david12345 Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 I have a game in progress, all my Chinese HQ's can only support 4 units each. I have been playing forever and know all the in's and outs of HQ support, so it is not something I'm doing wrong! Herbert, I have the save game, it has been going on for about 3 turns now, maybe if you tell me where to send it, you could look at it???? Thanx, dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 david, it's a matter of scenario design choice. HQs for each nation can be customized for # and range of attachments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 That looks like it might be a bug as China should be able to attach 5 units, please send to support@furysoftware.com Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted July 4, 2012 Share Posted July 4, 2012 david, it's a matter of scenario design choice. HQs for each nation can be customized for # and range of attachments. This is often true but just looking at the campaign I don't think it is the case in this one instance... as soon as I get the turn from David I should be able to confirm though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david12345 Posted July 5, 2012 Author Share Posted July 5, 2012 File sent. Thanx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david12345 Posted July 6, 2012 Author Share Posted July 6, 2012 Fixed by Mr. Cater. Thanx! dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizpatcher Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 The guys that throw all the work into these games and support them so quickly and so well. It''s amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Yep, the SC Legacy has strong support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 SC is a perfect example of the free enterprise system at work. You make a good product and continue to support and improve it, you garnish a returning clientele and the word spreads. Ohh, but get one loud proclaimer of ineptitude or fraud and here comes the lawyers, government rules and regulations......to protect you......from your bad decision making. Now the rest of us pay, for compliance, because you were lazy, didn't do your homework and don't want to take your medicine like a man. Remember the old saying, "buyer beware", that means everything, from the smallest to the largest decision, purchase at your own risk, not mine. I don't expect you to pay for my bad decision making and I don't want to pay for yours.:mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 As I remember the Chinese theater, wasn't there a number of warlords commanding small parcels of troops? Seems to be a little more historic to have Chinese Hqs with a lesser number of attachment potentials than the other combatants? Maybe more Hqs with some defensive strength, less attachments, improving the overall morale and readiness picture in addition to more units(the extra warlords)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcaryf1 Posted July 8, 2012 Share Posted July 8, 2012 Hi SeaMonkey The problem with more HQ's is that HQ's serve two functions providing both supply and additional readiness/experience. Extra HQ's equals extra supplies and that should be one of the important limiting factors in the China Theatre. I am experimenting with just two Chinese HQ's and 3 Japanese ones. Regards Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 9, 2012 Share Posted July 9, 2012 I think you misunderstood Mike. I'm advocating the possibility of using Chinese HQs with restricted ranges and attachments, one or two tiles and and one or two units. After all, 1 HQ w/5 attachment capability is the same as 5 HQs with one unit attachment capability, its 6 units vs 10 units though in the deployment scheme. I'm thinking this will approximate the historical context of multiple Chinese "warlords" controlling small, independent formations that both sides tried to lure into their control as well as provide the Allied player a few more units with greater flexibility of supply and readiness. In this scenario, the Chinese player could set up fortified enclaves around cities that woul need to be reduced by the Japanese. Just a thought for balancing out the Chinese theater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strategiclayabout Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Hello there ^^ , - Could be interesting to have nationalists and communists units with HQs of each side not able to command units of the opposite side. HQs would be cheaper to buy than average but you'll have to decide if you buy a communist or a nationalist one. - Not sure how it would work though since you'll probably need to create a "communist chinese minor country" with a capital city (something like Romanians for Germans). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts