C&C

[Viking67]

As Axis, when you create Fortified Zones, do you generally change HQ from OKW to a more local HQ or leave them in OKW COC?

[larryfulkerson]

I've been known to change the HQ of the forts from whatever local HQ they are attached to, to STAVKA as the Soviet........I'm pretty sure the same principle can be used by the Axis player as well.

[krieger]

only ocasionally (to improve their supply and the construction value as a consequence). If they didnt load the command capacity of HQs I would do it more (they count as a brigade/regiment). I have one finnish fortified zone up north atached to a finnish corps and I know of one in Kerch that has been atached to 11th Army, 1st Panzer Army and now to AG Antonescu.

[Q-Ball]

I wouldn't do it. Both sides have bottlenecks in command capacity, and changing fort zones just makes it worse. They have very limited combat value, so it doesn't make a huge difference anyway.

Fort Zones are not combat units; they are diggers and fort maintainers.

[Aurelian]

I leave the FZs with the high command.

[Encircled]

Waste of AP's to change the HQ

[Farfarer61]

Only possible reason is if you need desparately need to assign SU's to the Fort Zone ( actually I have only done this with Sov FZ, so I am not sure if the Axis FZ can be assigned SU). As Sov for example, if you want to get a choke point of vital ground built up quickly, it may be worth it assign the FZ to a a Higher command with available Construction Bats or RR Construction Brigades. You can add any SU for that matter. So, defending in 41 you can have 1 less division in the hex, but have a Fort Zone + 3 arty, sappers etc. For the best C+C the fort should be in the same Army HQ as the other defenders. I suppose this should be "How to defend the Crimea" thread The RR Brigaes add a lot of digging capacity, then just through a shell division in the hex too. remove the diggers and put in fighters when the time comes.