Missing German Army HQs

Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: The German-Soviet War 1941-1945 is a turn-based World War II strategy game stretching across the entire Eastern Front. Gamers can engage in an epic campaign, including division-sized battles with realistic and historical terrain, weather, orders of battle, logistics and combat results.

The critically and fan-acclaimed Eastern Front mega-game Gary Grigsby’s War in the East just got bigger and better with Gary Grigsby’s War in the East: Don to the Danube! This expansion to the award-winning War in the East comes with a wide array of later war scenarios ranging from short but intense 6 turn bouts like the Battle for Kharkov (1942) to immense 37-turn engagements taking place across multiple nations like Drama on the Danube (Summer 1944 – Spring 1945).

Moderators: Joel Billings, elmo3, Sabre21

Post Reply
Mehring
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

Missing German Army HQs

Post by Mehring »

As well as the many units that appear in some scenarios and not others that cover the same time and space, there are several German Army HQs that never show up at all, a salient problem after the withdrawal of 11th Army. Examples are Army Detachment Hollidt which fought near Stalingrad and Army Detachment Lanz/Kempf which fought for seven months, including at Kursk, before being re-designated (and appearing in game) as 8th Army. As mentioned in another thread, Army Detachment Narva does appear in the 1944 scenario. I was wondering if these non/late appearances are by design or omission?
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by RedLancer »

Design - they are not included because most were uprated Corps HQs. Armee Abteilungen Hollidt came from XVII Corps if I remember correctly from when I researched Stalingrad to Berlin. To get them into the game without hardcoding then you need to withdraw the old HQ and add the new one - but then they arrive in the wrong place as you cannot predict their position.

Hopefully WitE2.0 will have a scenario designer controlled upgrade/rename system which will help. I've often considered asking for a HQ upgrade system where you promote a HQ to the next level but it creates more challenges in possible misuse.
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
User avatar
Great_Ajax
Posts: 4923
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Alabama, USA

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Great_Ajax »

There were many of these HQs that were created due to the operational situation. It would be odd for the Nava Detachment to show up if there were no units in the area. Maybe WitE 2.0 will allow the player to create some of these kinds of HQs.

Trey
"You want mercy!? I'm chaotic neutral!"

WiTE Scenario Designer
WitW Scenario/Data Team Lead
WitE 2.0 Scenario Designer
Mehring
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Mehring »

Think that would be quite an improvement. Given the strain on resources to create new Axis HQs,how do you anticipate the ability being misused? Russians can make as many Army HQs as they like?
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by RedLancer »

The misuse would be avoiding command capacity issues by promoting HQs. I forgot the Russian ability to create Army HQs. Personally I think the Soviet player has far too much flexibility in unit creation. I would restrict them to historic +10% for each OB and no more.
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
Mehring
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Mehring »

What if historical ad hoc HQs suffered an efficiency penalty, giving a minus modifier to admin/initiative ratings of their leader? Better than no HQ, but not quite the real thing. That, combined with the manpower they absorb, might give a misuser pause for thought.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by RedLancer »

...but don't we already have that when you overload a Corps HQ's command capacity? What you can't do is subordinate other Corps HQ. I was thinking about a system similar to the motorisation state in WitW - you pay APs per turn, have a bit of a CC bonus and the Corps HQ automatically is named Army Det <Leader Surname>
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
Mehring
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Mehring »

As long as you can subordinate corps HQs, that would work for me. My only question then, would be whether to pay admin by turn or in, say, month blocks. Pay by the turn might give too much flexibility.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
RedLancer
Posts: 4338
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:09 am
Location: UK

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by RedLancer »

We're in hypothetical land but I'm open to persuasion on what might be a sensible approach. (No promises)
John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by morvael »

Idea is very good. Temp upgrade corps to army (worse version) for AP cost paid for month in advance. 50% chance to name after leader, 50% after nearest controlled location.
User avatar
Manstein63
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:58 pm

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Manstein63 »

ORIGINAL: morvael

Idea is very good. Temp upgrade corps to army (worse version) for AP cost paid for month in advance. 50% chance to name after leader, 50% after nearest controlled location.

It would get my vote
Manstein63
'There is not, nor aught there be, nothing so exalted on the face of god's great earth, as that prince of foods. THE MUFFIN!!!'

Frank Zappa (Muffin Man)
chaos45
Posts: 1875
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2001 10:00 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by chaos45 »

In all honesty perhaps the Germans should be given an extra army HQ and a couple extra corps HQ all at super low ToE in late 1942/1943

Then the Axis player has the choice to use them or not. If they want to use them they have to man/equip the HQs up to be any use or they can just disband them the players choice.

Easy way to simulate the Germans forming adhoc units and the Axis player still has to pull manning/equipment to actually make the new HQs worthwhile. Also the reason I say later 1942/1943 is because thats about when the German high point is and things like that could be considered. Germans are doing well and want to cough up the 20k+ extra men for support squads then let them otherwise they can forget extra staff pukes and disband them.
Mehring
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Mehring »

The point of the ad hoc HQs is to give the German player an historical capability that is flexible to the demands of their particular game. Fixed reinforcement doesn't accomplish this.
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
LiquidSky
Posts: 2811
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:28 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by LiquidSky »



The game doesn't need an ad hoc HQ to reflect any historical capability. There are enough HQ's as it is. You already have two extra army HQ's that start with the Security troops. Just give them a good commander and some corps. Does anybody really run out of command space their corps that they need extra ones? Please tell me you didn't disband the two extra army HQ's you started with.

As for the names, well, you could always write a new name on a sticky note and put it on your monitor. Call it whatever ad hoc name you want.


“My logisticians are a humorless lot … they know if my campaign fails, they are the first ones I will slay.” – Alexander the Great
Mehring
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Mehring »

No I don't disband the two (sic) "extra army HQ's" I started with. Nobody's going to make you use an optional capability if you don't want to or feel no need, or anticipate a situation in which you might so what's your problem?
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
Mehring
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Mehring »

In passing, though, if I've understood this correctly, the RHG units appear to be overpowered as Army level HQs. Should they not be corps level? https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6u8 ... qs&f=false (p586)
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by morvael »

They are actually underpowered, as they have limits on what can be attached to them, and combat units attached to armies and operating far away (>5 hexes) are suffering extra penalties to leader rolls.

And I think the bug with ability to assign corps HQs to RHG will be removed.
Mehring
Posts: 2434
Joined: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:30 am

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by Mehring »

So the army level is to enhance their range, or is immediate HQ range always 5 hexes?
“Old age is the most unexpected of all things that can happen to a man.”
-Leon Trotsky
User avatar
morvael
Posts: 11763
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:19 am
Location: Poland

RE: Missing German Army HQs

Post by morvael »

This enhances their range for things like rail repair, but since 1.07.12 or something there is leader roll penalty when units are attached to "too high level HQ" and further than 5 hexes (normal corps command range) from them (consider "outside tactical command range"). This was added to prevent abuse of no range penalty to first HQ in command chain which combined with superior leader at STAVKA/OKH and their unlimited command capacity made it worth attaching units directly to top level HQs, even if there was 20% CV penalty in combat (it's better to suffer 20% from very high CV granted by great leader, than 0% from poor CV).
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series”