V1.04 Rule change 4 & command structures

[gingerbread]

Below is from Joel's post in the "waiting to buy"-thread:

V1.04 Beta 1
• New Features and Rule Changes
<---->
4. Rule Change - Introduced the concept of a commanding HQ for each side for each combat. Generally this commanding HQ is selected because it has the most CVs directly reporting to it in the battle. Units not reporting directly to the commanding HQ will suffer command battle modifiers that will reduce their CV for the battle. The battle report now lists the units in the battle grouped under the name of the HQ they report to. If an HQ’s units are suffering a command battle modifier, the amount of the CV reduction is shown next to the name of the HQ (for example XXIV Panzer Corps -36% indicates that each unit listed in this corps has had its CV reduced by 36%). The greater the number of HQ’s that the unit must trace through to reach the commanding HQ, the greater the modifier. In addition, units that report directly to a high command HQ suffer an additional 20% modifier, and those that report directly to an Army Group or Front suffer an additional 10% modifier (these are shown as part of the total modifier percentage displayed).
<--->

Will this not make the Axis wish that they had the same command structure as the Soviets? I think that the concept of 'one size fits all will' be difficult to apply here and that this and other rules should mirror the benefits and penalties that each sides command structures actually had, i.e. one rule set for Axis and another for Soviets.

[Helpless]

Will this not make the Axis wish that they had the same command structure as the Soviets?

No.

[gingerbread]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Will this not make the Axis wish that they had the same command structure as the Soviets?

No.

Short and concise!

What I meant was that an axis division has 3 potential buddies with which to attack without penalties from this new rule (a corps have 8 command pts at start and each division takes 2 so 4 divs in a corps means 3 buddies) but the typical soviet has (up to) 11 other divs (per the same logic, an army has 24 pts) and that give greater flexibility and actually penalizes the corps structure instead of making it an asset for the purpose of this new rule.

[Helpless]

You are throwing out a lot of other (more important) factors in your alarming message. Also Soviet division is not equal to German division in many sense.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

Well, i think the (important) question in it is:
Is this new rule a new limitation for the axis and does it "help" the russians (that have in the moment more then enough "help" by the game?)
&nbsp;
I think, we should wait until it is out - so the experienced players can give the answer.
&nbsp;

[Helpless]

Is this new rule a new limitation for the axis and does it "help" the russians (that have in the moment more then enough "help" by the game?)

That is the only thing we care about when develop new rules..

[gingerbread]

I admit my statement is polemic, but I did provide a constructive suggestion (at least my intention was to be constructive), that the sides be treated differently with regards to the issue that this new rule is to address.

Of course I realize that the axis corps are a benefit to them, but the subject for my post is Rule change 4 (in V1.04).

[Helpless]

The problem is that Joel's quote doesn't describe the rule completely. As said any rule shouldn't be taken out of context.

The biggest change is that single support unit provided by the upper level HQ Army won't take the whole stack down by 10-20% which is a huge benefit for the Axis, who has more chances to pass the initiative rolls. Besides all Soviet front reserves will suffer automatic 10% penalty. Not speaking of all those units attached to Stavka.

There are a lot more of other details.

[pompack]

Actually I read the change as helping the Germans more than the Russians (or at least the Russians not controlled by a total noob)

Point: It is rare for the Russians to suffer under the current C&C rules since it is a rare battle where it is necessary to use units from two armies, much less two Fronts (unless the Russian player ignores C&C and just mixes the colors indiscrimantly). I read this rule as actually reducing the current penalty that the Germans pay any time two Korps cooperate in a single battle (a frequent occurance in big deliberate attacks). It also tells me exactly what the penalty is in numbers- nice.

[gingerbread]

OK, thanks for that clarification.

Looking forward to try it out, no 4 and the other ones.

[Klydon]

I am reading this as awarding having your C/C house in order. This will make it more difficult on the Russians in the early going across a broad front and some of the ad-hoc counter attacks they sometimes make.

Looks good!

[marcpennington]

I think the rule change does sounds fantastic.

Given that exploiting the boundaries between command structures will become relatively more important, might it be possible to include a new display option to color the opposing forces based on front or army. Obviously, the coloring could be tied to detection level. Perhaps an additional line in the mouse over box on enemy units might include higher HQ info if it was available.

One problem I do see with this is that in AI games it would appear from the little bits of coloring one sees during the AI turn resolutions that his command structure is a bit of a mess, and various colors are jumbled together. As far as I understand the AI largely ignores many of the CnC rules, which is understandable, and the display option could just be turned off here if it gets distracting.... But I imagine for a PBEM game this will not be an issue, and would both give valuable intelligence at a glance (and intelligence that I'm sure was available to the historical commanders who were probably far more likely to know which front they were opposing as opposed to a specific division), as well as just giving a little bit more historical feel to the turns.... Knowing you're trashing the 2nd Kalinin Front as opposed to a nondescript mass of divisions is to my mind a good thing.

[Adnan Meshuggi]

if you say so....[8|]

sorry, i just asked a question

historically, in summer 41 the axis comand structure was superior to the comand structure of the russians.... so this question is not silly

Oh, i do not think thatthe developer are only interested in "make life harder for the axis" - but still could such improvement lead to the decribed problem

[Hagleboz]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Is this new rule a new limitation for the axis and does it "help" the russians (that have in the moment more then enough "help" by the game?)

That is the only thing we care about when develop new rules..

That made me laugh! [:D]