@Joel: Question about OOB and CU attachments?

[MarkShot]

Joel,

Questions noted in red.

Okay, leaders have a number of stats. Algorithmically, they appear to function two ways in the game:

(1) They are applied as a coefficient in game calculations.

(2) They serve as as conditional predicate for comparison against a 10 sided die roll.

The manual states that failed die rolls propagate up the chain of command. However, at each level beyond the initial the stats are halved, thus reducing the chance of a successful reroll considerably.

Assuming I got the above correct, I have a question on attaching CUs. Officers/HQs can be classified as Corps, Army, Group, and HiComm. Now, CUs may be attached to any of these. If I attach a CU to a Corps Officer of 7 morale or Army Officer of 7 morale, do these mean the same thing? Or will the Army Officer suffer stat deflation for die rolls despite direct attachment? Or does stat deflation for die rolls only occur when the Army Officer is effectively second level command?

We often find in the game more senior officers than Corps having CU attachments of some infantry or armor divisions. (I suppose this is meant to model a strategic reserve which can called upon when needed.)

---

Putting aside assault HQs and overload penalties, it would seem that the main penalty for using Army CU attachments is that you are more likely to violate the 5 hex rule of delegation of SUs. Is this the major issue preventing such a play style?

Reattaching CUs is extremely quick and easy either directly via the unit card field or just via the ATTACH closest button. Is there any form of hidden penalty for playing like this as opposed to working at consciously keeping command groups together?

Thank you!

[Sammy5IsAlive]

If I attach a CU to a Corps Officer of 7 morale or Army Officer of 7 morale, do these mean the same thing? Or will the Army Officer suffer stat deflation for die rolls despite direct attachment? Or does stat deflation for die rolls only occur when the Army Officer is effectively second level command?

There is a penalty for being attached directly to higher commands. 10 is the base modifier for Axis Corps - the chance of a commander passing a check is their relevant rating divided by 10. So a Corps commander with a 7 rating has 70% chance of passing their check. The higher commands have a modifier of 12 - so your 7 rated commander will only have a 58% chance of passing that first check. Things are slightly more complicated for the Soviets due to their changing command structure in 1941 as they get rid of the corps commands (see 15.5 in the manual) but from the start of 1942 it settles down so that Army HQs have the 10 base modifier with Fronts/STAVKA a 12 modifier.

Putting aside assault HQs and overload penalties, it would seem that the main penalty for using Army CU attachments is that you are more likely to violate the 5 hex rule of delegation of SUs. Is this the major issue preventing such a play style?

The other disadvantage is that you lose a level of checks. Say you have a chain of 6 rated commanders playing Axis. If the CU is reporting up a full Corps-Army-AG-OKH command chain the chance of failing the check is:
0.4 x 0.7 x 0.85 x 0.925 = 22%

If you have the same leaders in an Army-AG-OKH chain you have
0.5 x 0.75 x 0.875 = 33%

Alternatively you might have a Corps - AG - OKH chain which would be
0.4 x 0.7 x 0.85 = 24%

So it is more important to be having units report to the lowest possible HQ and then sorting out any overload penalties by skipping steps higher up the chain.

Reattaching CUs is extremely quick and easy either directly via the unit card field or just via the ATTACH closest button. Is there any form of hidden penalty for playing like this as opposed to working at consciously keeping command groups together?

Three things to consider with this:
1) The 'mechanical' penalty is that a CU that changes HQ will have a -1 penalty on subsequent admin rolls in the turn. Three unknowns on this that others might be able to shed light on. Whether the penalty persists into the logistics phase at the beginning of the next turn. Whether the same rule applies to HQs that change higher HQ. Whether the penalty is passed on down the chain to subordinate Corps HQs/CUs if an Army changes Army Group.
2) More practically - you can only reassign a unit once a turn. So whilst you can be quite flexible switching assignments on the fly during a turn you do need to plan ahead, especially in terms of making sure that you do not end up with problems at the end of the turn with overloaded Assault HQs that will lose their bonus.
3) There is a more significant penalty for support units - they lose 50% of their CPPs when reassigned. As Axis in particular the stronger SUs are limited enough that they will likely be consolidated in certain Corps rather than spread around and it is much less feasible to be moving them around 'on the fly' to support actions by other Corps.

Hope that helps?

