Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen
morvael, I've just read the manual in relation to how chain of command checks work and the manual gives the impression that only corps have a random(10) chance, while armies have a (20) chance etc. This is not correct is it? The (10) chance applies to immediate HQ, typically army for the Soviets.
The Command Range Modifier when applicable does apply though.

This is a problem throughout the old manual - corps has to usually read as meaning "the first level of command" whenever you are talking about these chains of command effects. The first level of command is typically corps for Axis and army for Soviet, but indeed could even be armygroup/front or high command. Going through and replacing terms with the words "1st level HQ" "2nd level HQ" etc would certainly make the concepts clearer for new players.

Just to clarify, the Command Range modifier (section 11.3.2) is also incorrect then. For Corps it should say 1st level HQ, army 2nd Level etc.

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

I assume this sentence in 11.2.4 is now redundant?

Admin checks are specifically affected by the actual number of support squad ground elements in the leader's HQ unit as compared to the HQ unit TOE (11.3.1).

No, there's still a Admin check all-be-it not the same as before.

Sorry, there is still an Admin check, agree, but it has nothing to do with actual support squads vs TOE, it is just random number compared with the rating?

And the chance of +1 bonus is the number of actual support squads divided by 1000?

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen
morvael, I've just read the manual in relation to how chain of command checks work and the manual gives the impression that only corps have a random(10) chance, while armies have a (20) chance etc. This is not correct is it? The (10) chance applies to immediate HQ, typically army for the Soviets.
The Command Range Modifier when applicable does apply though.

This is a problem throughout the old manual - corps has to usually read as meaning "the first level of command" whenever you are talking about these chains of command effects. The first level of command is typically corps for Axis and army for Soviet, but indeed could even be armygroup/front or high command. Going through and replacing terms with the words "1st level HQ" "2nd level HQ" etc would certainly make the concepts clearer for new players.

Just to clarify, the Command Range modifier (section 11.3.2) is also incorrect then. For Corps it should say 1st level HQ, army 2nd Level etc.

Correct. Indeed the section in blue giving the example at the end even mentions that you should treat an army as a corps if it is the first level. So putting it in the main text (in black) would be clearer.

Also could I suggest you delete the row of the table in that section that says "Corps (Type 4) .... 1" - as the first level HQ (called corps there) has no range modifier anyway, putting the divide by one just confuses things. For a long time I thought a corps HQ did have a range modifier when it does not because of that. Really that row of the table should start of saying "2nd level HQ ....2" skipping out the previous row entirely.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

Also do you know about the last chance rolls etc? They were not documented in the manual or change notes but have been described since.

There are actually two "last chance" rolls possible, one (Die(100)<50+difficulty level-99) for
support units attached to cities and airbase units not attached to air HQs, and one
(Die(100)<difficulty level-99) for all units. This means that on default difficulty level of 100, the
first roll has a 50% chance of success, while the second 0%, and this goes smoothly by 1% up and
down depending on difficulty levels. For all rolls other than administrative roll, side's morale level is
used and for administrative roll, side's logistics level is used to determine bonus. In the previous
version of the game there was no equivalent of first roll, and the equivalent of the second one
varied from roll to roll: morale roll succeeded when Die(60)<side's morale level-100 (so it was
1.6% for each level after 101), all initiative rolls succeeded when side's morale level was greater
than 100, all admin rolls succeeded when side's logistics level was greater than 100, and other rolls
had no chance to succeed if the regular rolls failed. The new method is consistent and offers
smooth scaling of difficulty instead of kicking with full effect on level 101. Also the first roll in new
method is a "life saver" for units that are out of proper command chain, and 50% chance seemed
best choice.

There were quite a few of these extras to ratings checks that are only documented in forum posts. So if only working from manuals and change notes these might not have been picked up?

Found it - see post 31 and 32 here tm.asp?m=4362405&mpage=2&key=

This contains alterations to the ratings check scheme that are not documented anywhere else (manual, change notes) but are documented there by Morvael. So it might be worth incorporating those too?

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

ORIGINAL: Chris21wen

ORIGINAL: 56ajax

I assume this sentence in 11.2.4 is now redundant?

Admin checks are specifically affected by the actual number of support squad ground elements in the leader's HQ unit as compared to the HQ unit TOE (11.3.1).

No, there's still a Admin check all-be-it not the same as before.

Sorry, there is still an Admin check, agree, but it has nothing to do with actual support squads vs TOE, it is just random number compared with the rating?

And the chance of +1 bonus is the number of actual support squads divided by 1000?

s

I see what you mean, needs changing.

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

This is a problem throughout the old manual - corps has to usually read as meaning "the first level of command" whenever you are talking about these chains of command effects. The first level of command is typically corps for Axis and army for Soviet, but indeed could even be armygroup/front or high command. Going through and replacing terms with the words "1st level HQ" "2nd level HQ" etc would certainly make the concepts clearer for new players.

Started to look at the best way to go about it and realised the term 'HHQ' is already in use for describing and accessing a units immediate HQ. Basically the 1st Level HQ. However I'm not happy with the HHQ as 'higher', seems to imply HQ further up the chain of command.

Would it be too confusing if I changed references to IHQ (immediate HQ)and use HHQ when referring to HQ further up the chain and 2HQ, 3HQ etc (for 2/3 level HQ) when specifics are needed.

