Historic house rules

[radical]

Originally posted by Mist:



I like this idea if you mean to allow HQs to have more that 10*SL OPs. I would also propose to allow HQs operation points to climb higher than 60 during usual supply if they do not move. Let's say HQ unit gets 3 OPs if it already has 10*SL(but no more that 15*SL) and did not move previous turn. How does this sound?

---

My thought was the total OPs available to a HQ would be 2X(supplylevel)X10 up to the replacement level. Thus, with a replacement level of 90, and the HQ in a supply level of 5, 90 OPs would be available assuming there were enough OPs to be assigned. It would also be good thought if OPs could be accumulated up to the replacement level rather than being capped at 10Xsupply level. This would probably be doable for coding. The bonus for not moving would be nice, but may involve more coding headaches.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Josan:


I have played with many people of this forum and only Mist said not use Hqs mules. I think most of the people uses it.

---

Maybe, but most readers here don't post, so neither one of us knows for sure.

However I agree that is not historical change ops between Hqs but supply system is not good. If you could assign the Ops ( as OKH or Stavka did )to the Hqs would be better.The use of Hq mules ( that not the over-abuse) fill the lack of a more accurate supply system.

---

I'm not sure this is true. There is a physical limit to how much supply can go to a unit, depending on factors like a good road-net, interference from enemy air, or guerillas, etc. Now, I assume the game is setup so that special supply from the HQs represents moving as much supply as possible through the bottlenecks to the units. Two HQs would essentially imply that there is no physical limit, that the maximum physical amount that can be moved to a unit, is based on how many HQ mules you can locate in the area. This is simply, totally, illogical.

The cost associated with that effort of moving extra supplies (along with planning, and combat support services coming from the Army level HQ) is taken out of the HQ the unit is normally assigned to. In the real world, units don't switch chains of command like that, and they certainly don't bounce around between two chains of command. Using the loophole that allows you to use another HQ for supply cannot meet even the basic expectations of realism and a good simulation of a military operation.

In other way, We dont must forget that the the key of a game is to be balanced. If simply we dont allow the use of Hq mules the game will be more unbalanced.

---

If you use it to overcome a perceived inbalance, that's one thing, but arguing that it is not an exploit is something entirely different.

You guys can play it any way you want, my only hope is that first, you respect your opponent if he asks for a house rule against HQ mules, and second, that after thinking about this concept of multiple chains of command, and relying on all that you know about modern warfare, that you recognize the complete and utter lack of validity for this "tactic". I'm sure if you think about this hard enough most of you will see the illogic of this yourself.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by radical:
This may have been already discussed or dismissed as not possible, but could the limit on "operation points" for headquarters be delinked from supply level or adjusted so that operation points given to a headquarters unit would be a max of 2 x supply level of that headquarer unit (up to the replacement level)? Assuming the total available op points remains fixed, this would allow some shifting of resources for supply (which is historically accurate) without the need for ahistorical "supply mule headquarters".

---

This might work radical, but the problem is no one agrees on how much OPs a front-line HQ should get. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

For you guys who haven't been in this forum for long, there is 2 points I should make. First, the original version of WiR and the latter ones up until close to v3.0 or so, didn't have many of the restrictions now in the game. In the earlier versions there was no restriction on special supply. You could give as many SSs to a unit up to the amount of OPs in the HQ, then you could switch HQs and do it again. Now, in v3.1, the limit is only one SS per unit, but there still is the loophole that allows you to use another HQ for the supply then switch back to the unit's primary HQ for leadership, air support, etc. Of course the primary HQ hasn't spent any OPs on supply so it has plenty of OPs for the combat phase. That is the current loophole.

Second, this argument has come up again, and again and again. So many people have gotten used to using HQ mules, that they all just took it for granted. Thus, when the restrictions began to be added into the game to plug this loophole, it met with substantial resistance, which, as you can see, is still present.

