PP cost for transfering HQ

[Stelteck]

Playing the game currently soviet side, i find the price to transfert an army HQ from one front to another or one front to stavka really punishing.

It is often more expensive than creating a new HQ from scratch, which is 25pp.

Thinking about it as i'am currently in 1943, it is highly probable that experienced players never transfert a HQ at all the whole game.

If you have the knownledge to anticipate all the evolutions of command limit and new front HQ appearence, there is no need to transfer a HQ at all, except maybe when guard HQ appear.

But for a newbie who struggle with the command structure with short term aims, the cost is really punishing.

It is really a newbie crushing feature, and i'am not sûre it have any interest for the veteran.

I would advocate a big decrease of HQ transfert price at least soviet side. Having a price more expensive than creating a new HQ is quite ridiculous.

[morvael]

Maybe transfer individual units? Make clone armies (with identical makeup)?

This must be expensive to prohibit too many changes over a short period of time. Armies were not that flexible.

[Stelteck]

You're right there is a lot of workaround possible, but still it is a very punishing thing for having allocated the wrong army to the wrong front. And PP is so rare.

[BlueAndGray]

Although I agree that the easiest workaround is to just transfer excess units out of an army, I also don't understand why it costs the same number of points to transfer an empty army as it does an army that is at maximum capacity with 9-12 divisions in it. An army that has no units attached to it shouldn't be that inflexible if it's empty? An empty army has fewer men in it than a rifle division, but costs 18-36 times as much to transfer as that same rifle corps (36 AP for a Soviet army and usually 1-2 AP for a division). I would think that somehow having the cost relating to the number/size of units actually attached would make more sense?

It's not a huge issue since there is a workaround, but it is a bit confusing. Hoping this is something that gets tweaked for WitE 2.0...

[M60A3TTS]

I have no problem with the cost. My beef is that Walter Model can be bounced from army to army on a weekly basis, and that army instantaneously becomes x times better. It didn't work that way. New commanders need time to get integrated into new commands. If anything, it's initially disruptive. Something else for WiTE2 to look at.

[morvael]

At least he can't be moved multiple times per turn to be everywhere

[GabrielBora]

By game standarts soviet fronts were heavily overloaded , western front for instance in dec 1941 had
10 armies with 98 division equivalents .

Still, it is posible to keep the armies themselves whithin CP limits , and tranfer them out when new fronts arive .

[morvael]

Basically long term planning and discipline are preferred over short term adjustments.

[821Bobo]

Yes, long time planning. I like having my Fronts nicely organised. But for instance Volkov Front arrives in November 41 and if you want have it at Volkov and not somewhere else you need to spend lot of APs on reorganization. Current options are:
1. reassign only divisions which is cheaper than armies but micromanagement heavy and tedious
2. reassign armies which is too expensive

What about making army assignment to STAVKA cheaper but limiting it to 1 change per turn, so reassigning army to other Front will be cheaper but will take 2 turns.

[Stelteck]

One point also is that if you keep some armies under stavka, waiting for the arrival of front or thing like that, they will have no or few air support.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo
Yes, long time planning. I like having my Fronts nicely organised. But for instance Volkov Front arrives in November 41 and if you want have it at Volkov and not somewhere else you need to spend lot of APs on reorganization.

I wasn't that accurate, front HQs went where two others were too extended, as need dictated, not into their historical place. Once there, they kept their place forever. As did the appearing guard units and armies. This gave every front some stronger formation, on which I could depend to make some gains. I think the only large reorganization I made was in late 1944, where I have removed a front from Hungary to boost Berlin offensive (and reorganized Cavalry Corps into one big fist of four Shock armies).

[charlie0311]

Stelteck,

Air groups assigned to BAK or LR Hq will support armies assigned to STRAVKA.

Keep tabs on your army/front command capacity, CP, by using the commanders report, CR.

Go to CR, select HQ, then below use the filters to select army or front (whatever you wish). The column, CP, will have what you want, highlighted numbers (blue green on my set up) are the amount of overload, brigade = 1, Div = 2, corp = 4.

You may remove excess units, put them in Straka, by using the change hq function, from the unit window, for only 1 AP. admin point, you seem to be calling this pp.

