Changing HHQ for Armies/Corps

[thedoctorking]

Why does it cost so much AP to change an HQ unit from one higher HQ to another? I can see if you want to change an army full of units that it would cost a bunch but if the HQ is empty it still looks like the cost is in the 30's. The HQ unit itself is really rather small and you would think it wouldn't be much of a task to shift it over to another Front command.

[Telemecus]

Interestingly in earlier versions they did vary the cost according to how many units were under the HQ. Getting rid of the variation did get rid of a lot of complications, but it has remained very expensive.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

There are some tricks I have picked up playing the Soviets that can get around the high AP cost that can be super expensive. I may post all of them in my two AAR's if I survive those games. In my recent games I never pay for the change of the HQ to another front. I will disband the HQ and make a new one if I have to especially if it has a bad commander and I have a free HQ with a good leader in it (I have this case in my two games right now and done it) But I digress on this until I post in my AAR.

Also play around with the "merge" function. It has been a hidden gem for me in my two games. Fixes unready units & also can change a unit from one front to the other front if you merge correctly. Play around with it you may find it useful. But be careful because in the beginning of the game the Soviets need every unit they can get their hands onto. Plus don't set your TOE too low or you will shatter the unit when attacked. Plus having two unready units merge make them in "ready" mode. Not to mention when you get surrounded you merge units together and the unit comes back a turn earlier. Bleh, giving out all my secrets.....

[thedoctorking]

Yes, disbanding an unneeded army HQ and creating a new one is cheaper than transferring the army from one front to another. Which seems silly on the face of it. And of course it is not an option available to the Axis. My argument is that the cost should be changed to something like the cost of moving a division from one front to another.

HLYA, how could you merge an army HQ?

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Yes, disbanding an unneeded army HQ and creating a new one is cheaper than transferring the army from one front to another. Which seems silly on the face of it. And of course it is not an option available to the Axis. My argument is that the cost should be changed to something like the cost of moving a division from one front to another.

HLYA, how could you merge an army HQ?

Merging of units.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

Yes, disbanding an unneeded army HQ and creating a new one is cheaper than transferring the army from one front to another. Which seems silly on the face of it. And of course it is not an option available to the Axis. My argument is that the cost should be changed to something like the cost of moving a division from one front to another.

HLYA, how could you merge an army HQ?

Merging of units.

Plus the Axis have tricks of their own to get units where you need them to go pretty cheaply. I am not going to delve into that but I am sure there are some here that can tell you how to accomplish such a feat I am just not giving out any more German info.

[thedoctorking]

So HLYA, I moved two Soviet Army HQ units into the same hex and hit the "build up/break down units" button, to no avail. Again, how do you merge two HQ units? This is not documented anywhere - there are rules about merging brigades into a division, about merging divisions into a corps unit, but I've never seen anything about merging HQ units.

In any case, I'd think that by merging HQ units you would destroy one of them, which doesn't really respond to my problem. I need to figure out how to transfer an HQ from one Front command (or a corps from one Army to another for the Axis) without paying some ridiculous cost in AP.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

So HLYA, I moved two Soviet Army HQ units into the same hex and hit the "build up/break down units" button, to no avail. Again, how do you merge two HQ units? This is not documented anywhere - there are rules about merging brigades into a division, about merging divisions into a corps unit, but I've never seen anything about merging HQ units.

In any case, I'd think that by merging HQ units you would destroy one of them, which doesn't really respond to my problem. I need to figure out how to transfer an HQ from one Front command (or a corps from one Army to another for the Axis) without paying some ridiculous cost in AP.

Merging of units of like kind, (I.E.) 2 Inf Division combined together to form one. If you do it correctly you can get the unit in a new HQ without an AP expenditure.

[thedoctorking]

Obviously with regard to combat units. My question is, how can you transfer an army HQ from one Front to another, or for the Axis, a corps HQ from one army to another, without spending an inordinate number of AP's.

[Kielec]

When I get my Soviet Armies mixed up vs their Fronts too much, what I tend to do is the following.

Imagine a situation, where you have two Soviet Fronts, adjacent, but the left-most Army of the right Front starts to act left of the right-most Army of the Front to the left.
Let me draw a picture here, to clarify:

LLLRLRRR

I can only hope it makes sense to you...

