C&C: REALLY important

[TulliusDetritus]

What I am going to say is possibly known by most of you. But maybe there are some guys (like ME) who ignore this [:D]

I did a small test.

But first a few words: on my first blizzard I had used the Cavalry Corps very incorrectly. I hadn't attached support units (2 x Tank Bns + 1 x Sapper Regiment). These units (offensive CVs = or > 5) could not even defeat miserable ants (1:1)! And yes, they were directly attached to Stavka. Fact number one.

So on my current game (playing the blizzard turns), I had assigned these support units. The corps are finally ready BUT I wanted to test something, just in case... So I attacked a miserable 1:1, a hasty attack and the unit was directly attached to STAVKA, very far away. The unit held... I did that 5 times. 4 helds... Fact number two

Then I did the following: I attached the corps to a nearby army. Bingo! All 5 attacks were retreats. Fact number three.

Conclusion: support is NOT enough, because the Corps had plenty of support and still they were as useless as without support. C&C is really the key. Believe me (or do a similar test) or you will learn the hard way (banging your head against the wall, as I did myself).

Maybe you think I should not use the word "fact", still the test is pretty conclusive to me.

EDITED: incomplete description

[Northern Star]

Nice to know, I always try to manage the support units correctly but there's always something to improve [:)]

[FredSanford3]

Look at the combat reports and you'll see something like a 20% penalty for having units attached directly to STAVKA/OKH.  For that reason, I'd rather put them in an overloaded corps/army than leave them at high command.  So I ALWAYS attach them to a nearby HQ.  FWIW, I don't have "STAVKA Armies" i.e. army HQ's attached to STAVKA and operating in field.  I have STAVKA divisions. All of my army HQ's are assigned to Fronts, and divisions are attached to/from STAVKA directly to/from the army HQ's.  All fronts have 5 or so armies, but the strength of each army can vary.  Usually about 6 divisions (12 CP) as a 'base' army, and augment that with additional attachments when warranted.  Small armies (as the SU) are the way to go- just because an army can have a dozen divisions doesn't mean it's a good idea, especially if the excess army HQ's are just sitting around.

[M60A3TTS]

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz
Look at the combat reports and you'll see something like a 20% penalty for having units attached directly to STAVKA/OKH. 

Do you have a screenie? I've had numerous attacks by STAKA armies and haven't seen such a penalty unless I'm not looking in the right place.

[mmarquo]

Heh, heh - TD is being schooled.

[:D]

[stone10]

I remember that the penalty is 38% for unit directly attach to OKH?

[TulliusDetritus]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz
Look at the combat reports and you'll see something like a 20% penalty for having units attached directly to STAVKA/OKH. 

Do you have a screenie? I've had numerous attacks by STAKA armies and haven't seen such a penalty unless I'm not looking in the right place.

I have confirmed this with a new test. On my first test I was attaching the Corps to a Southwestern Front army. Now I have done another test, attaching the unit to a nearby STAVKA army. Again bingo! 5 attacks = 5 retreats! Good news given that I tend to have lots of small Stavka armies.

[Helpless]

Besides direct penalties displayed on the battle report you will have many missed leader rolls which will decrease a final CV, when your unit is directly attached to the high command HQ. The longer the command chain and closer the HQs are, the more chances to have positive leader rolls.

[ComradeP]

Yes. Provided the STAVKA/OKH leader doesn't have a very low mechanized/infantry rating, as long as it's within 5 hexes of the units it is supposed to report, you should normally be hit just with the negative CV modification, but having units attached to STAVKA when STAVKA is dozens of hexes away is a problem.

One particularly nasty surprise is if you're attacking with multiple units from multiple commands, including STAVKA and STAVKA is picked as the "main" HQ commanding the battle.

Units directly assigned to STAVKA also seem to attract only a small amount of supplies.

[mmarquo]

Hey TD,

Enough testing and experimenting, you may get blown up in your laboratory. Send me your move and get ready to take it like a man.

