I've been playing AT for a while now and, I have been unable to come up with any reason to have more than two levels of HQs when playing the random scenarios.
Using one's supreme HQ as a supply dump is obvious, but other than that, when a subordinate HQ's units start diverging I just create a new HQ (subordinate to the supreme HQ) and transfer the diverging units to the new HQ. Yeah, you take a hit for a turn or two on readiness but you can still do this if you do it at the right time.
I was thinking of having an intermediate HQ as a destination for reinforcements but, in practice this didn't seem to work and I have come to the understanding that reinforcements would take a 75% readiness hit if I did things along these lines so now I know why it didn't work.
Another item, staff.... all land units are subject to density/crowding but not staff. Not unusual for me to have HQs with like 240 or more staff in them.... and this is just to keep the staff percent up 100. Also, the computer AI does the same thing.... HQ units with a ton of staff in them.
So, what I would like to propose.... that there be a crowding factor for staff (hey, bean counters are subject to crowding just like everyone else! <g>). Say, a half percentage point loss for every point of stacking above 100 (this if using the default stacking). So, if a unit had 120 staff, it's subordinate units would only get 90% of the training, combat and morale bonuses that they would otherwise get.
With this, troops that are transferred from a HQ to a unit that is not directly under it's command but is under a subordinate HQ, would only take the 25% readiness hit as opposed to the 75% readiness hit.
If these changes were implemented, then there would be more reason to have a third level of HQs that would basically be your front line HQs and the second level HQ would then be more significant as a reinforcement destination and distributer.
Whatever.... just thought I'd put this one on the table.
Comments?
Z
HQs, staff, etc
Moderator: Vic
-
82ndtrooper
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2008 10:13 am
- Location: tennessee
RE: HQs, staff, etc
I am not sure but I think that staff is subject to the same stacking penalties as any other land unit, the thing is you seldom ever let them get involved in combat. So it dosnt really matter how many you put in a stack unless they have to fight.
HHC 302nd Engineer Battalion
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
82nd Airborne Division
Honorably Discharged Jul/80
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Headquarters near their units, I believe 3 or 5 hexes, impart a bonus to combat dependent on the percentage of the hqs with staff. I do not generally use them because of the penalty from transferring troops from the wrong hqs into a unit.
If you plan to use combat Hqs, a little advice, DO NOT have any cities transfer any production to them directly. Use higher hqs for that. Especially supplies, you will quickly immobilize your headquarters.
To keep troops available to reinforce your front line units transfer the subunits in small numbers to the headquarters and ensure it has extra trucks for strat moves in case its formations are more then a couple hexes away. That way the next turn you can transfer them to the sub formations.
It adds a new dimension to your supply and reinforcement plans.
If you plan to use combat Hqs, a little advice, DO NOT have any cities transfer any production to them directly. Use higher hqs for that. Especially supplies, you will quickly immobilize your headquarters.
To keep troops available to reinforce your front line units transfer the subunits in small numbers to the headquarters and ensure it has extra trucks for strat moves in case its formations are more then a couple hexes away. That way the next turn you can transfer them to the sub formations.
It adds a new dimension to your supply and reinforcement plans.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Also, form combat HQs in the rear area behind the front lines. Attach troops and move forward as a whole with readiness back to optimum. To do all this on the front lines with enemy attacks will be very painful.
As far as cities production goes, I usually have the cities in the immediate area assigned to the combat HQ, usually 2-3 cities max. But as the HQ moves away, these cities are transferred to another rear area HQ which transfers its assets to the front line HQ.
As far as cities production goes, I usually have the cities in the immediate area assigned to the combat HQ, usually 2-3 cities max. But as the HQ moves away, these cities are transferred to another rear area HQ which transfers its assets to the front line HQ.
No problem Chief!
-
Zaratoughda
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:00 pm
- Location: NE Pa, USA
RE: HQs, staff, etc
ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper
I am not sure but I think that staff is subject to the same stacking penalties as any other land unit, the thing is you seldom ever let them get involved in combat. So it dosnt really matter how many you put in a stack unless they have to fight.
I am sure staff are subject to the same crowding penalties that other land units are subject to, but I wasn't talking about a combat modifier penalty for staff in land combat, I was talking about a crowding modifier to staff for their STAFF COMBAT BONUS, which would be something new.
Z
-
Zaratoughda
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:00 pm
- Location: NE Pa, USA
RE: HQs, staff, etc
ORIGINAL: Twotribes
Headquarters near their units, I believe 3 or 5 hexes, impart a bonus to combat dependent on the percentage of the hqs with staff. I do not generally use them because of the penalty from transferring troops from the wrong hqs into a unit.
