Use of HQ units

[steve55]

I was wondering what player's views were on the use of HQ units. I tend to find them more difficult to disrupt than I would have thought.

I have played PBEM games where my opponents used their HQs in the front line to bolster defending stacks. It can take an awful lot to disrupt three or four A morale HQ units and seems a bit ahistorical (although I imagine there were cases where HQ units did man the front line out of desperation, but still...)

[Steel God]

The use of an HQ in the front lines is of limited value since they don't project a ZOC, but in the right situation, or a desperate situation, can usually provide assistance to a subordinate unit especially if the subordinate is disrupted and the HQ fresh and un-disrupted. If you are playing a scenario of any length it will probably bite you in the butt down the road as the HQ, if mauled in combat, will be less effective in helping you reconstitute the division as a whole once it comes off the line. I have done it as the situation warrants, but don't consider it something done lightly as I don't consider units of any kind as throw away. I have managed to salvage many units down to single digits in manpower and had that unit reenter the fray down the road as a combat effective force once again (i.e. 70% strength or better). In short scenarios of 20 or 30 turns, every counter is a pawn to be used and discarded (and why I shy away from those games).

[ChrisAd]

This requires a lot of rework. And not only for HQs.
I had too often faced HQs performing better in combat than line units.
And I agree, a "smart" player on the defence will use them to slow down the attack.
Also the number of times a decimated unit of less than 30-40 soldiers) performs a Thermopile defence against even full stack.
In reality in 99% cases they would be immediatelly overrun. They might still do some damage but would simply be passed through as they would not be able to disrupt movements on a 2km line (ZoC).
The ZoC is not limited by the buildings as it should be.

[steve55]

Thanks guys, I appreciate your views. Personally I feel that HQs are too resilient when attacked. I played a game recently where A morale HQ units survived for literally days in the front line without disrupting, when stacked with other combat units. That seems ahistorical to me.

[Elxaime]

This actually raises a question I have often wondered at. Usually, all other things being equal, a defending stack comprised solely of disrupted units will retreat when assaulted. But what if every combat unit is disrupted but there is an undisrupted HQ unit? Does the undisrupted HQ unit function to reduce the chance of retreat of the otherwise fully disrupted defending stack? The HQ unit, by itself, has no combat value. Welcome any answers.

[Typhoon]

I don’t know the answer but always assumed the HQ would need to be disrupted to with out that in most cases I would be put off assaulting

[LordDeadwood]

This actually raises a question I have often wondered at. Usually, all other things being equal, a defending stack comprised solely of disrupted units will retreat when assaulted. But what if every combat unit is disrupted but there is an undisrupted HQ unit? Does the undisrupted HQ unit function to reduce the chance of retreat of the otherwise fully disrupted defending stack? The HQ unit, by itself, has no combat value. Welcome any answers.

They have no SA/HA values, but I'm pretty sure they have an assault value. And yes, I would think that an undisrupted HQ unit in a stack of disrupted combat units would prevent a retreat, if they themselves are not disrupted as a result of the assault.

[Elxaime]

This actually raises a question I have often wondered at. Usually, all other things being equal, a defending stack comprised solely of disrupted units will retreat when assaulted. But what if every combat unit is disrupted but there is an undisrupted HQ unit? Does the undisrupted HQ unit function to reduce the chance of retreat of the otherwise fully disrupted defending stack? The HQ unit, by itself, has no combat value. Welcome any answers.

They have no SA/HA values, but I'm pretty sure they have an assault value. And yes, I would think that an undisrupted HQ unit in a stack of disrupted combat units would prevent a retreat, if they themselves are not disrupted as a result of the assault.

Thanks. Then it seems there is real value in having a HQ unit of high quality in a stack, as it can add to the number of units that need to be disrupted to allow a successful assault.

[ComradeP]

Defenders in an assault also use the quality level of the unit with the highest quality, which might be an HQ.

In order for that benefit to apply, I don't think it matters if the HQ has an assault value, as that should only matter for calculating losses to the attacker.

[Steel God]

I get that folks seem upset that an HQ can resist an attack, but I would also like to point out that certain HQs (certainly regiment and brigade level, and probably division level in the Allied Armies at least) are not just a bunch of generals and clerks but also customarily have a security component, maybe as much as a company of infantry for that purpose. So I think the designers are on the right path in saying this unit gets no ZOC or HA/SA value because we don't want HQs attacking people, but they can and should be able to defend themselves. Can this be abused? You're damn straight, but then again - - please refer to my signature block for JT's time honored answer to requests to make players not abuse his game mechanics.