AO unit. How close is too close?

[MOTHER]

Yes, the strategy of the AO seems to be put it at the "rear".I dont see the benefit of putting an FO unit nearby-isn't it better to put them nearer mortars and the like and leave the big stuff to the AO?.
The strategy most have adopted works well with the bigger powers, but I certainly agree most minor nations need extra oomph! .A command tent/cp in defensive favorable terrain placed "forward" with range set to 1 and stance defend surrounded with a few mines and a squad of mmgs,lt. mortars,FO and basic infantry support is a mighty tough thing to kill and dislodge.A little pocket like that left alone becomes in the end worse than a nightmare for any opposition .
Leave the AO out of it until crunch time by all means ;but those little fish need a bit more help
Next game you have ;chuck in 10-15% of a minor ally [play with some different units for a change!] employ them as circumstances see fit ,give them a chance and you will be more than surprised and your opposion will have a bit more excitement for a change -instead of the usual M4 V TIGER. :sleep:
IMAGINE WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH A CP CONFIGURATION UPFRONT WITH A POWER! , I SWEAR BY EM! :p

[robot]

My ao has a command car within 3 hexes. For emergency reasons only. Also assigned to him are a couple of armored cars. Any extra snipers and also 2 mmgs. This is arranged with in 4hexes ion a semi circle. An fo mobile also with in 5 hexes of him and near my ob arttilley. Which is like 3 hexes away from my fo in a semi circle. These are all well hidden as can be. Have never lost an fo in any battles so far. Of course i only play the ai, cc off. The only ao that ever gets near the front lines, is my jap one. Even then he is always 12 to 15 hexes away.

[Cross]

In the past – but not on this thread - I have heard many say, when describing the A0 unit to new players: “this is you”.

This is an interesting statement. Because if the A0 unit is “you”, then it raises questions like: If “you” are killed, should “you” still play on or to what extent is your A0 unit your alter ego? :rolleyes:

So it also make me think about the personal leadership style which “you” have. For example, when forming a strategic plan to win a battle is it daring or conservative? Because your plans obviously reflect your personal style.

In the same way what is your leadership style on the battlefield? Do you think you can best serve your men hidden away in some bunker in constant contact with your Artillery Officer, or are you more cavalier and prefer to
lead from the front, a good example and morale boost to your men?

Many on this thread have reiterated the importance of protecting your A0 unit. Who can argue with the importance of this, however, I find some of the lengths that players are going to, a little over cautious.

I encourage people to use their A0 unit in a way that they are comfortable with; but don’t let fear of the enemy keep you from “personal” bravery and having a thoroughly good time on the battlefield

“I’ve” died in battle a couple of times, but “I’ve” also “personally” made a difference at the front in a number of memorable instances. My A0 section has even racked up kills and survived the battle, actually destroying a German armoured car one time; and this in SPWAW not H2H!

Don’t misunderstand me, I don’t conduct my battles with reckless abandon. On the contrary, I plot every move in a chess like fashion. Usually keeping my A0 unit with an infantry company or Tank Squadron.

____________________
Cross
Conduct yourself with honour, and even in defeat there is victory.

[Grimm]

I usually keep my A0 tucked safely behind the lines but I have a "Motherland" campaign going (one of several...) where I replaced my A0 inf squad with a KV-1E. I use it more as of a support tank behind a screen of 4 to 6 T-34s. It has done very well and the armor on the tank is heavy enough to help protect this valuable unit. It also gives my commander some mobility to help with the rather fragile moral of the Russian troops.

[arethusa]

I usually keep my A0 tucked safely behind the lines but I have a "Motherland" campaign going (one of several...) where I replaced my A0 inf squad with a KV-1E. I use it more as of a support tank behind a screen of 4 to 6 T-34s. It has done very well and the armor on the tank is heavy enough to help protect this valuable unit. It also gives my commander some mobility to help with the rather fragile moral of the Russian troops.

