Can somebody give the run down on headquarters in this game, please? There seems to be huge difference compared to HOI2 and 3. Do they still give bonuses and double the units allowed in battle without penalties?
-
We will be taking the forums down for scheduled maintenance on Tuesday, May 22nd 2023 at around 8:00 CDT / 13:00 UTC for up to an hour hour.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
As far as I know they :
- Give combat bonus (event probability), especially when you have researched doctrines
- Double the number of units you can command with no extra stacking penalty
- Improve supply efficiency
- Give combat bonus (event probability), especially when you have researched doctrines
- Double the number of units you can command with no extra stacking penalty
- Improve supply efficiency
Still trying to decide: is it better to keep the HQ untis detached and separate from the fighting forces (thus keeping them directly out of any offensive), or attached to other divisions and in the fray? As far as I can tell, it looks like it might be advantageous (only slightly) to keep them detached and acting more as a "support" unit.
I always use 3 division stacks. 3 infantry, 3 armour, 3 motorized etc. I use HQs in a stack with two infantry divisions. This way, I find it easier to control my army.
What is the advantage of stacking the HQ with 2 infantry, and how does it make it "easier" to control the army?
My theory behind detaching the HQs is based on the fact that A) HQs are piss-poor offensive units and only take up a valuable slot in the stack (for purposes of the penalty calculation) when attacking, and B) that the HQs can still confer all of their related bonuses as long as they are adjacent to the province where their bonuses are needed (hence, placing them in the rear with the gear). I always brigade them with AA, however, as they seem to be a favorite target of the enemy's airforce.
The only argument I can really see so far for including them in my stacks (at least my offensive stacks), is sheer laziness on my part; I don't want to take the time to move them separately and synch them with my advances. The reason for my original question relates to the fact that I am hoping I might be missing some obvious benefit to stacking them in with the regular troops. I pesonally have not been able to see a real advantage to this, and think that it may even be slightly disadvantageous for the above mentioned reasons.
I agree with makif, adding 2 infantry to the HQ unit. This allows you perfectly to follow the 3-division steps of the leaders (3-6-9-12).
Another advantage of using HQs directly in the attack is that they arrive simultaneously with the other attacking units in the counquered province and are able to support the following attack afterwards or defend against counterattacks.
Another advantage of using HQs directly in the attack is that they arrive simultaneously with the other attacking units in the counquered province and are able to support the following attack afterwards or defend against counterattacks.
I get keeping the stack to factors of 3, but other than not having to synchronize the arrival of the HQ with the attacking units, I'm not sure how much sense it makes to include them in an actual attack.
Is there a good argument for including them in an offensive stack beyond the "laziness" of not needing to coordinate the HQ movment with the offensive? HQs move much more quickly than infantry and, after an initial offensive by motorized/armored units, can arrive even before the occupying infantry troops do.
To keep up with the armored/motorized/mechanized units, I could see an argument for including an HQ in those stacks, but not so much for slower moving (especially brigaded) infantry whose role is mainly supporting attacks, mopping up after the mobilized forces, and holding gains made on the front.
Adding a couple of infantry divisions to an HQ "stack" would confer a small defensive advantage, but I have seen lone HQ divisions (brigaded with AA) hold up against a determined attack from 6+ divisions for several days with minimal losses; plenty of time for support to arrive.
If the only advantage to adding an HQ into a stack is to eliminate the need to coordinate arrival times, then I would argue that the disadvantages of doing so outweigh this single "benefit". Again, it is possible I am missing something something; that there is more than this, which is why I originally posed my question.
Can anyone explain the benefit to including HQs in offensive infantry stacks beyond the mere convenience of automatically synchronizing movements?
Is there a good argument for including them in an offensive stack beyond the "laziness" of not needing to coordinate the HQ movment with the offensive? HQs move much more quickly than infantry and, after an initial offensive by motorized/armored units, can arrive even before the occupying infantry troops do.
To keep up with the armored/motorized/mechanized units, I could see an argument for including an HQ in those stacks, but not so much for slower moving (especially brigaded) infantry whose role is mainly supporting attacks, mopping up after the mobilized forces, and holding gains made on the front.
Adding a couple of infantry divisions to an HQ "stack" would confer a small defensive advantage, but I have seen lone HQ divisions (brigaded with AA) hold up against a determined attack from 6+ divisions for several days with minimal losses; plenty of time for support to arrive.
If the only advantage to adding an HQ into a stack is to eliminate the need to coordinate arrival times, then I would argue that the disadvantages of doing so outweigh this single "benefit". Again, it is possible I am missing something something; that there is more than this, which is why I originally posed my question.