Units within 3 hexes of their HQ receive the maximum bonus with the bonus being less out to 8 hexes or farther, where it is zero. As far as 'not generally use them'.... if you are not using your HQs for the max bonus you are missing out on a lot.
If you plan to use combat Hqs, a little advice, DO NOT have any cities transfer any production to them directly. Use higher hqs for that. Especially supplies, you will quickly immobilize your headquarters
To keep troops available to reinforce your front line units transfer the subunits in small numbers to the headquarters and ensure it has extra trucks for strat moves in case its formations are more then a couple hexes away. That way the next turn you can transfer them to the sub formations.
To be honest, IMO this is BAD advice. If you create units at a higher HQ level there is still the 25% readiness hit when you transfer troops into them, THEN there is the 50% readiness loss for the strategic transfter (if you use that), and then ANOTHER 50% readiness loss when you transfer the unit to the sub-HQ.
On the other hand, if you send the city built reinforcements directly to the front line HQ, there is the 'staff experience repercussion' hit but this is not that much, and then you just take the 25% readiness hit when you transfer the troops into a unit and that is all.
Also, at least for me, I usually use the new troops arriving into a front line HQ to fight for a turn before I transfer them into a unit. Particularly if the new units are air units or artillery, this presents no problem and they are still at 100% readiness (albeit typically at just 10 experience).
Z
-
Zaratoughda
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:00 pm
- Location: NE Pa, USA
RE: HQs, staff, etc
ORIGINAL: Max 86
Also, form combat HQs in the rear area behind the front lines. Attach troops and move forward as a whole with readiness back to optimum. To do all this on the front lines with enemy attacks will be very painful.
As far as cities production goes, I usually have the cities in the immediate area assigned to the combat HQ, usually 2-3 cities max. But as the HQ moves away, these cities are transferred to another rear area HQ which transfers its assets to the front line HQ.
Hmmmm.... the problem with this strategy (forming new armies in the rear)... is that while you are doing this your front line troops are missing out on the reinforcements they would otherwise be getting and..... the rear area that you are forming that new army in, might just end up as the new front line as a result.
Same old story, if you try to get fancy, you just end up getting smashed.
Z
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Simply incorrect. You create regional Headquarters to gather your production. You create subformations for those headquarters and you reinforce from that headquarters.
Using combat headquarters you have to plan ahead and transfer a turn ahead into that headquarters what you think you will need for replacements. Then you transfer from that headquarters to the subformations, when done with that you transfer from the regional Headquarters to the Combat Headquarters.
IF you allow large amounts of supply or any aircraft or ships to transfer into a combat headquarters you are going to immobilize that Headquarters or you are going to make the aircraft useless.
The PURPOSE of combat headquarters is to be ON the front line providing a bonus to its subformations. It has to be mobile and can not be tied down to a city or port.
Using my method you limit where most of your trucks need to be, you provide enough to each combat Headquarters to transfer to close in subunits and you keep the large numbers of trucks in the Supreme and regional headquarters along with large numbers of Cargo vessels if in a port. This prevents , usually, the enemy from getting a strike in against your main transport headquarters.
Using combat headquarters you have to plan ahead and transfer a turn ahead into that headquarters what you think you will need for replacements. Then you transfer from that headquarters to the subformations, when done with that you transfer from the regional Headquarters to the Combat Headquarters.
IF you allow large amounts of supply or any aircraft or ships to transfer into a combat headquarters you are going to immobilize that Headquarters or you are going to make the aircraft useless.
The PURPOSE of combat headquarters is to be ON the front line providing a bonus to its subformations. It has to be mobile and can not be tied down to a city or port.
Using my method you limit where most of your trucks need to be, you provide enough to each combat Headquarters to transfer to close in subunits and you keep the large numbers of trucks in the Supreme and regional headquarters along with large numbers of Cargo vessels if in a port. This prevents , usually, the enemy from getting a strike in against your main transport headquarters.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
-
Zaratoughda
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:00 pm
- Location: NE Pa, USA
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Twotribes....
The suggested enhancement I made at the start of this thread... would make it worthwhile to do things along the lines you are talking about.
But, as things stand now, doing things YOUR way, when you transfer the troops from the HQ to the units they will take a 75% readiness hit, while if you do things MY way, they will only take a 25% readiness hit.... PLUS.... you can fight with them in the HQ unit before transferring them out.
The 'Staff Experience Repercussion' hit is a function of the total power points under the HQ so is the same in both cases.
So, my way has the advantages of a 50% less readiness hit and being able to fight for a turn in the HQ unit, while your way has no advantages.
You are probably seeing the experience of the front line HQ unit take a hit when new units arrive, but this is moot.... the combat, morale and training modifiers that are given are based on the experience of the STAFF in the HQ unit, not on the experience of the HQ unit itself.... which will go back up anyways once you transfter the new units out.