Les putes de Moscou s'attendent le printemps avec impatience - Moscow's whores are impatiently waiting for the spring.


Marquo [:)]

[Ketza]

I always keep my pretty little colors together.

[Mike13z50]

ORIGINAL: M60A3TTS

ORIGINAL: Franklin Nimitz
Look at the combat reports and you'll see something like a 20% penalty for having units attached directly to STAVKA/OKH. 

Do you have a screenie? I've had numerous attacks by STAKA armies and haven't seen such a penalty unless I'm not looking in the right place.

It is ok to have an ARMY attached to Stavka, just not divisions/brigades/combat Corps.

The penalty only applies if there is no HQ in the COC between the unit in combat and Front/HiCOM.

[BletchleyGeek]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP
Units directly assigned to STAVKA also seem to attract only a small amount of supplies.

This is somewhat important to consider when using Armies under the STAVKA direct command in prolonged offensives. Having a Front HQ helps a bit, especially when you're operating far from a railhead in bad weather, both because of the additional chance to pass leader checks and the Front internal stockpiles.

[M60A3TTS]

This discussion raises a side-issue, which is how much over the limit do you go on CUs in a front.  With 72 as the early maximum, does 80 cause issues?  90?  Clearly the admin rating of the front commander has an effect, but it's not clear how much better the units fare with a front commander with an admin rating of 7 than one with 6.  You would think Vasilevsky would stand up well with his high admin rating, but how well with an 80's CU front is the question. 

[Schmart]

Someone crunched the math on HQ overloading a while back. Can't find the thread, but I seem to recall that the conclusion at the time was that slight overloading wasn't all that much different from major overloading. In other words, it's a very narrow tipping point: once you're over, you're over.

[ComradeP]

As the Soviets have to attach air bases to fronts in order for them to support that front, at least for the first year the front HQ's are likely to be overloaded if you assign 3 full armies to each front HQ. When the command capacity increases in mid 1942, front HQ's will usually no longer be overloaded (unless you start assigning more units to them or had heavily overloaded them, of course). I don't really bother with keeping front HQ's at or below their command capacity in 1941-early 1942. I assign a leader with a good admin rating and preferably poor combat ratings to them and wait until 1942. Leaders with good combat ratings are essentially wasted there and can be put to better use in airborne corps or (tank) army HQ's.

The first roll is essentially always more likely to succeed than the second one, so it's also the most important. Keep in mind that if a front leader needs to make a roll, that normally means lower level leaders failed theirs, which is a bad thing.

[KamilS]

For me one of many mysteries of that game is terrible C&C of Axis side, much much inferior to Soviet.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: Kamil

For me one of many mysteries of that game is terrible C&C of Axis side, much much inferior to Soviet.

+1

Soviets have for more flexibility in organizing their fronts because transferring divisions is so inexpensive. Germany pays 2 to 5 times the cost to move divisions around, which makes no historic sense.

[ComradeP]

On the other hand, the Axis also have very little to spend AP on after they get their leaders in order in late 1941/early 1942 other than shifting divisions and support units from one HQ/unit to another.

[heliodorus04]

ORIGINAL: ComradeP

On the other hand, the Axis also have very little to spend AP on after they get their leaders in order in late 1941/early 1942 other than shifting divisions and support units from one HQ/unit to another.

How is that material to the subject? Germans are forced to pay for changing command far more heavily than the Soviet. How is that historically accurate, and not just another free gift to the Soviet side so it's not as hard to manage?

Since the German army is only able to conduct operations with initiative for the first 17 turns, the handicap this creates has a-historic leverage when it does the Soviet the most good.

It doesn't matter that the German eventually ends up with a surplus of AP. It matters that the German is handicapped in one of its major strengths (command and control flexibility), depriving it of that strength entirely, while the Soviet is given a boon of C2 when he had no such advantage historically.