Some arguments here may be confusing because I and some others sometimes say things that are really referencing the earlier situation where there were no restrictions at all on SS. Just keep in mind that some of posts here are referring to the current situation while others are referring to the past.

Would this coding be doable? If workable would this imbalance the game? If acceptable could we then agree to outlaw supply mules? Or have I missed something obvious?

---

Its doable, I just don't know if it should be done. It would be pretty easy for Arnuad to close the last loophole and solve it that way, but he's not really enthusiastic on the plug-the-loophole-cheats work, as its not very fun for him. This should have been done by Gary himself.

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[matt.buttsworth]

I played the mules and never knew what a mule was.
Pretty rough.
Such points must be made clear in house rules before the game begins.
Personally now that I know what a mule is, I still do not believe in it. It bends the game too much.
Easier and more honest to create HQs with few units attached and use them to maximise supply, acceptign the loss of concentrated airpower that implies.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Mist:

Oh, my God. Ed <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> I propose you to create answering machine which would react on HQ mules posts <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> You are fighting neverending battle.

---

This does keep coming up don't it? <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

1. Units can INSTANTLY change HQs and do this absolutely free. THIS, is a BIG HOLE in game logic. Receiving new korps was not that button-click-easy job and it required certain efforts from both HQs. This should be represented either by loss of OPs* or loss of unit's readiness**(whichever is easier to code for Arnaud) each time when unit changes HQ.

2. Player can change HQ commander as many times as he wishes within a week with no consequenses for HQ's OPs. This is TOTAL NONSENSE. It should cost at least 5 OPs. Not so high price for changing commander during active military actions.

There will be no mule "problem" if we plug these two OBVIOUS HOLES.

* OPs loss formula can be
number_of_independent_units for receiving HQ
number_of_independent_units/2 for giving HQ

** Readiness loss can be calculated according to the formula (10-L1)*(10-L2), %. Where L1,2 are leader ratings for leaders of two HQs.

---

I agree completely. I'll try to get Arnaud's attention on this matter again, but read what I said to radical at the end of my reply to him. Plugging all the cheat loopholes is not fun for Arnaud. His attitude is the same as mine, if you're playing with someone who uses these loopholes, you should find another opponent. Unfortunately, this also means the plug-the-loophole work is not a priority to him. Game balance, which is under question right now, is more important.

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by Lorenzo from Spain:


Well, in my city is a Tank brigade of Spanish army and two infantry divisions. There is a HQ, but there is an independent logistic HQ, with attached units.

---

I'd like to see some info on this if there is any somewhere on the net. All I can tell you is I know of nothing like this in any other army. My guess is the "logistic HQ" is operated seperately but still subordinate to the real HQ. From a chain of command point of view, there is still just one chain of command.

Imagine: You´re the soviet player. You´re defending Moscow. The defender, attacked by Lutwaffe and ground units, has only 60% of readiness. Your HQ has 60 PP.
If you give to the unit an extra-supply, the readiness raises to 80%. This increase the fight capacity in a 33%. But the HQ PP falls, more or less, 20 PP. This make drop the fight capacity of this unit in a -33 %. So, the result is a drawn.

---

That's supposed to be the situation, special supply was intended to be uncommon. You're forced to make hard decisions about which units assigned to this HQ need help the most. That's part of the game. What you are actually asking for, is for Arnaud to render a difficult game decision into an easy one for you, but that ruins the game for the rest of us.

And do you think that the Stalin will send more supplies to the defenders of Moscow that to the others units?

---

See my other post about this. You're making the assumption that the supply system isn't at 100% capacity, when I believe that is exactly what the game is showing. Essentially, special supply is possible only with the expenditure of a lot of effort on the part of the unit's HQ. The special supply represents using the supply system at 110% capacity for a small period of time in the case of an emergency.

