Marine Company

[Pedroig]

No, the chance of your commander dying in combat is not lower with multiple hqs.
Why it can be that? This chance is determined by the size of HQ element, this commander is on, divided by overall size of formation being under fire. Another HQ element isn't some special fire-bait for HQ-hunters, because there are no such hunters in this version of Aurora, so any spare HQ is worse fire-bait, than any combat element of the same size. And those combat elements do damage in the same time, while spare HQ just do nothing exept roleplaying.

You need to see the forest for the trees...

Having 2 HQ elements within the same formation means that if one of them is lost, they don't drop out of the command chain, the other one "steps in" and "takes command".  It is not about being bait, it is about redundancy.  So they do more than "just roleplaying" they are actually quite "gamey" versus "roleplay".

[consiefe]

No, the chance of your commander dying in combat is not lower with multiple hqs.
Why it can be that? This chance is determined by the size of HQ element, this commander is on, divided by overall size of formation being under fire. Another HQ element isn't some special fire-bait for HQ-hunters, because there are no such hunters in this version of Aurora, so any spare HQ is worse fire-bait, than any combat element of the same size. And those combat elements do damage in the same time, while spare HQ just do nothing exept roleplaying.

I beg to differ. The more HQ unit you have, less possible an HQ command chain gets broken due to being wiped out. Making the HQ command non-combat class (if it doesn't have any kind of weapon) helps a lot. If you make two slots HQ unit one of them being bombardment weapons, you may put your HQ as a support unit for one of the FL units.

I tried both and got much bettet results than just putting one HQ or putting them in front lines.

[serger]

If you mean that bonuses of superior commanders will apply, if there is still non-destroyed HQ in the chain - no, IIRC they will not. Bonuses of superior commanders applied only if there is uninterrupted chain of commanders (with proper ranks), not HQs only.

Yes, as I wrote above, if you have no RP rule to not teleportate commanders from some other place inside ongoing combat to replace killed officer - well, yes, then you have an option to replace killed commander effectively. But it's exploit, because IRL in this case replacement commander must be inferior-rank commander from the same formation, not a new-assigned commander of the same rank as just killed one was. And in Aurora you cannot assign inferior-rank commander in the place of their killed superior commander and rely on their bonuses and bonus-transmission, because this new commander must have proper rank, not a lower one, to apply their bonuses and bonus-transmission. There is no temporary promotion mechanism in this version of Aurora (IIRC, it was sugested, but I don't know if Steve have a plan to implement it), so no "step in", if you cannot manually find, promote and reassign one of subordinates, that have proper Ground Combat Command rating (I think it will be rare case: such commanders normally have their promotions at non-combat time, not awaiting their superior KIA to replace them). So, exploit or suffer.

[consiefe]

Having 2 HQ elements within the same formation means that if one of them is lost, they don't drop out of the command chain, the other one "steps in" and "takes command".  It is not about being bait, it is about redundancy.  So they do more than "just roleplaying" they are actually quite "gamey" versus "roleplay".

If you mean that bonuses of superior commanders will apply, if there is still non-destroyed HQ in the chain - no, their will not. Bonuses of superior commanders applied only if there is uninterrupted chain of commanders (with proper ranks), not HQs only.

Yes, as I wrote above, if you have no RP rule to not teleportate commanders from some other place inside ongoing combat to replace killed officer - well, yes, then you have an option to replace killed commander effectively. But it's exploit, because IRL in this case replacement commander must be inferior-rank commander from the same formation, not a new-assigned commander of the same rank as just killed one was. And in Aurora you cannot assign inferior-rank commander in the place of their killed superior commander and rely on their bonuses and bonus-transmission, because this new commander must have proper rank, not a lower one, to apply their bonuses and bonus-transmission. There is no temporary promotion mechanism in this version of Aurora (IIRC, it was sugested, but I don't know if Steve have a plan to implement it), so no "step in", if you cannot manually find, promote and reassign one of subordinates, that have proper Ground Combat Command rating (I think it will be rare case: such commanders normally have their promotions at non-combat time, not awaiting their superior KIA to replace them). So, exploit or suffer.

It seems to me you're confusing a HQ element with a HQ formation. There is no need to put say 2x 100k HQ formation to a 100k army (though it would have very secure command chain it's redundant due to waste of tonnage) But to a HQ formation, when you you put, say 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command with one commander but it has 20x HP thus it's not possible to knock that commander off the chain unless you wipe out all HQ elements.

