Reserve Activations, over the top?

[Seminole]

If GHC starts disbanding then turn 1. I am considering disbanding 27 infantry Corp HQ turn 1.

You might want to think that through.
It is possible your opponents would enjoy your supply situation after that move on turn 1.

[Flaviusx]

Indeed. But it's not just supply. Combat rolls, morale rolls, initiative rolls, everything. The leadership system rewards redundancy. With strong leaders and multiple layers your chances of making all those rolls approaches 100%. Cut out a layer and not so much.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton...you planning to attach a bunch of stuff directly to armies? You're going to miss a lot of rolls that way. That corps layer of command gives you an extra bite at the apple.

The Soviet command structure is simpler, but simpler doesn't mean better here.

The fact is I have done it and I have alrdy posted on it.

1. 400,000 extra men
2. SU per battle up fron 4-8 to 12 to 20
3. Zero effect on supplies.

I did it vs MT from turn 18 on.

JB tested and played a game he easly won, I expanded on it more by disbanding 40+ Corp.

In my game vs Hugh its saved my ass from getting rolled in 1943.

Its almost 44 3.5 million vs 9.6 million and I am still holding the lines.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Seminole

If GHC starts disbanding then turn 1. I am considering disbanding 27 infantry Corp HQ turn 1.

You might want to think that through.
It is possible your opponents would enjoy your supply situation after that move on turn 1.

There are no effects other then extra trucks and 400,000 more men.

Ask them:

tm.asp?m=3146387&mpage=7


tm.asp?m=3146382

tm.asp?m=3131609&mpage=6

[Flaviusx]

Interesting. But does it work on the offense? I can see a case for streamlining this on the defense.

[Seminole]

There are no effects other then extra trucks and 400,000 more men.

Can you explain how it has no effect when you do it on turn 1?
I'm interested in how you keep the Wehrmacht supplied, or do you intend to cluster them within 5 hexes of the respective Army HQs as you advance away from railheads?

[KenchiSulla]

I understand where Pelton is coming from. And that worries me....

[Michael T]

I just think it's totally nuts that disbanding an entire tier of the German command structure could be benificial in any way or form. But yet it is. Something is amiss.

Getting back on to Reserves.

In the past the German players in the main have been able to keep the Soviets off balance for longer periods in 1941 and this nulifies the reserve function as a Soviet army in disarray can't manage it. With little rule changes here and there its become harder and harder to keep Ivan off balance. So we see more games where the Soviets are able to regain composure earlier. Once that occurs is when the 'reserve' game really makes life much harder for the German players to get going again.

My concerns about this are as much about facing a challenging game when I play Soviet as anything else.

[Peltonx]

MT's way of moving supplies he has no issue with, but mine he does?

Its not the great ones idea so its bad heheh whats new?

On the offensive the infantry armies can disband, but not the PA's can't for reason we all can see. I have disbanded a few per turn and it seemed to work fine, I have not tried disbanding 27 the first turn.

Back to MT thread the reason why SHC has so many reactions is because of the C&C structure. No issue's with supplies, refits ect ect.

The consern should be with SHC and not GHC.

Fix SHC so its historical as per Flaviusx ideas.

The hole C&C issue is ass backwards really. More HQ's should = more supplies, replasements, better SU commitment, more reactions and better over all CV.

BUT

The fact is the more HQ units in the chain less supplies, less reactions and less SU commitments.

Its really a big issue.

MT is right about SHC reactions being way way to high, but for the wrong reasons.

[Peltonx]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Interesting. But does it work on the offense? I can see a case for streamlining this on the defense.

I think if MT used it, it would make his GHC 41 even better if thats even possible.

Until Hitler's Dragon Air Lift Corp is nerfed MT does not need to sink as low as me to survive.

[gingerbread]

The Allies had PLUTO, now the Axis have PLITA. [;)]

[Flaviusx]

I'd like to see someone game it out in 41, Pelton, but if it works, that is bad. Not sure what we can do about it, tbh. Other than adjust leadership values in 41 for the Sovs.

[Michael T]

Pelton I have not in anyway been critical of you for doing it. I am critical that it is of benefit in game terms. Disbanding the Corp tier should result in some horrible ramifications. But it appears it does not. I only see positives. And from what I have seen it doesn't seem to affect your supply status.

Generalising it would seem the German command system needs to be tweaked up and the Soviet tweaked down. How this is done is up for debate, but it needs some work. And in the process make disbanding or bypassing a tier of the command structure somewhat more problematic.

[rmonical]

ORIGINAL: Michael T
...Disbanding the Corp tier should result in some horrible ramifications. But it appears it does not. I only see positives. And from what I have seen it doesn't seem to affect your supply status.

Generalising it would seem the German command system needs to be tweaked up and the Soviet tweaked down. How this is done is up for debate, but it needs some work. And in the process make disbanding or bypassing a tier of the command structure somewhat more problematic.

This is worthy of its own thread. The timing is interesting as I was recently wondering about the usefulness of the corps as I got into multi-hex attacks. I think the easiest fix is when the attack is NOT managed by a corps commander, every participating unit gets the separate corps CV reduction. This would be a nerf on the Soviets - not sure how significant. In this battle - no support units were allocated from 9th Army which was three hexes from the battle.

[Disgruntled Veteran]

ORIGINAL: Flaviusx

Pelton...you planning to attach a bunch of stuff directly to armies? You're going to miss a lot of rolls that way. That corps layer of command gives you an extra bite at the apple.

The Soviet command structure is simpler, but simpler doesn't mean better here.

I disagree, although I could be missing something. Aside from greater hex flexibility there is no reason to keep Corps' as axis player. Every battle under army HQ I get way more SU's in every battle and never have to worry about the small penalties from different Corps. In my current game I have disbanded all Corps that can be disbanded (some withdraw so can't be disbanded) You also have your best leaders in direct command of combats, whereas many of your Corps will have sub-standard (relative to German leaders) commander's. Finally, as MT pointed out, your free up a lot of manpower. I wouldn't do this in 41 though as you need the flexibility of the Corps for daring advances. Once defense comes however...there is no room to debate IMO. Disband them all!

[timmyab]

If it was me I'd put a cap on the number of combat units (not HQs) a leader can directly command before it starts to effect his ratings.This cap would vary according to how good the leader was.So for instance a poor leader is going to struggle with more than three units under command whereas a better leader could handle six or seven before risking being penalized.Either way Soviet commanders are going to take a hit to their ratings once the corps are disbanded.
This could also be extended to higher commands, but instead of combat units we'd be talking HQs.So again the better leaders could handle more HQs before they start to struggle and lose rating points.
In relation to this particular thread, you could make it more likely that reserves will activate when under corps command.
These two measures would make reserve activation unlikely for the Soviets and make corps HQs important.

[Ketza]

Wow this thread has led to the air being let out of my balloon.

Tonight I have no desire to even play.

[rmonical]

Tonight I have no desire to even play.

Well, I have the catharsis of disbanding some German HQ on the crowded sections of the front in a game in which I am getting demolished.

[Flaviusx]

ORIGINAL: Ketza

Wow this thread has led to the air being let out of my balloon.

Tonight I have no desire to even play.

Don't sweat it, this is all pretty high level theorycrafting and not entirely tested.

Like legislation and sausage making, game rules are messy when broken down.

[randallw]

Perhaps the average level of German leaders is high enough that losing a level of command doesn't show up that much since there tend to be leader rolls passed at the Army level anyway?

Having Corps HQ for the Soviets through the war would require a bunch more leaders deployed which would knock down the average quality of deployed guys ( bad ) but would add a layer of potential check-passing ( good? ).