Can anyone explain the benefit to including HQs in offensive infantry stacks beyond the mere convenience of automatically synchronizing movements?
yeah, I don't want to see my HQs on the ground and deal with them seperately, this reminds me micromanagement of HoI3 which I hate. Triangle stacks also make it easier to see and check my stacking limit in specific geography. For example, if I have 8X3 infantry divisions and HQ attacking a province, then one of my divisions will take stacking penalty. If I remove one of triangle stacks, then I will have 2 divisions in combat.
That's just what I mean, you should not attack with the HQ unit. It's practically worthless as an a ttacker and will contribute almost nothing to the actual damage of the attack.
How does one division take a stacking penalty? Do you mean a Corp or an Army?
And a command penalty is totally separate from the stacking penalty. For 24 divisions (your 8x3 infantry example), you would need to have a Field Marshall leading the attack to avoid just the command limit penalty. The stacking penalty would still apply and would compound for every unit over 3 in the attack, regardless of who is leading the assault. So it doesn't matter if the HQ is included in a "trinagle" stack or not, the stacking penalty is driven by the number of divisions, not the number of stacks.
well if your HQ is present, then your units will not take stacking penalty. But then you have to use two FMs. One for the HQ, to obtain 24 stacking limit and the other one to lead the attacking units.
I couldn't make my calculation above clearly;
1) 23 infantry + 1 HQ ( 8 x3) no, stacking penalty there, HQ moves with units.
2) 24 infantry + 1 HQ ( 8 x 3 again, HQ is seperate)
In second case, if you attack with HQ, one of your divisions will have 75 percent penalty. However, if your HQ doesn't join attack, then you will need another FM to lead the attack to avoid stacking penalty. So, you will need twice as much FM.
I think you are confusing the stacking penalty with the command limit penalty. If you attack with more than 3 divisions, you will receive a compounding stacking penalty regardless of how how many FMs and HQs you have - even if you have 100 of each. The stacking penalty happens no matter what.
In your second scenario, you would still only need 1 FM to command the 24 divisions. The proximity of the HQ (which could be commanded by a mere general) would confer the doubling bonus for the command limit of your FM. And the HQ could sit safely in the rear and not participate in the fight where it would, quite arguably, do no good whatsoever other than eat up fuel and supplies at a much higher rate.
Again, I am advocating that one should not attack with an HQ - that it should be detached from the main fighting force and remain nearby to confer its bonuses. Why would anyone want to attack with such an ineffective unit? Why burn up the fuel and supplies at a much higher rate when you are getting virtually no return in terms of damage caused to the enemy?
And again, you would still only need one FM in either scenario. An HQ can be just as effectively commanded by a lowly 4 star general. Putting a FM in command of the HQ unit confers you no extra advantages over putting a 4 star general in charge of it.
yeah, you are right, I confused stacking penalty with over-command penalty. Stacking penalty always happens as you said. You have to use multiple attacks to reduce it.
for 2 FM, you are right again. I didn't think that you can also place a general in charge of HQ. For more fuel thing, won't you use more fuel for those single HQs when you send them forward ?
then my points are;
1) you will micromanage these single HQs by using them seperately. You may also lose your command capacity bonus for forward units when trying to breakthrough enemy lines.
2) you will waste at least a general on single HQs.
I think that the most important disadvantage of HQs in stacks is one less division in combat. instead of HQ, you can use more effective division in combat. This is true if you are using your capacity at maximum.
Yes, absolutely. But the most fuel and supplies are used when attacking. Not a huge difference when you are only considering one unit, but why burn through scarce resources any quicker than you have to?
I guess you and I have a different definition of micromanagement. More efficient and logical usage of my military units does not seem like micromanagement to me. Using the same logic, one could argue that factoring in such things as terrain, weather, and enemy force composition and leadership are also micromanagement. Sometimes I think the word is used as a substitute to describe any startegy or thought process that goes beyond simply building a lot of troops and charging into the enemy headlong.
To me, micromanagement would be worrying about details below the divisional or brigade level. That's why armies have officers below the rank of general; to take care of the these more mundane (but absolutely critical) details. I don't want to spend my time dealing with the entire supply chain all the way down to Corporal Smith at the Company level distributing rations and ammo. Nor do I want to concern myself with troop placement on the actual field of battle (way too time consuming and would make a game like any in the HoI genre unplayable).
But I absolutely want to concern myself with efficient application and usage of resources and units at the macro level; including where my HQs are and how they are used in a rolling front attack.
As far as losing my command capacity bonus for my forward units when trying to break through enemy lines, this is the one time I can see an advantage to stacking an HQ in with combat units for an attack. If I am going to be doing an encircling action or a deep thrust into enemy territory with my highly mobile units (i.e. armor, mech, and motorized), I can see the wisdom of attaching an HQ or two onto one or more of the attacking stacks. But for slow-moving infantry, I can see no reason why it would really ever be A) necessary, and B) advantageous.
