Lars

I'm a little unclear on this. Are you asking for unlimited HQ rebuilds? With a General modifier to the HQ value? Correct? Seems a little unrealistic and unwieldy. You've lost a heck of a lot of officers when you lose a HQ. Sure, I suppose we could promote Sgt. Shultz to staff (and probably would), but we better start knocking off a significant amount of leadership points on the rebuilds, no matter who the general is. As I pointed out in the other threads, if you put Manstein in charge of a bunch of dunces, he ain't going anywhere. And just in gameplay terms, if I'm losing HQ's at that rate, it would be time to stop building HQ's and start building Corps... Maybe if you lost the General idea. I really wish people would quite looking at the name at the top. It doesn't make a dime's worth of difference in the game. How about a rebuilt HQ having, say, 1/2 the value it previously had but at the same price? Might be a lot of coding work for little return, but I suppose if a guy was desperate enough, he might buy one.

But it probably is the rack she's looking for. A Stormtrooper with falsies, oh, how the mighty have fallen.

Whew, for a minute there I thought you were going to go for the Stormtrooper holding his codpiece. Er, if it's really a "he" that is...

This is going to end just like that one episode of Friends. Damn you Lady Moraine.

Oh, there's whole depths of Star Wars geekiness he has yet to descend to. Fortunately, he doesn't have the head of hair to sport a Princess Leia style. </font>

I want phosgene.

Oh, there's whole depths of Star Wars geekiness he has yet to descend to. Fortunately, he doesn't have the head of hair to sport a Princess Leia style.

If its delayed for posting the obvious, you're never getting a copy.

Should have known. Just too obvious.

Good idea, but instead of the history lesson, would some sort of indicator showing which way the country is leaning be more useful? Say if you clicked on Romania, "Currently 30% Axis". Then you could gauge whether or not you need to spend a chit on it.

Yep, gotta have a name. Think that's already reflected in the experience rating. Although perhaps one more line on the unit saying the commander might be nice chrome. But for me, a level 2, ten strength tank unit with 3 experience badges is all the info I really need.

Could have a star icon pop up by the Capital. Throw a little randomness in there for the spotting and it might work. Linking it to Intel is a good one. Then again, you might get away with folding the whole thing into the Intel Tech or one of the others. Ain't game design fun? I like the idea, I'm just not sure having a unit for it works in this game, unless the map is much bigger. Would be perfect for a game like Operational Art of War on a grand scale. Seems people just insist on having something to move around though. And it's got to have a "Name" like Eisenhower or Rommel. Never mind that if you surround either one with idjit staff, they wouldn't have amounted to squat.

Range unlimited would work. But you might see every Allied TC sitting in the US or Canada. But how about this instead. Lose the idea of a unit and give the capability to the Capital city instead. First time it gets knocked down to zero strength, you lose the bonus. Or have the bonus proportionate to the strength of the Capital. Makes the Battle of Britain almost a certainty. And it would keep people from doing the rather gamey tactic of leaving a country's Capital ungarrisoned. Or at least, make them think about the risk more. Or perhaps a MPP purchase to upgrade the Capital to give the bonus? Call it the Pentagon option. Even sneakier if the other player can't tell whether you purchased one or not. Lots of other ways to do this.

Great. Where you going to put one in the UK? One German bomber unit and he's spotted. Where you going to put him in the Med? A problem for both sides. Even easier for a Carrier sailing around to pick him up. And once spotted, he's dead meat. Just watch every thing with the range to hit him come pouring into the theater.

Who cares? After the first couple of games we'll have all figured it out and it'll be a one trick pony. Like I said, if you really want a Theater Commander, the way to do it is to add a new unit to the game. Don't know if it's worth it really. On a side note, if Theater Commanders are a worthwhile unit to add, they'll be rather uber, won't they? Otherwise, why bother adding it. Could throw the game out of wack when a player passes up his drive on Moscow to go destroy a spotted one. Or it will just attract Air Fleets like flies when playing the AI. And where are the Brits and Americans going to hide theirs? No depth on that side of the map.

But all a player would do then is make sure to use one HQ every time until it reaches that level. I'm not sure that's any better of a solution or more realistic since most Theater Commander got their experience in the last war. I think if you really want to do a Theater Commander right, you're just going to have to add one to the game.

Nope. No turn over here, Boss. </font>

Now here we go....why have we waited so long to discuss this topic ??? Now what I'm praying for is for the Visigoths to pay a nice visit to the paddock....the ones with those very large axes and broadswords. I wonder what donkey steak tastes like? </font>

That makes more sense given the Allied coalition command structure. Let both Brit and US HQ provide support to all western units. Think we'd have to leave the Soviets out on this one. Would you to code it so the highest ranking HQ provides support to the nearest units regardless of nationality? Otherwise, you may end up with a Wavell commanding your units when you really wanted a Bradley in there. Or would it just apply when no other HQ is in range?

Tis an idea, but would depend greatly on the scale of the map, otherwise units are going to be stepping all over each other. Would be a good system if SC2 were more on the level of an operational game. But as it is, I think it would just add complexity for little gain. And aren't we playing the role of Theater Commander, really?

Well Edwin, as I pointed out, I think Hubert limited the numbers of generals available for a reason. If you manage to get them all killed, you're screwed. We gonna start a thread on how many extra generals the Italians should get?

With 24 hour warning he let his whole air force get wiped out on the Philippines. Still want to give him a 9? The Inchon landing was more of a obvious operation that paid off big dividends. Not really "brilliant". Gee, the Americans just got done island-hopping all the way across the Pacific. Really think they'll try another amphibious assault, Comrade? Nah... I don't think I'd give any American general a 9 in this game. Eisenhower is only in there at 8 for his organizational/political skills. Never commanded a army in the field. Patton should be ranked higher if your going to do it on the basis of tactical prowess, but that's debatable too.

The corncobber a 9? Pah-lease... Really though, Edwin. Is there any need for more generals than what's provided? The American player is never going to build more than three anyway. And I think Hubert limited the number to make you very, very careful not to lose them.

Give him your cold. See, the good Lord always provides.

Eerie, isn't it?