Your views on HQs

Share your best tactics, strategies and gameplay tips with other gamers here.

Moderator: Vic

EmTom
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 10:46 am

Your views on HQs

Post by EmTom »

I have been experimenting with different HQ configurations and to be honest it's hard for me to decide how to use them... There are basically two problems to solve and I find it hard to address them both.

1) It is better to send new production to front line HQs because you won't lose as much readiness when reinforcing units.

2) It is better to have your HQ as mobile as possible to maximize HQ bonuses during battles.

I tried to use lighter HQs with one unit attached to it as reserves. This way you can transfer reinforcements from this reserve unit to units under same HQ which reduces readiness loss a lot, but it is much harder to reinforce forward units cause non-HQ unit has no transfer capacity even if it contains trucks/trains. So to reinforce any forward unit it needs to be relocated behind the front line for at least one turn.

This solution has a drawback however. Reserves unit (especially with a lot of reserve forces) requires HQ to have lots of staff. Otherwise HQ bonuses are lowered making this solution a failure.

There is another way to handle it. There are some HQs that collect production and send it to front line corps when needed. I don't really like this because you get huge readiness penalty when you transfer to a unit under different HQ. This makes sending troops directly to front line units futile as they get hammered there without readiness. It is better to relocate some units behind lines to reinforce them before they return to fight. Those units in most cases need two turns to get back to 100% readiness I think...

So I thought about a solution that does that on a higher level... I considered creating more corps than really needed on the front. Then if some corps forces on the front get hammered I can replace it with the reserve corp and rebuild it's units behind my lines. I haven't tried that yet so If you have some experience with such a tactic please let me know.

I'm very interested in your opinions and your ways of handling production and reinforcements so please reply!
I'm with you since People's Tactics and I love it!
User avatar
Twotribes
Posts: 6466
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Jacksonville NC
Contact:

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by Twotribes »

At present I do not reinforce my line units. As they are eaten up I condense them into each other. I simply over produce and build more units. I assume if you have the troops the Reserve Corps idea would work well.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
User avatar
henri51
Posts: 1151
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 7:07 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by henri51 »

Although it is not optimum, I do it mostly the way you suggest: that is I create new units on a HQ near the front, and only get it into combat two or three moves later when its readiness and XP have gone up. Occasionally I will fuse two units together, but I find that to do this universally is too much management, not to mention that the units required are not always near each other; but let us say that a unit is down to 7 infantry and a couple of mortars, then I will usually join it with the nearest unit that can use its elements. Units that have taken casualties are usually filled up unless that would lower their readiness too much, in case they are pulled back from the front first.

In addition this way of functioning is closest to the way it was done historically in WW2. Units were not usually joined together, but battered units usually kept their cadre units and were pulled back from the front to be refitted or reinforced.

Henri
User avatar
phatkarp
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:45 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by phatkarp »

I usually try to do what you propose, EmTom. I try not to send new units directly to the front line. I create a corps HQ in back of the front, and route production to it for the 3-6 turns required to build the brigades/divisions I plan for it to have. If I have time, I let the corps sit for a while and train up. Then I send it to war. If the corps is replacing a front-line corps, I will pull the battered, depleted front-line corps back, merge survivors into veteran divisions, and route production to that HQ to build up new replacement divisions. I believe high-exp Staff are supposed to train new divisions faster, which is something to keep in mind.

I have tried doing this process several different ways, and I've played several 1v1 PBEM games where I routed production directly to the front-line corps HQ. This is okay if necessary to head off a disaster, but you tend to take heavy casualties due to the low training, which is almost as destructive as low readiness.
Josh
Posts: 2568
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Leeuwarden, Netherlands

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by Josh »

I go for option 2) use your HQ as mobile as possible, almost no troops are sent directly into that HQ. And only a very few Inf are inside that HQ for defensive purposes only.
So I send my reinforcements directly from the Supreme HQ to the units, thereby lowering readiness and Exp.... but if you send only a few reinforcements at a time readiness and Exp drop won't be that bad. Say a few Inf. men or a few mortars will only decrease Exp from 65 to 63 or so. If they get hammered real bad I fuse two/three units into one, so to keep a unit with high Exp.
 