If you don't believe what I am saying.... do some testing before replying (I did) so your facts are straight.
Thanks,
Z
P.S. Oh, I don't think anyone would consider sending supply to front line HQs.... I send all supply to my supreme HQ except in rare cases.
P.S.2. If you send new aircraft directly into a front line HQ, and that HQ is in a city, you can use the aircraft for a mission on that very turn.... and in any case once you create a unit for the aircraft and transfer them into it, your HQ has full AP. I typically create a separate HQ for the aircraft because I want to keep it in a city (so I can use the aircraft on the turn they arrive), but there is no problem otherwise in sending them to a front line HQ.
P.S.3. As far as trucks in HQ units are concerned, I only keep enough in the combat HQs so that they are mobile (1 per 20 staff). Nothing otherwise. I don't need or use strategic transfer. In my supreme HQ, are just the 10 staff it starts with (plus supplies), which I just leave there so I can move the unit 1-3 hexes on occasion. That's all my supreme HQ ever sees except in rare cases.
The suggested enhancement I made at the start of this thread... would make it worthwhile to do things along the lines you are talking about.
But, as things stand now, doing things YOUR way, when you transfer the troops from the HQ to the units they will take a 75% readiness hit, while if you do things MY way, they will only take a 25% readiness hit.... PLUS.... you can fight with them in the HQ unit before transferring them out.
The 'Staff Experience Repercussion' hit is a function of the total power points under the HQ so is the same in both cases.
So, my way has the advantages of a 50% less readiness hit and being able to fight for a turn in the HQ unit, while your way has no advantages.
You are probably seeing the experience of the front line HQ unit take a hit when new units arrive, but this is moot.... the combat, morale and training modifiers that are given are based on the experience of the STAFF in the HQ unit, not on the experience of the HQ unit itself.... which will go back up anyways once you transfter the new units out.
If you don't believe what I am saying.... do some testing before replying (I did) so your facts are straight.
Thanks,
Z
P.S. Oh, I don't think anyone would consider sending supply to front line HQs.... I send all supply to my supreme HQ except in rare cases.
P.S.2. If you send new aircraft directly into a front line HQ, and that HQ is in a city, you can use the aircraft for a mission on that very turn.... and in any case once you create a unit for the aircraft and transfer them into it, your HQ has full AP. I typically create a separate HQ for the aircraft because I want to keep it in a city (so I can use the aircraft on the turn they arrive), but there is no problem otherwise in sending them to a front line HQ.
P.S.3. As far as trucks in HQ units are concerned, I only keep enough in the combat HQs so that they are mobile (1 per 20 staff). Nothing otherwise. I don't need or use strategic transfer. In my supreme HQ, are just the 10 staff it starts with (plus supplies), which I just leave there so I can move the unit 1-3 hexes on occasion. That's all my supreme HQ ever sees except in rare cases.
RE: HQs, staff, etc
ORIGINAL: Zaratoughda
Twotribes....
The suggested enhancement I made at the start of this thread... would make it worthwhile to do things along the lines you are talking about.
But, as things stand now, doing things YOUR way, when you transfer the troops from the HQ to the units they will take a 75% readiness hit, while if you do things MY way, they will only take a 25% readiness hit.... PLUS.... you can fight with them in the HQ unit before transferring them out.
The 'Staff Experience Repercussion' hit is a function of the total power points under the HQ so is the same in both cases.
So, my way has the advantages of a 50% less readiness hit and being able to fight for a turn in the HQ unit, while your way has no advantages.
You are probably seeing the experience of the front line HQ unit take a hit when new units arrive, but this is moot.... the combat, morale and training modifiers that are given are based on the experience of the STAFF in the HQ unit, not on the experience of the HQ unit itself.... which will go back up anyways once you transfter the new units out.
If you don't believe what I am saying.... do some testing before replying (I did) so your facts are straight.
Thanks,
Z
P.S. Oh, I don't think anyone would consider sending supply to front line HQs.... I send all supply to my supreme HQ except in rare cases.
P.S.2. If you send new aircraft directly into a front line HQ, and that HQ is in a city, you can use the aircraft for a mission on that very turn.... and in any case once you create a unit for the aircraft and transfer them into it, your HQ has full AP. I typically create a separate HQ for the aircraft because I want to keep it in a city (so I can use the aircraft on the turn they arrive), but there is no problem otherwise in sending them to a front line HQ.
P.S.3. As far as trucks in HQ units are concerned, I only keep enough in the combat HQs so that they are mobile (1 per 20 staff). Nothing otherwise. I don't need or use strategic transfer. In my supreme HQ, are just the 10 staff it starts with (plus supplies), which I just leave there so I can move the unit 1-3 hexes on occasion. That's all my supreme HQ ever sees except in rare cases.