Again, you and the others keeping thinking the supply system is substanially under-used, leading to the idea that special supply can be used to increased the flow of supplies close to its maximum. My contention is the supply system is already at or near maximum, and special supply creates only a temporary situation that raises supply capacity to benefit one unit at the expense of a lot of work by its HQ.

Blitzkrieg Supply is the main culprit responsible for the ongoing argument over supply, because it gives people the impression the supply system could operate at double the "normal" capacity. Instead of believing that, I take the view that Blitzkreig Supply itself is part of the problem due to the flaw in the supply system. See my reference to what Gary said about OPs below.

If not, the supply HQs (or logistic HQs, or mules HQs) simulates more or less the supplies asignations in real life.

---

In real life, units didn't get special supply on a regular basis, otherwise it wouldn't be called 'special'.

You're position is based on the assumption that the supply system in the game is flawed. I agree. As Gary himself said, the flaw was in combining the two different things: supply and operations support. In other words, that OPs represented both at the same time. If supply was separate then I'd agree with the idea that the players should be able to choose where the OPs went. In the case of supply though, you can only move so much supply through a given supply net, so allowing you to assign OPs where you want them doesn't make sense, there is always a limit to how much supply you can funnel through a given area. As long as they are connected, operations support and physical supply, as they are in this game, then we're just going to disagree on this issue.

Let's hope that Gary does something different in WiR III, when it comes to simulating supply and its movement, cuz I don't want to be still arguing this 2 or 3 years from now. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ November 12, 2001: Message edited by: Ed Cogburn ]</p>

[Muzrub]

If it is not historical- and if its something that makes the game unfair to others it should not be done, thats how sipmle it is.

[PMCN]

Lorenzo writes....
3- Why maintain so much air units in the south? Of course, you can send a lot of aircrafts, but too a lot of panzers, or a lot of infantry... I think only must be establish a “minimum” (2 fighters and a bomber, may be?) If you prefer have a lot of aircrafts or a minimum, it?s your decision. If I must maintain in Africa 8 air units, I´d prefer abandon Africa!

---

Well I am not sure what planes you are refering to here. The germans have 4 groups in Africa (1 Me110, 1 Me109, 1 Stuka, and 1 He111) All were engaged primarily in anti-shipping duties and those anti-shipping duties were critical. The other planes are ITALIAN. The Italians were very interested in maintaining their africain empire and in kicking the Brits out of the med. They would not under any circumstances have sent their troops or planes anywhere else beyond their "token" contribution against russia, the exact units they ended up sending I am not completely sure of..I assume the 3 inf divisions in the Italian 8th army. Pull out of africa if you want and let the allies invade italy sooner, your call as I am not sure how long the african front will last without the german troops and planes. I do not think that so long as the germans have ground force in africa that redeploying those planes could have been done.

6- Why don?t move a unit if there is not a division? The battalions cant move? I don ?t understand why you propose this rule. And certainly, a single battalion (or even company) can cut a railroad if there is not enemy forces.

---

A battalion is a rather insignificant combat force and would never be able to accomplish anything on the WIR scale. The same is true of a flak "division", an AT division or an ARTY division. If you want a korps or army to plot then it must have a combat division in it. This is only logical. A WIR hex is something like 1200 km2 (20 km radius circle more or less) that is a LOT of territory for battalion whose frontage is a single km or so. It is a lot of ground for a single division to cover even.

8- I don?t say “mule HQ”, but “logistic HQ”. Why don?t to use logistic HQ?s (in real work)? If in any situation you think the supply is very important, you can dedicate your resources to logistic works better than move or attack.
In advances, in defence of critical points, preparing offensives... logistic HQ give you the opportunity of give “extra supply”. But is
limited: only a time every turn, depends of the supply of terrain and cost a lot of points. I think is OK and realistic.

