HQ question

[Skryabin]

In the Manual it is saying "Headquarters units that have been eliminated are eligible to be restored on a subsequent turn."

Is there any penalties the side suffer except that a new HQ being disrupted the turn it is restored? Were the amount of people coming from for a new HQ, from regular units?

Because if it is not a big deal to lose 100 HQ men, you can throw your HQs to front lines and draw enemy's fire, and then get another 100 men from the air, and then do it again?

Tell me, please, that I am missing something :conf:

Dmitriy

[FLG]

In the Manual it is saying "Headquarters units that have been eliminated are eligible to be restored on a subsequent turn."

Is there any penalties the side suffer except that a new HQ being disrupted the turn it is restored? Were the amount of people coming from for a new HQ, from regular units?

Because if it is not a big deal to lose 100 HQ men, you can throw your HQs to front lines and draw enemy's fire, and then get another 100 men from the air, and then do it again?

Tell me, please, that I am missing something :conf:

Dmitriy

The chance of a HQ returning is based on the quality of the unit. A low quality HQ (E or F) can take a long time to return.

The HQ personnel are assumed to come from the second echelon troops rather than the combat troops. As the second echelon troops aren't represented in the game there is no loss in man power in the game.

Loosing a HQ can be very serious, especially divisional or regimental HQ's. If your troops become disrupted, broken or low on fuel and/or ammo they are unlikely to recover without a HQ being in range. Loosing a HQ can be very debilitating and can swiftly, within a few turns, lead to a unit loosing much of its combat power. Especially if you pass the midnight turn when the daily fuel check is done.

On top of that, sacrificing a HQ in the front line is a gamey move. It certainly wasn't normal practice for any nation in WWII

[Mr Grumpy]

Losing a HQ can have serious knock on effects as Marc has described and should be avoided at all costs. ;)

[Dog Soldier]

In addition to the quick demise of your regiment, division, corps or army when losing the associated HQ, there are few more subtle things to consider.

The HQ (in your example of 100 men) will most likely be only 50 men or less if it is even restored. Even though these troops are drawn from unrepresented formations in the game, the HQ unit will function less effectively and be more easily destroyed the second time around.

Even worse than the penalty for an HQ in disrupted status will be the fatigue value of the restored HQ. The high fatigue value will also make it easier to destroy the HQ again if you chose to throw it into the front lines again as an expendable unit. Units with higher fatigue (and thus lower morale) tend to take greater casualties from a single attack or assault on the unit. They are far less resilient.

Finally, you will be using a unit that is worth the most VP casualty points as cannon fodder. Thus, a player who throws HQs into the front line is going to lose 1.3 to 1.7 more VP per man lost from the HQ unit than from a similar combat unit. This can make the difference if approaching the next victory point level.

Dog Soldier

[The SNAFU]

From FLG:
TOn top of that, sacrificing a HQ in the front line is a gamey move. It certainly wasn't normal practice for any nation in WWII



Not sure what is meant by sacrificing a HQ unit. I dont think it's gamey at all to throw HQ's into the line when you have absolutely no other choice other than to see your front collapse. On the other hand putting HQ's into the line simply to avoid losses in regular combat units would not be right.

[Dog Soldier]

Putting an HQ in the line when there is no other unit to fill the gap, even on a temporary basis is fine. Many times during the war, commanders had to resort to using HQ staff, clerks, orderlies, cooks and driver etc. all normally rear echelon units to plug a hole or man roadblocks while the the larger organization re-organized to mend a broken line. These were desperate measures.

Gamers should be aware this is not a cheap solution as Skryabin suggested in his opening post on this thread. FWIW, experienced PzC commanders will smash your HQ unit in the front lines anyway and pour through the hole in most cases in one turn anyways. The few times you will buy a single turn by losing your HQ unit is where the terrain might have done the same thing without having to sacrifice the HQ unit. Study the map and not just the hex grid. This applies double to the VM _alt series scenarios where terrain movement costs can be significantly higher in some hexes than in the stock versions.

Dog Soldier

[The SNAFU]

I think where HQ's can help is where one may have strong but disrupted stacks. The addition of a non disrupted HQ into those stacks may allow them to hold their positions in the event of an assault.

[Dog Soldier]

Not a terrible idea SNAFU, but again a desperate and expensive one. Remember that HQs are more vulnerable to disruption from artillery than normal units. I believe the HQ units receive twice the disruption effect is twice of normal. IIRC, the change was made to prevent using HQ units as combat units without serious penalties.

Dog Soldier

[The SNAFU]

Oh, you are completely right Dog Soldier. Throwing HQ's into the line under any circumstances is at best a desperate move and one with possible long term negative effects.

Of course with my generalship I am quite the expert at dealing with desperate situations.

[Dog Soldier]

Yes, you could be right to give it a try with an A morale HQ on the last turn to hold an objective hex.

Best to you, SNAFU.

Dog Soldier