I used to go for option number one, send all the reinforcements to the local HQ, and then send it from that HQ to its units. But those front HQ's would become overbloated (with too many troops and trooptypes) so much it felt too artificial.
So in short, local HQ's act only as HQ and not as a staging area.
EmTom
Posts: 40
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 10:46 am

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by EmTom »

Thats a smart solution. [&o]

Do you also use some HQs behind your lines to collect reserves? Do you rotate production between those HQs and corps when needed? How do you handle supply? Tell me more! :)
I'm with you since People's Tactics and I love it!
User avatar
phatkarp
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:45 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by phatkarp »

I am always rotating production among the "back line" HQ's. In fact, in my PBEM games I've started charting a production plan, listing what units I'm going to build in each HQ, each turn. This helps me coordinate my "grand strategy" with my actual production goals and capacity. Except for the very start of a game, I usually try to focus production on only one or two HQ's. On a medium sized map, I can often build up a full corps (4 Inf divisions, 2 Armored, 1 Artillery, 1 Engineer) in 3-5 turns.

As for supply, I usually play on medium maps or smaller. I do not have or need any forward supply dump HQ's. I either have them directly subordinate to the Supreme HQ, or I may have an intermediate "Army" HQ. In some past games, I've tried to route all production through two intermediate "Army" HQ's, then directly reinforce the frontline divisions. This works, but the effect of the reinforcements always seems to be lessened. There is a big difference between slowly reinforcing your frontlines with 2-3 divisions at a time, versus reinforcing with a full corps that suddenly appears on scene, fully trained!
User avatar
british exil
Posts: 1686
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 6:26 pm
Location: Lower Saxony Germany

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by british exil »

At the start of random games I concentrate on 3 HQ's. the surpreme HQ which gets all supplies and 2 other HQ's which get the fighting power.

As the game moves on I build a more HQ's which build a cadre in the rear area, these then move as an Army to their battle zone. If I am in control of a lot of production (cities/factories) and am in a major retreat on a frontline, I will build a new Army in a sector that will come into contact with the enemy in 2-3 turns. My vetrens on the front can do a retreat in an orderly fashion, knowing the enemy will meet up with an entrenched army, that should stop their advance.

I try to build the armies for the terrain they'll be fighting in. Plains get armour or mech Inf. Jungle, paddies and swamps will always have horses, but I try to cut down on the heavy items such as Art and flak, as they hinder a rapid movement esp when the horses get reduced.

I always try to keep a HQ in the 100% for the moral and training of the units uder their control. And if a unit gets severed from it's parent HQ and runs danger of getting out of supply, I try to attach it to another HQ.

Mat
"It is not enough to expect a man to pay for the best, you must also give him what he pays for." Alfred Dunhill

WitE,UV,AT,ATG,FoF,FPCRS
johnsirk
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 9:47 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by johnsirk »

Interesting to read the posts regarding various methods of using HQ's (creating new units, withdrawing units for replacements etc.) and how closely the game ends up modelling various doctrines adopted by counties in WWII--i.e. the soviets basically creating a unit far in the rear, sending it to the front, and leaving it there until expended...the US keeping units largely on the front and sending replacements, the Germans temporarily withdrawing units to be refitted and re-organized. There are times when the game can seem tedious, and it would be nice if there were some "shortcuts" to minimize clicking, but when considered in totality, an amazingly flexible and interesting simulation of WWII strategic/operational level warfare...
johnsirk
User avatar
Meanfcker
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by Meanfcker »

I tend to do a bit of both methods. At the start of the game when you need to get organized right freakin now, I create a HQ right at the front and feed into it. As soon as the shooting starts I create "distribution hubs", that is HQ's that I use to reinforce the established combat HQ's, and where I start forming my reserve HQ's. This way I get the benefit of quick preparation and then I get the experience bonus because I quit messing with combat HQ's as soon as they start getting experience.
Like johnsirk pointed out, an extremely flexible engine.
Meanfcker.
User avatar
phatkarp
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:45 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by phatkarp »

I am curious about your distribution hub HQ's - what's in them, where do you put them, how do you use them, etc.
User avatar
Meanfcker
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by Meanfcker »

I am curious about your distribution hub HQ's - what's in them, where do you put them, how do you use them, etc.