---

Switching a unit from one HQ to another is in general a logistics headache. The germans have done this on a Division or Battalion basis when 2 Korps were operating close together but rarely between 2 army groups ( I can think of some cases where a unit alternated between army group north and centre for differing operations...I believe this was a division and not a Korps though) and certainly not on the scale of korps switching every week like you want to do. What you are talking about is an exploitation of the game mechanics nothing to do with historical reality or even reality now. I can use "special supply" without using HQ mules. I do sort of use them when playing the russian in that I assign units to rear area HQs simply to grow (as in my frontline HQs have replacement levels of 60 and the rear area ones 100) but I always switch the unit first to the combat HQ on the turn it will be used in combat. I use the other HQs PP to move it up but that seems reasonable enough to me.

If you don?t allow the logistic HQ, you´ll never use “extra-supply”, because cost a lot of preparation points and a unit who depends of a
HQ without points don?t fight well.
In my way of playing, I usually attach a logistic HQ to every important fighting HQ. You don?t think it?s better to let to worry about the panzers to Guderian, and about the truks to another general?
Actually, in real world, in every army (I think) there are “logistic units”, “logistic HQ?s” or similar...

---

I infact make massive use of special supply. But I do not have all my units assigned to a single HQ like you are trying to do. I have my force spread out between several HQs and I keep the number of Korps assigned to each HQ reasonable so I can afford to special supply each of them except with the 3 Pz Korp assigned to the first Pz Armee that is a bit tough. Normally my HQs have only 5-7 Korps or Armies assigned so no problem (I normally try to keep 20-40 PPs for combat purposes a bit more for Pz Armees on the advance). With the soviets it is very rare for a single HQ to have so many units that it can not afford the special supply cost for those units in key positions. But when I am attacking and want to have lots of PP left then I am very, very, very selective about who gets special supply and who does not. But then on the other hand it is "special" supply!

In the real world of WW2 units did not switch logistics around as much as you seem to think. Guderian could not commendeer Kliests trucks or vice versa. Even today logistics is intergal to the HQ, and one single messed up order can result in an infantry battalion recieving 120 mm AP rounds rather the 5.54 mm small arms they need.

In the end this is just to me a game mechanics exploit as is bombing a unit multiple times from the same HQ using different air groups or switching all russian air production to yak-1s.

But it is due to things like this that it became very clear to me during my one and only PBEM attempt at wir that you need to make sure you and your opponent are in complete agreement on what is allowable and what is not.

[Yogi Yohan]

Onr thing that keeps coming up: does less PPs mean that the subordinate units FIGHT less effectively?

I know it takes PPs to move, to send reinforcements etc but do they also affect the actual battles?

[PMCN]

In an answer to Yogi´s question...

The manual states something about units with low PPs suffering possible readiness reductions pre-combat. The trouble is it does not specify exactly what "low" means. But I assume having less than 10 PPs left is probably very bad. Also I think each time a unit is attacked, attacks, moves, retreats or whatever PP are expended by the parent HQ. One of the reason for shatters may also be that the parent HQ runs out of PPs (this may explain why units sometimes shatter for no apparent reason).

So the number of PP the parent HQ has strongly effects combat performance. This is why the message "Commanded by Stalin" is always cause for alarm as RVGK is unlikely to have many PPs. Stalins low command rating coupled with the low PP value spell certain doom in general.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Svar:
Clever players would just conduct single intrediction attacks on a particular defender from multiple HQs and still achieve the same result.

Svar

---

clever? maybe, but I cant see much realism in "borrowing" planes from other HQ.
It happened historically, but not on every day basis.

General remark :
for me when I go throughout this thread there 2 most important points :
1. in PBEM players can set any set of house rules they want as long as it is acceptable for both
2. if you cannot trust your opponent will follow the rules I cant see any point in playing anyway.
And if you cannot agree rules, change opponent then!!!

