seeing them as ersatz defenders but, as you point out, they aren't. You've swung me over to the idea of their not having a combat value, but I still think they ought to then be the one unit allowed to stack {with no two HQs allowed to do so in the same hex}. Shaka I can see your point if one side has a lopsided preponderance of high quality HQs over facing much lower quality HQs. In the game I've seen low level HQs, especially on the defensive in Russia, hold up relatively well. Higher quality HQs seem perform significantly better in offensives and in supporting airfleets. I've always felt the main thing was simply to have one or two supporting your troops. France, Italy and Russia [with the exception of Zhukov and one or two others] don't have the option of selecting really outstanding leaders in any case. There's no doubt, of course, all other factors being equal, that Manstein's units should win over Gamelin's . What I meant to imply was the gaming part of it would be in positioning Gamelin's unfortunate troops so they at least stand a fighting chance; behing rivers and in cities, etc.. JohnDiFool Interesting ideas. So far I only half understand the basic HQ issues but your ideas look like they have merit. Minotaur An interesting viewpoint. Basically I think the way Hubert has it set up is very good but I can see your idea also having merit. It's similar to an old computer game called Legions where the better generals were able to control and supply a larger number of units than their less able counterparts; also, they conducted battles more effectively. [ February 13, 2003, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 For Minotaur Yes, 6th Army was captured with 23 Generals, other Generals have been captured here and there (both allied and axis in Africa), but never was a Army Group HQ captured, not a Army HQ, a Army Group HQ. For JJ Okay, your right, allow stacking with HQ's, but can this game platform handle stacking? It should! For Shaka I think giving each country a generic leadership value would be best. This becomes somewhat subjective, but also somewhat historic because of the same military machine in each country building it's own Army HQ, plus how much does one man at the top make a difference if the people below him are no good (Zhukov), or if the Leader is weak and the Staff below him is outstanding (Hitler). Like I said this is subjective, but so is making Rommel an 8, Manstein a 9, and Monty a 8, Patton a 7? Something like this...... Wehrmacht HQ, OKW, creates Army Group HQ's of 8. British Imperial HQ, builds Army Group HQ's of 7. US High Command, builds Army Group HQ's of 7. USSR High Command, Stavka, builds HQ's of 6. Italy builds HQ's of 5. France builds HQ's of 4. Or during whatever year it is the HQ's all change there level together. Ger '40 HQ's=8, Ger '44 HQ's=7, Ger '45 HQ's=6, showing there connection to however their countries war is going. Zhukov 1st Ukarine HQ in '42=6, but in '45 HQ=7. You no what I'm getting at! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 SeaWolf Good ideas. The changing HQ value would be good touch. I have a few thoughts on it: 1) It reflects the fact that Allied Generals learned from their own mistakes and from German innovations, closing the gap between the new German tactical doctrine and their own. Similar to what occurred during the Napoleonic Wars. 2) Some of Hitler's top generals were either elderly or ill at the start of the war (the majority were comparatively young and healthy) such as von Rundstedt, who had come out of retirement, von Bock, who retired from active service due to health problems after the Moscow campaign and von Richenau, Sixth Army Commander who died of a heart attack in early '42 after replacing Rundstedt as Army Group South Commander. Varying values would help reflect the frequent changes in command that ensued. 3) As begun above, beginning in early '42 Hitler began a less than rational policy of dismissing generals from their commands. The most commical cases are von Rundstedt and Guderian who popped up in several capacities on both the East and West Fronts. Extremely capable generals such as Hoth and Kleist were dismissed and sometimes even disgraced for mistakes originating with Hitler himself (Stalin did similar things to his own generals, except they usually disappeared forever). The problem is this, if Germany is doing well would Hitler have pursued this same policy? 4) Despite the dismissals, often the replacements, men like von Manstein, von Kluge and Model were themselves as capable as their predecessors. A few, such as Paulus were selected more for their willingness to obey than for their tactical ability. This lowering helps reflect this. Also, Paulus is an example of a related weakness, the replacement of good field commanders with good staff officers; von Paulus, who'd never held a major field command, belonged at General Staff HQ, not receiving on the job training in the Ukraine. A very interesting topic. Much more so than I first realized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 For JJ: (I like your article on No. Afr and Rommel) Like all these topics, they start off one way and metimorph into something else. As far as HQ's and their value, the US Army in 1942 was green. From the top to the bottom. Rommel said that he never saw an army change as much as the Americans. Therefore. Historic example: US HQ Jan - Jul 1942 = 5. Aug - Dec 1942 = 6. 1943 = 7 1944 = 8. BR HQ 1939-42 = 6, 1943 = 7. 1944 = 8. If Allies loosing, first of all how do you know if they are loosing? HQ's wouldn't grow, and possibly lessen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 SeaWolf Glad you liked the Rommel entry. After writing it I thought it really belonged here regarding HQs but also belonged there because of Malta. Probably that's why these Forums meander so much, in many instances ideas start off in the thread, then take a path of their own. Good point regarding the U. S. Army. It was pretty much reinventing itself in WW II. I'm glad Roosevelt didn't pull Pershing out of retirement in the late thirties; his thinking was behind the times even in the twenties! (Old Blackjack game mixed signals about coming back; finally, when it was obvious he wouldn't be asked he made statements like "This war should be handled by a younger generation than my own." [not an exact quote]. But then, had he been French, he would have been thought of as the Young Generation of generals! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Damn French, they always are going the opposite direction from everyone else. Even now with Iraq, Iraq owes them so much money for military stuff and technical supplies, and they get all of their oil cheap from Hussain, so they don't care about how dangerous he is, just please leave him alone you bad American Imperist who only want his oil. Germany is wacked out because half of the New Germany is made up of eastern german commies, socialist, american haters. But that's not important, what about SC and its ability to handle HQ's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 SeaWolf They flashed a great letter on the screen a couple of days ago at Fox Cable News: "President Bush, . . .Are you sure you've identified the real Axis of Evil? Last time Germany and Russia got together to solve a problem, Poland dissapeared!" The whole Middle East situation stinks. It's the result of sixty years of special interests and religious lunacy. I think the UN should have been set up in Jerusalem in '46 and Palestine/Isreal made an International state defended by the UN, incapable of expanding, with equality to people of all races and religions. Then the United Nations might have meant something. Instead the Rockefellers had to have their toy on the upper East Side of Manhattan to go along with their other toys like Rockefeller Center, and South America. So as not to go off-topic, I think UN Headquarters are, as a rule, about five notches below those of the French and Italians, who at least have good food and wine to their credit. [ February 13, 2003, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valadictum Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 "Valadictum Why are you opposed to the random leadership? As was pointed out, you didn't know the ability of your Generals until they actually performed. I doubt seriously if the first Russian HQ someone buys is one of the "4" rating leaders." Largely because most nations don't pick their generals by random lot, too risky. Generals that get appointed during a conflict are promoted from lower commands, which was why I favour having a smaller starting stock, but the ability to create generals whose attributes etc are very much based on how well the army they came from performed. Possibly a bit fiddly for an SC type game though. Good topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 14, 2003 Share Posted February 14, 2003 Valadictum You have a good point. We all know it's never done by horoscope and quija board but very often generals appoint much more poorly or much better than was expected of them. Mark Clark is an example. He was one of the US Army's rising stars but his decisions in Italy have few supporters; particularly his entering Rome on June 5, 1944 instead of cutting off routed German troops as they fled to the next line of defenses. Even Kesselring was amazed by that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts