What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: dudefan
Does the chance increase if I bomb an hq?
I don’t know.... I would be more likely to have a heart attack if my HQ was getting bombedORIGINAL: dudefan
Does the chance increase if I bomb an hq?
Corps HQ manpower was 27 officers, 900 odd enlisted, 40 civilians.ORIGINAL: ObeseMonkey
The issue is a matter I imagine of ensuring it can’t be a tactic. Certainly is a waste if not ahistorical to target a HQ with the intention of specifically killing the head officer. Some examples exist, but most won’t be deliberate attempts to target someone. The risk of death should increase if it’s bombed, but it should be a rare occurrence. I mean we are talking thousands of people in the headquarters.
ORIGINAL: ObeseMonkey
The issue is a matter I imagine of ensuring it can’t be a tactic. Certainly is a waste if not ahistorical to target a HQ with the intention of specifically killing the head officer. Some examples exist, but most won’t be deliberate attempts to target someone. The risk of death should increase if it’s bombed, but it should be a rare occurrence. I mean we are talking thousands of people in the headquarters.
ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: ObeseMonkey
The issue is a matter I imagine of ensuring it can’t be a tactic. Certainly is a waste if not ahistorical to target a HQ with the intention of specifically killing the head officer. Some examples exist, but most won’t be deliberate attempts to target someone. The risk of death should increase if it’s bombed, but it should be a rare occurrence. I mean we are talking thousands of people in the headquarters.
well if you remember some of the early WiTE1 builds (prob up to version 1.04 or similar) there was a craze for endless HQ bombing so both sides killed off the other's commanders and everyone ended up with 2-4 numpties in their command chain. Most players then invented a house rule to stop deliberate HQ bombing simply as this was getting ridiculous and was one of those mechanisms (like the endless recon spam) that simply rewarded the player most prepared to risk RSI.
WiTW had a problem that a HQ attack did too much damage to the SUs, and that was changed in a patch to reflect the dispersed nature of what a HQ represents (a hit on something like SHAEF could produce 1,000s of losses).
HQ bombing in WiTE2 is worth considering (I do with U2s etc) but its a pretty low reward activity, nice the few times you hit something worthwhile.
Maybe the powers to be lowered that kill rate but my last 2 AAR's I saw over 8+ Soviet killed leaders in the opening turns from displacing Soviet HQ's.ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
ORIGINAL: loki100
ORIGINAL: ObeseMonkey
The issue is a matter I imagine of ensuring it can’t be a tactic. Certainly is a waste if not ahistorical to target a HQ with the intention of specifically killing the head officer. Some examples exist, but most won’t be deliberate attempts to target someone. The risk of death should increase if it’s bombed, but it should be a rare occurrence. I mean we are talking thousands of people in the headquarters.
well if you remember some of the early WiTE1 builds (prob up to version 1.04 or similar) there was a craze for endless HQ bombing so both sides killed off the other's commanders and everyone ended up with 2-4 numpties in their command chain. Most players then invented a house rule to stop deliberate HQ bombing simply as this was getting ridiculous and was one of those mechanisms (like the endless recon spam) that simply rewarded the player most prepared to risk RSI.
WiTW had a problem that a HQ attack did too much damage to the SUs, and that was changed in a patch to reflect the dispersed nature of what a HQ represents (a hit on something like SHAEF could produce 1,000s of losses).
HQ bombing in WiTE2 is worth considering (I do with U2s etc) but its a pretty low reward activity, nice the few times you hit something worthwhile.
Just force the HQ to displace. You have a pretty good chance of killing the HQ commander
As for HQ bombings you would have to find the HQ then bomb it which isn't exactly easy since Recon & bombing happen at the same time. Not to mention the losses you could incur doing this just to try and kill a leader. The losses in planes could unnecessarily sky rocket out of proportion to a gain of a leader loss. But that is just me thinking out loud.
ORIGINAL: Hanny
Over on steam on the manual sucks thread, in post 95 I set out an alt way to model all 416 Su and German 342 5 grade of leaders loss, for anyone into such data or looking for historical context.
ORIGINAL: ranknfile
ORIGINAL: Hanny
Over on steam on the manual sucks thread, in post 95 I set out an alt way to model all 416 Su and German 342 5 grade of leaders loss, for anyone into such data or looking for historical context.
Interesting information, you obviously "do your homework." However, it is post 97.
ORIGINAL: Hanny
ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
ORIGINAL: loki100
well if you remember some of the early WiTE1 builds (prob up to version 1.04 or similar) there was a craze for endless HQ bombing so both sides killed off the other's commanders and everyone ended up with 2-4 numpties in their command chain. Most players then invented a house rule to stop deliberate HQ bombing simply as this was getting ridiculous and was one of those mechanisms (like the endless recon spam) that simply rewarded the player most prepared to risk RSI.
WiTW had a problem that a HQ attack did too much damage to the SUs, and that was changed in a patch to reflect the dispersed nature of what a HQ represents (a hit on something like SHAEF could produce 1,000s of losses).
HQ bombing in WiTE2 is worth considering (I do with U2s etc) but its a pretty low reward activity, nice the few times you hit something worthwhile.
Just force the HQ to displace. You have a pretty good chance of killing the HQ commander
As for HQ bombings you would have to find the HQ then bomb it which isn't exactly easy since Recon & bombing happen at the same time. Not to mention the losses you could incur doing this just to try and kill a leader. The losses in planes could unnecessarily sky rocket out of proportion to a gain of a leader loss. But that is just me thinking out loud.
Manual explains the chances from combat and non combat HQ leader casualties, it however denies the player any way to quantify the risk beyond v small from air Attack, including HQ interdiction in the manual, which was the wars leading causal agent of HQ leader loss, 25% of all German Corps and 33% of all Army HQ leader losses, and is in game the least likely way to cause a leader loss, small is what the manual then describes other combat actions, the same small is used for non combat leader loss rate, ie accidents, there is a mention of the small from some causes being reduced by two thirds in the HQ is 10 or more hexes from the front, how a player is to know the risks is very poorly documented, and the risk itself is designed not to produce historical rates of leader loss, as the highest cause is HQ displace,which for the SU was the lowest cause of leader loss as Kia, game includes accidental death, but not non combat and suicide that were three times accidental death rates.So in game small chance refers to something that caused 30 to a multiplier of that as the same chance, 60 suicides that are not even modelled, German Corps had 4 to 5 commanders over the course of the war, so the game is not simulating overall leader loss but selecting some actions that cause death, ignoring others and is designed to not produce historical leader loss rates.
Germany lost 23 Corps Commanders from an average 52 Corps over the war, so 6 a year, but it lost them differently by year, 74% in 44/45, 11 up to 42.
ORIGINAL: Templer_12
To emphasize again: I'm interested in a random interdiction, during which a commander happens to fall victim.
Not planned HQ bombing! [:)]
ORIGINAL: Denniss
In WitE1 there was a gamey way to get rid of commanders by endless bombing of HQs as even small forces had a limited chance to trigger a commander kill. This was later blocked by multiple restrictions.
These endless bombings were also used to inflict lots of manpower losses especially if attacking large army group/Front HQs due to lots of support squads and support units present.