[serger]

That's new to me that it's possible to put 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command.
I think it's obvious exploit even if it will work, because there will be absulutely no need to research large HQs - such stacks will be much more redundant, being practically free in terms of research points.

[serger]

Steve:

In addition, if the largest HQ in a formation has a rating less than the formation size, the effectiveness of the formation commander's bonuses will be reduced by (HQ rating / formation size).

[consiefe]

That's new to me that it's possible to put 20x HQ element that counts as one HQ command.
I think it's obvious exploit even if it will work, because there will be absulutely no need to research large HQs - such stacks will be much more redundant, being practically free in terms of research points.

Problem is, when you add more HQ elements to a HQ formation, the elements beyond one don't contribute to the HQ limit. That's why you have to research upper limits. The elements beyond one are only good for making HQ formation bigger HP. Think of it as one match against ten matches. I personally use between 10 and 20 HQ elements when I design a HQ formation.

[Pedroig]

If you mean that bonuses of superior commanders will apply, if there is still non-destroyed HQ in the chain - no, IIRC they will not. Bonuses of superior commanders applied only if there is uninterrupted chain of commanders (with proper ranks), not HQs only.

Ok let's see if this can be explained, assume:

TOE:
x1 Division - 100k
x4 Battalion - 20k
x12 Company - 5k

Every HQ unit will have a ground commander assigned to it.  Every commander will be the lowest rank possible for the HQ rating needed.  Typical HQ outlay would be as follows:

x1 Division HQ with let's call it a General as commander
x4 Battalion HQ each with a Lieutenant Colonel as a commander
x12 Company HQ's each with a Captain as a commander

Now if we were to add another HQ to each of those elements, and replicate the ranks, the chain of command is maintained if any single HQ unit is lost, and thus their commander is lost, there is a "spare".  It gets tricky if there can be an overlap at any level as for a commander bonus to "filter down" it requires uninterrupted descending rank chain.  So if at Battalion there were Colonels and a Colonel was the "spare" Division commander, then their bonuses would not filter down.

To break it down to elements an example would be:
1st to 12th Motorized Rifle Company:
HQ -5000 cap Primary Captain
HQ -5000 cap "Spare" Captain (Possibly a Commissar)
5 Log Infantry
90 PW Infantry
5 CAP Infantry
5 LAV Infantry
20 LV w HCAP Transports

This is in essence the same theory/application of having a secondary bridge on a ship, so that if the main bridge is hit there is still command structure and control in place.

[serger]

Problem is, when you add more HQ elements to a HQ formation, the elements beyond one don't contribute to the HQ limit. That's why you have to research upper limits. The elements beyond one are only good for making HQ formation bigger HP. Think of it as one match against ten matches. I personally use between 10 and 20 HQ elements when I design a HQ formation.

Well, now I understand you.
That's obviously an exploit, even if it works as you wish.

[consiefe]

Problem is, when you add more HQ elements to a HQ formation, the elements beyond one don't contribute to the HQ limit. That's why you have to research upper limits. The elements beyond one are only good for making HQ formation bigger HP. Think of it as one match against ten matches. I personally use between 10 and 20 HQ elements when I design a HQ formation.

Well, now I understand you.
That's obviously an exploit, even if it works as you wish.

Why does it have to be an exploit? If you want more hard-to-kill armored anti-tank brigade you put more anti-tanks in it. It's the same with HQs. It doesn't gift you more command limits, its just a trade-off between tonnage and HQ unit health.

[serger]

HQ -5000 cap Primary Captain
HQ -5000 cap "Spare" Captain (Possibly a Commissar)

If it's about some new game mechanics for Aurora, that's a thing I cannot do!
In the current version there are no spare commanders, no mechanism to assign 2 different commanders of the same rank for one formation, nor some common replacement commander of proper (the same or higher) rank.

If it's about some RP rule to have spare HQs with spare commanders, to manually replace killed commanders to re-establish effective command chain... well, thats not a question of just filtering superior commanders' bonuses downchain, it's some more.

So I don't understand what you have suggested.

[Pedroig]

If a formation does not have any HQ elements within in it, the chain of command is broken.  If a formation does not have a Commander of less rank than the unit above it and more rank than the unit below it the chain of command is broken.  A formation without a HQ element cannot have any units under it and confer no commander bonuses at all, even to itself.  Commander death is not related directly to HQ element health.  But losing your one and only HQ is the same thing mechanically as commander death/removal for that formation and all formations it "feeds" with bonuses.

