Jump to content

AIrcraft destroying HQ


Recommended Posts

It seems so stupid to me that aircraft can destroy HQ and spot them deep behing enemy lines. Like my dum commanders waiting to be hit by fighters that have X-Ray vision and can see my leaders going to the can for a piss!!

The game is no longer enjoyable to me hence I have withdrawn from all ladder competition and will only play freindlies against guys who dont exploit this big weakness in the game.

It might be part of the game in some peoples book but truly it sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

agree with your comments. spotting a herd of armor or untold numbers of men is one thing, and spotting a rather small gathering of german officers under camo netting in the desert is quite another.

perhaps its that GOOD RECON like the kamikaze vietnamese who ran into the command bunker in the movie platoon smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An idea (perhaps I should start a new topic):

HQs aren't just "a few command types in a camo

tent somewhere", are they? I mean they probably

harbor some significant reserves of troops. So

(SC1 Style) they can reinforce one of their units

which has taken damage, automatically (I'm thinking

when on the defensive). If they are much more

difficult to find by air units, killing them by

air shouldn't be a problem (as their strength

drops after a reinforcement). Plus air should

only pork readiness (as we have already decided,

even if Hubert hasn't smile.gif ).


Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand, air units hitting ground positions and disrupting communications was a big part of WW II and I think this is what Hubert is trying to represent. On the other hand it didn't happen the way it's portrayed in the game. The only high general officer I know of who was put out of action by air attack was Erwin Rommel. And his HQ was not affected.

Instead of starting new topics on these things I'd add them to Zappsweden's new Thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

johndifool said--"I mean they probably harbor some significant reserves of troops. So(SC1 Style) they can reinforce one of their units"

you are correct, and my thoughts on command hqrs was indeed limiting. at the extreme you could also assume the "reinforcement" convoys were part of them, stretching for miles and miles,and we have seen them(as in iraq today) become easy targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this is solved by only allowing Planes to knock units down to 1(solves most of the plane problems).

Thus HQ's couldn't be destroyed, just weakened and disrupted, requiring MPP's to reinforce and improve.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I agree with your proposal to allow air units to reduce the strength of any unit to 1, although I would limit this restriction to ground and HQ units.

As I think that an air unit could reasonably sink a fleet and totally destroy it (the ships would be sunk) without the assistance of Naval units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purpose a special rule when attacking HQs. German HeadQuarters were often on wheels, so there should be special miss role. While Russian's should be hard to distinguish from a regular corps and if you do destroy a HQ then it should have the ability to retreat and regroup at a 3rd strength. If the Brits/US are foolish enough to put a HQ up without AirCover then they get what they deserve! Oh, and they're mobile as well!

If you should start a French defense with leadership it should be buried in Concrete ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edwin P.,

You are correct, this only applies to ground units. Air to Air and Air to ship are different matters indeed.

Everyone pretty much agrees Air is king.

Changing the rule for planes to not allow them the ability to eliminate a unit would help defang them slightly.

Also solves HQ elimination problems, reduces experience gains for planes(no more kills vs ground units) as well as bringing in to play the other units on the board(they will be more important as planes are slightly less important).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Air unit in SC is generally agreed that it is too strong. But fixing it by allowing it to reduce a unit to one (1), is that really the correct solution?

By removing the "lethal bombardment" effect, it still allows an Air unit to basically destroy a ground unit. I don't believe Air should have that effect. Air units do not destroy units. They reduce the ability of a unit to function.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fog Of War: Any enemy unit spotted behind the

lines (by air) is of indeterminate type. It

might be reported as say "Armor?" if the recon

planes see tanks, or "Air?" if planes and airstrips

are noticed, but there still would be a chance

for an error. Corps/Armies/HQs would be pretty

much indistinguishible ("Infantry?"). Same for

navy ("Battleship?")-misidentifications were

rampant in the Pacific-one Jap scout plane

thought a tanker and destroyer were a CV and

escorting CA... The name of the ship may not be

determined all the time either ("Is that the

Scharnhorst or Bismarck?").

Unit symbols could be fuzzed out or something to

distinguish them from units you are actually in

contact with on the ground-even then you might

not immediately know that the new unit assaulting

your city out of the blue is the 5th Panzer Army,

so even ground units might not be sure of what

they are up against (if in constant contact tho

the error rate should drop).

John DiFool

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John DiFooL

I really like your concept on FOW and units behind the lines being identified as Armor? Infantry? and Jets? with a chance for misidentification.


In my mind HQ units are not only leaders but also dedicated supply units that are assigned to support specific front line combat units, thus increasing their ability to wage war. Attacking them with air units is a valid combat tactic. As their strength is degraded so should their ability to support an increased combat readiness.

ie Iraq: You can attack the combat unit or you can attack the supporting supply units behind the front lines.

[ March 27, 2003, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An HQ for 5 armies is not just a few generals. Somone said something about convoys. Think big convoys to supply attacks, front level artillery, MP's and Generals dictating road priorities(not joking) , major vehicle depots, etc.

