France '40: Army Group A

[Sir John Cope]

Unless I'm missing something (always a distinct possibility), German Army Group A HQ is "off map" for the entirety of the full campaign scenarios (or at least in #0510_01B4, which I'm currently playing). 

First question: why? 

Second question: apart from making it more likely that its subordinate army HQs will be out of command in any given turn, what effect does this have on game mechanics?

[Green]

It is not unusual for a higher HQ to be off the map. There are no effects on game mechanics that I am aware of, other than for the Command Test and the consequences that flow from it.

If the Army Group HQ is not on the map, the test starts at the next level down. Every test other than the first in the chain has a second chance to pass if it fails the first test, provided the HQ it reports to has passed its own test.

So apart from the first test, the others rapidly converge in terms of the probability of a pass. The third HQ down the chain has much the same chance as the the one before it, as they both get two chances.

The second test is not usually required. When it is, there is a high probability that its superior HQ has passed its own test. The ripple effect disappears rapidly.

Here are some numbers comparing the pass %'s for the two situations. They are based on a Global Supply of 80% and assuming a second test is passed 50% of the time, when needed. 


Unit                  Pass %                  Pass %                    Difference
xxxxx               80.0%                   off map                         n/a
 xxxx                88.0%                     80.0%                        8.0%
  xxx                 88.8%                     88.0%                        0.8%
   xx                  88.9%                     88.8%                       0.1%
    x                   88.9%                     88.9%                       0.0%

So, in this case the primary impact is on the Army HQ's, as you say. At corps level it is already less that 1%. The overall impact on the game would be slight.

I am unsure why the Army Group HQ is off map but there is probably a good reason.

[Sir John Cope]

Thanks Green! My question arose from discovering the "detached" highlight option, and then realising all of Army Group A's subordinate armies were detached (because, obviously, Army Group A doesn't exist).

I trawled through the manual looking for the effect of this, came up with nothing, and thought I'd better check the wisdom here anyway. There's a bit about indirect fire and air units - and if you're using your Army HQs as spotters, then best of luck to you. Replacements are affected by detachment, but only from the unit's immediate superior, so it matters very little in the case of Army HQs (if your Army HQ takes casualties, don't expect the new clerk-typists to arrive instantly, I suppose?). As far as I can tell, apart from the minute difference in command you illuminate, it really doesn't matter.

Still, just out of curiosity, I would like to know why it was decided not to represent AG A on-map. Oh well.

[Mr Grumpy]

If the answer is not in this titles designer notes then only the designer(s) will know why that decision was made.

[Sir John Cope]

If the answer is not in this titles designer notes then only the designer(s) will know why that decision was made.

Yes - so unless Mike Prucha happens to stop by, I'll just have to find a way to carry on with curiosity unbated. I'll try to be strong.  

[Green]

As far as I can tell, apart from the minute difference in command you illuminate, it really doesn't matter.

Correct. The Army HQ's being detached is of no consequence.

[Mike Prucha]

Unless I'm missing something (always a distinct possibility), German Army Group A HQ is "off map" for the entirety of the full campaign scenarios (or at least in #0510_01B4, which I'm currently playing). 

First question: why? 

Second question: apart from making it more likely that its subordinate army HQs will be out of command in any given turn, what effect does this have on game mechanics?

Hello,

This is a known issue that has been corrected and will eventually be included in an updated when all is ready.

-Mike Prucha