If an officer is commanding a formation that is larger than his command rating, the effectiveness of his other bonuses will be reduced by (command rating / formation size). For example, an officer with a 20% defence bonus and a command rating of 5000 is commanding a regiment with a size of 7000. The defence bonus is reduced to 14.3%. In addition, if the largest HQ in a formation has a rating less than the formation size, the effectiveness of the formation commander's bonuses will be reduced by (HQ rating / formation size). These penalties (command rating and HQ rating) are cumulative. Note that if all HQ capacity in a formation is eliminated, no commander bonuses will apply.

[serger]

Commander death is not related directly to HQ element health.

Steve:

If an HQ unit is lost, there is a chance the formation commander is killed based on (1/Number of HQ units), which is an automatic kill result if only one HQ exists

But I just don't understand how it was connnected with your previous post I answered.

[serger]

Why does it have to be an exploit? If you want more hard-to-kill armored anti-tank brigade you put more anti-tanks in it. It's the same with HQs. It doesn't gift you more command limits, its just a trade-off between tonnage and HQ unit health.

There are 3 possibilities:

1) You need uninterrupted chain of proper commanders with proper HQ limits (that is - max of HQ elements) to apply superior commanders' bonuses downchain effectively, the same as with Naval Admin Commands and formation bounuses.

In this case spare HQs do very little (if any). If main HQ is destroyed (if I understand your weighing principle - that will be 1/2 chance when HQ formation is hit with some deadly enough weapon) - you'll have 1/11 to 1/22 chance of commander's KIA, instead of 1/1 (100%) chance if there was no spare HQ. But you'll have then only ~1/10 of their bonus applied to the formation and downchain. And every time HQ formation is hit and spare HQ is destroyed (the same 1/2 chance when HQ formation is hit with the same deadly weapon) - you'll have the same chance that commander is KIA, because game mechanics accounts HQ elements as equiprobable ones in terms of commander location, independently of HQ element's limit.
This measure cannot decrease a chance of main HQ being hit in overall combat, because this chance is set by element sizes. So it cannot decrease a chance of knocking-out commander's bonuses effectively (in the best case - it will keep 1/10 of them).

2) You need uninterrupted chain of proper commanders with proper HQ stacks (that is - sum of HQ elements) to apply superior commanders' bonuses downchain effectively.

I know no evidence that's how Aurora works with command chain.

3) You need uninterrupted chain of proper commanders with any HQ element each (that is - non-zero quantity of HQ elements in formation) to apply superior commanders' bonuses downchain effectively.

In this case you have to add midget "spare HQ" (HQ capacity is 1, all cost are 0) to double not only the chance your commander will survive HQ formation hit (that's quite plausible - it's adding command shelters), but also to double their chances to apply superior bonuses effectively. Too little cost, no RP plausibility.

[Ulzgoroth]

Why does it have to be an exploit? If you want more hard-to-kill armored anti-tank brigade you put more anti-tanks in it. It's the same with HQs. It doesn't gift you more command limits, its just a trade-off between tonnage and HQ unit health.

There are 3 possibilities:

1) You need uninterrupted chain of proper commanders with proper HQ limits (that is - max of HQ elements) to apply superior commanders' bonuses downchain effectively, the same as with Naval Admin Commands and formation bounuses.

In this case spare HQs do very little (if any). If main HQ is destroyed (if I understand your weighing principle - that will be 1/2 chance when HQ formation is hit with some deadly enough weapon) - you'll have 1/11 to 1/22 chance of commander's KIA, instead of 1/1 (100%) chance if there was no spare HQ. But you'll have then only ~1/10 of their bonus applied to the formation and downchain. And every time HQ formation is hit and spare HQ is destroyed (the same 1/2 chance when HQ formation is hit with the same deadly weapon) - you'll have the same chance that commander is KIA, because game mechanics accounts HQ elements as equiprobable ones in terms of commander location, independently of HQ element's limit.
This measure cannot decrease a chance of main HQ being hit in overall combat, because this chance is set by element sizes. So it cannot decrease a chance of knocking-out commander's bonuses effectively (in the best case - it will keep 1/10 of them).

Why will you have 1/10th bonus after losing a redundant HQ unit? Either the commander is taken out and you completely lose the bonus, or the commander isn't taken out and your identical backup HQ means they continue to function at 100% effectiveness.

Some bits of your post mention tiny secondary command posts, which would work as badly as you describe here, but I'm not sure why anyone would be talking about that?