2 questions

[DS Kee]

Howdy,
1. I've searched the forum already, and found a thread about Soviet command hierarchy. Unfortunately, it wasn't answered. Is there any advantage to using a tiered command structure like the Germans or is it just as simple to leave all HQs under STAVKA? See question #2.

2. Since superior commands do not affect OPs or replacements, why is it such a big deal to get Stalin out of Stavka? Unless I've missed something important, it seems like a pretty harmless place to have him.

I'm sure I've missed something. Enlighten me, o' wizened grognards

[RickyB]

Originally posted by Warlord2k
Howdy,
1. I've searched the forum already, and found a thread about Soviet command hierarchy. Unfortunately, it wasn't answered. Is there any advantage to using a tiered command structure like the Germans or is it just as simple to leave all HQs under STAVKA? See question #2.

2. Since superior commands do not affect OPs or replacements, why is it such a big deal to get Stalin out of Stavka? Unless I've missed something important, it seems like a pretty harmless place to have him.

I'm sure I've missed something. Enlighten me, o' wizened grognards

I have never tried setting up more command levels for the Soviets, and am not sure if there is any impact or not. However, the answer to number 2 may also apply to this first question, in which case there is a benefit.

Regarding the second question, there is a chance of a higher HQ leader taking command of the battle and then his rating is used in determining the overall results of the battle, rather than the direct leader. A poor leader increases the odds of a shatter, fewer units in battle, etc, so having a poor leader high up the chain can be a problem when he "steps" in to run a battle. On the other hand, a good leader high up can impact battles all across the front. Again, I don't know if this applies to a structure you set up with intermediate HQs, but I would think it would.

[JIM366]

I generaly set up an intermediate layer of command for the Soviets. I divide my troops into 4 Strategic directions;NorthWest, West, SouthWest, and South. These 4 HQ's are kept well back from the fighting (Close to the East edge of the map). Each of these HQ's has 4 or 5 front HQ's subordinated to them, and they also get my best leaders. I do wish that the game would have Strategic Direction HQ's already set up (Possum, are you reading this? )
I find that I get far more use out of Zhukov et al when they are in charge of 4 fronts at one time. Besides, why should only the Germans get to have all the fun?:p

[Augusto]

Hi

Can some one explain me how to sobordinate one HQ to another?

Can I change HQ from one german army group to another?

Tanks in advance

[davewolf]

Originally posted by Augusto
Can some one explain me how to sobordinate one HQ to another?

Click on an unit or HQ, then press Alt-H, then click on the 'higher-level' HQ in order to attach.


And don't tell the Führer about it, if you didn't ask him before...

[DS Kee]

My thanks to all who answered this post. I had forgotten about the intermediate leader taking charge. I guess it is a matter of personal preference. The argument could go on for weeks, but unless we sat down FTF and played through a bazillion games, we might never know the right answer.

Ya'll rawk.

[K62_]

This is probably "gamey", but it works well . Try subordinating Army Group North and Army Group South to Army Group Center; then also subordinate AG Center to AG North. This way, OKH is not in charge of anything anymore and Hitler does not get involved in any battles at all. The idea works for the Soviets as well, they can get rid of Stalin that way.

But, watch out, this is only for fun, don't use it in a PBEM game or your opponent could get .