[Sammy5IsAlive]

For my own interest I did some experimental number crunching (maths is not my strong suit so treat with caution) about how it might work with an 8 rated leader in a chain with 6 rated leaders.

As a basic starting point, this is what I came up with in terms of roll failure rates with the 8 leader at each step of command (all other leaders 6 rated)

Corps 0.2 x 0.7 x 0.85 x 0.925 = 11%
Army 0.4 x 0.6 x 0.85 x 0.925 = 19%
AG 0.4 x 0.7 x 0.8 x 0.925 = 21%
OKH 0.4 x 0.7 x 0.85 x 0.9 = 21%


The next step is where my maths gets a bit shakier but I'll do it with the expectation that I may be wrong and be corrected by others!

Say we have a hypothetical AG scenario where each Corps has 3 divs, reporting to 4x 9div Armies, in turn reporting to a 36 div AG. Two of the armies are in the middle attacking and using 7 of their divisions each. The other 2 armies are defending counterattacks on the flanks, with each having 4 divs involved in a combat. So in total lets say we are looking at 44 battles in total. As before you have 1 commander with 8 rating and all the rest with 6. For simplicity each battle comprises 10 ratings checks (so 440 checks in total).

If you place the 8 commander in charge of a 3 div corps making 6 attacks they will contribute 48 successful ratings checks. Of the 12 remaining checks 4 will be resolved by the army commander, 1 by the AG commander and 1 by the OKH - so 6 failed checks. Of the remaining 380 checks 22% will fail all the way (0.4 x 0.7 x 0.85 x 0.925) - so a total of 90 failed checks

If they are in charge of one of the attacking armies which make 14 attacks in total (140 checks), 84 of these checks will be resolved by the lower Corps commander. Of the remaining 56 your commander will contribute 22 successful checks. Of the remaining 34, 5 will be dealt with by the AG commander and 2 by the OKH. So you have 27 failed checks for that army. For the remaining 300 checks, 66 will fail - a total of 93 failed checks

If they are in charge of the Army Group - the two attacking armies should send up 39 checks each (140 - 84 - 17) and the two defending armies should send up 22 checks each (80 - 48 - 10). So they will deal with 122 checks of which 24 will be dealt with successfully. Of the remaining 98, 7 will be dealt with successfully - leaving 91 failed checks.

So in isolation that would suggest that you should try and have your best leaders in the lowest HQs directly controlling the most important areas of the battlefield. But as always there are caveats to that I think!!
1) some leaders are restricted and cannot command the lower HQs
2) these calculations are very much Axis-centric as they have plenty of leaders with decent but not stellar ratings that can pick up the slack. The Soviet leadership cohort is much more varied and they also have a shorter command chain. I'm numbered out for the evening but I imagine if you ran similar calculations with only 3 levels of command and leaders with 4 ratings it becomes a more complicated question where to put your best leaders.
3) the calculations are also combat-centric - leaders have to pass lots of other 'non-combat' checks for stuff like morale/movement points. As above I don't want to do more calculations but the general gist would be that compared to the combat checks, these other checks would give results that would be more encouraging to placing high admin/morale leaders in higher commands.
4) changing leaders costs Admin Points, and this cost becomes much greater when you are assigning a leader to a command level that is below their rank. So from an Axis perspective to begin with you can move somebody like Model around Corps commands without spending many APs, but as the game goes on and he and similar leaders get promoted it becomes much less cost effective to be moving them all the time.

[Joel Billings]

Good analysis by Sammy.

[MarkShot]

I don't really know how to work the numbers, but not because of math, but whether I know every line that actually executes determining the final outcome.

I have been following the rule of sensible management for the corporate world.

* In general, keep the organic structure as productivity is not just a sum of the parts, but also teams and social experience phenomena.

* When there are critical tasks that require someone who is an expert, and also has the skill to manage more than just 4-7 subordinates assign him or her to leverage ones unique abilities (which typically means he/she is over qualified, but is also a clear indication of the superior's intent that they are being assigned to a critical/pivotal area upon which the whole endeavor depends.)

I play wargames, since the good ones mimic real life. Which mean you don't really need to number crunch and memorizing the rule book to be 80% effective. Of course, you might be 120% effective if you can recite the rule book from memory.

THANK YOU, ALL!!!