Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

HQ russian problem

 
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 >> The War Room >> HQ russian problem Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 6:01:13 PM   
gids

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 12/2/2010
Status: offline
ok i apllied the patch and in my GC al my army HQ went to cap 18 where my front HQ are 81!3 times 18 is 54 so what do you do with the rest of that front HQ cp you have left
my question is whats the best new way to handle the Cp cap as a russian ,i didnt find any decent post about it
Post #: 1
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 6:09:05 PM   
stone10


Posts: 240
Joined: 9/20/2008
Status: offline
build more army HQs and get more airbases probably?

_____________________________



(in reply to gids)
Post #: 2
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 6:19:25 PM   
gids

 

Posts: 349
Joined: 12/2/2010
Status: offline
actually that more HQ thing......stupid i didnt think of it

(in reply to stone10)
Post #: 3
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 6:22:59 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Also put Zhukov in STAVKA.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to gids)
Post #: 4
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 6:59:49 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5538
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Also put Zhukov in STAVKA.




What do we do with 'ol Boris? I guess he can command a front (or an MD, which actually are no longer useless)

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 5
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 7:03:19 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
He can hold down a Front, sure. That 8 admin rating is still quite nice.



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 6
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 7:10:36 PM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 21219
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline
In a new game, you can plan to have more HQ's per front. In addition, you can leave some low CV units (artillery are especially good for this) directly attached the the Fronts (be sure to have a good leader at Stavka when you do this). Historically quite a few units were attached directly to the fronts.

_____________________________

All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard

(in reply to gids)
Post #: 7
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 7:42:58 PM   
Flaviusx


Posts: 6325
Joined: 9/9/2009
From: Southern California
Status: offline
Here's the way it breaks down in a fresh game, for those who are curious.

You start off with 22 armies. Over the course of the game you will receive 32 more -- this includes two conditional Polish armies and 5 shock armies. Don't disband any of these now, obviously. Assuming no overloads, you've got room for 216 corps sized units spread out among those armies (at four per army), with 2 command points left over in each army for odds an ends.

Tank armies must be built from scratch. Historically the Sovs fielded 6 of them. You may want more or less of these. If APs allow I'd be tempted to build more, they're pretty nice now.

An interesting wrinkle: you have 10 airborne corps that will not autodisband. (5 at start and 5 more arrive for the blizzard.) Those begin with 8 cap. I'm not sure if they increase now or not. Regardless, these little darlings are now all of a sudden quite interesting. You could park 4 artillery divisions in them, for example, assuming the don't increase in command capacity. More if they do. This leaves your armies free to absorb the big maneuver units with high CVs.

These guys could remain attached to Front or perhaps better yet STAVKA. (Front capacity is kind of tight.)



_____________________________

WitE Alpha Tester

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 8
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/4/2012 8:05:29 PM   
JAMiAM

 

Posts: 6146
Joined: 2/8/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx
An interesting wrinkle: you have 10 airborne corps that will not autodisband. (5 at start and 5 more arrive for the blizzard.) Those begin with 8 cap. I'm not sure if they increase now or not. Regardless, these little darlings are now all of a sudden quite interesting. You could park 4 artillery divisions in them, for example, assuming the don't increase in command capacity. More if they do. This leaves your armies free to absorb the big maneuver units with high CVs.

The Soviet Airborne Corps HQs do increase in CC, at the same rate as all the other Corps.

(in reply to Flaviusx)
Post #: 9
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/5/2012 6:27:32 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5538
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
While the C and C changes are overall a negative for the Russians (for continuing games, as well as new ones), there is one change that does help: The free transfer from Military Districts.

Rather than overload fronts, I have always put units in STAVKA-attached armies.

First, those armies will actually get a benefit from STAVKA now, which is a bonus.

Second, I am finding that several sectors are within the 45-hex command range of Volga MD, or Moscow MD. You might as well attach these "orphan" armies to one of those commands. You can always attach them later to something else, for "Free".

(in reply to JAMiAM)
Post #: 10
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/5/2012 7:27:13 PM   
Tarhunnas


Posts: 3150
Joined: 1/27/2011
From: Hex X37, Y15
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

While the C and C changes are overall a negative for the Russians (for continuing games, as well as new ones), there is one change that does help: The free transfer from Military Districts.

Rather than overload fronts, I have always put units in STAVKA-attached armies.

First, those armies will actually get a benefit from STAVKA now, which is a bonus.

Second, I am finding that several sectors are within the 45-hex command range of Volga MD, or Moscow MD. You might as well attach these "orphan" armies to one of those commands. You can always attach them later to something else, for "Free".


That was a great tip! Thanks Q-Ball!

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 11
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/5/2012 8:27:02 PM   
Marquo


Posts: 1344
Joined: 9/26/2000
Status: offline
I have placed the surfeit of Army Units into the respective Fronts; this way they can be placed in reserve and have a chance to help support; as APs permit, I will build new HQs and transfer from the front to the new Army HQ.

(in reply to Tarhunnas)
Post #: 12
RE: HQ russian problem - 2/5/2012 10:02:25 PM   
Farfarer

 

Posts: 669
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
Very useful info Flavius - timely too.

I'm hoping to repeat the phenomenon in my latest game wherein a leader who made successful admin rolls in an overloaded Army HQ climbed to admin rating 9 in summer 41. He got promoted to greater repsonsibility :)

Ironically, a tactic being advocated is to use Airborne Corps HQs as Artillery HQs, as the Parachutists will be sent to their deaths as rear guards, or sent to auto-convert to Guards Infantry after digging trenches for a year. Of course, this is not an ahistorical expoit, but moving into shelter to avoid a blizzard is, using HQs as mobile supply depots is, chaining HQs is...

One overlooked use for those Corps HQs is running around rallying troops. That's my recommendation for their use before they disband.

Finally, a Corps attached to an HQ should cost less in command points as you are paying AP up front to create a subordinate command structure which takes the load off the Army. Of course if historically they didn't bring much CnC to the table then this idea is incorrect.

(in reply to Marquo)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> The War Room >> HQ russian problem 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

0.107