I played this game for ages (since I got my first PC) and always used special suply without any limits (but never thought of mule HQ, so couldnt realise what are you guys talking about, had to look in past posts), but in 3.0ver found a new limit - one ss per week per unit and then I realised I was wrong before - for Gods sake it is a S P E C I A L supply.
If Gary wanted our front units to have 99% readiness all the time, I suppose he wouldnt bother himself with readiness, supply system, headquarters etc.
I know I will get now responses saying I'm not clever, I cannot use game engine to my advantage etc., but when I want to be clever and give no shit about history I play Civilisation then ( and sometimes get my Armor unit being beaten to death by Phalanx).
So if someone wants to PBEM NOTclever opponent let me know

[BvB]

I think this falls in the category of players should agree before a game starts what sort of ground/house rules they intend to abide by. The listed rules at the start of this thread is a good base to start by. Players could either decide on a "no holds" free for all where they can do just about anything, or try to be as historical as possible, or somewhere in between.
I agree with just about all the "house rules" proposed here, but at the same time, feel that if players agree ahead of time they should be allowed to do their way as well. Now if they say one thing and do another... well, then they're cheaters... BvB

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:



No, the "defect" you see is the game preventing you from giving special supply to units who shouldn't get it.

Fine Lorenzo, ignore common sense and argue units should be able to be handled by two chains of command instead of the logical one. Special supply is supposed to be limited, and the effort expended getting those extra supplies to the unit are supposed to consume operations points. The ability of concentrating supply for some units with HQ mules is not legitimate because the game lets you do it. The game lets you do this because the game HAS A LOOPHOLE. The limit for any unit is the amount of special supply it can get from its parent HQ, limited by the supply level of the square the unit is in, and the available OPs in the HQ. That's it, no more supply.

Speaking of historical Lorenzo, show us one example, just one example of a modern (WW1+) division-sized unit having two Army level HQs, one providing supply only, and the other providing everything else. JUST ONE EXAMPLE. Now the fact that you can't find such an example should tell you something.....

In the meantime, most of the rest of us will side with common sense and stick with one, and only one, chain of command for each combat unit.

---

[matt.buttsworth]

The other point I would add to the last post which I fully agree with is that, particularly if you are playing players new to wir, or new to wir pbem, you should warn them about the use of exceptional tactics (exploits of the game) such as mules or ever advancing out of supply panzer korps which have been debated intensively here and do not appear at all in the manual.
Without forewarning, the other player cannot object to a tactic he has never heard of and can be slaughtered easilly which is not at all fair.

[Lorenzo from Spain]

Originally posted by Matthew Buttsworth:
The other point I would add to the last post which I fully agree with is that, particularly if you are playing players new to wir, or new to wir pbem, you should warn them about the use of exceptional tactics (exploits of the game) such as mules or ever advancing out of supply panzer korps which have been debated intensively here and do not appear at all in the manual.
Without forewarning, the other player cannot object to a tactic he has never heard of and can be slaughtered easilly which is not at all fair.

---

About the advance of units without supply:
I think that here is a agreement, after a long discussion:
If a unit receives air supply, can&#769;t move or attack, except retreating to their lines. First, we tried don&#769;t move or attack at all; but we realized that in this way the isolated units will be annihilated. So, they can attack or move, but only to their lines. If not receives air supply, their movement is free (but, of course, it&#769;s impossible to go too long).
This proves that forum discussions can be fruitful (it cost a lot of discussions).

Well, now we&#769;re talking about HQ mules. I perfectly know that is not historic change of HQ to have supply. But until the game will allow some kind of supply decisions, they are necessary for have game playability. The German can play without HQ mules, but the Soviet, no. The German player can bomb a lot of times the Soviet units (and they will lose 10% every time, added to the results, I think this is not realistic). Now with 3.101, is very, very difficult to win playing as Soviet in 1941 and 1942. But without HQ mules, it&#769;s impossible (except playing against the stupid AI). And two things: first, the Soviets must have a decent possibility of victory (they won in reality). Second: A game must have the victory conditions more or less balanced; if a side simply can&#769;t won, it&#769;s not funny.

