Is there ever going to be any penalty for turn after turn HQ units being in the front line now before I hear That HQs did fight some when trapped I agree with that but not turn after turn and especially Corps and Army HQ's.
I think there should be some penalty like if a Corps or Army HQ is fighting every unit has to take a morale check my reasoning behind this is that if a HQ is fighting it isnt doing its job of coordinating with its units under its command and it units to the left and right also providing supply and replacements and it would stop the abuse use of a HQ unit in combat on the front line turn after turn.
To me, having an enemy HQ in the front line makes me happy, and I figure it is my job to punish that HQ while it is there. If I am not firing at that unit, I wouldn't expect it to have issues with command - one thing to remember is that HQs are made up of a LOT more men than in most of the games - whereas a divisional HQ might show up with 100-150 men, historically you would be looking at 500-1000 for US divisions, as an example. That applies to army and corps HQs also, and the impact on the enemy of having one of those high level HQs disrupted hurts a lot, so I am happy with how it is.
You abuse that HQ, let's not add a penalty to do it even more.
Rick
I know HQs are full of more REMFS than are listed but if they are fighting the are not doing what they are supposed to be doing and that should effect the effectiveness of it control of the units under its command
Hi,
I agree that it is certainly an area that is easily abused. On a project I am currently working on we have set HQ's at 50 men in strength. This is at all levels - Divisional up to Army group. They are set up as companies.
This has two impacts - they are extremely brittle if fired on with a reasonable chance of being completely eliminated with a few shots, or if not eliminated they accrue so much fatigue quickly that they become useless in the medium term.
This really forces a player to think twice before putting them anywhere in harms way.
We have also given them essentially zero factors other than defense. This includes AA values and actually requires a player to keep AA near their headquarters to reduce their vunerability to aircraft.
Finally, players need to read what HQ's actually do - they are so key to keeping a force 'in the fight' that if more players realised their importance the less of them would be in the front line....
David
(06-10-2011, 07:29 AM)Landser34 Wrote: [ -> ]Is there ever going to be any penalty for turn after turn HQ units being in the front line
HQ units have no ZOC
Cannot dig in or create forts
If disrupted, it affects the command check for every unit under its chain of command.
If I were you I would surround it and not kill it. and if not just nail it
with everything you have to disrupt it and pile on any Battle Fatigue
Glenn
I agree with Glenn and do not agree with the notion of penalizing players for using HQ's in combat by reducing them to a totally inaccurate strength or applying penalties not already in place. For anyone with any experience and knowledge the only time one would use an HQ in battle is if there were no other choice to avoid being overrun or some other very uindesirable result. The fact HQ's do not have ZOC's, cannot dig in and if distrupted impact everything under their command is penalty enough IMO.
IMO the weather,ground conditions, roads, trails or cross country impact on how HQ's move.
Mostly the Russians really suffer here as the Germans always move quicker !!!, if caught in T-Mode they are dead meat, so they retreat like pawns sometimes one hex at a time. Changing in and out of T-Mode in Mud, Soft or Snow conditions has almost zero benefits.
Again IMO change rules to any HQ under fire should immediately become disordered, as they run for cover or pick up weapons.
(06-11-2011, 01:02 AM)Lowlander Wrote: [ -> ]Again IMO change rules to any HQ under fire should immediately become disordered, as they run for cover or pick up weapons.
Yu have to be VERY Careful implimenting something that on the surface and upon first read sounds like a good idea.
Lets say I asked for this as is above and John did it as it sounds easy - right.
Consider all the situations it would impact if "any HQ under fire should immediately become disordered"
There is direct fire...also on group where vis is long and cover is sparse.
There is also indirect fire at a spotted target
indirect fire at a ? target,
fire by Arty at a supsected hex
arty or air strikes at hexes uncovered by Air recon.
...so I say - be careful what you wish for.
And understand that things that sound simple often have other side effects and situation which you might not imagine that will come into play. Excluding some sitautions means making sure you understand EVERYONE and doing hte exclusions add layers to the complxity of the situation. We even had a strange case in Kh43 where one combat result was being negated ... cant recall the details but it was a complexed sequence of events - so when you take something like that and then add a new result to be included in the sequence which could in itself have 6 or 8 exceptions - something that sounds simple might indeed be more complexed than it looks.
Glenn
I love it when someone throws their HQs into the front line. The higher up the COC the HQ is the more lead it attracts from my combat units.
Having an opponent put an HQ where I can pound it means:
- The other guy is new to PzC & clueless how valuable these units are in command & control functions or in casualty VP.
- I am way ahead of where I thought I was in the game if my opponent is desperate enough to expose his HQs.
Catching an HQ in LOS at the beginning of a turn due to an unexpected increase in visibility is a totally different situation. Still causes the unfortunate HQ to get the buckets out to catch the lead coming its way.
If my opponent thinks placing an HQ in a choke point will slow my movement, well then I take them to school. HQs have no assault value, so they can not harm my units that assault them. Bang, bang, the HQ is dead.
Sometimes it only takes one assault instead of two. The rest of my units drive over the enemy officers digital corpses on the way to their objectives.
I do not see any benefit to placing HQs in the front lines. It is a desperate move. If it is the last turn of a game & I am preparing to assault the final VP location I need, it is my own fault I did not think ahead to the possibility the enemy has an HQ with a decent morale level to throw into the last ditch defense. All one has to do in this situation, is bring plenty of firepower / assault power to blow the enemy out of the VP location.
Much better to have too many units to take a position then to have "just enough" only to find out the enemy has a reserve. That is the difference between good PzC play & great PzC play. I have learned that lesson from some the best.
Dog Soldier
Yu have to be VERY Careful implimenting something that on the surface and upon first read sounds like a good idea.
Lets say I asked for this as is above and John did it as it sounds easy - right.
Consider all the situations it would impact if "any HQ under fire should immediately become disordered"
There is direct fire...also on group where vis is long and cover is sparse.
There is also indirect fire at a spotted target
indirect fire at a ? target,
fire by Arty at a supsected hex
arty or air strikes at hexes uncovered by Air recon.
...so I say - be careful what you wish for.
And understand that things that sound simple often have other side effects and situation which you might not imagine that will come into play. Excluding some sitautions means making sure you understand EVERYONE and doing hte exclusions add layers to the complxity of the situation. We even had a strange case in Kh43 where one combat result was being negated ... cant recall the details but it was a complexed sequence of events - so when you take something like that and then add a new result to be included in the sequence which could in itself have 6 or 8 exceptions - something that sounds simple might indeed be more complexed than it looks.
Glenn
[/quote]
IMO, I don't wish to upset the goose which lay's the golden eggs.