So, to re-organise the mess and have it like LLLLRRRR what I do is I just shift the HQs in question and reassign the subordinate units. Instead of 2*40 (or so) for reassignment of two Armies between two Fronts, I pay (usually) about 10*2 [number of divisions in each army times two].
Yes, you have to pay extra APs if you want to shift SUs between them armies (Fronts, effectively), but who cares, since after a while all of them Armies have a very similar SU setup (X Sapper Brigades, Y Howitzer Regiments, a PVO Regiment, and Z RVGK Artillery Regiments, with an occasional Ski Brigade or something - not much sweat here, or if there is some sweat - pay an extra AP to move your Heavy Mortars, or what not).

[thedoctorking]

The problem that I'm facing is that Fronts can only hold 72 CU. But Western Front (specifically) starts with four armies and one Airborne Corps under it. If you fill those HQ's up, after turn 10 or so, you can have 93 CU. This renders the Front commander essentially useless. You can give it to Zhukov or Kulik, it doesn't make any difference because they won't make their rolls. I could break down and move 4th Army out to STAVKA or to one of the newer fronts. But that's 30-some AP or 15 SU Regiments. Seems excessive for a situation that the setup creates.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

The problem that I'm facing is that Fronts can only hold 72 CU. But Western Front (specifically) starts with four armies and one Airborne Corps under it. If you fill those HQ's up, after turn 10 or so, you can have 93 CU. This renders the Front commander essentially useless. You can give it to Zhukov or Kulik, it doesn't make any difference because they won't make their rolls. I could break down and move 4th Army out to STAVKA or to one of the newer fronts. But that's 30-some AP or 15 SU Regiments. Seems excessive for a situation that the setup creates.

Why fill the HQs up over capacity in the first place? The opening turns the Germans do you a favor of trimming excessive units anyway. So you have to not over fill those HQs and pay attention to front command points. I normally disband one of the HQs in Western front anyway and just run three armies till turn 12. To get a good leader bonus on more units.

[HardLuckYetAgain]

ORIGINAL: Kielec

When I get my Soviet Armies mixed up vs their Fronts too much, what I tend to do is the following.

Imagine a situation, where you have two Soviet Fronts, adjacent, but the left-most Army of the right Front starts to act left of the right-most Army of the Front to the left.
Let me draw a picture here, to clarify:

LLLRLRRR

I can only hope it makes sense to you...

So, to re-organise the mess and have it like LLLLRRRR what I do is I just shift the HQs in question and reassign the subordinate units. Instead of 2*40 (or so) for reassignment of two Armies between two Fronts, I pay (usually) about 10*2 [number of divisions in each army times two].
Yes, you have to pay extra APs if you want to shift SUs between them armies (Fronts, effectively), but who cares, since after a while all of them Armies have a very similar SU setup (X Sapper Brigades, Y Howitzer Regiments, a PVO Regiment, and Z RVGK Artillery Regiments, with an occasional Ski Brigade or something - not much sweat here, or if there is some sweat - pay an extra AP to move your Heavy Mortars, or what not).

I intermingle fronts all the time. Necessity of placement of units >>> than uniformity.

[56ajax]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

There are some tricks I have picked up playing the Soviets that can get around the high AP cost that can be super expensive. I may post all of them in my two AAR's if I survive those games. In my recent games I never pay for the change of the HQ to another front. I will disband the HQ and make a new one if I have to especially if it has a bad commander and I have a free HQ with a good leader in it (I have this case in my two games right now and done it) But I digress on this until I post in my AAR.

Also play around with the "merge" function. It has been a hidden gem for me in my two games. Fixes unready units & also can change a unit from one front to the other front if you merge correctly. Play around with it you may find it useful. But be careful because in the beginning of the game the Soviets need every unit they can get their hands onto. Plus don't set your TOE too low or you will shatter the unit when attacked. Plus having two unready units merge make them in "ready" mode. Not to mention when you get surrounded you merge units together and the unit comes back a turn earlier. Bleh, giving out all my secrets.....

Learn something new everyday...interesting that the returning unit is not mentioned in the Event Log but is in the Reinforcement window

[Kielec]

ORIGINAL: thedoctorking

... If you fill those HQ's up, after turn 10 or so, you can have 93 CU...

No, no! Just don't do that! In my book, going over the HQ capacity (whatever the HQ level) is suicide.

I tend to save a few APs for the last thing that I do before clicking "next turn" which is going to the Reports and making sure NONE of the HQs are over the limit.

