Army and Army Group HQs

[inscrutible]

I've been reading the war room and get the impression that the Army and Army Group HQs for the germans are surperfluous? (ie can be sidelined) What is the use of these HQs? Why not set them to no support and put in weak leaders, and load up the corp HQs instead?

[cookie monster]

For example all hqs in the chain of command up to OKH/STAVKA are used in calculating movement point allowances

for battle cv calculations

can be daisy chained to assist in building forts

[Aurelian]

Nah. Disband all your Army Group/Army HQs.

Fun times.

[inscrutible]

ORIGINAL: Aurelian

Nah. Disband all your Army Group/Army HQs.

Fun times.

I can give it a test by doing a turn and save it. I can then execute the turn with and without those HQs and compare the start of each of the next turns.....

[Aurelian]

I was not serious. But do a few turns and you'll see why they are not superflous.

[randallw]

I am curious as to how long it will take the computer to replace the AG HQs; on the Sov side I once disbanded a M.D. and it was rebuilt the next turn.

[pcoud]

Aurelian,

Could you elaborate please?

Just as the OP, I have been wondering for a while why should I put good leaders at Army HQ level and above, and can't find any satisfactory explanation.

From the manual, leader rating check procedure, p175-177:

"If a leader fails their rating check, the leader of the next higher headquarters unit in the chain
of command will then conduct the check, but with the base value of the check doubled"

"Clearly with each HQ up the chain, the chance of the HQ passing the test
goes down"

From the above it seems obvious to me that I will first fill the Corps HQ levels with good leaders, then if I have still admin points and good leaders left, fill the Armys, and then after Army groups.

So for what exact reason(s), would you rather put a good leader in charge of an Army or Army Group before of a Corps ?

Many thanks if anyone can shed some light on this.

[jomni]

As I always say, it depends on where you want to put your luck?
 
If you want to get all the good die rolls in a concentrated part of the map (a corps) then put good leaders there.  If you want more units to benefit from a good leader, then put them in Army or Army group.  Testers advise people to put good combat skills for corps so that you benefit from combat rolls... and good admin skills for Army / Army Group so that more units will get more movement points to sustain your Blitz.  But since the Germans have a big pool of good leaders, some may think it does not matter where you put them.

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: pcoud

Aurelian,

Could you elaborate please?

Just as the OP, I have been wondering for a while why should I put good leaders at Army HQ level and above, and can't find any satisfactory explanation.

Leader ratings impact virtually all actions done by units. Any check that fails is passed up the chain. The higher the leader rating for that paticular action, the better the chance of passing it.

Guderian as a panzer army leader can help every corps in his command with whatever check they fail. As a corps commander, he can't help anyone else.

This might help a little. tm.asp?m=2737548&mpage=1&key=?

And tm.asp?m=2677854 by jomni. Well worth the read.

[pcoud]

Thanks Aurelian and Jomni, very interesting indeed.

I was under a wrong perception: seeing the drop in probabilities when going up the chain of command ( due to both the doubling of the base value of the check + the command range modifier ), I assumed that good leaders were almost useless at high levels. But I finally spent quite some time doing the maths, and although there cannot be any final conclusion ( too many possibilities ), the drop is in most cases quite compensated by the numbers of units impacted ( changing a leader at army group impacts of course much more units than changing at corps level ).

I eventually like it very much the way Jomni puts it: it depends on where you want to put your luck.