[matt.buttsworth]

agreed wholeheartedly with last post especially if the use of mules allows the soviets to balance the game as at present it is unbalanced verging on unplayable as Soviet.
would be interested to know how a 3.001 game with no special supply boosts to either side goes. Is that also more balanced? Has anyone tried?

[GET TRANSPT]

I've resumed playing WIR (AI only for now) after a 2+ year absence and yes, I agree that the Soviet player has a tougher time. Thank you Arnaud for fixing the old bugs!
"Mule HQ's" are indispensable, even against the AI. After eading the previous posts, it's clear to me that:

A) Soviet units are not getting enough supply from their starting HQ's to effect special supply or even transfer units--an important part of Soviet strategy--so supply mules are vital.
B) Complaints about sacrosanct "realism" and "one HQ" could be solved by allowing HQ's to ADD pp's after the turn has begun, and subtracting them from other HQ's without having to shuttle back and forth unit HQ command.

History is full of examples of commanders requistioning supplies from other commands, often without permission ("rules", Ed)! This "stealing" could be game simulated to enable a front line HQ to have more PP's (PP's do everythingin WIR)
It irks me that once the turn begins, all HQ's have a set # of PP's. For example, the Leningrad front migh have 50 while under attack by Germans, while the Trans Caucasus has 50 while they are fishing for sturgeon! Instead of ferrying the TC to the front lines and asking it to be a "mule" (which I will do), a program could allow the Leningrad front to "request" (a loose term) PP's from other HQ's, perhaps at a cost to simulate "friction" necessary to finagle others' military resources.
Mule HQs are an inelegant way of simulating what has actually occurred since time immemorial: front line units using guile, palm greasing, corruption, commander skill, bribery, etc. to secure supplies at the expense of other (often clueless) HQ's /formations.
After reading Ed's post of "no unit in history using two HQ's", I agree with that aspect. But units with "one HQ" have throughout time often stolen supplies (a real lif "rules" no-no) from other units/HQs to support themselves.
George Patton's 3rd Army and the Red Ball express are very illustrative: Patton's 3rd was able to obtain/steal/commander/cajole "PPs" while not using "mules" (and therefore keeping 3rd army command integrity) but eventually SHAEF intervened and refused to grant him more "PP's", fuel mostly. This is what I'd like to be simulated to maintain Ed's "common sense" unity of comand dictum without using mules.
But until that is simulated in game programming, mule HQ's in WIR use unorthodox but entirely necessary means to similate a very historically justifiable process, materiel transfers between units.
As a former purchasing manager for several large organizatons (including one with uniforms), I'm well aware of how to obtain more resources to one's "front line" unit from other units/departments while skirting "rules". Now that'srealism.
Finally, mules are great, useful animals, from my 4-H experience. Calling an HQ a mule is an honor, not a slur.

Cheers

Sergio

[Ed Cogburn]

Originally posted by GET TRANSPT:
"Mule HQ's" are indispensable, even against the AI.

---

Not true, I, and many many others, have beaten the AI without using HQ mules.

A) Soviet units are not getting enough supply from their starting HQ's to effect special supply or even transfer units--an important part of Soviet strategy--so supply mules are vital.

---

Your doing the same thing Lorenzo did. Find a difficult problem and claim you need HQ mules to fix it. The difficult problem is supposed to be a difficult problem, its part of the challenge of playing the game. Why do you assume the difficulty is "wrong", thus justifying the use of a loophole?

Yes, most seem to agree there is an imbalance right now. Raising Soviet experience may fix it, I don't know, but when this imbalance is fixed however, continued use of HQ mules is just cheating, IMHO.

This argument may be moot at this point. After a discussion about this issue on the mailing list, it sounds like Arnaud is going to try to plug this last loophole.

[PMCN]

For those of you who feel HQ mules are an absolute necessity I have a question. How many units (either Korps or Armies) do you normally attach to a single HQ (a combat one in this case)? If it varies greatly the max and min value would be appreciated. Thanks.