[Kielec]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

I intermingle fronts all the time. Necessity of placement of units >>> than uniformity.

I guess the first months of 1941 produce a lot of stress for a Soviet player, and the Fronts (and Armies...) do get mixed up to an extent depending on your style/skill and the opponent's style/skill.

The fact remains though, that the closer the Army HQs within a Front are to the Front HQ, the better they fare on many a level. Any "technique" that allows you to re-shift your units to a uniform (as you put it) stance should be considered, and, preferably, fast! The cheaper you can do it, which is the OP's question, if I read it right, the better.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Kielec
The fact remains though, that the closer the Army HQs within a Front are to the Front HQ, the better they fare on many a level.

Strictly speaking the units are better near their Army HQ and near their Front HQ, but Army HQs near Front HQs does not give an advantage (with some very small exceptions). So, counter-intuitively, there is no concept of daisy chaining of HQs - with (perhaps) some small exceptions for the special rules for construction for fortification etc.

[Kielec]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: Kielec
The fact remains though, that the closer the Army HQs within a Front are to the Front HQ, the better they fare on many a level.

Strictly speaking the units are better near their Army HQ and near their Front HQ, but Army HQs near Front HQs does not give an advantage (with some very small exceptions). So, counter-intuitively, there is no concept of daisy chaining of HQs - with (perhaps) some small exceptions for the special rules for construction for fortification etc.

I see.
Could you be so kind as to direct me towards some kind of a deeper explanation of what you present in the first sentence? I'd appreciate that, as it would seem, my intuition was leading me astray for a long time.

On the latter part, I do think that playing this monster of a game involves maximizing the slightest possibilities and acting upon all chances, as long as the economy of force and country are in agreement. How slight are the "exceptions for digging in" that you mention? I'd rather have a fortification level of 0,58 than 0,57 on every occassion!

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Kielec
Could you be so kind as to direct me towards some kind of a deeper explanation of what you present in the first sentence?

Does this picture help?

Basically the distances from units to their superior HQs (A or B) matter - and often making them shorter helps the units. But the distances between HQs (C) does not matter, even if they are in the same chain of command. Usually minimising A and B will minimise C anyway - but there will be times you will have the HQs as close to the units as you want then to be, but will not want to bring the superior HQs closer together for other reasons - and there would be little reason why you should.

Does this clarify?

[Kielec]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Does this picture help?

Basically the distances from units to their superior HQs (A or B) matter - and often making them shorter helps the units. But the distances between HQs (C) does not matter, even if they are in the same chain of command. Usually minimising A and B will minimise C anyway - but there will be times you will have the HQs as close to the units as you want then to be, but will not want to bring the superior HQs closer together for other reasons - and there would be little reason why you should.

Does this clarify?

Well, as you have said a bit above, there is the counterintuitive part of it that does gnaw at my bony behind.

I always thought that the combat units' rolls, and off map (HQ attached) SUs engagements were in direct (reverse) relationship to the distance from their immediate HQ. As in: the closer a Soviet Army HQ is to the attached fighting Divisions, Brigades and Corps, the better their chances for good combat rolls and getting the Army attached SUs into the fight. I also thought that proximity of the direct HQ had to do with the supply and digging in part.

I also thought that the SUs in a Front could not support actual fighting units (Divs Bdes Corps) unless they "passed" through an Army HQ (I'm talking about a super clean chain of command setup in which no fighting units are attached to the Front HQ, you realise that, I'm sure). If that (my former? conviction) were true, the proximity of Army HQ to the attached fighting units, as well as the proximity of the Front HQ to the attached Army HQs would be of paramount importance.

What you seem to suggest, or such is, at least, my reading of your schematic, is that a Front HQ can supply SUs for the fighting units in its chain of command (but not directly attached to the Front in question), thus "skipping" the Army level, and possibly influence the fighting units' combat rolls instead of it being done by a more remote Army HQ.

Did I understand correctly what you wanted to convey? And if so, can you point me in the direction of the source of your conviction? If I played this game wrong for all too long, I'd like to know where these minute details of the mechanics are discussed in the manual or elsewhere.

My whole Command Staff is standing in the corridor sweating and trying to come up with the answer to this very question. How could they have missed it, and who's to blame?!

The trusty NKVD firing squad is checking their rifles already...