There are "wastable" generals; think Heye, von Bohm-Ermolli (actually a FM, but a fairly lame one), Liebmann, Brandt, von Amsberg, von Bergmann, von dem Bussche-Ippenburg, von Epp, and von Esebeck. Hell, if you need to, Germany has plenty of skill level 2 Lt. Generals that can be bumped up to full General solely for the purpose of commanding HQs (personally, I have only needed to do this a couple of times). And you're not really wasting them so much as sacrificing a low-skill, non-experienced "admin-type" to confer major benefits onto your fighting forces. A waste would be using that particular ilk of general to lead combat troops into battle. Armies need pencil pushers as well as warriors.
I agree, sending a mostly ineffective and useless attacker into the fray in favor of something with far greater "punch" does not make a lot of sense to me.
For me,one of the most important reasons not to like HOI3 is HQs. I hate to send them forward one by one after my armies advanced in enemy territory. I don't like this in HOI2 as well. I like to play quickly and don't want to send HQs from behind after each thrust. The situation is even worse in big operations like Barbarossa. Of course, this is just my taste, not logical argument against seperate HQs. In fact, even in the manual, it is written that HQs shouldn't involve in battles.
You can take a look to my list of wishes. May be my suggestion can reduce the micromanagement related to HQ.
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum...es-for-AoD&p=12228674&viewfull=1#post12228674
It is the post number 725.
I guess that, more than anything, I am surprised by what people refer to as micromanagement.
To me, a lot of what is being refered to as micromanagement is what war is actually about, at least at the high-level being represented in the HoI genre. War is a complex and complicated affair, and should involve much more than cranking out units and charging headlong into the enemy. That sort of strategy will lose you a war everytime - guaranteed.
At the sametime, I do not want to be caught up in so much detail that the game becomes unenjoyable and/or unplayable for all practical purposes.
For me, micromanagement is having to deal with anything much below the divisional level; that's what officers below Major General and NCOs are for - the trickle-down details of supply and administration. Proper utilization of HQs, to me, seems an essential component of strategy and campaign management.
But I do see how opinions will differ here. To many in these forums, it appears that anything short of charging into battle and mixing it up with the enemy is micromanagement. But that simple approach to warfare leaves so much out of what it means to be a nation at war. After all, HoI is a grand strategy game and, by definition, should involve a lot more than producing units and sending them to the front to fight.
Perhaps the solution would be to reserve campaign games for those who enjoy all of the nuances and complexities of managing a nation at war (at least at the divisional level and above), and use the battle scenarios for those who enjoy the more "churn and burn" approach and who only want to be in the fray.
Personally, I prefer the element of sound strategy and management techniques involved in leading an entire nation in a long-haul war.
To me, a lot of what is being refered to as micromanagement is what war is actually about, at least at the high-level being represented in the HoI genre. War is a complex and complicated affair, and should involve much more than cranking out units and charging headlong into the enemy. That sort of strategy will lose you a war everytime - guaranteed.
At the sametime, I do not want to be caught up in so much detail that the game becomes unenjoyable and/or unplayable for all practical purposes.
For me, micromanagement is having to deal with anything much below the divisional level; that's what officers below Major General and NCOs are for - the trickle-down details of supply and administration. Proper utilization of HQs, to me, seems an essential component of strategy and campaign management.
But I do see how opinions will differ here. To many in these forums, it appears that anything short of charging into battle and mixing it up with the enemy is micromanagement. But that simple approach to warfare leaves so much out of what it means to be a nation at war. After all, HoI is a grand strategy game and, by definition, should involve a lot more than producing units and sending them to the front to fight.
Perhaps the solution would be to reserve campaign games for those who enjoy all of the nuances and complexities of managing a nation at war (at least at the divisional level and above), and use the battle scenarios for those who enjoy the more "churn and burn" approach and who only want to be in the fray.
Personally, I prefer the element of sound strategy and management techniques involved in leading an entire nation in a long-haul war.
What do we mean as micromanagement? We mean more detail. Hoi3 has more micromanagement than Hoi2 because the corps/division is the operational unit at the first and the army/corps is the operational unit at the second. The smaller the operational unit the more provinces you need. Too much micromanagement can turn the game slower and boring. At Hearts of Iron series you take the role of a head of the state not the role of every single major general. If you do that you should need much more time and to repeat the same orders again and again. Even Hoi3 let the player to give orders directly to fronts, army groups, armies or corps, instead of giving the directly to divisions. It is not strange to see a group of units of an army size at a province of the size of Hoi2 vanilla map, take a look at Stalingrad in 1942, for example. When planning your strategy, you should think about a large front of several hundreds of kilometres wide and to manage properly the resources of your country. That is what I understand as a grand strategy game.
How to manage properly utilization of HQs? I think that Hoi3's chain command is more realistic that Hoi2's one. That's why I make a suggestion at the wishes list.