Question about custom mobile HQs and Amphibious HQ mechanics

[Dereck]

I was revisiting an older thread ("The Demise of MacArthur") where LargeSlowTarget created a custom “MacArthur HQ” with only 1 support squad and successfully loaded it onto a PT‑ML hybrid in the Philippines. This wasn’t the stock SWPAC HQ — it was a brand‑new HQ he created specifically for that scenario.

From what I can tell, the trick may have worked because the custom HQ was set to Amphibious HQ type (?), which seems to be the only HQ type the engine allows to be loaded onto ships. He never explicitly stated this, so I’m putting that out as conjecture.

That got me thinking: could a tiny custom HQ — for example, a “5th Fleet HQ” with 1 support squad and minimal load cost — be created as an Amphibious HQ so it can physically travel with the fleet on a CV, BB, or CA as in real WWII?

My questions for the community:

1. If a Naval leader is assigned to such an HQ, do any of his skills (Naval, Leadership, Inspiration, Amphibious) project in a useful way? I’m aware HQs don’t influence naval combat directly, but I’m curious whether any indirect effects exist.

2. Does a mobile Amphibious HQ provide any practical benefit when stacked with a fleet TF? For example: amphibious planning, supply distribution, air support, etc.

3. Has anyone experimented with custom Amphibious HQs riding with the fleet? If so, did it have any measurable effect, or was it purely flavor?

4. Is this worth including in a scenario, or is it just an interesting curiosity with no real gameplay impact?

I’m not trying to change naval combat mechanics — just exploring whether a mobile HQ could add flavor or minor logistical/amphibious benefits in a new scenario.

Curious to hear what others think.

[Sardaukar]

2. Does a mobile Amphibious HQ provide any practical benefit when stacked with a fleet TF? For example: amphibious planning, supply distribution, air support, etc.

There are Amphibious Corps HQ, which is just normal Corps HQ.

Then there is Amphibious Force HQ, which is what you really want for amphibious landing. It can only be loaded into AGC (amphibious command ship, that btw, gives benefits even by just itself). They reduce disruption and add control to landing. HQ also gives (AFAIK) combat benefits. You really want that ship and Force HQ when invading atolls.

They work when in same hex as landing, you don't want them to unload with troops. Thus, I usually have separate TF for AGC, set not to unload.

[Chris21wen]

Not sure what you mean by mobile HQ, there's not such thing.

In Scenario #1

What you have got is a Amphibious Force HQ which are infact Naval HQ. When loaded onto an AGC and in the same TF as troops carrying out an amphibious landing, reduces disruption and increase unload times. Once the TF has unloaded the AGC should leave with it. They do not give any combat benifits and if you unload them from the the AGC the just become support troops and have no HQ function.

There are two USMC Amphibious Corps that are just corps HQ they have no special attributes that I know off. This corps HQ will give you all the benifits any corps HQ gives so must be unloaded in the hex to give it (command range is usuall 1). It doesn't help with unloading etc.

I do not know for sure that theses two functions can be applied to a single HQ, I suspect not, they being mutually exclusive. In the editor, the HQ type for most US Corps is 1, while the forces HQ type is 31. It is these that determine what an HQ can do.

[Yaab]

Remember you can split a HQ unit by putting a HQ on ships or aircaft. Once a part of the HQ has 51% of total TOE devices, it becomes a parent. The parent should give you HQ bonuses just like a full,100% TOE HQ. Thus, if you want to land a HQ unit on an atoll but risk overstacking the atoll with a full HQ unit, just downsizee your HQ by splitting it.

[Dereck]

I think my question got misunderstood. I’m not asking about Corps HQs, Amphibious Force HQs, AGCs, or landing bonuses.

What I’m asking is much narrower and is based on what LargeSlowTarget did in his scenario.
If I create a custom HQ called “5th Fleet” with just 1 support squad, assign Admiral Spruance to command it, and load that HQ onto CA Indianapolis, will Spruance’s Naval skill project to the fleet while the HQ is loaded and present in the hex?

I already understand the amphibious functions. I’m asking specifically whether the leader’s NAVAL skill still applies when the HQ is loaded on a ship and stacked with a fleet.

[BBfanboy]

I think my question got misunderstood. I’m not asking about Corps HQs, Amphibious Force HQs, AGCs, or landing bonuses.

