Matrix Games Forums

I'm unsure of how to organise my troops, with regard to assigning units to HQs.

Take my current game - Western Wall scenario as Allies.

https://i.imgur.com/wy9aHSl.png

The US forces basically seem to be a US armoured division with an attached infantry regiment (plus its artillery). There are three sub-HQs, each representing a combined-arms combat command made up of units from the armoured division. The unattached units are the small organic units of the armoured division - recon, engineers, anti-air - and the attached infantry regiment (with artillery).

The top HQ in this scenario is commanding too many units. The units it acts as HQ to are spread all across the front line.

Unlike the lower-tier HQs, the top HQ cannot play cards for individual units. Instead it plays cards for HQs. This would suggest that, ideally, all units should be under the control of lower-tier HQs, with the top HQ commanding no troops directly. So I tried assigning the units commanded by thr top HQ to the lower-tier HQs. This would also mean that some of the units spread across the front line would now be closer to their commanding HQ.

Now, the lower-tier HQs are overloaded with troops.

So now it seems things are in an unsatisfactory middle ground, where I have to attach some, but not none and not all, of the units from the top HQ to the lower-tier HQs.

How's one supposed to approach this?

Looking at another scenario - 82nd Airborne - it's got some divisions commanded by high-tier generals that give card bonuses to HQs, and other divisions commanded by low-tier generals, that give card bonuses to units. So the units of some divisions can get card bonuses, while the units of other divisions cannot. How does this make any sense? This seems all jumbled up.

Higher tier generals command corps, armies, army groups and have violet command cards with strategic bonuses.
Lower tier generals commands divisions and regiments (task forces) and have other colors cards with tactical bonuses.
Some generals are better than others.
Some generals have higher activity bonus (7th Armored Div - Hasbrouck has +3), some are weak (CCR 3rd Division - Howze has +1).
I like this system.

PS: You can re-asign units and even assign divisions to highest tier command (if you please). But they will not get tactical bonuses. So it's better to assign units to divisional or regimental commands.

Khanti wrote: Tue Oct 11, 2022 6:31 pm Higher tier generals command corps, armies, army groups and have violet command cards with strategic bonuses.
Lower tier generals commands divisions and regiments (task forces) and have other colors cards with tactical bonuses.
Some generals are better than others.
Some generals have higher activity bonus (7th Armored Div - Hasbrouck has +3), some are weak (CCR 3rd Division - Howze has +1).
I like this system.

PS: You can re-asign units and even assign divisions to highest tier command (if you please). But they will not get tactical bonuses. So it's better to assign units to divisional or regimental commands.

I like that system as well. I think that's how it should be.

However, that's not how it is, as there are both high-tier and low-tier generals commanding divisions, so the units in the ones with high-tier generals can't get any card bonuses.

He wants his cake and to eat it too.

Lower and Higher level HQs with combat bonuses and Cards that can give bonuses to these, or all units under the command of lower level HQs. However, that is not how it was in history. In history units were attached to all sorts of different parts of the command structure. Not sure an officer who was at a high level would be able to impart tactical advice to a lower level formation, ... Doubt an Army Commander would command a Brigade directly.

The game does not support this "have your cake and eat it too" approach.

Oh and Hi Ironduke.