Matrix Games Forums

What Steve proposed is not what you suggest. He argues using them proactively. In other words, intentionally moving them into a hex to act as a rear guard. Moving out any units there. Then moving out the HQ unit. Whether or not the game allows it is not the argument. Whether or not proactively moving the HQ staff into a position to hold back an enemy is based on common practice is the question. Eisenhower never did this. But as it stands there is nothing keeping you from moving the Allied Command next to Panzer Lehr to hold them back so Capn Ron can get his guys out of there unharmed. Heck I've done it myself. I think Ike had a suit with a cape and a big S on the front.

The game allows a platoon sized unit to have the same ZOC effect as a corps sized unit regardless the scale. Do you think that's realistic? The game allows lots of stuff. And some people will use whatever gamey methods at their disposal to do as they wish because the game allows it. So, it's a matter of personal preference. Do you want to play anything goes or do you want to play with your feet grounded in some sort of real world abilities? I say let the players decide what kind of scenario they want to play. One that allows anything or one that attempts to simulate the real world. It starts with the scenario designers. I say give them all the tools humanly possible to do with as they will. Then let the players decide if they want to play the scenario based on what they want to see. This has always been my stand and always will be.

Jack,

Good points.

In order for varying ZOC that would have to be coded in. I like that idea, it would be neat to have a scenario design mechanism that allowed the designer to set the 'base' ZOC'. So in my War In Europe scenario I would set that to be Division units, then I could have a waterfall effect of ZOC's so Regt/Brigades have a little lower ZOC and battalions more so. Or for my Anzio Beachhead I'd set the base ZOC to Battalion and companies would have a little less and platoons none. Or you can say all that plus make it so that HQ's and Arty's and AAAs dont have any ZOC or something like that. That would be great, but it would need to be coded because it does not exist.

Yes. There is much to be done.

ORIGINAL: Lobster
Whether or not proactively moving the HQ staff into a position to hold back an enemy is based on common practice is the question.

I'm pretty much indifferent on this issue, but I have to say that when I read about this feature in the manual, I thought that the mechanic was meant to represent something other than "moving the HQ staff into a position to hold back an enemy": I thought it was meant to represent that the personal attention of the commander and his staff to a proposed withdrawal would mean that it was more likely to proceed smoothly (pulling back at night after extensive maskirovka efforts, etc.).

I think that this kind of makes sense, although it doesn't seem like it should work like a magic wand, it should just increase the likelihood that a unit could withdraw successfully.