HQ and Command Ranges

[Elxaime]

I thought I'd raise an issue that has flummoxed me and see what the veterans thought. This issue is the numbers of HQ and command ranges.

In France 1914, for example, a German Divisional HQ has a command range of six. The German Division also has three subordinate brigade HQ with ranges of 4. As a result, a 1914 era German infantry division with four HQ can cover out to a distance of ten hexes and be in command. In HPS France 1914 the scale is 1 km per hex.

In Danube 1985, a typical Soviet Tank Division has one HQ, the divisional HQ, with a range of 10 hexes. The scale in D85 is 1 mile per hex.

Accounting for the difference in scales, a German 1914 division can cover 10 kilometers. A Soviet 1985 division can cover 16-17 kilometers.

This really seems strange. In 1914, they used motorcycles/bicycles, early cars/trucks, horses, runners and pigeons to get the word out. When fighting was static, they could lay wires, but transmission and reception was slower than modern times. The few bits of technology they had were concentrated at higher levels and generally not available below regiment/battalion.

In 1985, modern wireless communications were widely available in every modern developed country army, especially in a front-line Soviet Tank Division. Hand held radios were widely available and each AFV had a radio.

Even granting the idea (which is controversial) that Soviet 1985 doctrine was so rigid that they just sat around waiting for higher ups to tell them what to do, they certainly possessed communications capabilities far, far in excess in quantity and capacity to what the Kaiser's men had in 1914. And I don't think the German Army circa 1914 was that nimble to compensate for the difference. There's also the issue of numbers of HQ - the Soviet Division has one, the Kaiser's Army has four - this means a lot when you consider how lack of an undisrupted HQ in range can affect a division in a HPS game, e.g. low ammo (1914), low fuel ammo (1985), lesser disruption recovery, etc.

What gives? Why does the Soviet Army of 1985 have a combat radius not quite twice what the German Imperial Army of 1914 possessed? And why do they get only one HQ when the Deutches Heer gets four?

Just seems strange. There would have to be a huge weighting of this for doctrine and I don't think the Soviet Army of 1985 would come out as more dogmatic and inflexible than the German Army 1914, which history showed as still using Napoleonic-style mass charges. Seems to me the Soviet Army needs more HQ per division and also greater command range. Ditto I assume for NATO.

[Mr Grumpy]

In France 1914, for example, a German Divisional HQ has a command range of six. The German Division also has three subordinate brigade HQ with ranges of 4. As a result, a 1914 era German infantry division with four HQ can cover out to a distance of ten hexes and be in command. In HPS France 1914 the scale is 1 km per hex.

I have personally not come across any subordinate brigade HQ's in F14 with a four hex command range, all the ones i have played with have a three hex range, so a typical division can cover a nine hex spread and stay in command.

I don't play the modern titles, but i am aware that there was a school of thought that rated the command/control and initiative of a typical Soviet 1985 division as very poor, of course as there was no NATO/ Soviet clash we shall never know for sure. :)

The answer to this will be the varying values that different designers decide best fit the title they are designing, as the various designers don't work from a single chart, we are bound to see areas in which the values in different titles don't match up, i know VM works very hard to make sure all the values from the various titles he has created or the _Alt scenarios he has edited all tie up, but in doing that i doubt he would alter his values to tie in with other designers work?

[Volcano Man]

All I can say is, in 1914 the HQ radius is based on actual unit frontage data and then plus a hex or so for generosity. Beyond that, keep in mind however that the HQ radius is much stricter in 1914 than it is in PzC or MC, because if a subordinate is outside of the radius then it receives a one step quality/morale loss. This IS what represents the more primitive command system, not necessarily the range itself (it does play a small factor though), so directly comparing only the HQ ranges from each series is not very relevant; you have to take into account the rule mechanics too. The method of delivery for the artillery (plotted fire), the scattered air strikes, and the inability to pick and choose precise targets in a hex with direct fire also represents the more primitive command system too.

And besides, you probably have to wait for a 1914 game that has Russians in it before you can make a direct comparison with command ranges of Russian/Modern Soviet forces (if/whenever that is). ;)

[Elxaime]

All I can say is, in 1914 the HQ radius is based on actual unit. And besides, you probably have to wait for a 1914 game that has Russians in it before you can make a direct comparison with command ranges of Russian/Modern Soviet forces (if/whenever that is). ;)

Thanks Volcano Man! I am not complaining, I was just curious about it.

I shudder to think what mechanisms will be needed to simulate the Czar's Army of 1914, or the Austro-Hungarians for that matter (who were even worse). Stuffed shirt Princelings and Court Favorites surely deserve the lowest ratings. But they also didn't even feed or clothe their troops properly, much less fully arm them. And the AH Army also had turmoil over ethnic and linguistic differences in many units.

[Volcano Man]

Yes indeed, both sides are quite unique. Special care would/will have to be taken to make them feel "right". :)

[Mr Grumpy]

I wonder if the AH in a WW1 title would be as much of a "chain and ball" around the Germans legs as say the Italians were to the Germans in Sicily 43?

There were some good WW2 Italian units, but were there any good WW1 AH ones? ;)

[Volcano Man]

Yes, to make a long story short, there were indeed good A-H units, but it all depended on their ethnic composition (because each ethnic group had different loyalties to the k.u.k.). Generally speaking, German and Magyar ethnic infantry were reliable, about as effective as their true German Army counterparts, and they did have some elite units like Fieldjägers and Kaiserjägers. But the real problem with infantry was that the army was a mixed bag of very poor and good units, thereby bringing down the quality of an entire corps or army accordingly (because they cannot effectively rely on, say, a Czech ethnic infantry regiment for example -- and the k.u.k. had a very large number of ethnic groups; which was their Achilles heel). A-H cavalry also were some of the best in Europe but the problem there was that, compared to the Russians, they were almost always outnumbered heavily. Combine all of this with generally poor quality division and brigade commanders (they did have some decent higher level commanders though), and with a generally poor level of supply, and you would get something quite different than any army in F14.

The A-H is one of the favorite great war armies, simply because of how unique it was. :)

Hmm, wait a minute -- I know what this is... this is a secret plot to get me to work on an A-H title. ;)

[Al]

Hmm, wait a minute -- I know what this is... this is a secret plot to get me to work on an A-H title

There's just so much uncovered ground when it when it comes to WW1 at the operational scale and practically nothing (as far as I am aware) that deals with the A-H army in particular. The early actions between A-H and the Russians in Galicia would make an interesting scenario, IMO.

(Before anyone says anything, I am aware of the WW1 scenarios in TOAW. Again IMO, those don't capture the feel of WW1 operational combat like, for instance, France '14 does.)

I think a lot of people would like to see more WW1 titles from you, VM.

[Mr Grumpy]

Ed,
Thanks for the breakdown, i was aware that the AH Empire was a patchwork of nationalities with varying loyalties to the Emperor, but i didn't know how that might pan out in morale levels for a WW1 title.

How about the Serbs, good quality troops or just average units up against poor AH forces as you described above?

The AH/Serb campaign always struck me (in basic terms) as a similar "quality vs quantity" situation to the Finn's vs the Russians in WW2?

---

I think a lot of people would like to see more WW1 titles from you, VM.

Agreed........

[Volcano Man]

How about the Serbs, good quality troops or just average units up against poor AH forces as you described above?

Good quality, but a small army with just about no replacements. I guess it wouldn't be far off to think of them like the BEF in a way (but not exactly of course). ;)