The idea of mobility for the AO is certainly worthwhile, especially if he's not needed for close contact with arty in the rear.

However, unless you're assuming your opponent is going to breakthrough your lines in force, the KV-1E would be more useful to have its large, armoured gun up at the front and the AO with a faster (although less deadly) transport in the rear.

[MOTHER]

Mobility or at least having the option of mobility seems to be the a major focus in every persons strategic outlooks for your A0 .I find it odd that a command car has a -10 command experiece rating?.Sure no radios , offensive power, possible amphibious capacity [schwimwagon], a chueffer maybe but loaded up with the brains of the battle, day in, day out- a true oxymoron of a unit.[and everybody last choice trying to spend thier last 3,4 or7 points].
In some of the previous postings armoured protection is considered a viable option for the AO ,Some I can see would look at this practice with distain.Consider distances in the real world ,Russia's enourmous territory and the Western deserts vastness;what was required?Rommel had at his disposal armoured mobility; SDKFZ recon type[if my memory serves me -none the less armoured], operations in Russia PZII AND 111 with dummy turrets as the command vekicle of choice.Why?, to see the theatre of operations and be able to make first hand descions quickly and exploit them,and you can't do that sitting in a cafe in Minsk or Siwa . :rolleyes:
The AO is unique, but when the situation demands it,maybe armour is better than any sniper ,FO or AC.History proves that
The thread is: The AO ,how close is too close?,well i think the answer is,Dont worry about your AO .Worry about theres.The closer , the badder-for you!

[arethusa]

I doubt if I'd choose a command car for mobility of my AO in a field situation. Not only is it unarmoured, but it has poor cross-country capabilities on top of all the other disabilities you mentioned.

However, neither would I choose an MBT like our friend. Since he was playing as Russia, I'll stick with that example to illustrate.

He chose as his command vehicle, the KV-1E at a cost of 107 and a speed of 16. Reasonable outlay for return for an AFV so if you're going to choose a tank, that one's arguably okay.

The problem is, if your AO is riding in a tank, there is the temptation to actually use that tank for its offensive capability. Not only does it have a good kick in the ZIS 76.2mm, but it has good armour. Too good to waste not actually using it in frontline combat.

But do you really want your AO on the front line?

If mobility, armour and a weapon is a priority, why not choose instead something like the M3A1 scout with a speed of 42 at a cost of 27? Or even the FA1 for 14 points and a speed of 36? Both are armoured against small arms fire. Both have automatic weapons with which to return small arms fire. But most importantly, both are more than double the speed of the KV-1E and likely able to outrun the danger posed by a big calibre weapon.

The point here is that the duty of the AO is to lead/reduce suppression/augment artillery ops etc. No matter how tempting, the duty of the AO is not to engage in actual combat.

If one uses a tank for AO mobility, one either loses the offensive value of that tank to the front lines or one risks losing the AO itself on the front lines. The life expectancy of an AO once it reaches the front is short and IMHO, an AO is better protected and more use if it is not in the front lines.

Even if you resist the impulse to send an AO/tank combo into harm's way, think of it the other way around. If you were the enemy and managed a break-through into the rear areas, and you saw a tank or you saw 6 AC's, which one would be your first target? The tank of course. It represents the greatest danger to you, is the least likely to get away, is the most unique unit in the rear so most likely to be protecting something, and the only one that you can tell for sure which one it is you killed.

An AO with good armour is much more likely to be a dead AO, IMO, than is one who has only light amour, if any.

[MOTHER]

ARETHUSA:You said what i said.
To clarify:Some people want the AO TO STAY AND BE HIDDEN away from the fighting but witin the "escape option",hence command car-to run away.
:As above ,plus the extra security of "early warning"FO.Sniper etc.etc.
:As you and I eluded too,Speed therefore mobility in an armoured vechicle; the excellent and desired qualities ,which was the point of the posting.Not necessarily Armour designed for offensive all out combat like a t34 ,Lee, etc. etc.
My point is that alot of people playing can be a bit more adventerous in the unit selection and be more potent players by having "safe" mobility for a most influential unit
ARETHUSA-GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE
MOTHER

[Capt. Pixel]

If your A0's dead. He got too close. Simple.

