Command overload

[squatter]

Did I read somewhere that the effect of having too many units assigned to a single HQ is a secret?

Sometimes I have a corps which is one point over its command capability. I would really like to know what the negative effect of this is. Is it minor, with just one point over. Or is it major? Some of the testers in their AARs would be rattling on about how they were transfering divisions as Command and Control were so important, as if they knew the effect of overloading commands. Do some people know? Is this information only being released to a select few?

And then I see some of my higher HQs that might have 20 points over their command limits. What is the effect of this? Is it negligable given that higher HQs dont seem to have much influence over gameplay. Or are there things I dont know about how this system works that mean that such overloading is affecting all my HQs and units down the chain?

These things would be useful to know.

[76mm]

You're ahead of me--I don't know where to find a unit's command capacity and current command load...where is this info?

[squatter]

click on an HQ and look at the unit tab on the right side. There will be two number seperated by a colon: 8:10 for example. This would mean the HQ has 10 command capacity points, and is currently using 8 of them (division is 2 points to command, other units scale appropriately.)
 
We are told it is bad to exceed this command capacity, but I have no idea what our punishment is for doing so.

[karonagames]

From the manual:

HQ units whose total command points exceed their command capacity rating will become less
effective, which will be reflected by an increased difficulty in passing leader skill rating rolls
such as an admin or initiative check. Leaders of headquarters units where the number of
attached units exceeds the command capacity will have their chances of making the leader
rating check reduced with the more excess units, the less the chance of a successful check
(see section 11.3.1).

7.6.2 pg144

The effects of this only really manifest themselves over the longer term, as the impact of reduced MPs and missed leader rating checks will be a sort of "death by a thousand cuts".

[notenome]

Which leads to an interesting question as far as AGS is concerned. All armies there are doomed to be overloaded, so what is the sugested solution?

[ComradeP]

Don't overload corps and armies, it should be possible. AGS will probably be overloaded for a long while. What you could do is take about 2 turns worth of AP's and assign some armies to OKH. OKH will never overload, unlike STAVKA.

[jimkehn]

But Pieter what disadvantages are felt if you assign to Stavka if Stavka is 40 hexes or more distant? I mean the subordinate to Stavka in this case wont ever receive any support units, and what about supply and replacements? Isnt the efficiency of these supply and replacements dependent on range to parent HQ? Maybe I am missing something here. Man I been attaching units AWAY from Stavka to a closer Army/Front......maybe I am making a mistake....but they DO seem to replenish faster if the parent is closer even if the parent IS Stavka.

[ComradeP]

Of course there's a disadvantage if OKH/STAVKA's on the other side of the map, but it's more risky for the Soviets than the Axis, as the Axis generally have two HQ layers between units and army group level and the Soviets just one between units and front level. The command radius of high commands is also quite good, and you could simply assign armies to them that would be within the radius they would normally be in when assigned to an army group. Keeping army HQ's assigned to OKH within 30-45 hexes of OKH isn't that difficult. If you assign half of AGS to OKH and half of AGN, there'll be a problem due to distance, but with some careful consideration, it should be possible to keep everything within a comfortable radius.

[squatter]

I'm still in the dark as to the impact of overloading. We all know, thanks to the manual, that leadership rolls are affected by overloading HQs. But does anyone know how adversely? If my corps has 1 CU point over its limit, had I better bust a gut to sort that out, or is that not catastrophic? Is the overload punishment curve exponential, linear, or what?
 
And with higher HQs, need I really worry when my Army Group is 20 CUs over? How painful is this impact? Again, this comes down to having some idea of how many leadership rolls these HQs are helping out with, something hidden from the user.
 
A suggestion: could there be some way of displaying within the higher HQ dialogue, the percentage chance that the leader has of making his leader rolls when his subordinate HQ fails? This would be dynamic to reflect CU overload. That would be nice.
 
 

[raizer]

that number you are looking for is in the manual next to the calculations for the "notional" number  [:D]

[FredSanford3]

I think there is a design philosophy at work whereby things that are unquantifiable IRL, are also unquantifiable here. e.g., you wouldn't know what the exact chances are that an overburdened commander and staff would overlook some logistic arrangement to allow a subunit to move to a new location IRL, you'd just have a general idea that this commander/staff is somewhat overworked. Same thing here. Your only guide is common sense. Common sense tells me that being one point over the command limit isn't that bad, especially with a better commander, but 2x over the limit will cause major problems. YMMV.

[Mike Parker]

There is an example of it in the manual somewhere. It goes like this.

Suppose a Corp HQ commander needs to make say an admin roll. He has a 7 admin raiting. So a roll is made 1-10 if it is 7 or lower he passes. Now suppose his corp is overloaded by a division for 2 over. Then instead of 1-10 1-12 is rolled for success on 7 or less. Overloading is quite nasty in its effect it seems. Its something I am trying to do my best to fix especially at the corp level. Since rolls are already 1-20 at Army 1-40 at AG and 1-80 at HC overloading them is not horrible.. but at corp level it gets bad quick.