What I’m asking is much narrower and is based on what LargeSlowTarget did in his scenario.
If I create a custom HQ called “5th Fleet” with just 1 support squad, assign Admiral Spruance to command it, and load that HQ onto CA Indianapolis, will Spruance’s Naval skill project to the fleet while the HQ is loaded and present in the hex?

I already understand the amphibious functions. I’m asking specifically whether the leader’s NAVAL skill still applies when the HQ is loaded on a ship and stacked with a fleet.

You seem to be asking about TF commander as opposed to ship commanders. Halsey was both a Command HQ commander (SOPAC HQ) and a TF commander with his carriers. At the Command level, the Naval and Air skills are not supposed to matter for battle outcomes but I think it is significant that the real life guys who were Carrier admirals all had high AIR skill. As far as other skills go, the area HQ commander needs good Admin skills to get things organized and Leadership skills to give direction to his unit commanders. Inspiration skill seems to help units train and gain morale faster.

I see no need to create some new category of leader for your fleet leadership. IME the Command skill translates to better maneuver and perhaps greater likelihood of gaining surprise. From there the ship commanders and crew experience determine how well they do in the shoot-out. And you can't get around the die rolls that can upset your on-paper plans!

[Dereck]

I think my question got misunderstood. I’m not asking about Corps HQs, Amphibious Force HQs, AGCs, or landing bonuses.

What I’m asking is much narrower and is based on what LargeSlowTarget did in his scenario.
If I create a custom HQ called “5th Fleet” with just 1 support squad, assign Admiral Spruance to command it, and load that HQ onto CA Indianapolis, will Spruance’s Naval skill project to the fleet while the HQ is loaded and present in the hex?

I already understand the amphibious functions. I’m asking specifically whether the leader’s NAVAL skill still applies when the HQ is loaded on a ship and stacked with a fleet.

You seem to be asking about TF commander as opposed to ship commanders. Halsey was both a Command HQ commander (SOPAC HQ) and a TF commander with his carriers. At the Command level, the Naval and Air skills are not supposed to matter for battle outcomes but I think it is significant that the real life guys who were Carrier admirals all had high AIR skill. As far as other skills go, the area HQ commander needs good Admin skills to get things organized and Leadership skills to give direction to his unit commanders. Inspiration skill seems to help units train and gain morale faster.

I see no need to create some new category of leader for your fleet leadership. IME the Command skill translates to better maneuver and perhaps greater likelihood of gaining surprise. From there the ship commanders and crew experience determine how well they do in the shoot-out. And you can't get around the die rolls that can upset your on-paper plans!

Thanks for the reply, but I want to be very clear:

I am not asking about TF commanders, ship commanders, Command skill, Admin skill, Inspiration, or anything related to TF mechanics.

My question is ONLY about the following very specific mechanic:

If I create a tiny HQ (1 support squad), assign a Naval leader to command it (for example Spruance), and load that HQ onto a ship (e.g., CA Indianapolis), does that leader’s NAVAL skill project while the HQ is loaded and present in the hex?

This is the same idea LargeSlowTarget used with MacArthur in his scenario.

I’m not asking about TF command roles or ship captains — I’m asking specifically whether the HQ leader’s NAVAL skill still applies when the HQ is loaded on a ship.

[btd64]

Is your purpose to put an admiral In charge of a task force with the HQ?....GP

[Dereck]

Is your purpose to put an admiral In charge of a task force with the HQ?....GP

I want to be absolutely clear because my question keeps getting interpreted as something about TF commanders or ship commanders, which it is not.

I am NOT asking about TF command.
I am NOT asking about ship captains.
I am NOT asking about putting an admiral in charge of a TF.

My question is ONLY this:

If I create a custom HQ called 5th Fleet HQ with 1 support squad, assign Spruance to command that HQ, and load the HQ onto a CA (for example CA Indianapolis), does Spruance’s NAVAL skill project while the HQ is loaded and present in the hex?

This is the same mechanic LargeSlowTarget used with his custom MacArthur HQ.

I am ONLY asking whether the HQ leader’s NAVAL skill still applies when the HQ is loaded on a ship.

[btd64]

By project, you mean the range, command range?....GP

[Dereck]

Let me restate my question more simply to avoid confusion:

I am not asking about command range, TF commanders, or ship captains.

