Matrix Games Forums

Living Manual 1.27, p.423 wrote:23.8.6. Command Chain CV Modifications
In order to simulate both the difficulty of coordinating attacks with units from different
organizations and the ability of an attacking force to exploit the boundaries between
different defending commands penalties will be applied if units reporting to more than
one HQ are involved in the same combat.
For each combat, each side will have a designated commanding HQ unit. Generally
this commanding HQ unit is selected because it has units with the most Combat Value
(CV) directly attached to it in the battle. Units not attached directly to the commanding
HQ unit will suffer command battle modifiers that will reduce their CV for the battle.
These penalties will vary according to how distant the respective commands are in
the overall Order of Battle. So units belonging to a different Axis Corps HQ but in the
same Army will have a [6]% penalty[.] The equivalent for the Soviets is a different Army
HQ but in the same Front [which will result in a 10% penalty]. A unit that reports to a corps in a different army in a
different army group will face a more substantial penalty.
[...]
The greater the number of HQ units that the unit must trace through to reach the
commanding HQ unit, the greater the modifier.
In addition, units that are attached directly to a high command (type 1) HQ unit suffer
an additional 20 percent modifier, and those that are attached directly to an Army
Group (or Soviet Front command) suffer an additional 10 percent modifier (these are
shown as part of the total modifier percentage displayed) in addition to any penalty for
coming from a separate command.
Note this rule rewards trying to organise your overall Order of Battle
so that units from different commands are not mixed up. If this
cannot be avoided, then try to organise your forces so that units
likely to share a mission (defending or attacking) report to closely
related HQs.

FortTell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 11:21 am Preamble:
Command penalties decrease the CV of your units participating in combat. They are percentage-based.
They come from two sources, the effects of which are applied together additively:
a) units subordinated to different HQs
b) units subordinated directly to high-level HQs

1. "Different HQ" CV penalty
1.1. Why is there a penalty
To work together, the HQs need to find a common HQ they both answer to.
But information passing through intermediary levels of command creates delays and inefficiency.

1.2. How is the penalty calculated
One HQ (the one with the most CV of directly subordinated units participating) is chosen as the overall commander.
Then, all other HQs try to find a common HQ with the commanding HQ.
To do that, they go up along their command chains (you do not go down the command chain) until they find an HQ that can give orders to all the participating HQs.
An HQ can give orders to themselves, which is why different units from the same HQ do not take this penalty.
And because all HQs answer to High Command eventually, any two units will have a common HQ.

1.3. The percentages
Any "step up the chain" costs a number of % of inefficiency, depending on the level of the higher HQ.
The level of the lower HQ does not matter: a Corps -> High Command move is as bad as a Front/AG -> High Command move.
The penalty is 3% for an Army, 5% for a Front/AG and 10% for High Command.

2. "High-level HQ direct control" penalty
2.1. Why is there a penalty
High-level HQs usually do operational and strategic work and are less suited to commanding units in the field on the tactical level.

2.2. How is the penalty calculated
If a unit is directly subodinate to a Front/AG, they will take an extra 10% penalty, which goes up to 20% for units directly under High Command.
Note that this penalty applies even if all units in the combat are from the same HQ.

3. Examples

For ease of readability I think it would help if you gave some explanatory text to a couple of examples.

Cool! That`s helpfull.
Thank you for this kind of info you often post in this forum.

I tried to summarise the information presented by Dr. Wiedrock into a text format, maybe it would be easier to understand when presented two ways.

Preamble:
Command penalties decrease the CV of your units participating in combat. They are percentage-based.
They come from two sources, the effects of which are applied together additively:
a) units subordinated to different HQs
b) units subordinated directly to high-level HQs

1. "Different HQ" CV penalty
1.1. Why is there a penalty
To work together, the HQs need to find a common HQ they both answer to.
But information passing through intermediary levels of command creates delays and inefficiency.

1.2. How is the penalty calculated
One HQ (the one with the most CV of directly subordinated units participating) is chosen as the overall commander.
Then, all other HQs try to find a common HQ with the commanding HQ.
To do that, they go up along their command chains (you do not go down the command chain) until they find an HQ that can give orders to all the participating HQs.
An HQ can give orders to themselves, which is why different units from the same HQ do not take this penalty.
And because all HQs answer to High Command eventually, any two units will have a common HQ.

1.3. The percentages
Any "step up the chain" costs a number of % of inefficiency, depending on the level of the higher HQ.
The level of the lower HQ does not matter: a Corps -> High Command move is as bad as a Front/AG -> High Command move.
The penalty is 3% for an Army, 5% for a Front/AG and 10% for High Command.

2. "High-level HQ direct control" penalty
2.1. Why is there a penalty
High-level HQs usually do operational and strategic work and are less suited to commanding units in the field on the tactical level.

2.2. How is the penalty calculated
If a unit is directly subodinate to a Front/AG, they will take an extra 10% penalty, which goes up to 20% for units directly under High Command.
Note that this penalty applies even if all units in the combat are from the same HQ.

3. Examples
See Wiedrock's post: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2#p5211962

FortTell wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 11:21 am I tried to summarise the information presented by Dr. Wiedrock into a text format, maybe it would be easier to understand when presented two ways.

Thanks, added it to the initial Post.

56ajax wrote: ↑Sat Feb 08, 2025 3:50 am For ease of readability I think it would help if you gave some explanatory text to a couple of examples.

Added FortTell's description to the initial Post. Also added 3 "math examples" to the visualization, hope that clarifies it.

Wiedrock wrote: ↑Mon Feb 10, 2025 2:50 pm Added FortTell's description to the initial Post. Also added 3 "math examples" to the visualization, hope that clarifies it.

The detailed examples are more readable, they are a good addition

Thank you very, very much, Wiedrock, for your great work!
It helps beginners like me to understand important things in the game.

For the most part, the penalties are inconsequential.

Does anyone know any player that would forgo adding units to a battle to achieve an adequate odds ratio simply because the units added will get a 16% reduction in their CV?

While it may be important to be aware that the amount of CV you think you are adding to the battle will actually be less, knowing this does nothing to dissuade me from adding what I deem is needed.

HansBolter wrote: ↑Tue Feb 18, 2025 11:12 am For the most part, the penalties are inconsequential.

Does anyone know any player that would forgo adding units to a battle to achieve an adequate odds ratio simply because the units added will get a 16% reduction in their CV?

While it may be important to be aware that the amount of CV you think you are adding to the battle will actually be less, knowing this does nothing to dissuade me from adding what I deem is needed.

I agree with you, but I wonder if the odds that are showing when you scroll over the defending hex takes into consideration penalties or if they are just the gross CV value before any penalties. I do not know. Regardless, more is always better to a certain degree but having tight command and control organization is always a net positive.

PeteJC wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2025 2:59 am I wonder if the odds that are showing when you scroll over the defending hex takes into consideration penalties or if they are just the gross CV value before any penalties.

Mostly gross CV, but with the terrain width modifiers (extra CV for infantry, less CV for tanks in swamps, heavy forests or cities) applied. River penalties and command modifiers can only be seen in battle.