Once they are in Stravka you may assign them anywhere for free,

[charlie0311]

Let'a consider the Volkov front, for some forum fun.

You get plenty of empty army hq, assigned to Stravka, via the reinforcements schedule, see info tab, top of map page.

You get lots of rifle xx's in the same manner (Stavka in command). Some of the corp hq which start the game and activate early are assigned to Stravka (some are assigned to armies). When these corp hq disband, their units go to the next higher hq, some army hq or to Stravka.

Use these rifles xx's for your Volkov front. One click to select unit, another to assign to hq, no AP cost. all free, hehe.

[821Bobo]

I wasn't that accurate, front HQs went where two others were too extended, as need dictated, not into their historical place. Once there, they kept their place forever. As did the appearing guard units and armies. This gave every front some stronger formation, on which I could depend to make some gains. I think the only large reorganization I made was in late 1944, where I have removed a front from Hungary to boost Berlin offensive (and reorganized Cavalry Corps into one big fist of four Shock armies).

I understand that but every one has some obsession. Mine is that I can't stand having Front with name referring to geographical location somewhere else. Actually this could be solved by adding possibility to rename it manually. Guess it is more complex than it sound(later scripted Front renaming could mess up things?)

[821Bobo]

ORIGINAL: charlie0311

Let'a consider the Volkov front, for some forum fun.

You get plenty of empty army hq, assigned to Stravka, via the reinforcements schedule, see info tab, top of map page.

You get lots of rifle xx's in the same manner (Stavka in command). Some of the corp hq which start the game and activate early are assigned to Stravka (some are assigned to armies). When these corp hq disband, their units go to the next higher hq, some army hq or to Stravka.

Use these rifles xx's for your Volkov front. One click to select unit, another to assign to hq, no AP cost. all free, hehe.

Leningrad defense is crucial and needs to be as effective as can be. Having there armies assigned directly to STAVKA makes them less effective.

[morvael]

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo
later scripted Front renaming could mess up things?

Unfortunately yes.

[charlie0311]

Bobo,

Yes units in Stravka hq are less effective, not the huge hit of assigning the combat unit to Stravka, some kind a die roll is affected, M would be the expert.

The Straka hq, with div's don't need to be filled up right away, say four div army hq, and use as diggers in secondary lines, or further back even.

I also keep my fronts "where they belong".

Stelteck, really great job, considering everything. Count me as a fan. In your game where all available is needed at or near the front, maybe you could of just waited with Volkov front and filled it up with zombies much later.

[Stelteck]

For what i know, with all leader init 5, without any malus (rare case), the chance of for example a successfull init roll with :

Army-Front-Stavka : 50% + 0.5*25% + 0.5*75%*12.5% = 0.5+0.125+0,04685 around 67%
Army-Stavka : 50% + 0.5*0.125 around 56%

It is a difference, but not so much. And putting a Init 7 at army level have far more influence on the outcome than a regular front level commander.

Army(init7)-Stavka(init5) = 70% + 0.3*0.125 = 73%

Of course, there is also the possibility that i'am very bad at probability. [:D]

[morvael]

Every few % count a lot. More than linear difference between numbers suggest.
67% is 20% larger than 56%. Multiply 1.20 a few times (for each leader roll made during combat), and you'll soon get to double actual strength.

[GabrielBora]

ORIGINAL: 821Bobo

I wasn't that accurate, front HQs went where two others were too extended, as need dictated, not into their historical place. Once there, they kept their place forever. As did the appearing guard units and armies. This gave every front some stronger formation, on which I could depend to make some gains. I think the only large reorganization I made was in late 1944, where I have removed a front from Hungary to boost Berlin offensive (and reorganized Cavalry Corps into one big fist of four Shock armies).

I understand that but every one has some obsession. Mine is that I can't stand having Front with name referring to geographical location somewhere else. Actually this could be solved by adding possibility to rename it manually. Guess it is more complex than it sound(later scripted Front renaming could mess up things?)

Since I know the Volkov front is going to arive before the blizard , I overload the North-West and Leningrad fronts with 3 fronts worth of divisions (42 each) and transfer them out to newly arived armies .