japinard Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 I see this mentioned in the stretgy guide, yet I don't understand why. If you're units have a direct line to major city isn't this unnecessary? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terif Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 Like all things it depends on the situation... Hqs provide 2 different things for combat units: 1. Supply - can also be delivered by cities 2. HQ Command bonus - each rating point (and each experience point of the HQ too) is equivalent to one strength point of the combat unit. HQ Command has a range of 5 hexes. If you are in the defence, it is better to move your HQs away from the frontline. Supply comes from your str.10 cities, HQs can and should be 5 hexes away from the frontline. Especially in Russia it is better to move them away if your opponent has air supremacy. And if necessary (e.g. your opponent has a high LongRange Lv) you can move them even 7-10 hexes away. You dont need to support your frontline corps with HQ command. It doesnt help much in the defence (it only possibly reduces the damage taken if the defender has experience - which it has not - or if it is entrenched - entrenchment is away after the first attack). But your counterattack forces (armies/tanks) that are positioned behind the front need HQ command. E.g. you can do it this way: 1st line with corps, some hexes behind your armies/tanks and 3-5 hexes behind them your HQs, so they are out of reach of enemy air, even if they have LR Lv 5... Another possibility is to entrench your HQs in mountains or cities. In mountains they are nearly undestructable by enemy air. With full entrenchment in cities they also take no losses (max 1 random point). But if the enemy tries to kill it with massive airstrikes in the city, reduced the entrenchment and moves too much air close to it, then the HQ has to move back. But if you are the attacker, you need your HQs at the frontline. Especially in Russia (or as USA in the France invasion) the conquered cities dont deliver enough supply for your combat units, there you need your HQs. And as the aggressor you should have air supremacy, so your HQs dont have to fear any harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted January 27, 2004 Share Posted January 27, 2004 The Strategy Guide errata posted last September clarifies several things about HQ supply. Those ranges are tricky to understand. But if you want your units to get the maximum HQ supply possible, you need to watch those ranges. It often boils down to a tradeoff between a supply bonus versus the HQ command bonus. Do you keep your HQ forward to provide leadership for 5 key units, or do you keep it back closer to a supply source city to provide supply for everyone within range? That's the challenge players need to wrestle with. A technique for the German player to try in Russia is to use HQs in pairs. Have one HQ with high commander rating forward to provide leadership support. Have another HQ with lower commander rating back within range of a supply source city to provide logistical support. If it's within range of a 6+ city, that HQ has a supply value of 10. For a <6 city, the HQ's supply drops to 8 but this is still pretty good for central Russia. You just have to watch the partisan effects on city strength, which in turn affect the city supply range to the HQs. Being inside a city like Smolensk with only strength 1 will still give a HQ supply value 8, which will help everyone around Moscow more than having it up closer and out of supply. What good is leadership without supply? There's a tradeoff involved, and players have to decide what's best for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 HQs are a pain in the arse IMO! Leadership shouldn't be a seperate unit in SC on this strategic Level game.<if you made 3 more hexes per 1, and added several units then it would be fine> At least tie it into a Army or Tank Group. Also why should a General of the Army give a bonus to the Airforce? Where are Admirals? The system is too complicated to allocate supply, and not a science considering the wide use of Air Power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 I second Liam's motion for assigning lower ranking generals to individual units - with a bonus/penalty based on the leader's strengths and weaknesses - ie +1 Medal on the Defense, +1 AP, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japinard Posted January 28, 2004 Author Share Posted January 28, 2004 Originally posted by pzgndr: The Strategy Guide errata posted last September clarifies several things about HQ supply. Those ranges are tricky to understand. But if you want your units to get the maximum HQ supply possible, you need to watch those ranges. It often boils down to a tradeoff between a supply bonus versus the HQ command bonus. Do you keep your HQ forward to provide leadership for 5 key units, or do you keep it back closer to a supply source city to provide supply for everyone within range? That's the challenge players need to wrestle with. A technique for the German player to try in Russia is to use HQs in pairs. Have one HQ with high commander rating forward to provide leadership support. Have another HQ with lower commander rating back within range of a supply source city to provide logistical support. If it's within range of a 6+ city, that HQ has a supply value of 10. For a <6 city, the HQ's supply drops to 8 but this is still pretty good for central Russia. You just have to watch the partisan effects on city strength, which in turn affect the city supply range to the HQs. Being inside a city like Smolensk with only strength 1 will still give a HQ supply value 8, which will help everyone around Moscow more than having it up closer and out of supply. What good is leadership without supply? There's a tradeoff involved, and players have to decide what's best for them. Can you please expand on this of me, Im sto;o; not comprehending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted January 28, 2004 Share Posted January 28, 2004 HQs are a pain in the arse IMO! Yes they are! But in a way, they are a fascinating "feature" of the game and force players to make some tough decisions. And that keeps the game interesting, if not a bit frustrating at times. Many of us would like to at least be able to change default HQ links, and that alone would help a lot. Can you please expand on this Sure, and I assume it's the supply issue that's confusing. From the errata, which you can find posted earlier: HQ SUPPLY CALCULATIONS (a clarification) HQ supply = 5 if out of normal supply HQ supply = 8 if within range of city with supply value 1 to 5 HQ supply = 10 if within range of city with supply value 6 or more Let's say you've advanced into Russia and taken Smolensk. Partisan effects reduce city strength to 2, ie supply value of 2. Normal supply within the city is 2, one hex away is 1, and beyond that units are out of supply. If you have an HQ within normal supply range of Smolensk (ie, within the city or within 1 hex) then that HQ would have supply = 8 because the supply source value is 1-5. Beyond 1 hex, an HQ would be out of normal supply and would then have supply = 5. So at 5 hexes from Smolensk in this example, unit supply is about the same (4) whether you have an HQ=8 4 hexes away or an HQ=5 1 hex away (8-4 and 5-1 both equal 4). If your front line is closer to Smolensk then you could get a supply benefit from having that HQ=8. If you're farther away, then you may as well have your HQs forward to provide limited supply plus leadership. As if this is complicated enough, partisan effects are random and change things every turn. It's hard to predict just where that supply "sweet spot" may be next turn. The point is there are some cases where keeping an HQ back near a city can be beneficial, if only for a couple of supply points. And that might make a difference in a tough fight. It's a subtle thing to comprehend, not a hard and fast "rule" to keep HQs back near cities. Hopefully this helps some. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
japinard Posted January 29, 2004 Author Share Posted January 29, 2004 Thanks everyone! That does help a lot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts