HQ tank units - How do you use them?

[Dog Soldier]

There maybe other units in the game that are puzzling people how to get the most out of them. I thought I would start this type of a discussion with this thread about an obvious choice, The armor units with one or two tanks labeled as HQ units.

Love them or leave them?

Dog Soldier

[ComradeP]

I'm not a big fan of the way the small units are handled, also considering the variability of the system when it comes to tank vs. tank results.

The player is more or less encouraged to use 1 or 2 vehicle units in ways that don't match their historical role, nor is there an incentive to keep companies together in a historical manner. This is a problem many wargames have: there are no areas of operation, so all units can be moved around as the player pleases without a decline in combat efficiency provided they're in range of an HQ that actually functions as an HQ (if such a unit is present).

The opportunity fire doesn't take unit size into account, so you can use the small units as tripwires or cheap recon units to spot defences or unit concentrations.

The small units paired with the variability in tank vs. tank combat results (which can mean an HQ unit destroys more tanks than a 10 tank unit) and the way the air combat system was converted (losses seem higher somehow, even though AA is 4 times less effective at range than in PzC, the variability in losses where low attack value units can still kill a higher defence value unit fairly regularly is a problem in my opinion).

Though I appreciate the extra detail, they can function in the cheap way I feared they would.

[Xaver]

I dont like them, the best use is have them out of action because die to fast and well they are unable to offer something.

For me problem is in how works AT combat and well i dont find the point in have a HQ unit with 1 tank that doesnt offer a bonus to the units it command.

If they improve AT combat model and can add some bonus to this company HQ units... i think for example in one feature from EAW series... there is a defensive bonus that units receive when are behind a wall (you see a + un the unit quality) well, why not do the same here??? i refer an armored HQ have a "tactical command range" you control in the PDT, units inside this command area receive a bonus in firepower (or if they change AT combat in the chance to destroy a tank), defense and assault... the idea is if the command unit is near it can coordinate units and improve more their performance, range needs be short, maybe 2 hexes for soviets and 3-4 in german tanks... this made you join more your tanks as soviet and split them more as german.

But first is improve the AT combat model.

I am curious about the next PzB title... i dont expect another east title... if we talk about a west title in certain battle in 1944 armor has lower impact and infantry VS infantry is more important... but a title with more armor value... like in north Africa... well all depends in the changes in AT combat model, as is now engine i think is better for infantry VS infantry actions with limited armor presence and more as support for infantry.

[ComradeP]

I'd be in favour of a move towards making infantry vs. infantry fights (excluding bunker busting) longer and less lethal (including infantry receiving less casualties from good artillery, which can be overpowered currently) and tank vs. tank fights shorter and more lethal.

[Xaver]

Maybe infantry VS infantry needs more fatigue results and AT VS AT more kills... well, i refer to tanks, i understand kill an AT gun is harder, you need a direct hit or a big HE close impact but when are tanks in a combat... well, 1 hour of combat is a lot of time.

The problem in infantry is you cant recover casualties... as are in Tiller games they are abstract, you have not only KIA, you have MIA, WIA, POW or simple runners... maybe in PzB a certain % of infantry units casualties could be recovered... lets see... 50% are not kills or severe wounded soldiers, the other 50% you can find 25% and you can rally or light wounded... 10-20% if an infantry unit suffer 30% casualties you can recover 3-6% if units win more fatigue and need be more time resting is not a bad idea give them a little improvement in strenght.

Arty is not the main problem, is more rocket units... they are to powerfull and allways hit the target... maybe rocket units need something like level bombers in PzC... or a PDT value to made more random their hits, in 250m there is a lot of terrain to hit.

[Jeff Conner]

One of my complaints about them is that they are way too easy to confuse with battalion HQs as they are generally the same size and both have HQ markings. Since they don't serve any purpose as a HQ, such as calling artillery or rallying troops, wouldn't it be just as easy to create a platoon in the OOB that has one more tank than authorized so that you can combine your platoons into a full strength company? Then you wouldn't have to deal with all the extra single tank counters.

[Strela]

One of my complaints about them is that they are way too easy to confuse with battalion HQs as they are generally the same size and both have HQ markings. Since they don't serve any purpose as a HQ, such as calling artillery or rallying troops, wouldn't it be just as easy to create a platoon in the OOB that has one more tank than authorized so that you can combine your platoons into a full strength company? Then you wouldn't have to deal with all the extra single tank counters.

Hi Jeff,

That won't work unfortunately. If you were creating a 10 tank Soviet company with three platoons (two of three vehicles and one of four) you would need to have two different components and they couldn't combine.

Alternatively if you created three platoons of four and reduced by two vehicles the unit would permanently show as under strength - though it isn't.

You could create two platoons of five vehicles, but that would get a penalty for having less than three components.

Creating a single ten vehicle company counter sort of defeats the purpose.

I'm happy to hear suggestions....

David

[ComradeP]

I guess having the company as the smallest Soviet tank unit would also not be an option? It works well in a game like Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm, but that's a different scale and time from what you're simulating here.

It also wouldn't remove the problem for the Germans.

Combining the company HQ's into a unit at battalion level would also look odd, though at least it would be more like a platoon sized unit.

It's probably in the manual or it was explained somewhere, but how are infantry company command sections abstracted? Are they simply added to the manpower total for the combined unit (and thus to the totals for each platoon)?

[Xaver]

I think full companies has the problem of size... at this scale 3-5 tanks units is ok... the problem is how they can work when are extended in terrain... this is why i think HQ at company level needs add some bonus to the units under their command when are in range (radio range) something to simulate how germans with less tanks adapt better and faster to the changes in battlefield and were more effective.

Maybe if they change the AT combat this is not necesary... i feel the problem is that AT combat is to PzC when needs be more "Steel Panthers" for example yesterday i test a T-34/76 charge VS 2 Tigers in WinSP (and in the original SP) and the company was destroyed... as soviet need use terrain and try to close range ASAP, in PzB you dont need use terrain or diferent tactic, simple join 9 T-34/76 in a stack and rush 2 Tigers... you can lose the HQ unit and maybe 1 T-34 more but trade them for 2 Tigers is a big deal.

[Dog Soldier]

Some very good points made so far in this thread.

I was thinking along the lines of an adjustment to German quality for the armor HQ units with a small range and LOS to the fighting. The small range and LOS requirement would be to prevent the HQ units from being 'hidden' in some corner of the map. They would have to be in contact with the enemy as is their company. If the HQ unit is lost or moves where it cannot see the fight then the German advantage of coordination by radio is lost resulting in the morale of the company units drooping from 'A' to 'B'.

Russian units do not follow this as the Russians were not fully equipped with radios. They followed a set plan given to them before the engagement. This resulted in the less flexible Russian tactical doctrine. Being 'C' quality for Guards and 'D' for regular troops is tough enough for the Soviets.

I am still noodling this idea. One gamey result could be undue firepower being directed at the HQ unit. Maybe the label can be coded so only the side the unit belongs to can see it on the counter. Kind of an addition to the FOW to not know which 'X' size unit is the enemy's HQ tank unit. Not perfect as players might be able to deduce which unit is the HQ after a few turns of contact. But better than the big stamp they currently have for the opposition to single them out.

Just an idea.

I know there are more active players out there to be heard from. Hope they see this thread and come forward with their game experiences.

Dog Soldier