Couple of criticisms

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Okay. I see what you're saying and it does make sense that combat units would be assigned to a tactical headquarters while commited to combat for guidance and direction. I just don't know what kind of change you could implement and would it be worth it to implement? You already have a CV loss for units in different HQs participating in an attack and there is a clear case of a defending army attached directly to STAVKA (several hundreds of miles away) which didn't affect its performance.

Trey

Your getting close but not quite there yet, these "Stavka/OKH" units have their full movement allowance as well, these units in reserve like at Kursk were there for a specific purpose they would not have the facilities be able to head to Stalino on their own steam on a whim except by rail.

[jomni]

Well gameplay-wise the individual army commanders may have more influence than STAVKA in your case.
They get to "roll the dice" first.  STAVKA only matters if the Army commanders fail. 
How do you propose to change this game mechanic and how will it affect the Axis as this game mechanic is crucial for them to do their blitz with limited forces?

[Great_Ajax]

I just don't see how units attached to OKH/STAVKA wouldn't get their full supplies, ammo, and fuel necessary to move and conduct operations. If anything, the fact that these units are attached to STAVKA and OKH as the designated high command reserve would give them priority over all other units for supplies. Its not like these units have to draw their rations, fuel, and ammo directly from Berlin and Moscow. They would be drawn locally from whatever resources were available at this level of command. Now, I could see combat units attached to Corps and Armies that were outside of the command radius having problems being resupplied. What about the 5th Panzer Army in Normandy that was assigned directly to OKH right before th invasion. Was it combat ineffective because its fuel trucks had to drive all the way to Berlin? Instead, is it more reasonable to think that only OKH could order 5th Panzer Army but yet it was drawing supplies alongside all the other units in Normany?

Trey

ORIGINAL: Smirfy

ORIGINAL: el hefe

Okay. I see what you're saying and it does make sense that combat units would be assigned to a tactical headquarters while commited to combat for guidance and direction. I just don't know what kind of change you could implement and would it be worth it to implement? You already have a CV loss for units in different HQs participating in an attack and there is a clear case of a defending army attached directly to STAVKA (several hundreds of miles away) which didn't affect its performance.

Trey

Your getting close but not quite there yet, these "Stavka/OKH" units have their full movement allowance as well, these units in reserve like at Kursk were there for a specific purpose they would not have the facilities be able to head to Stalino on their own steam on a whim except by rail.

[Smirfy]

Nope Hitler could not decide were the attack would land so he created Panzer Group West which on paper reported to OB West but had to be activated by Hitler himself. This convoluted setup came about because of the famous dispute between Rommel and Everyone else about the deployment of Armour. When the invaision came the commander of the 21 Pz (Feuchtinger) did not no whether he was commanded by 84th Korps, 47 PZ Korps, Pz Group West so he waited for orders from Army Group B. Geyr the commander of Panzer group west could not activate his command until Rundstedt got permission from OKW. When Jodl at OKW finally gave permission at 4pm to release forces 12SS and Lehr were placed under the command of 7th Army which was part of army Group B. 12 SS attack on the 7th was delayed because the nessecary petrol was not available. When Pz group HQ west arrived (incidently not 230 miles away ) It took charge all under army Group B (Rommel) 7th fought the Americans and PZ West took over the British sector as units were released they joined one or the other. Pz Grp West changed name to 5th Pz. So basically when a High command interferes in operation there is chaos thats why they leave it to the HQs. These Reserve formations might be sitting on depots of supply but they are in reserve for a purpose so as they dont expend resources like Front, units niether are they at 100% readiness they also cant take those supplies with them because their deports are usually at place easy to supply like railheads. Next you have the chain of command to actually get them to move. Then you need supply dumps in place at their destination. Nope High command units should have no flexibilty at all sure they should have a lower CC and use less supply but no way should they be performing like they do in game.

[Smirfy]

I'm following an AAR presently and one thing I motice is one player has created over 100 fortified regions attached to OKH. OKH must have alot of spare staff officers I aint heard about.

[karonagames]

If a player wants to spend 400 APs on fortified zones, that is his choice. It is 400 less points he will have available to re-organise his army with and to be able to transfer better leaders to head up counter attacks etc., so there could well be occasions when he won't have the "staff officers" he wants because they are sitting in fortified zones.

APs are a multi-purpose abstract resource that needs to be managed the same as any other resource in the game. They represent different things for each side, but they are very clever design feature, IMHO.

[Smirfy]

Sorry to dig this one up again, I notice an AAR that has generated alot of lively debate about combat the player has 70 Russian units in various sections of the front that are just attached to Stavka and is doing pretty well.

[Helpless]

In fact there are in game bonuses (refit) and penalties (combat) of being attached to high command. It could be those are not sufficient, but all instruments like leader rolls and command penalties are already in the game. In general only some Independent Army should be on the frontline under STAVKA. Probably some extra command penalty is required.

I'll take a look what could be done.

[Smirfy]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

In fact there are in game bonuses (refit) and penalties (combat) of being attached to high command. It could be those are not sufficient, but all instruments like leader rolls and command penalties are already in the game. In general only some Independent Army should be on the frontline under STAVKA. Probably some extra command penalty is required.

I'll take a look what could be done.

Good job

If you look at Notenome v CP AAR you will see the scale of the problem