And yet no trucks means no movement of new production beyond a couple hexes from their headquarters. And not to rain on your parade but new production is going to negate your truck ratio unless you somehow manage to transfer out EVERY single new non mobile unit THAT turn.
Funny how I have ZERO problems doing it my way though. Haven't lost yet. The only time I get driven back is when I am fighting on several fronts and have to concentrate on one while delaying on the other.
I will stick to my method thank you.
PP is a resource, 5 pp per headquarters in your system is gonna run you dry quick, unless of course you play on tiny maps with no need to worry about fighting on a spread out area. I prefer to use MY PP for research.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: HQs, staff, etc
LOL
Twotribes: Of course you can play the way you want. No one is going to force you to play optimaly. Zarathoughta was only trying to show you how to play better. And prevent others being fooled into playing suboptimal. The fact that you havent lost against the AI isnt exactly proof that playing with all reinforcements recieving a 75% readinessreduction is benefitial.
The way it works is. You direct supply to OKH. Troops, as long as you know where you want them, to front HQs. Then you fight with your troops in the front. After that you transfer reinforcments from front HQ to troops WITHOUT readinessreduction. Finally you move your HQ which is no longer immobile. If you want to you can have a couple of extra trucks in your front HQs to ensure that you can move out all reinforcements or being able to keep some reinforcements in the HQ if you fancy. As you might or might not know reinforcements in the HQ can move their normal distance without landcap so moving them out should never be a problem. This also means, as Zarathoughta pointed out. That you can use aircraft and artillery the first turn they arrived.
All this means that the way Zarathoughta plays is optimal. Yours isnt. Beating the AI isnt hard in any case.
Twotribes: Of course you can play the way you want. No one is going to force you to play optimaly. Zarathoughta was only trying to show you how to play better. And prevent others being fooled into playing suboptimal. The fact that you havent lost against the AI isnt exactly proof that playing with all reinforcements recieving a 75% readinessreduction is benefitial.
The way it works is. You direct supply to OKH. Troops, as long as you know where you want them, to front HQs. Then you fight with your troops in the front. After that you transfer reinforcments from front HQ to troops WITHOUT readinessreduction. Finally you move your HQ which is no longer immobile. If you want to you can have a couple of extra trucks in your front HQs to ensure that you can move out all reinforcements or being able to keep some reinforcements in the HQ if you fancy. As you might or might not know reinforcements in the HQ can move their normal distance without landcap so moving them out should never be a problem. This also means, as Zarathoughta pointed out. That you can use aircraft and artillery the first turn they arrived.
All this means that the way Zarathoughta plays is optimal. Yours isnt. Beating the AI isnt hard in any case.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Sure thing. Telling people to bloat their combat headquarters with unneeded reinforcements is sure optimal. How about instead you learn logistics and actually practice it? Logistics wins wars or loses them.
As for the reference to the east front, hate to break it to you but there are only 3 headquarters that would be combat headquarters. Unless you plan to waste PP making a lot more it just isn't gonna work your way. Plus since there are only a couple cities that actually produce you have no point.
I also do not assign all production from a city to one single thing to produce, which is what you two advocate for supplies. IF some how you did lose one or two of those cities you would be in a bad situation.
As for the reference to the east front, hate to break it to you but there are only 3 headquarters that would be combat headquarters. Unless you plan to waste PP making a lot more it just isn't gonna work your way. Plus since there are only a couple cities that actually produce you have no point.
I also do not assign all production from a city to one single thing to produce, which is what you two advocate for supplies. IF some how you did lose one or two of those cities you would be in a bad situation.
Favoritism is alive and well here.
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Twotr: I do know the logistics of the game. Ive played it since a year or so. Played 30 or so games against human opponents and also play the AI, Also designed half a dussin scenarios for it. I actually played the way you did assigning all production to Supreme HQ for the first half a year i played. But then i realized that its better do send the troops directly to combat HQs if possible. For the logical reasons i suggested earlier. Can you explain (in gameterms) why combat HQ:s would become bloated with unnescessary reinforcemets? As i have explained in my previous post why that wont happen.
If you look at the AAR of the eastfront that i suggested you will notice that a) germany never built another combat HQ. Soviets built maybe 1-2. b) they use the system that me and Zarathgoughta (and to some extent Max86) propose. They forward their troops directly to their combat HQ.
If you dont trust me then at least look at what Seille and George are doing and trust them. I dont know about George, but Seille is one of the most experienced players there is for the game. George obviusly matches him in skill.
As for your third paragraph. I am not sure what you mean. In most games there is no imediate threat to all of your cities. The ones producing supply are usually in the back and/or garissoned, to prevent high loss of supply income. If that is what you are hinting about.
