Matrix Games Forums

Yes, I know. The club does not approve.

I had tempered it somewhat in that one could only change a unit's HQ once per turn...regardless of before or after special supply.

What if ALSO...re-assignment of generals, re-structure of HQ were limited to once per calendar month or once per 3 calendar months. Would this not also achieve the result of restricting "gamesmanship"? Yes, i know...it is difficult if not impossible to verify that the opponent has not done re-structuring or re-assignment. So is HQ Mule use.

HQ Mule...
One cannot change HQ of a unit AFTER it has received special supply.(Air supply does not cause limitation to apply).

The essence of the concern...as i see it, is "gamesmanship"(defined as taking advantage of the mechanics of the game rules/computer process) whereby one does special supply, changes HQ to fight with, changes general to ensure highest level general is in the fight...and does the combat. The result is that the highest level general is always in the fight...and the highest # of Ops points are available to support the fight.

I continue to want this feature. For ease of play mainly...as well as for recognition that prior to initiating battle, one would prepare with supplies(3 days food and ammo supply for soldiers, lots and lots of artillery shells, fuel for tanks, etc)

Comments welcome:
Mike B

MikeB wrote:
re-assignment of generals, re-structure of HQ were limited to once per calendar month or once per 3 calendar months

A bit of information about REAL Soviet Fronts in WWII:

Life Time of Front: from ONE day (Orel front 27.03.41-28.03.43) up to 4 years (the Leningrad front 27.8.41-24.7.45)

Changing of Front commanders

Example: Zukov was a commander of the Reserve front just for 3 days (8.10.41-11.10.41)

It’s not easy to shuffle generals and re-structure HQs: sometimes generals don’t appear in the pool again. The player also need to anticipate which HQs will be in a good condition for taking command next turn.

David Glantz wrote:
“German operation were based on a number of important assumptions:
…Superior German staff work, tactics, and weaponry would more than compensate for any Soviet numerical superiority: the Red Army was too inert to conduct the complex coordination necessary on the modern battlefield”

My point:
"re-assignment of generals, re-structure of HQ" is named a skill of operational management.
I do exactly stuff work and improve coordination by doing "re-assignment of generals, re-structure of HQ"

WIR will have not enough tools for operational management if "re-assignment of generals, re-structure of HQ" will be forbidden.
I’m against HQ mules because it’s a just mechanistic action. However I believe to receive the SPECIAL SUPPLY to an Army and then change HQs is OK.

Regards,

In all honesty, I can't see the HQ mule rules making any diff any way you do it - in my opinion the anti-mule rule is for historical purposes, not play balancing. If there is to be a disadvantage to the anti-mule rule, it goes to the attacker, since depleting a HQ's OP below 50 gives small penalties to the attacker, not the defender. But I'v ignored the penalties from the start and see no reason to change. I guess the only thing about not changing HQ's after supplying is gambling that supplying a unit won't deplete the HQ to the point where some units attached can't move, so you have to be more 'perfect'. But I found one way to 'beat' the anti-mule thing is reduce the amount of HQ's collecting OP's to moderatly increase the ones that do collect OP's (not entirely proven, though!), but overall what matters is the amount of special supply you use regardless of how many HQ's you have, since you only have a finate amount of OP's and you get an OP refill only every so often. In the end, I don't think it matters, and although at first I was against the anti-mule rule, now I don't care either way since it doesn't affect the performance of my units.

BUT

I'v never played any other campaign except '41. Do the mule rules affect things when the Sovs are on the offensive?

And as far as changing generals, do so at yer own risk. I just lost Guderian - had I left enough alone I wouldn't be down 1 awesome general! Plus I find it's a lot of work for, really, a mimimal gain. As far as offensive use I don't care which general is at the helm since i don't use reinforcments. And defensively I just make sure all my Axis HQ's are 6+ leaders and Sov 5+. Leaders are a factor, but in my opinion not even close to a deciding factor in any WiR battle. For me they'r more useful getting max OP points in the area of choice.

But hey, at least there's a basic list of house rules you can modify to hone the game to your taste and not leave anything out, because:

IF YOU AIN'T CHEATIN', THEN YOU JUST AIN'T TRYIN'!!

IF YOU AIN'T CHEATIN', THEN YOU JUST AIN'T TRYIN'!!

somehow the above doesnt sound fair...then who said war should/must be fair.
ok, but i feel better being honest about how i am cheating...so the other guy doesn't think i took too much advantage of something he wasnt aware of. I recently learned the truth about G air defence. Cost 9 months and a game to learn "my opponent was trying to help me understand it...but i had a thick head and kept bungling it"
G air defence of Germany requires only ONE HQ(located in German) with CAP fighters. If another HQ located in Germany has any fighters(even one) at even just training...then the double range of defensive G fighters fails. It took a long time to learn/understand this rule and my G factories suffered accordingly.

...so how come neither of you two considered my request for a North American Opponent(must be because i am in capital city of Canada). My posted house rules were subject to revision. ...maybe next time?

I'd love to play ya soon but currently i'm involved in 3 games - but it seems only one is going full blast, so mabe i'll take another soon. perhaps you could try slakkie - he knows how to talk the talk, but walking the walk is always another matter!

BTW, the 'you ain't cheatin, you ain't tryin' bit is a figure of speech more than anything else. Of coarse you should never cheat, but all things being equal it's the tiny details you learn with experience that could put you over the top. For example, if I wanted to remain 'historical', then I wouldn't change all my Pz IVe factories to Pz IIIh, but 'cheating' gives me an extra edge - why waste my time producing a weaker tank?