[AbsntMndedProf]

I like keeping my A0 ten to twelve hexes behind the lines. Then, once my forces have the enemy on the run, I like to run it up to shoot up enemy crews. This is especially true with German HQs that have submachineguns. A GE HQ armed with submachineguns and grenades can take out a few crews and gain experience towards the next battle. While playing MCLV, I even had my HQ ambush two Soviet BT-5s that were trundling down a road by the woods it was hiding in. On another occasion, in MCNA, my HQ rode its recon HT into a hex with a heavily surpressed British 25 pounder, and next turn meleed with the crew driving it off and destroying their gun!

As with any other unit, if used well and in accordance with its strengths and weaknesses, it can be a real killer! After all, why should the enlisted men and NCOs have all the fun?

Eric Maietta

[Kokoda]

The force may benefit from HQ being near the front, since it can
a) Raise morale and provide inspiration and leadership to the troops.
b) Gain a much more accurate appreciation of the status of the battle .

In the game, any HQ, anywhere, has the God-like view of the whole battlefield, which limits the need to have LOS. HQ can 'see' whatever any unit can, and with much greater accuracy than RL, even with limited intel on. Rommell has no need of his Storch in SPWAW. So b) seems irrelevant.

a) can be important, but it seems to be much more a factor in commanding troops from the 'Minors' than for troops that have intrinsically higher morale ratings and better communication. So, for example, playing the Italians at War campaign (v.enjoyable BTW) HQ at the front makes a big difference, but in Ger v US battles, this effect is so small that having the HQ near the troops just exposes it to danger, it seems. Has anyone else noticed this different effect of HQ proximity on rally and morale depending on nation?

[Irinami]

I tried a cavalry game today. 1 Sqdrn Light Cav, 1 Co. Mot. PzG (2nd Pl was Engineers, third Pl was removed and replaced with wagons for the Engineers). C&C on for a change. First battle was a defend vs. Poland.

Well... Lt. Cav doesn't have enough punch, even with more grenades than standard cav. While I still had to start over, I can attest that the HQ being 1-2 hexes behind the units (and with them in contact) meant that my units, weak as they were, assaulted and returned fire MUCH more frequently than the ones out of A0's "range."

[Kokoda]

Irinami,

Do you think your cavalry are responding to your A0 being close because they are in contact? Cavalry have a low chance to have a radio (IIRC German light cavalry have 10% to have a radio) and would benefit from a close A0 by being in contact. Other troops with a radio may not need this.

I haven't worked out whether what I observe in the 'minors' is because of poorer comunications, or some intrinsic quality of the troops' morale/experience etc.

[Irinami]

Irinami,

Do you think your cavalry are responding to your A0 being close because they are in contact?

Yes and no. Out of 3 Platoons, only 1 Platoon's worth have radios--3 of those squads being Pl. Leaders. BUT... the leg infantry Platoon had only 2 radios as well. I moved 1 CavPl to support a gap north of my Inf. The Poles came between the platoons. I moved the A0 northward, to support the Cavalry--at this point I was desperate, because my 2 "Reserve" Cavalry Platoons were warding off about 2 Companies of Poles (with those monster-squads they and the Japanese have).

I would say that each cavalry unit assaulted every turn, while the infantry was suppressed much more often. I'm starting over--Light Cavalry fighting their first battle as a defense against Poles is just too hard for the little guys--but I'll keep an eye out.

[Wolfleader]

I usually keep my AO fairly close to the front lines where my forces are but always in some form of cover (behind buildings, hills, inside forests, etc...) and always have a fast vehicle nearby for quick escapes.