Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

A complete overhaul and re-development of Gary Grigsby's War in the East, with a focus on improvements to historical accuracy, realism, user interface and AI.

Moderators: RedLancer, Joel Billings

User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 31216
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by Joel Billings »

We're testing out some changes to the Assault HQ rules now. Thanks for all those that participated in the discussion on the forum. There are other changes being worked on as well, but since this was a hot topic, I thought I'd give you info on where we came down on this. Players can use these for house rules until they come out. The current plan is for 1.01.09 to become official within the next week or so. We expect that a 1.01.10 beta will go out within a few days of the 1.01.09 (this has full in-game scaling and a few more bug fixes and data changes). We are currently testing a 1.01.11 version with the assault HQ changes, but I can't say how soon it will actually go out. There are several other things being tested in this version, and it's too early to give a release date for this. However, the Assault HQ rules are set, so you can start using them voluntarily in your own games if you want to. Since 1.01.10 fixes it so that AHQ bonuses are not given out to units that are in overloaded or out of command range units (as per the rules), it's important that you not overload AHQs. If you house rule the changes, you need to agree to live within the new command point maximum values. I realize this involves some math and it will be much better when a version is released with the changes properly coded.

That said, here are the new rules:


o The command point multipliers for HQs in Assault HQs are now:
Date Axis Army Axis Corps // Soviet Front Soviet Army&Corps
1941 1.34 1.17 // no bonus no bonus
1942 1.34 1.17 // 1.10 1.10
1943 1.34 1.17 // 1.34 1.25
1944 1.34 1.17 // 1.67 1.34
1945 1.34 1.17 // 1.67 1.34

o Limits on maximum number of Assault HQs are now:
Date Axis Soviet
1941 4 2
1942 3 2
1943 3 3
1944 2 4
1945 2 4

Why did we make these changes? Basically we bought into the idea that the Soviet army was not in a position to use larger formations very early, and it was only as time went on they were able to successfully employ much larger fronts. Note, in late 42 the Western Front was massively overloaded. That didn't go so well for the Soviets. We also agreed that the German AHQs didn't need as much of a Command Point boost as we had given them. We still wanted them to be able to form AHQ's as large as Guderian's without penalty. We also agreed that the max number of AHQs could stand to be reduced some.

Another upcoming change we will be making before the 1.01.11 (or later version) goes to the public is we will be changing the requirement for units to be able to disband, go to the reserve or to another active theater box. The unit will be required to be on a connected rail hex that is not within 8 hexes of an enemy unit. This is another rule that players can agree to house rule if they wish until the changes are coded.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

Thank you much for Everything. Those are all very welcome updates and thank you for listening to all that have contributed :)
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

Curious, how will that affect games already in progress? When updated the changes take place so need to plan accordingly?
jubjub
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 12:52 pm

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by jubjub »

How should we round the command capacity? For example, a German corps has 9 CC normally, multiplied by 1.17 is 10.53. This should be rounded up to 11?
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 31216
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by Joel Billings »

Always truncate down the numbers. So 9x1.17=10. The changes will impact games immediately once the revised exe is used. The only thing it won't do is reduce the number of AHQs if over the new max.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Always truncate down the numbers. So 9x1.17=10. The changes will impact games immediately once the revised exe is used. The only thing it won't do is reduce the number of AHQs if over the new max.

Thank you!
AlbertN
Posts: 3842
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 3:44 pm
Location: Italy

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by AlbertN »

Glad to hear - we'll see how things pan out.
I think it's not enough of yet for the Soviet bonanza, but a gradual approach is positive in general than mighty drastic changes.
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11390
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule
Contact:

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Curious, how will that affect games already in progress? When updated the changes take place so need to plan accordingly?

doesn't make a huge difference for the Axis side, an Assault army now has 39 CP compared to 45 before (this is for the 1943 allowances). So its enough to remove most excess but you can get most of your formations under full command.

The loss will hit the Soviets (which is as desired)
jubjub
Posts: 595
Joined: Sun May 02, 2021 12:52 pm

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by jubjub »

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

Curious, how will that affect games already in progress? When updated the changes take place so need to plan accordingly?

doesn't make a huge difference for the Axis side, an Assault army now has 39 CP compared to 45 before (this is for the 1943 allowances). So its enough to remove most excess but you can get most of your formations under full command.

The loss will hit the Soviets (which is as desired)

Both sides got their assault HQ's nerfed quite heavily, and the axis lose more assault capacity in '41 than the Soviets do - both nominally and relatively. However, these benefits are more important for the Soviets due to worse leaders and the artillery nerf for non-assault HQ's. They also reap more of the benefit from CPP generation since they are typically end on friendly soil (and start from 0 CPP).

Overall, I think it's a buff to the Axis in 1941 and 1942, but it's not as clear cut as it may seem. No idea about 1943 and onward.



Axis and Soviet Assault HQ CC by year (before and after):


-----------------------------------
1941: 270 : 240 => 156 : 144
1942: 225 : 360 => 117 : 158
1943: 180 : 480 => 117 : 288
1944: 135 : 500 => 78. : 480
1945: 90. : 620 => 78. : 480


Ratios - Axis / Soviet assault command capacity (before and after):

-----------------------------------
1941: 113% => 108%
1942: 62.5% => 74.1%
1943: 37.5% => 40.6%
1944: 27% => 16.3%
1945: 14.5% => 16.3%

*note, 1943-45 values may be off, since I didn't account for any changes in army/front size.