Btw. Naval units can be resupplied at sea.
If you look at the AAR of the eastfront that i suggested you will notice that a) germany never built another combat HQ. Soviets built maybe 1-2. b) they use the system that me and Zarathgoughta (and to some extent Max86) propose. They forward their troops directly to their combat HQ.
If you dont trust me then at least look at what Seille and George are doing and trust them. I dont know about George, but Seille is one of the most experienced players there is for the game. George obviusly matches him in skill.
As for your third paragraph. I am not sure what you mean. In most games there is no imediate threat to all of your cities. The ones producing supply are usually in the back and/or garissoned, to prevent high loss of supply income. If that is what you are hinting about.
Btw. Naval units can be resupplied at sea.
My Advanced Tactics Mod page
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
http://atgscenarios.wordpress.com
30+ scenarios, maps and mods for AT and AT:G
-
Zaratoughda
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:00 pm
- Location: NE Pa, USA
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Twotribes....
The way you are playing is the way things were done historically, but by the rules of the game as they stand now, a player that spends the PP on second line HQ, along with the production for staff and trucks, and then having reinforcements tied up in the bottleneck, is gonna get his clock cleaned in a balanced PBEM game by a player that puts all his production into front line combat units.
So, IMO, Vic has forayed into new ground with his use of staff here, and as such there is gonna have to be some tweeking to get it to all work as desired, and he has done some tweeking but IMO more is needed.
Against the 'no first level tech' AI, I build a lot of armored cars, and it bothers me that I have all these 10 strength AC units, and then a HQ with like 240 staff. So, what I have suggested, is there be a crowding modifier to staff so that after a point you need two to get what you got from one when you were below the crowding modifier. In other words, if this crowding modifier was 100, then once you went above this limit you would need 20 staff to get what you were getting with 10 below this limit. Whether this limit should be 100 or 2x the normal stacking limit..... 200... is hard to say.
If you do this and only charge the 25% readiness hit for transfers from a HQ to a unit in a subordinate formation.... then the use of 2nd line HQs starts being potentially significant.
But, still not sure even this would make using them the better way to go.
Another thing that bothers me, is my supreme HQ having 10 staff and a humoungous supply dump maybe 35,000. What bothers me is this whole logistics thing being handled by just 10 staff. So, IMO there should be an alotment and AP charge for transferring supplies, and if there are not enough staff to transfer the supplies, the supplies do not get transferred. If you had just enough staff to do the transfers, at the start of the turn their AP would be zero. If you had twice the number of staff needed, you would have 50 AP left at the start of the turn.
Hmmm... with this.... you would need to keep enough staff in your supreme HQ to keep the supplies flowing. You would then need to the same at the intermediate HQ levels for the same reason.
Not sure all this motivates using intermediate level HQs as was done historically, but it is getting there IMO.
Z
The way you are playing is the way things were done historically, but by the rules of the game as they stand now, a player that spends the PP on second line HQ, along with the production for staff and trucks, and then having reinforcements tied up in the bottleneck, is gonna get his clock cleaned in a balanced PBEM game by a player that puts all his production into front line combat units.
So, IMO, Vic has forayed into new ground with his use of staff here, and as such there is gonna have to be some tweeking to get it to all work as desired, and he has done some tweeking but IMO more is needed.
Against the 'no first level tech' AI, I build a lot of armored cars, and it bothers me that I have all these 10 strength AC units, and then a HQ with like 240 staff. So, what I have suggested, is there be a crowding modifier to staff so that after a point you need two to get what you got from one when you were below the crowding modifier. In other words, if this crowding modifier was 100, then once you went above this limit you would need 20 staff to get what you were getting with 10 below this limit. Whether this limit should be 100 or 2x the normal stacking limit..... 200... is hard to say.
If you do this and only charge the 25% readiness hit for transfers from a HQ to a unit in a subordinate formation.... then the use of 2nd line HQs starts being potentially significant.
But, still not sure even this would make using them the better way to go.
Another thing that bothers me, is my supreme HQ having 10 staff and a humoungous supply dump maybe 35,000. What bothers me is this whole logistics thing being handled by just 10 staff. So, IMO there should be an alotment and AP charge for transferring supplies, and if there are not enough staff to transfer the supplies, the supplies do not get transferred. If you had just enough staff to do the transfers, at the start of the turn their AP would be zero. If you had twice the number of staff needed, you would have 50 AP left at the start of the turn.
Hmmm... with this.... you would need to keep enough staff in your supreme HQ to keep the supplies flowing. You would then need to the same at the intermediate HQ levels for the same reason.
Not sure all this motivates using intermediate level HQs as was done historically, but it is getting there IMO.
