The Commander Series Forum

does anyone use platoon/CHQ's like in FOW ie
A platoon of Stugs with one of them acting as a HQ??

How much would a rating of 9-10 for a CHQ cost
and cost of 7-8-9 rating for a PHQ

As far as I am aware of the rules, if you nominated one of the Stugs as an HQ it would effectively be unable to take part in the combat or move with the rest of the platoon. We play at this level using 20mm, so for a platoon of 3 Panthers we use a separate command tank as HQ which is usually a Pzkpfw III Beob, mainly to differentiate as to which is the combat element and which is the command element. So effectively the command is at Platoon level and has the rating of 8 for late war Germans.

I've sometimes used models as both a normal tank and a HQ (partically because I lacked models, beyond that under normal rules it can look strange if four tanks mean 3/4 fire whereas knock out two tanks and suddenly 1/2 fire, just adds another level of abstraction). I'd ignore the rules for command movement and instead move the tank when the other tanks move. However, you still need to mark where the command tank is at the start of the turn, as moving troops and command units seperates in the normal rules means that units will usually move beyond the first tier of the command unit's command radius, incurring a penalty. As for points cost, they are in the skirmish part of FWC, +30/60/90 for CV7/CV8/CV9 if I remember correctly.

What happens if the opponent wants to target the tank you nominated as command? As you are using it as a combat element does it mean it can be targeted, as normally you can't target command and does he always hit on a 6 or do you allow normal shooting?

If the answer is yes, it seems risky to play like this as you can end up with elements of your battlegroup without command.

I would say yes if a tank is acting as both combat and HQ, or troop/squadron leader then it should be treated as a normal HQ. In effect this is a skirmish type game, so it would be appropriate to act in this way.

I would enforce a fixed force, and only allow platoon commanders to command their own platoon. As to replacement - well thats waht the serjent is for....

IanS

4 tanks with one as the command tank is fine, if you put the command tank on a differamt base, my tanks are on 25*50 but my HQs are on 40*40, so its easy to tell, also you could put commanders only on the command tank.

i want to use proper (?) FOW platoons.
The HQ stand/vehicle would move when the platoon moves
,so there will be no seperate HQ's.
as the platoon will not mo use the "+1 per 20cm beyond the first 20cm" rule i will put in other modifiers to conpensate!

sounds like you are trying to stick with FoW but make such changes as you wish! try BKC as it is: it's much better even at 1 stand = squad. Less cluncky too.

If you are trying to stick to the FoW organisational tables, which it sounds to me you are, you will be creating problems for yourself in the long run. As Stefan says, stick to the BKC system and it will run smoothly. With BKC you can still create 'historical' battlegroups with a Stug as command, just do as Big Dave suggests and have a different base size, or even give it the HQ numbers (R01, II01, 01 etc). The only question I have is if you have a dual role Stug do you pay 95 points for the Stug and then 45 points for the HQ?

That would be a very costly Command.

i have already played using FOW list (rules are boring!!)
but i dont like the fact.
using proper platoons seemed much more realistic than using
a command base to move all different types of units
so when a platoons of stugs move the command Stug using stug stats with a command rating of say 8 or 9 moves with the platoon!!!!!!
also the commnad will be expensive but what the hey!!!!!!!
your thoughts as alwaays

Actually, on reflection, the command is no more expensive, because if you had 4 Stugs as your platoon (Zug) you would still need a command element; so the cost would be the same as if you nominated one Stug as command. The only drawback is that the command Stug will always be the one targeted first, without a command you will have to devise a system of lower command, as Ianrs54 puts it "As to replacement - well thats waht the serjent is for.... ", but then there must be an additional cost or penalty to do this and as soon as you nominate that command element it will be the one targeted next and so on.

Best of luck with working it all out, I can see where you are coming from, but I think in the end you may overcomplicate matters.

Another thought. If you secretly nominate the command and second in comand (perhaps by putting a sticker on the underside of the base) then just field them as a group of tanks, your opponent then has to play 'eeny meeny miny mo' to find your actual command. Might allow the command to survive longer. If the second in command gets knocked out first and then the command after the remaining Stugs can only act on initiative for the rest of the game.

Seems to me that you're hanging yourself inside out for no good reason.

Have you read the fixed formations rules? I use these exclusively and run historical orbat's no problems.

When you're talking about platoon commands, for tanks that's not that different to what I do as Squadrons, 4 tanks and a HQ (I play at the platoon level, so each infantry base is a platoon), but when you look at infantry, using 3-4 sections to a platoon, you're going to end up with a lot of dice rolling for commands, ignoring the fact you'll have probably 3-4 times the number of HQ stands than a "normal" game.