========================================================
There is also the possibility for the axis player to retain up to all 4 of the assault HQ's if they never demote them, while the Soviets don't have this ability. My strategy going forward will likely be to demote panzer groups in novemeber to build forts, and promote all 4 again in december and retain the assault HQ bonuses through 1942. If the Axis retains 4 Assault HQ's in '42, they can have as much as 99% of the assault HQ command capacity as the Soviets in '42. In this case:

-----------------------------------
1941: 270 : 240 => 156 : 144
1942: 270 : 360 => 156 : 158







MarkShot
Posts: 6811
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:04 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by MarkShot »

I have no idea how this will work out, but I wanted to say thank you.

I don't like house rule aka "something is broken and developers won't address it" I find it destroys immersion especially in SP (exclusively how I play).

It is important to know that the conversations are being listened too both for game quality/feel, and capturing the historical sense of the Eastern conflict.

Thank you.
(於 11/13/21 台北,台灣,中國退休)
chrispanton
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:52 pm

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by chrispanton »

Maybe I'm reading/calculating wrong but for the Axis at least it seems like there were 6 x 45CP for total 270Cp in Assault HQ, now there will be 4 x 36CP for 144CP. That's potentially 126CP or 63 division no longer under axis army level command when particularly in the south for 11th and 17th Armies I tend to struggle as axis to get divisions under the command structure, and I don't tend to run many split as regiments. I guess there will be a lot more corps reporting direct to Armygroup or OKW level to make this work?
panzer51
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:27 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by panzer51 »

Another upcoming change we will be making before the 1.01.11 (or later version) goes to the public is we will be changing the requirement for units to be able to disband, go to the reserve or to another active theater box. The unit will be required to be on a connected rail hex that is not within 8 hexes of an enemy unit.

Why 8? Seems excessive. I think 4 would be more than enough (120km give or take)
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11390
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule
Contact:

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: panzer51
Another upcoming change we will be making before the 1.01.11 (or later version) goes to the public is we will be changing the requirement for units to be able to disband, go to the reserve or to another active theater box. The unit will be required to be on a connected rail hex that is not within 8 hexes of an enemy unit.

Why 8? Seems excessive. I think 4 would be more than enough (120km give or take)

you do understand the map scale? 4 hexes is a fair bit < 120km
Karri
Posts: 1140
Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 4:09 pm
Contact:

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by Karri »

ORIGINAL: panzer51
Another upcoming change we will be making before the 1.01.11 (or later version) goes to the public is we will be changing the requirement for units to be able to disband, go to the reserve or to another active theater box. The unit will be required to be on a connected rail hex that is not within 8 hexes of an enemy unit.

Why 8? Seems excessive. I think 4 would be more than enough (120km give or take)

Fringe cases like almost closed pockets, such as the Southern Front during the first few turns.
User avatar
Joel Billings
Posts: 31216
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by Joel Billings »

Yes, that's why we wanted to move it back to 8 hexes. Most units can reach this limit even if on the front line (except in heavy mud), in one turn. The fact that some units won't be able to do that, is considered a beneficial side effect that would mostly hurt the Soviets. Given the general feeling re game balance, we think this is a positive.
All understanding comes after the fact.
-- Soren Kierkegaard
panzer51
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:27 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by panzer51 »

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: panzer51
Another upcoming change we will be making before the 1.01.11 (or later version) goes to the public is we will be changing the requirement for units to be able to disband, go to the reserve or to another active theater box. The unit will be required to be on a connected rail hex that is not within 8 hexes of an enemy unit.

Why 8? Seems excessive. I think 4 would be more than enough (120km give or take)

you do understand the map scale? 4 hexes is a fair bit < 120km

8X10X1.6=128km. No need to be rude and condescending.
User avatar
loki100
Posts: 11390
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Location: Utlima Thule
Contact:

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by loki100 »

ORIGINAL: panzer51

ORIGINAL: loki100

ORIGINAL: panzer51



Why 8? Seems excessive. I think 4 would be more than enough (120km give or take)

you do understand the map scale? 4 hexes is a fair bit < 120km

8X10X1.6=128km. No need to be rude and condescending.

with all due respect, what on earth is that calculation meant to represent? 8 hexes - 80 km? As above the reason is this is a big enough distance to make it unlikely that units in semi-encirclement can disappear to the reserve.
User avatar
GibsonPete
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:53 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by GibsonPete »

Thank you for this. I predict it will neither harm or benefit one side over the other. That said, I predict certain fans will claim otherwise. It will, IMHO, make a great game better.
“Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.”
HardLuckYetAgain
Posts: 7060
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2016 12:26 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by HardLuckYetAgain »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Yes, that's why we wanted to move it back to 8 hexes. Most units can reach this limit even if on the front line (except in heavy mud), in one turn. The fact that some units won't be able to do that, is considered a beneficial side effect that would mostly hurt the Soviets. Given the general feeling re game balance, we think this is a positive.

This has been needed for a very long time, even back to the WITE1 days. Excellent addition :)
panzer51
Posts: 215
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2021 10:27 am

RE: Assault HQ rules coming in a future version

Post by panzer51 »

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Yes, that's why we wanted to move it back to 8 hexes. Most units can reach this limit even if on the front line (except in heavy mud), in one turn. The fact that some units won't be able to do that, is considered a beneficial side effect that would mostly hurt the Soviets. Given the general feeling re game balance, we think this is a positive.
Thank you Joel, I understand
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's War in the East 2”