My question is:

If I create a small HQ (for example, a 5th Fleet HQ with 1 support squad), assign a Naval leader (e.g., Spruance), and load that HQ onto a ship (CV, BB, CA, CL), does that HQ provide any in‑game effect while it is loaded?

That is the only thing I am trying to clarify.

Thanks.

[BBfanboy]

Alfred answered that years ago - an Admiral in charge of a TF (whether in a HQ or not) does not project their naval skill over the individual ships, superseding the ship's Captains. The Admiral is in charge of ordering the group and his skills will help determine maneuver success (e.g. to avoid torps or bring more guns to bear on the enemy). That maneuver affect would be applied as a modifier to the success of each ship as it attacks or defends using their own Captain's skills and crew experience. If the TF has a hyper-aggressive/low naval skill ship's captain, he will get his ship in trouble regardless of the Admiral's orders to stay in formation.

[dmaramba]

My question is:

If I create a small HQ (for example, a 5th Fleet HQ with 1 support squad), assign a Naval leader (e.g., Spruance), and load that HQ onto a ship (CV, BB, CA, CL), does that HQ provide any in‑game effect while it is loaded?

That is the only thing I am trying to clarify.

Thanks.

I'm quite sure the answer is no, based on the principle that a passenger unit in a TF is dead freight, so far as the outside world is concerned. The passenger unit has no effect on anything. Nothing in the rules suggests otherwise.

The sole exception is the one that Sardauker pointed out above.

[Chris21wen]

Although not directly answered as I did misunderstand your question it was asnwsered earlier.

'...... This corps HQ will give you all the benifits any corps HQ gives so must be unloaded in the hex to give it (command range is usuall 1). It doesn't help with unloading etc....'

I'm still not sure what you are trying to achieve. Are you wanting him to command the Ship, surface TF, or amphibious TF or even something else.

[PaxMondo]

I was revisiting an older thread ("The Demise of MacArthur") where LargeSlowTarget created a custom “MacArthur HQ” with only 1 support squad and successfully loaded it onto a PT‑ML hybrid in the Philippines. This wasn’t the stock SWPAC HQ — it was a brand‑new HQ he created specifically for that scenario.

From what I can tell, the trick may have worked because the custom HQ was set to Amphibious HQ type (?), which seems to be the only HQ type the engine allows to be loaded onto ships. He never explicitly stated this, so I’m putting that out as conjecture.

That got me thinking: could a tiny custom HQ — for example, a “5th Fleet HQ” with 1 support squad and minimal load cost — be created as an Amphibious HQ so it can physically travel with the fleet on a CV, BB, or CA as in real WWII?

My questions for the community:

1. If a Naval leader is assigned to such an HQ, do any of his skills (Naval, Leadership, Inspiration, Amphibious) project in a useful way? I’m aware HQs don’t influence naval combat directly, but I’m curious whether any indirect effects exist.

2. Does a mobile Amphibious HQ provide any practical benefit when stacked with a fleet TF? For example: amphibious planning, supply distribution, air support, etc.

3. Has anyone experimented with custom Amphibious HQs riding with the fleet? If so, did it have any measurable effect, or was it purely flavor?

4. Is this worth including in a scenario, or is it just an interesting curiosity with no real gameplay impact?

I’m not trying to change naval combat mechanics — just exploring whether a mobile HQ could add flavor or minor logistical/amphibious benefits in a new scenario.

Curious to hear what others think.

Derek,
Sorry that so many of the above answers went astray or were worded such that you did not realize the correct response contained.

Chris gave you chapter and verse with respect to how Amphib landings can be assisted with the correct special ship (Type=46; ID's=755, 2685) and commander (Type=31; ID's=155,156,157) in Scen 1.

I don't have LST's mod, so I can't answer you completely, but let me give you this: if he successfully did create "a custom “MacArthur HQ” with only 1 support squad and successfully loaded it onto a PT‑ML hybrid" it meant that he had to have met the aforementioned 2 requirements: the HQ, no matter the size, must be type=31 and the ship, no matter the size, needs to be Type=46.

You can add as many of these as you want into YOUR mod. Just realize that these are incredibly powerful units that will radically change the game balance even by adding just one. Further, in terms of reality check, each unit also represents a VAST amount of national capital to create. Japan never did, and even in the most ambitious scheme probably never could have. The fact that the US has 2 (two) is almost on par with having nukes; that big of a deal.

Hopefully, this answers your questions.