Your views on HQs

Matrix Games Forums

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play video

Lost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!

A sneak peek from Allied Corps!

Harpoon 3 ANWs Free Ultimate Update!

All good Deals always come in threes

Distant Worlds: Shadows Approaches!

Lost Battles AAR: Moscow 41

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Your views on HQs

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> The War Room >> Your views on HQs

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Your views on HQs - 6/1/2011 11:03:34 AM

EmTom

Posts: 40
Joined: 5/25/2011
Status: offline

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!

< Message edited by EmTom -- 6/1/2011 11:08:39 AM >

_____________________________

I'm with you since People's Tactics and I love it!

Post #: 1

RE: Your views on HQs - 6/1/2011 11:27:06 AM

Twotribes

Posts: 3993
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to EmTom)

Post #: 2

RE: Your views on HQs - 6/1/2011 12:53:18 PM

henri51

Posts: 916
Joined: 1/16/2009
Status: offline

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

(in reply to EmTom)

Post #: 3

RE: Your views on HQs - 6/1/2011 9:06:31 PM

phatkarp

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to henri51)

Post #: 4

RE: Your views on HQs - 6/2/2011 9:09:52 AM

Josh

Posts: 1799
Joined: 5/9/2000
From: Leeuwarden, Netherlands
Status: online

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.

(in reply to phatkarp)

Post #: 5

RE: Your views on HQs - 6/2/2011 9:13:35 AM

EmTom

Posts: 40
Joined: 5/25/2011
Status: offline

Thats a smart solution.

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!

(in reply to phatkarp)

Post #: 6

RE: Your views on HQs - 6/2/2011 7:49:25 PM

phatkarp

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

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!

(in reply to EmTom)

Post #: 7

RE: Your views on HQs - 6/2/2011 10:59:54 PM

british exil

Posts: 1254
Joined: 5/4/2006
From: Lower Saxony Germany
Status: offline

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

(in reply to phatkarp)

Post #: 8

RE: Your views on HQs - 11/2/2012 3:50:59 AM

johnsirk

Posts: 1
Joined: 11/2/2012
Status: offline

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...

(in reply to EmTom)

Post #: 9

RE: Your views on HQs - 11/4/2012 5:32:10 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

www.meanfcker.com

(in reply to johnsirk)

Post #: 10

RE: Your views on HQs - 3/19/2013 9:17:47 PM

phatkarp

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 11

RE: Your views on HQs - 3/20/2013 4:17:31 AM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to phatkarp)

Post #: 12

RE: Your views on HQs - 3/20/2013 2:56:48 PM

phatkarp

Posts: 129
Joined: 4/14/2011
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 13

RE: Your views on HQs - 3/20/2013 11:21:47 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 297
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

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

(in reply to phatkarp)

Post #: 14