Z
-
Joshuatree
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:58 am
- Location: Netherlands
RE: HQs, staff, etc
"Another thing that bothers me, is my supreme HQ having 10 staff and a humoungous supply dump maybe 35,000. What bothers me is this whole logistics thing being handled by just 10 staff. So, IMO there should be an alotment and AP charge for transferring supplies, and if there are not enough staff to transfer the supplies, the supplies do not get transferred. If you had just enough staff to do the transfers, at the start of the turn their AP would be zero. If you had twice the number of staff needed, you would have 50 AP left at the start of the turn."
Well you may be right with this... but I ask you; would gameplay benefit from it? It sounds logical: huge army=huge suply dump= huge staff to handle all this. There are situations where the supply need of your army is very low because it isn't fighting or moving. Then you would have a huge expensive staff doing nothing. While at other times you would not get all the supply you need because your HQ unit isn't full strength.
Besides that, for most casual gamers the "supply thing" is tough enough to master...
Well you may be right with this... but I ask you; would gameplay benefit from it? It sounds logical: huge army=huge suply dump= huge staff to handle all this. There are situations where the supply need of your army is very low because it isn't fighting or moving. Then you would have a huge expensive staff doing nothing. While at other times you would not get all the supply you need because your HQ unit isn't full strength.
Besides that, for most casual gamers the "supply thing" is tough enough to master...
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Zaratoughda:
IMO Staff in a Combat HQs should remain as is because it represents not only Corps-level staff (command, communications, logistics, information etc ...) but the Division-level staff as well.
Historically, the sub-units that are a part of 'our' (game) units were further organized into Divisions, Regiments and Battalions, each with their own staff. Now, since that wouldn't be exactly practical to put in this game, it still has to be represented. So the staff that's currently in 'our' Corps is probably about 3 times larger that would usually be the case.
And another thing: more troops NEED more men to control them. If you need 200 staff just to keep your command influence above 100% at 3 hexes distance, then you have a whole Army instead of just a Corps there, and (in real life at least) that Army would probably be separated into individual Corps for easier control.
And that's (again: IMO) one of the great things about AT- flexibility. You can make an HQ with 3 small Divisions to guard an unimportant sector of the front - and then expand it to a whole Army Group with 50+ Divisions when preparing for a major push.
Okay, I don't usually do that, because I like to have a couple of HQ's - even on a small front - just in case I have to attack in multiple directions at once. This is most useful in random games, where you have to cover a lot of front, since your opponent can show up anywhere just by building a road - even across a wilderness. But, again - that's AT's flexibility at work!
And another thing: have you ever tried to play a random game with realistic supply setting?
Vic was VERY generous when he made the supply transfer on roads to be 1AP per hex. Considering movement and transfer costs of all other troops, supply transfer should have been at 10AP. That means you would have to have one level HQ for each 10 hexes of distance between your Supreme HQ and your front-line Hq just to get the supply in.
And if you also put rebellion (in v1.20) option on, plus if you have a inventive and cunning opponent who knows how to use Paratroopers, Scouts III and Light Tanks III (both of which are 20% faster than usual) for daring raids into your rear, you'll have more than enough supply problems to satisfy your mazochistical heart!
Cheers!
srndac
P.S. You forgot one thing in the previos post: not only would you need more staff, but you would need some kind of transportation (probably trucks) to move that supply out to combat HQ's. Probably using LANDCAP for this?
IMO Staff in a Combat HQs should remain as is because it represents not only Corps-level staff (command, communications, logistics, information etc ...) but the Division-level staff as well.
Historically, the sub-units that are a part of 'our' (game) units were further organized into Divisions, Regiments and Battalions, each with their own staff. Now, since that wouldn't be exactly practical to put in this game, it still has to be represented. So the staff that's currently in 'our' Corps is probably about 3 times larger that would usually be the case.
And another thing: more troops NEED more men to control them. If you need 200 staff just to keep your command influence above 100% at 3 hexes distance, then you have a whole Army instead of just a Corps there, and (in real life at least) that Army would probably be separated into individual Corps for easier control.
And that's (again: IMO) one of the great things about AT- flexibility. You can make an HQ with 3 small Divisions to guard an unimportant sector of the front - and then expand it to a whole Army Group with 50+ Divisions when preparing for a major push.
Okay, I don't usually do that, because I like to have a couple of HQ's - even on a small front - just in case I have to attack in multiple directions at once. This is most useful in random games, where you have to cover a lot of front, since your opponent can show up anywhere just by building a road - even across a wilderness. But, again - that's AT's flexibility at work!
And another thing: have you ever tried to play a random game with realistic supply setting?
