New to Panzer Campaigns, have many questions... Let's start with HQ's

[MisterMark]

Picked up Salerno 43 several months ago and have been playing quite a bit.  I've read through the manual/help guide and reference it whenever I'm in question but still having a hard time getting my head around some of it.  In the few months I've been playing I've amassed a small list of questions that I think can be better answered by the experience players here.

I'll try not to overwhelm the forums with all my questions all at once, so I'll start with just a few:

It would seem enemy HQ's would be high priority targets, however the manual says if an HQ is eliminated it has some random chance of 'recovering'.

If that is the case would it be better to attack them to the point of being disrupted?  Or better yet, grind them down to the point of being broken and leaving them pinned in and possibly isolated?  If only disrupted (and assuming subordinate units are withing it's command range) what is the negative impact on it's subordinate units?  If broken and possibly isolated, would they offer any benefit or advantage to their subordinates?  Or would an HQ in such a situation be completely useless to it's subordinates as if it were completely eliminated?

Also if faced with the opportunity to attack/disrupt/break/isolate two different HQ's with one being say a divisional HQ and the other one being a subordinate HQ, which one would be better in the short run?  I would assume over the long run, knocking down a higher level HQ would provide more benefits but what if you are trying to stunt an immediate attack from several battalions?  Is it better to take aim at the more direct level battalion HQ for those particular battalions or the higher level HQ above that battalion HQ?  In either case what are the overall negative effects for the enemy?

Finally, with HQ's that has 'recovered'... the manual says they will initially be disrupted and not be able to perform their command duties on the subsequent turn.  But where do HQ's that have 'recovered' respawn?  Do they respawn at a supply zone?  Or do they respawn into a location more central to their subordinate units?  What if it's subordinate units are deep into enemy territory and possibly even surrounded and isolated?  What then?

Thanks,

-Mark

[jonnymacbrown]

Hi Mark and welcome aboard! I'd say you are probably seldom going to have the situations you describe but they do occur. If you manage to break and surround a command unit you are best to just let it sit there. HQ's will resurrect sometimes in a helpful spot, usually behind your own lines. jonny

[Ricky B]

Specifically, HQs return on a subordinate unit, randomly. So wherever its units exist.

Your call if you want to tie down units "trapping" an HQ behind your lines. I have never bothered-just destroyed them, and if you don't trap it you risk it calling in artillery, air strikes, blocking a road - even though no zoc, it could move onto a road and block supply through its hex.

Otherwise, your own decision as to what do for lower versus higher level. Unlikely that you would have the option of one or the other, versus most likely both being trapped.

Rick

[Liebchen]

Finally, with HQ's that has 'recovered'... the manual says they will initially be disrupted and not be able to perform their command duties on the subsequent turn.  But where do HQ's that have 'recovered' respawn?  Do they respawn at a supply zone?  Or do they respawn into a location more central to their subordinate units?  What if it's subordinate units are deep into enemy territory and possibly even surrounded and isolated?  What then?

Thanks,

-Mark

I'm pretty sure that the manual says they reform stacked with one of their subordinate units.

HQs are high value points-wise, too, I think.

[lezgo killemall]

When possible I keep them isolated and broken.  Knock em down to single digits to get max points.

[MisterMark]

For what it's worth, I pretty much have a divisional and regimental HQ trapped and isolated in a game vs the AI (see attached screenshot)... I can see the point of wanting to eliminate them if they can still spot/call in arty or block a vital road, etc.  

However, if I can break them without eliminating them and push them out of the way, would it be safe to assume they have no positive impact on their subordinate battalions and should allow the elimination of the individual battalions to be quicker/easier?  I'm just still curious as to what the practical and mathematical negative consequences are of breaking an HQ?  Fundamentally we could all agree that it is something that would aid in winning the game but what are the actual mechanics that the game is factoring in?

Thoughts?

-Mark


  Screenshot.jpg (Size: 467.26 KB / Downloads: 15)

[Mr Grumpy]

Although I can see there are advantages to trapping a HQ and not eliminating it, I think you would only do this if the formation that that HQ controls still has multiple units that are not trapped on the map, in this case you would deny all those units of the benefits of being in command range of the HQ by disrupting it and isolating it.

However as Rick said the trapped disrupted units still have a LOS and can provide useful intel to your opponent, however there will be situations where that is not important.

In the example you posted assuming that the units stacked with the HQ are the rest of the formation I would just eliminate the stack and bag the points.

As stated by the other guys an eliminated HQ will randomly re-appear at some point in the future and placed on a unit of its formation, that is assuming of course there is such a unit otherwise it will be lost forever.

Hope that helps...............

[Mr Grumpy]

I'm just still curious as to what the practical and mathematical negative consequences are of breaking an HQ?  Fundamentally we could all agree that it is something that would aid in winning the game but what are the actual mechanics that the game is factoring in?

Without going into the maths the practical effects are that the subordinate units will receive no benefits from being in the command range of the HQ be that disruption recovery, low ammo/fuel recovery and possible replacements.

Essentially without the support of their HQ the rest of the formation will fall apart very quickly.

[Xerxes77]

If broken and possibly isolated, would they offer any benefit or advantage to their subordinates?  Or would an HQ in such a situation be completely useless to it's subordinates as if it were completely eliminated?

These are great questions. Based on the information included in the manual I would say a broken and isolated HQ is as good as dead.

A trapped and broken HQ means its subordinate units will be deprived of all their HQ-related benefits (e.g., I believe they *won't* ever be able to recover from their Low Ammo status) for the rest of the scenario. Note that disruption recovery is still possible (if more difficult) depending on individual morale checks.

In practice the end result seems to be that keeping an enemy HQ alive in those conditions is preferable to destroying it. A gamey move maybe, but the idea is to prevent the deployment of a replacement HQ.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

In reality, the HQ will reform under a new Cdr whether it is a new Cdr or a subordinate officer permanently or temporarily until somebody of higher rank equal to the job arrives. I would think HQ can recover from Broken status like any other.