Direct distribution is what happens when you assign a city or group of cities directly to a combat HQ.
This method lets you get ready really quickly but constantly lowers the experience of your HQ.
I usually do this to get organized.
As soon as the shooting starts, I create a "distribution hub", which is merely an HQ that never sees combat, it is just a place to send all of your production. From here you may reinforce damaged units from existing HQs, or create new units to attach to said HQs, or create new combat HQs. All of the HQs in the theater are usually subordinated to the distribution hub for organizational reasons. The reason for this bother is to let your combat staff gain experience without transfers in and out reducing their experience, or if you prefer to think of it this way, they gain familiarity with thier regiments. By leaving your combat HQs stable like this, they gain experience quickly in a slugging match.
Hope this helps.
User avatar
phatkarp
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2011 1:45 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by phatkarp »

But your distribution hub sends reinforcements to your combat HQs, right? Which lowers the staff experience? So you don't really save anything there, other than perhaps controlling when the experience hit happens.

I ask because I've tried something similar, and always found it more trouble and expense than it's worth. My hubs have had trains to distribute the reinforcements, which is wildly expensive, especially once your production ramps up and there are a lot of reinforcements to send out. I've always found it much more efficient to reinforce directly to combat HQs, or simply create new combat HQs.
User avatar
Meanfcker
Posts: 307
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:25 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by Meanfcker »

But your distribution hub sends reinforcements to your combat HQs, right? Which lowers the staff experience? So you don't really save anything there, other than perhaps controlling when the experience hit happens.

I ask because I've tried something similar, and always found it more trouble and expense than it's worth. My hubs have had trains to distribute the reinforcements, which is wildly expensive, especially once your production ramps up and there are a lot of reinforcements to send out. I've always found it much more efficient to reinforce directly to combat HQs, or simply create new combat HQs.

That is definitely easier. It depends on how much under pressure you are. If you can get your first reserve army ready and start pulling others out for refit, it works well. If you get caught in a knife fight early on, you are probably better to keep popping out new combat fomations and throwing them right into the mealstrom as you wont have time to let them ready up. One of the big advatages to using a hub, is that by the time your guys readiness is okay for fighting, their experience is approaching 40. They survive better and then they send more experience up the chain to the HQ.
These days, not many team games wait very long till the shooting starts so it is hit and miss whether I bother or not.
If you go with the hub here are a couple of sugestions.
Try to take smashed up units out of the line and refit/rebuild them as much as possible, as this does not seem to lower experience any observable amount. Adding a new unit every couple of turns does not seem to hurt too much, and if you are slugging it out, somtimes you just have to, the experience takes care of itself under those circumstances though.
You have seen how I run things, I try to pull one of my mobile groups out of the line for refit as a new one cycles in. This isn't always possible but it is generally do-able. I have had lots of games where several of my Mobile Groups HQ staff experience was in the 90s using a hub.
It is much more possible to attain than purchasing staff II
User avatar
cbardswell
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:34 am
Location: Berkshire, UK

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by cbardswell »

Another quick couple on HQs - does it matter how big your HQS are in terms of staff bonuses. To give a hypothitical example, if I have an HQ with 500 staff (all that gold braid and red tabs visible from space...) to maintain a large number of units below (so staff ratio 100%, does that reduce the combat bonuses that the sub units receive? .

Intuitively I feel that the max staff should be 100 before there is an impact on its effectiveness.

I may be missing something...

Also meanfcker - units gain experience being held at a distribution HQ? I may have misunderstood - surely they only gain readiness?

Thanks
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter." Winston Churchill
User avatar
ernieschwitz
Posts: 4240
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 3:46 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by ernieschwitz »

ORIGINAL: cbardswell

Another quick couple on HQs - does it matter how big your HQS are in terms of staff bonuses. To give a hypothitical example, if I have an HQ with 500 staff (all that gold braid and red tabs visible from space...) to maintain a large number of units below (so staff ratio 100%, does that reduce the combat bonuses that the sub units receive? .

Intuitively I feel that the max staff should be 100 before there is an impact on its effectiveness.

I may be missing something...

Also meanfcker - units gain experience being held at a distribution HQ? I may have misunderstood - surely they only gain readiness?

Thanks

No it doesn´t matter how big your HQs are. But remember they only have a certain range influence, and that does not go up, no matter how big the HQ.