Vic was VERY generous when he made the supply transfer on roads to be 1AP per hex. Considering movement and transfer costs of all other troops, supply transfer should have been at 10AP. That means you would have to have one level HQ for each 10 hexes of distance between your Supreme HQ and your front-line Hq just to get the supply in.
And if you also put rebellion (in v1.20) option on, plus if you have a inventive and cunning opponent who knows how to use Paratroopers, Scouts III and Light Tanks III (both of which are 20% faster than usual) for daring raids into your rear, you'll have more than enough supply problems to satisfy your mazochistical heart!
Cheers!
srndac
P.S. You forgot one thing in the previos post: not only would you need more staff, but you would need some kind of transportation (probably trucks) to move that supply out to combat HQ's. Probably using LANDCAP for this?
-
Zaratoughda
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:00 pm
- Location: NE Pa, USA
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Joshuatree....
Maybe you are right. AT to start with is more in the area of logistics support (staff, etc) than most games, and if you go more in this direction it might not be the cup of tea for a lot of players.
But still, if you are gonna do something you should do it right, and as I stated before, IMO Vic has forayed into new ground with this and some more tweeking might just be appropriate.
What I would see as more historical, would be rules motivating smaller front line HQs but intermidiate level HQs (as your army gets bigger) and, ultimately a very large supreme HQ. I just checked up on OKH/OKW in Wikipedia and.... then there is The Pentagon.... and we are talking a LOT of staff in these cases in the supreme HQ.
My suggestion of a crowding modifier for front line HQs IMO does the trick as far as keeping them from getting too big. Up the line, the motivation for the intermediate level HQs historically, was planning and logistics and.... that means something relative to supply to make these HQs needed.
But, whatever, Vic's call as to whether he wants to enhance the game along these lines or not.
And like you say, whether or not needing more staff in the intermediate level and supreme HQs is to the players liking or not... hard to say one way or the other. It WOULD be more historical though.
Z
Maybe you are right. AT to start with is more in the area of logistics support (staff, etc) than most games, and if you go more in this direction it might not be the cup of tea for a lot of players.
But still, if you are gonna do something you should do it right, and as I stated before, IMO Vic has forayed into new ground with this and some more tweeking might just be appropriate.
What I would see as more historical, would be rules motivating smaller front line HQs but intermidiate level HQs (as your army gets bigger) and, ultimately a very large supreme HQ. I just checked up on OKH/OKW in Wikipedia and.... then there is The Pentagon.... and we are talking a LOT of staff in these cases in the supreme HQ.
My suggestion of a crowding modifier for front line HQs IMO does the trick as far as keeping them from getting too big. Up the line, the motivation for the intermediate level HQs historically, was planning and logistics and.... that means something relative to supply to make these HQs needed.
But, whatever, Vic's call as to whether he wants to enhance the game along these lines or not.
And like you say, whether or not needing more staff in the intermediate level and supreme HQs is to the players liking or not... hard to say one way or the other. It WOULD be more historical though.
Z
RE: HQs, staff, etc
One way to deal with this kind of issue is to have "Standard" vs "Advanced" logistics as an option and leave it up to the player(s) or the scenario designer to decide which to choose. If that's too rough, the different logistics alternatives could be made more moddable, but then I guess it's scenario design options we are talking about and not player options. Not sure if Vic wants to go down that path, or even if it's the right path to choose...
-
Joshuatree
- Posts: 507
- Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:58 am
- Location: Netherlands
RE: HQs, staff, etc
True, it would surely be more historical. But there is also the small matter whether the AI is capable of such an advanced logistical system.
-
Zaratoughda
- Posts: 714
- Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 4:00 pm
- Location: NE Pa, USA
RE: HQs, staff, etc
Hmmm.... just want to sum up my thoughts on this.
IMO.... a couple of enhancements would be needed.
First, there would be a Crowding Modifier for staff and the staff bonuses. If you went over 100 staff, you would need 2 to get the value of 1. In other words, to get the value that you get with 100 staff now, you would need 100 staff, but to get the value that you get with 120 staff now, you would need 140 staff.
Then, there would need to be a charge to staff for sending supplies. How much this would be would have to be decided on, but the idea is the highest level of HQ would be charged first, and then, if this did not cover it, the subordinate HQs down the line would get charged. The charge, would be in loss of AP at the start of the turn and, ideally, a hit on the staff bonuses.
Also, as far as the Crowding modifier level, if would be at 100 at the lowest level of HQ, and then twice that at the next level of HQ, etc.
So, the way this would work in practice.....
