View Full Version : Formations without HQ
In some scenarios, there are formations which don’t have any HQ. I would have thought that it was a disadvantage, due to bad organization. But very well organized armies, the Israelis for example, can suffer this lack of HQ : their formations don’t have them.
So why some formations don’t have any HQ ? Is it an advantage or a disadvantage ? What is the better thing : with or without HQ ?
La Palice.
From what I can tell the biggest advantage of having an HQ, maybe the only one now that I think about it, is the 50% supply bonus. From what I have seen, most formations have supply distribution limited to 65% or so. If a unit is sitting next to a cooperative HQ that gives it the opportunity to draw 100% supply for a turn. Units in combat go through supply fairly quickly and low supply does seem to have a significant impact on combat effectiveness. So from my point of view not having a formation HQ is a disadvantage.
LanceRunolfsson
28 Apr 03, 18:26
There is actually a reason that I can not remember that it is better to not have an HQ in game terms. I would think some one on one of the design forums would be able to tell you.
Originally posted by Franco
From what I can tell the biggest advantage of having an HQ, maybe the only one now that I think about it, is the 50% supply bonus. From what I have seen, most formations have supply distribution limited to 65% or so. If a unit is sitting next to a cooperative HQ that gives it the opportunity to draw 100% supply for a turn. Units in combat go through supply fairly quickly and low supply does seem to have a significant impact on combat effectiveness. So from my point of view not having a formation HQ is a disadvantage.
http://www.wargamer.com/toaw/scenplay/strategy.htm
This was for TOAW 1.06 (and assuming he was correct):
3) Use the supply overlay- it tells you the MAXIMUM supply a non-moving unit next to the appropriate HQ can receive IF it happens to have a high Formation Supply rating. That means you almost always get less than that amount, if you move a unit and don’t end up near an HQ, the BEST you will do is a little less than half the number showing on the overlay.
In other words, you only get what is shown on the supply overlay if your unit:
- has not moved
- is next to a cooperative HQ
- has 100% formation supply distribution
Could probably test this out easy enough, but I don't care enough about supply to bother :).
There is actually a reason that I can not remember that it is better to not have an HQ in game terms. I would think some one on one of the design forums would be able to tell you.
The only one I can think of is that sometimes scenario designers make use of Command Groups, Supply Squads, etc.
If the command groups are taken out it puts the formation in reorg (I think) and if the HQ has supply squads, whatever final supply you receive is multiplied by the percentage of: Current Supply Squads / Maximum Supply Squads. In other words, your supply distribution can be further hampered (beyond formation supply efficiency) by losing supply squads.
HQs are also good for helping your units disengage. Arty units help in this respect also as do recon units. I always found this a very enjoyable part of TOAW. I love moving my commander in to help extricate his subordinates from a tough spot. Or 'covering' my unit's withdrawals with artillery barrages or scouting. I think though, that it is better if HQs have internal support for their own formations only, otherwise they are used unrealistically. In 'Storming Heaven' Their are German Corp and Army HQs. On principle I kept the corp HQs with their corps but there was no telling who the army HQs belonged to. At one point I was able to execute a classic evacuation of the Caucasus by stacking a motorized army HQ with each unit on the front line there. There are German army HQs in Europe Aflame that are totally out of control too IMHO. As to HQ drawbacks I think that if they are an HQ for a particular formation that formation can tend to go into reorg if the HQ is reorg or destroyed.
Eric Weider
28 Apr 03, 22:01
Originally posted by LaPalice
In some scenarios, there are formations which don’t have any HQ. I would have thought that it was a disadvantage, due to bad organization. But very well organized armies, the Israelis for example, can suffer this lack of HQ : their formations don’t have them.
So why some formations don’t have any HQ ? Is it an advantage or a disadvantage ? What is the better thing : with or without HQ ?
La Palice.
the reason there are no HQ units in israeli formations is that they are considered imbedded in each unit. each unit acts as though it is stacked with an HQ unit.
a white rabbit
29 Apr 03, 03:52
Originally posted by Keef
the reason there are no HQ units in israeli formations is that they are considered imbedded in each unit. each unit acts as though it is stacked with an HQ unit.
..a fair way of putting it, formations without HQ units don't suffer extra chances of going into re-org following the loss of the HQ unit..command groups also increase the re-org chance when lost from a formation..,
Thank you for the answers. So, the disadvantage is the lack of the supply bonus. But at the same time the formations don’t have the tendency to reorganize, because they don’t suffer C3I problems, due to the absence of HQ. I would have think the contrary. And if a formation lose its HQ, its units lose 50 % of their proficiency.
What are the criteria to decide that a formation doesn’t need any HQ ? And can I consider a formation without HQ as a high quality formation like the Israelis each time I see one ?
Hmm, if a formation doesn’t have a HQ, does that mean it doesn’t suffer electronic warfare or this sort of things ? I thought they was a electronic warfare in TOAW COW, but I can’t find the info, does it really exist ?
La Palice.
HQ's do help supply for units that they are stacked with and adjacent too. They also can be made brittle by the scenario designer adding supply squads and command squads - loss of supply squads affects the formation distribution, loss of command squads can lead to disorganisation.
I'd worried about those scenarios where formations were not given HQ's because of their superior command and control (like the Israeli's). I've been assuming that the scenario designer has compensated for the loss of supply advantages by increasing the basic formation supply efficiency, giving all the benefits but none of the disadvantages of HQ's. I'm afraid, though, that I've been too bone idle to check this!
a white rabbit
29 Apr 03, 04:19
Originally posted by LaPalice
What are the criteria to decide that a formation doesn’t need any HQ ? And can I consider a formation without HQ as a high quality formation like the Israelis each time I see one ?
Hmm, if a formation doesn’t have a HQ, does that mean it doesn’t suffer electronic warfare or this sort of things ? I thought they was a electronic warfare in TOAW COW, but I can’t find the info, does it really exist ?
La Palice.
..wish i knew, i think all formations should have HQ's, with extra ones for the high quality formations..,
..the electronic warfare level's set in the FormEd during design, a very useful tool for adding extra "technical re-org" chances (tech re-org for me is formations/units that go re-org but can still dig-in)..,
Originally posted by a white rabbit
..wish i knew, i think all formations should have HQ's, with extra ones for the high quality formations..,
..the electronic warfare level's set in the FormEd during design, a very useful tool for adding extra "technical re-org" chances (tech re-org for me is formations/units that go re-org but can still dig-in)..,
Yes, I see that sometime. Some of my units can’t move or attack because they are disorganized, but they can dig in. But it’s not always the case. Sometime they are completely disorganized and can do nothing.
La Palice.
Originally posted by Bruce
I'd worried about those scenarios where formations were not given HQ's because of their superior command and control (like the Israeli's). I've been assuming that the scenario designer has compensated for the loss of supply advantages by increasing the basic formation supply efficiency, giving all the benefits but none of the disadvantages of HQ's. I'm afraid, though, that I've been too bone idle to check this!
Norm Koger didn’t give HQ to Israeli formations in his Middle East 73 and 2000 scenarios. And I found that in other scenarios, Bastogne 44 or Kasserine 43 for example.
The Israeli force supply level is 30 in ME 73 and 50 in ME 2000. And formation supply efficiency is 100.
La Palice.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.