Just look at the game scale. An HQ takes about the same amount of damage as all the other units. Which halfway implies that it has somewhere close to the same number of troops in it as the other units in the game.


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Currently, 4 planes plus two armies can destroy a unit. First hit with each army doing 2-3 damage, then with each plane doing 1-2 damage, unit destroyed. Planes don't take any real damage, but gain kill exp. for final hit.

My proposition says that the planes can't make the final kill. Thus hit with one Army, hit with planes, then hit with second army. The planes will take more damage since they attack sooner in the cycle, and they won't make as much experience.

Additionally, ground units in back line can no longer be destroyed (HQ's for one).

You suggest that planes disrupt a unit. Thus I would attack with my 4 planes, reducing effectiveness, then attack with each army, doing at 5-6 damage on each attack. This would require the whole battle system to be reconfigured. A new game engine would be required.

Currently these are what figure into the battle equation. From this a readiness value is calculated. Planes currently hurt strength and defend bonus. You would like them to only affect supply(I actually believe you want them to affect more than that, but what you want isn't anywhere in the game).







Even if the planes reduced the supply of the unit to 0, this still only yields the armies inflicting 3 damage per attack. The ground unit could not be destroyed.

I believe my solution(planes can only reduce units to 1) is very simple to implement, reduces the plane effect, solves the HQ destruction effect, and makes for a more enjoyable game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Very well presented argument.

You would like them to only affect supply(I actually believe you want them to affect more than that, but what you want isn't anywhere in the game).

You're right. Air attacks reduce combat support, armor and artillery, not infantry. Since I don't believe our SC Corp/Army was designed around those categories, I can't really get the effect I want.

And if I read your post correctly, I think we disagree on a basic concept. Can two units attacking a enemy unit, all things being equal, destroy the enemy unit? The answer is no.

Those two attackers, have to have an advantage which increases thier combat power to allow them to eliminate the enemy unit. Right now, in SC, that advantage is Command and/or Experience.

While having air reduce the readiness of a ground unit does not truely reflect what air does, it is still more accurate than an air unit that has a lethal bombardment effect, even if that lethal bombardment effect is reduced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that right now, no new patchs are in the works for SC. But I'm still going to throw this out.

Have the AA Radar Tech increase the Air Defence of HQs and Rockets at 1 for each advance. This would help greatly in the areas discussed in this post and is realistic / historical.


V1 rockets were lanched off 'ramps' and easy to destroy and some what easy to rebuild

V2 rockets were lanuched out of HUGE concrete bunkers that looked like a buried sports arena but with the top of several feet of concrete and a piviting lanch platform on the side (moble lanchers also). These 'bunkers' were so thick that bombing was useless, the allies solution was to pack a B17 full of TNT and crash it into the bunker (plane was radio controled after take-off, if it didn't blow up during, some did)

V3 Never operational but was compleatly underground expect a 4 foot Steel door. Almost impossable to find and totally indistrutable from the air.

[ March 30, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iron Ranger

I just realized that increasing the air defense of HQ's, rockets, armies, etc., won't keep them from being destroyed. All it does is inflict more damage back to the attacking plane. The units will still be destroyed.

What does need to be increased is the unit defense bonus instead. What this does is decrease the amount of damage done to it. This will help the unit survive multiple air attacks.


In the battle for France, lines can be set up to only allow Germany two attacks at a French or Russian unit. The only way to destroy the French unit is to combine the attack with Air, usually a min. of 3 air attacks, sometimes 4. This is a given, even with supply and experience. Any changes we make must take this into account.

Replacements for ground troops are cheaper than air units, so the following sequence occurs.

Current attack mode:

Ground, Ground, Air, Air, Air, move third ground unit into destroyed units hex.

Results: Unit destroyed, replace some ground troops, minor replace air units, most experience to Air unit. If third air doesn't destroy unit, use 4th.

New attack mode:(with proposed plane mod)

Ground, Air, Air, Air, Ground, move third ground unit into destroyed units hex.

Results: Unit destroyed, minor replace some ground troops, replace some air units, most experience to ground unit. If second ground unit didn't destroy unit, your out of luck. Unit lives.

As you can see, big difference by just changing air unit capabilities from destroying ground units to knocking them down to 1.

In so many games, I see two attacks by tanks or army's, then 2 air, 3 air if unit still there, 4th air if unit still there, etc.

Advantages of new system:

With the mod, a player would have to decide ahead of time how many air units to use in the attack to maximize damage, but not waste all the air power. Misjudge, and the unit isn't destroyed. Additionally air experience is also reduced, and replacement costs are higher.

Does this make sense? Questions? Comments always welcome.

[ April 02, 2003, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iron Ranger

Yes, thats the idea I was looking for. If you want to attack and destroy a HQ and use 6 air fleets go for it. But with the extra AA units helping in the defence (tech AA radar) alot less of your planes will be returning home, making a second attack unlikely.

HQs and Rockets are very static units and expensive. It would not be unreasable to dig in extra AA and radar units to support and defend these 'easy to find' imobable units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...