Lets say you are playing a random scenario and you start out by building your first front line (corps) level HQ. With this, you would need to add staff to your supreme HQ to handle supply distribution. At the start, this would not be much but, you can tell if you need more as the AP that your supreme HQ has at the start of the turn starts going down... if it reaches zero then your corps HQ is gonna take a hit for supply distribution and that is gonna mean less AP and a hit on the staff mods (combat, morale, training) and, you DON'T want that. So, the idea would be to keep adding staff to your supreme HQ as needed to keep it's AP at the start of the turn above 0.
Then, once it comes to the point where the number of staff in your supreme HQ is approaching 200.... it is time (if you have not done this already) to insert an Army level HQ in between your corps level HQs and your supreme HQ. With this, the army level HQs could have up to 200 staff and, the supreme HQ, up to 400.
IMO, this should hold you for some time. Again, the supreme HQ would take the charge first for supply distribution, then the army level HQ, and if still not enough then the front line HQ, and you would not want things to get to that point as if would affect combat.
Now.... it is conceivable..... in a VERY large scenario, that you might get to the point of needing to insert another level of HQ.... an army group HQ.... which would have the staff crowding limit of 400... and the supreme HQ would now be up to a limit of 800 and... now we are talking OKW, OKH, The Pentagon, etc.
OK, AT has this whole concept of staff that other games don't have and, all this might be not the cup of tea for many so, yeah, maybe this is an 'advanced logistics' option.
But, the thing is.... right now there isn't any reason that I can see to have any more than 10 staff in your supreme HQ (actually, you only need 1 so you can move it) and, no real reason to have multiple corps level HQs or any army level HQs at all. With this, players that play as things were historically (including the compter AI) and have lots of staff like there was historically, just end up getting their clocks cleaned by players that put everything into front line combat units.
Yeah, I just completed a game against 3 AI opponents, and ended up only building the corps level HQ that I built on turn 1... never built another one after it.... had over 300 staff in it and the supreme HQ, just had the 10 staff it started with.
Whatever.... I just think an enhancement along these lines would make the game play out more as you would think historically.
Z
IMO.... a couple of enhancements would be needed.
First, there would be a Crowding Modifier for staff and the staff bonuses. If you went over 100 staff, you would need 2 to get the value of 1. In other words, to get the value that you get with 100 staff now, you would need 100 staff, but to get the value that you get with 120 staff now, you would need 140 staff.
Then, there would need to be a charge to staff for sending supplies. How much this would be would have to be decided on, but the idea is the highest level of HQ would be charged first, and then, if this did not cover it, the subordinate HQs down the line would get charged. The charge, would be in loss of AP at the start of the turn and, ideally, a hit on the staff bonuses.
Also, as far as the Crowding modifier level, if would be at 100 at the lowest level of HQ, and then twice that at the next level of HQ, etc.
So, the way this would work in practice.....
Lets say you are playing a random scenario and you start out by building your first front line (corps) level HQ. With this, you would need to add staff to your supreme HQ to handle supply distribution. At the start, this would not be much but, you can tell if you need more as the AP that your supreme HQ has at the start of the turn starts going down... if it reaches zero then your corps HQ is gonna take a hit for supply distribution and that is gonna mean less AP and a hit on the staff mods (combat, morale, training) and, you DON'T want that. So, the idea would be to keep adding staff to your supreme HQ as needed to keep it's AP at the start of the turn above 0.
Then, once it comes to the point where the number of staff in your supreme HQ is approaching 200.... it is time (if you have not done this already) to insert an Army level HQ in between your corps level HQs and your supreme HQ. With this, the army level HQs could have up to 200 staff and, the supreme HQ, up to 400.
IMO, this should hold you for some time. Again, the supreme HQ would take the charge first for supply distribution, then the army level HQ, and if still not enough then the front line HQ, and you would not want things to get to that point as if would affect combat.
Now.... it is conceivable..... in a VERY large scenario, that you might get to the point of needing to insert another level of HQ.... an army group HQ.... which would have the staff crowding limit of 400... and the supreme HQ would now be up to a limit of 800 and... now we are talking OKW, OKH, The Pentagon, etc.
OK, AT has this whole concept of staff that other games don't have and, all this might be not the cup of tea for many so, yeah, maybe this is an 'advanced logistics' option.
But, the thing is.... right now there isn't any reason that I can see to have any more than 10 staff in your supreme HQ (actually, you only need 1 so you can move it) and, no real reason to have multiple corps level HQs or any army level HQs at all. With this, players that play as things were historically (including the compter AI) and have lots of staff like there was historically, just end up getting their clocks cleaned by players that put everything into front line combat units.
Yeah, I just completed a game against 3 AI opponents, and ended up only building the corps level HQ that I built on turn 1... never built another one after it.... had over 300 staff in it and the supreme HQ, just had the 10 staff it started with.
Whatever.... I just think an enhancement along these lines would make the game play out more as you would think historically.
Z