[squatter]

"Suppose a Corp HQ commander needs to make say an admin roll. He has a 7 admin raiting. So a roll is made 1-10 if it is 7 or lower he passes. Now suppose his corp is overloaded by a division for 2 over. Then instead of 1-10 1-12 is rolled for success on 7 or less. Overloading is quite nasty in its effect it seems. Its something I am trying to do my best to fix especially at the corp level. Since rolls are already 1-20 at Army 1-40 at AG and 1-80 at HC overloading them is not horrible.. but at corp level it gets bad quick. "
 
That was the info I was looking for. Thanks. Each CU over the max increases the leader roll by 1.

[glvaca]

Picking up on this I find it is practically impossible to respect the Command limitations when breaking down divisions to regiments as the command requirement suddenly becomes 3 per division instead of 2. Not to mention the overload created when one creates a bunch of fortified regions to prepare for the Russian winter offensive. If they are left at OKH they will be horribly under-supplied. But attaching them to Corps would mean a great overload of command...what to do?

Also, what is the rational of having to assign Corps or Armies to a OKH to be within command capacity? I mean, command and control was crutial. Corps in a sector of the front with heavy fighting (or even quiet sectors) did not historically have to be attached to OKH to pass a command die roll. Not to mention the high cost of re-attaching Corps/Armies to another HQ is sometimes (most of the times?) prohibitive and re-attaching often not possible.

With my current knowledge of the rules, I have to conclude that this requirement forces players to do ahistorical things to comply to the rules, which is rather odd considering this is such a great game which in almost all respects aims and delivers, to put the gamer in the historical situation.

In addition, there are several add-hoc Army detachments (Hollidt/Kempff, etc...) which the Germans created to solve command problems in emergency situations which are not in the game which would go a long way to resolve the problems above. Maybe the solution would be to allow the Germans to create these Army detachments by spending AP's?

If I'm missing something I apologize but if I'm not, I would like to propose that this is looked at in the future.

Thanks!

[jay102]

Is it possible to gradually re-assign all panzer corps to OKH?

1. solve all the Army Group overload problem.
2. create a mobile force which can commit freely to all fronts without command problem.

[glvaca]

ORIGINAL: jay102

Is it possible to gradually re-assign all panzer corps to OKH?

1. solve all the Army Group overload problem.
2. create a mobile force which can commit freely to all fronts without command problem.

But how realistic is this? Is there a historical precedent?
To add, the Germans were renouned for their operational savy and staff work. Are we assuming that their staffs where so overburdend in reality they could hardly do their jobs properly?

[Ametysth]

I have little experience with this game (just got it before Xmas), but it seems to me that what matters most is WHO you overload, as leadership rolls are determined by leader's abilities. So putting Model in charge of Corps formation containing 6-7 infantry divisions or saddling von Manstein with 6 Pz/mech Pz Group will not slow these guys down, unless I have misunderstood something?

[jay102]

ORIGINAL: glvaca

ORIGINAL: jay102

Is it possible to gradually re-assign all panzer corps to OKH?

1. solve all the Army Group overload problem.
2. create a mobile force which can commit freely to all fronts without command problem.

But how realistic is this? Is there a historical precedent?
To add, the Germans were renouned for their operational savy and staff work. Are we assuming that their staffs where so overburdend in reality they could hardly do their jobs properly?

I just considered it in game term, if there is enough AP to do this.

[squatter]

"Suppose a Corp HQ commander needs to make say an admin roll. He has a 7 admin raiting. So a roll is made 1-10 if it is 7 or lower he passes. Now suppose his corp is overloaded by a division for 2 over. Then instead of 1-10 1-12 is rolled for success on 7 or less. Overloading is quite nasty in its effect it seems. Its something I am trying to do my best to fix especially at the corp level. Since rolls are already 1-20 at Army 1-40 at AG and 1-80 at HC overloading them is not horrible.. but at corp level it gets bad quick. "

Thinking about this example from the manual - it says the usefulness of good leaders gets progressively LESS important the further up the command tree?
 
A leader with an 8 rating compared to a leader at 4 rating at corps level where the roll is 1-10 is a big difference.
 
You transform your chances from 40% to 80%
 
When the roll is 1-80, the difference is much less.
 
You transform your chances from around 3.8% to 7.6%.
 
And when you are overloaded by 40 units at AG level, your roll is 1-120, making the difference in good/bad leaders increasingly negligable?
 
Is my logic sound here? I'm never on solid ground with figures.

[ComradeP]

Many leaders with really high admin scores have poor combat skills and high ranks, so placing them in corps is both expensive in terms of AP's and will reduce your combat potential. Ideally, you'd have leaders with good admin scores on all command levels, but that's only achievable by the Axis early on. The Soviets can, in time, get there.