Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

C&C

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> C&C Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
C&C - 1/7/2012 4:29:59 PM   
Viking67

 

Posts: 495
Joined: 5/5/2004
Status: offline
As Axis, when you create Fortified Zones, do you generally change HQ from OKW to a more local HQ or leave them in OKW COC?
Post #: 1
RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 4:33:50 PM   
larryfulkerson

 

Posts: 38010
Joined: 4/17/2005
From: Tucson, AZ
Status: offline
I've been known to change the HQ of the forts from whatever local HQ they are attached to, to STAVKA as the Soviet........I'm pretty sure the same principle can be used by the Axis player as well.

(in reply to Viking67)
Post #: 2
RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 5:50:14 PM   
krieger


Posts: 38
Joined: 1/13/2011
Status: offline
only ocasionally (to improve their supply and the construction value as a consequence). If they didnt load the command capacity of HQs I would do it more (they count as a brigade/regiment). I have one finnish fortified zone up north atached to a finnish corps and I know of one in Kerch that has been atached to 11th Army, 1st Panzer Army and now to AG Antonescu.

(in reply to larryfulkerson)
Post #: 3
RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 6:19:15 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6498
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
I wouldn't do it. Both sides have bottlenecks in command capacity, and changing fort zones just makes it worse. They have very limited combat value, so it doesn't make a huge difference anyway.

Fort Zones are not combat units; they are diggers and fort maintainers.

_____________________________


(in reply to krieger)
Post #: 4
RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 9:34:58 PM   
Aurelian

 

Posts: 4002
Joined: 2/26/2007
Status: offline
I leave the FZs with the high command.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 5
RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 9:49:59 PM   
Encircled


Posts: 1744
Joined: 12/30/2010
From: Northern England
Status: offline
Waste of AP's to change the HQ

_____________________________


(in reply to Aurelian)
Post #: 6
RE: C&C - 1/7/2012 10:19:02 PM   
Farfarer61

 

Posts: 723
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
Only possible reason is if you need desparately need to assign SU's to the Fort Zone ( actually I have only done this with Sov FZ, so I am not sure if the Axis FZ can be assigned SU). As Sov for example, if you want to get a choke point of vital ground built up quickly, it may be worth it assign the FZ to a a Higher command with available Construction Bats or RR Construction Brigades. You can add any SU for that matter. So, defending in 41 you can have 1 less division in the hex, but have a Fort Zone + 3 arty, sappers etc. For the best C+C the fort should be in the same Army HQ as the other defenders. I suppose this should be "How to defend the Crimea" thread :) The RR Brigaes add a lot of digging capacity, then just through a shell division in the hex too. remove the diggers and put in fighters when the time comes.

(in reply to Encircled)
Post #: 7
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> C&C Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.104