Yes HHQ is too ambiguous. This is the sort of thing that a footnote or glossary of terms might be altered for - but whatever it is needs to be standardised. Also avoid the British/American confusion of apartment blocks where what one calls the first floor is the second floor to the other etc. My guess what you are saying above is good

HQ unit is directly attached to = IHQ (immediate HQ) = 1HQ
HHQ = any of 2HQ, 3HQ or 4HQ
2HQ = IHQ of 1HQ and so on

I'll start.

Also remembered another confusion. Some beginners do not realise that an HQ can be 1HQ to one unit, but 2HQ to another unit and so on. They think at first of the tier of an HQ being a general designation. That included me when I first started on the game. So something saying that might help. Most pick up on it pretty quickly anyway. The important point is you are 1HQ, 2HQ and so on relative to a given unit only.

morvael - Not sure if you've been following the discussion but the term HHQ is slightly misleading. To me and others it seems to imply higher HQ and not necessarily the HQ a unit is attached too. For this reason I've tried to clarify in the manual by using the phrase immediate HQ (IHQ). This however will cause some problems as the Combat Unit Detail Window will still show HHQ. Is it possible to change in game to IHQ?

He's one of them main paragraphs taken form section 5.4.13 with changes.

HQ Units: Lists the Headquarter units that the combat unit is attached (HHQ on screen, IHQ throughout manual) as well as the operational headquarters (OHQ) that the IHQ is directly attached. For example, the Soviet 20th Rifle Corps is attached to the 28th Army (IHQ), which is attached to 1st Belorussioan Front (OHQ). The IHQ is a link enabling a unit to be reassigned to a different headquarters by accessing the new HQ attachment window (5.4.25). As type 2 higher headquarter units (HHQ - Fronts and Army Groups) are always attached to their High Command, their IHQ link is not selectable and they have no OHQ.

Well, in all places HHQ means IHQ (using your terms), and in one place there is OHQ, which denotes HHQ of HHQ of current unit. Is that really so misleading?

ORIGINAL: morvael

Well, in all places HHQ means IHQ (using your terms), and in one place there is OHQ, which denotes HHQ of HHQ of current unit. Is that really so misleading?

Not overly so but then I've been playing awhile. We are thinking of newbies and our experience with the game especially when it comes to explaining leader rolls etc, which I have to say I still have to keep checking. Here's an extract I've been tinkering with.

7.7. Headquarters Unit (HQ)
Headquarter units provide a chain of command for command and control of units in Gary Grigsby's War in the East. With the exception of High Command headquarters unit, all units, to include support and air group units have a headquarters unit to which they are attached, called the immediate headquarters unit (IHQ) and an operational headquarters unit (OHQ) to which the immediate HQ is attached. It is possible for one more layer in the chain of command, that being the higher headquarter units (HHQ - Fronts and Army Groups). This is much more likely for the Axis than Soviets simply because most of the Soviet Corps disband during the first six months (18.5.2). It is important to realise that fronts and army groups are always higher headquarter units but may also be an immediate or operational HQ depending upon what HQ a unit is attached to.

Gameplay Examples: A unit attached to a Soveit army would make the army the IHQ and the Front the OHQ. A unit attached to an Axis army group would make the Army Group the IHQ and the German High Command the OHQ.

Headquarter units provide a chain of command for command and control of units in Gary Grigsby's War in the East. With the exception of High Command headquarters unit, and AA units attached to cities, all units have a headquarters unit to which they are attached, called the higher headquarters unit (HHQ). It is possible and advisable to have as many layers as possible in the chain of command. This is much more likely for the Axis than Soviets simply because most of the Soviet Corps disband during the first six months (18.5.2).

morvael from your port on leader rolls this doesn't make sense? It's talking about units not being affect when within 4 hexes of the IHQ and on other hand it does when a unit is assigned to HQs other than a corps. There's also an either the last last sentence that doesn't have two choices.

d) High level attachment penalty (cumulative; applies to morale, initiative, administrative, infantry, mechanized and naval rolls; does not apply to HQ units, fort units, construction units, units that are within 4 hexes of the HQ they are attached to, and AI units): 2, 4 or 6 is added to base roll range, if said unit is assigned, respectively, to level 3 (army), 2 (army group/front) or 1 (high command) HQ directly. There is no penalty when such units are assigned either to a Soviet level 3 (army) HQ starting from July 1941.

To me this is clear [:)]

Unit attached directly to army HQ within 4 hexes: no penalty
Unit attached directly to army HQ more than 4 hexes away: +2 penalty

ORIGINAL: morvael

To me this is clear [:)]

Unit attached directly to army HQ within 4 hexes: no penalty
Unit attached directly to army HQ more than 4 hexes away: +2 penalty

OK got it, thanks

What about the either in the last sentence?

Now I see it. Remove "either". Probably a leftover from a rewrite.

I guess it could be moved into the "does not apply to" section (units that are assigned to a Soviet Army HQ starting from July 1941)

ORIGINAL: morvael

Now I see it. Remove "either". Probably a leftover from a rewrite.

Ok. Thanks again

A few more clarifications and or additions for you in the following sections. The main one’s are a better chain of command description and the inclusion of a complete list of leader checks, as we know it.

7.5.3. Combat Unit Buildup, Breakdown and Merging
7.7. Headquarters Units and Chain of command
8.4.1. National Reserve Transfer Restrictions
11.2 and 11.3 Leader checks
16.1.1. Air Group Unit Miles Flown
16.3.6. Air Transfer
19.1.4. Surrender of Axis Allied Forces

Link in the first post.