[czerpak]

Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
For those of you who feel HQ mules are an absolute necessity I have a question. How many units (either Korps or Armies) do you normally attach to a single HQ (a combat one in this case)? If it varies greatly the max and min value would be appreciated. Thanks.

---

I mostly play germans and I usually attach 4 korps to single HQ (if there are panzer korps) or max 6 infantry korps. There are some exceptions, but if there are more corps that means extra ones are in reserve.
I play soviets right now (first time after long time) and try to figure out what numbers are correct for them.
And if you havent read my other posts I never use mules for number of reasons.
What I do every now and then (but it's very rare) is I might switch a korp to another combat HQ with bigger amount of PP (but it stays with this new HQ for at least one turn)
I dont know a reason why you asked that Q, but hope this will halp you a bit.

czerpak

[GET TRANSPT]

After reading Ed's post of "no unit in history using two HQ's", I agree with that
aspect. But units with "one HQ" have throughout time often stolen supplies (a real
life "rules" no-no) from other units/HQs to support themselves.
George Patton's 3rd Army and the Red Ball express are very illustrative: Patton's
3rd was able to obtain/steal/commander/cajole "PPs" while not using "mules" (and
therefore keeping 3rd army command integrity) but eventually SHAEF intervened
and refused to grant him more "PP's", fuel mostly. This is what I'd like to be
simulated to maintain Ed's "common sense" unity of comand dictum without using
mules.
But until that is simulated in game programming, mule HQ's in WIR use unorthodox
but entirely necessary means to similate a very historically justifiable process,
materiel transfers between units.

---

I just re-quoted myself. I don't consider egregious underdistribution of PP's or rigid start-of-turn allocations to accurately simulate the dynamic flow of resources to HQ's during wartime. Until this is remediated in program terms, the best simulation of actual history remains secondary HQ's PP allocation, derided by some as "mules".

I like to play Soviets, and I the use same # of at start HQ's (whatever that is) :

3 "main" HQ's with air forces
These seldom use PP's except for plots, airstrikes, and combat. These HQ' usually have about 10 armies attached. They are heavily engaged during combat resolution, averaging about 8 land combats/turn plus air combat. I like to keep them at about 45-57 PP before combat resolution.

3 aircraft training HQ's
PP's used for air training 6-10 Air gopups per HQ, also to transfer units to rear (non combat) areas. Using them as "mules" is impossible as they must be far from the front to avoid air raids on the training A/C . Their 2-3 attached armies (e.g. Sevastopol, Vyazma the first 2 months) never engage in land combat, just entrench far from the front. These end the turn at about 25 PP using about 18 PP each to transfer units.

RVGK
I never use the PP's in this HQ for anything except new units from this HQ. I attach no armies to this HQ. RVGK seldom ends with more than 20 PP.

STAVKA
I only use the PP's to send out new units to the front and try keep as many PP as possible in this HQ, as Stalin needs them when he meddles. The more I keep, the better Stalin does in his all too frequent "meddles". I attach no armies to this HQ. I try to keep 25-35 PP in this HQ at turn's end.

FINALLY, That leaves 4 (sometimes 3 or 5 in '42, depending on aircraft usage ) HQ's as secondary non-aircraft HQ's. These HQ 's cover second line/semi-sacrificial front line units where I don't want to commit air power for some reason but still want plenty of PP's to not shatter and don't want to take away PP's from the very busy 3 (4 in '42) "main" HQ's.

From these 4 secondary HQ's, I do 1-3 Special Supply (5-15 divisions) per turn for the 3 main HQ's. If I effect more thah 15 divisions of Special Supply, the secondary HQ becomes too weak. Having 5 PPs is "too weak" for me; its attached units cannot defend in their 2-4 combats.

These secondary HQ's average 7 or so attached armies and engage in 2-4 combats/turn, withour air cover!


Sergio