And the 2nd Question. Units that are freshly made start with very low experience. There is something called free-experience, or we might call it training. In stock games i believe the level of free experience is 40. So units can gain some experience, before being put into the grinder...
Creator of High Quality Scenarios for:
  • Advanced Tactics Gold
    DC: Warsaw to Paris
    DC: Community Project.
Try this Global WW2 Scenario: https://www.vrdesigns.net/scenario.php?nr=280
Josh
Posts: 2568
Joined: Tue May 09, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Leeuwarden, Netherlands

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by Josh »

ORIGINAL: ernieschwitz

ORIGINAL: cbardswell

Another quick couple on HQs - does it matter how big your HQS are in terms of staff bonuses. To give a hypothitical example, if I have an HQ with 500 staff (all that gold braid and red tabs visible from space...) to maintain a large number of units below (so staff ratio 100%, does that reduce the combat bonuses that the sub units receive? .

Intuitively I feel that the max staff should be 100 before there is an impact on its effectiveness.

I may be missing something...

Also meanfcker - units gain experience being held at a distribution HQ? I may have misunderstood - surely they only gain readiness?

Thanks

No it doesn´t matter how big your HQs are. But remember they only have a certain range influence, and that does not go up, no matter how big the HQ.

And the 2nd Question. Units that are freshly made start with very low experience. There is something called free-experience, or we might call it training. In stock games i believe the level of free experience is 40. So units can gain some experience, before being put into the grinder...


Ernie says it, size doesn't matter... [:)] except ofcourse that a efficient use of your forces would mean (with a max stack per hex of 100..., preferably 2 units each of 50) a frontline of 6-7 hexes with 100% bonus and a few more hexes with a decreasing HQ bonus (each added hex is 20% less HQ bonus). So that makes about 20 units of 50 points each .. give or take a few. A HQ with 100% staff coverage would be about 200-250 large. Sometimes I have HQ's with less staff because that frontline isn't so hard fought for. I don't think I ever got 500 in one HQ.
User avatar
cbardswell
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 5:34 am
Location: Berkshire, UK

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by cbardswell »

Ah - cheers guys. That makes sense.

I normally tend to keep my formations fairly light (so staff rarely gets much above 100) , primarily to give me more flexibility and retain staff bonuses if the front becomes fluid. However with officer bonuses, larger formations will get more of the officer bonuses which changes the trade off a bit.

As is often the case the game mechanics follow what feels "right" in intuitive and historical terms.

Charlie
"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter." Winston Churchill
User avatar
Twotribes
Posts: 6466
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Jacksonville NC
Contact:

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by Twotribes »

My supreme Hqs receives all of my production until I establish what I call front Hqs. The front hqs receive the production after being formed and the fighting Hqs are subordinate to them and are formed manned and supplied from the front.

My Combat Hqs usually have 6 divisions assigned. 1 scout, 3 primary type, 1 secondary and an artillery.

Primary is either Rifle or tank and then the secondary is the other of the two. Sometimes I add an engineer division especially if doing an amphibious assault.

My front line Combat hqs usually run around 200 to 220 staff with trucks as transport and 2 flak. Exceptions would be a horse mounted Corps the Hqs would use Horses to be able to stay with the divisions.

the scout has jeeps armored cars and Light tanks with a small force of rifle and flak half track mounted or for horse Corps a cavalry force.

I modified my random game so that leaders come with between 170 and 230 staff points and stack points are 200 not 100.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
Hollywood7
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 5:53 pm

RE: Your views on HQs

Post by Hollywood7 »

@Twotribes - I'd have to question your usage of your Supreme HQ as a production point rather than a front line HQ as you are leaving ~+20% combat and morale modifier on your bench which is a HUGE factor in the field. Why not just make the Supreme HQ subordinate to a new non-officer, supply HQ? (Of course, if this is what you are doing then disregard :) )

My hats off to those of you with very structured methods. My method: get an officer near every major geographic area of combat and get my HQs as close to the front line as possible taking advantage of the 100% leadership bonus as much as I can. If my officers aren't racking up XP and advancing in Level then they aren't in the right spot. HQs with officers cost a LOT of PP when you are in a scrap fight and you just can't afford to crank out a new Officer very often, so I just load up on the Staffers to stay as close to 100% as possible and then make sure he can hear the shells whistling overhead.

As I read the posts, I think a lot of how you use HQs are dependent on the type of ATG game you play: random vs human/AI, scenario v human/AI, large or small maps. I am exclusively a random v human player and each game is very much on the edge as it relates to producing PPs v material v manpower, so Officers become a luxury after awhile when you are scraping PPs for new units or to upgrade to Raw2/Oil2 or Aircraft Factory - there just aren't a lot of PPs to spread around.
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”