JerseyJohn Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Finland enters with her units out of supply and candiates for an early demise. What ever happened to Field Marshall von Mannerheim? Likewise with Sweden , it has two armies, a corps and an airfleet but no HQ! I move that the following HQs be assigned and suggest the following performance levels for them: Finland Mannerheim performance 7 located NE of Helsinki. --- Finland should also have an airfleet like Sweden's based near Helsinki. Spain Franco performance 6, located near Madrid. --- Spain should also have an airfleet near Madrid. Sweden [assign name] performance 5 located near Stockholm. Romania[assign name] performance 3 Located NE of oil fields. --- Romania should also have an airfleet near the oilfields. Greece [assign name] performance 4, located NW of Athens. Yugoslavia [assign name] performance 3 -- located SW of Belgrade. Turkey [assign name] performance 4 -- located between Ankara and Istanbul. --- Turkey should also have an airfleet near Istanbul. Poland [assign name] performance 3, located 1 hex from Warsaw. These minor country HQ units would be particularly useful in scenario creation, particularly if it is expanded to allow any alliance or neutrality for all minor nations. Link to related thread on HQs controlling Allied Units [ March 13, 2003, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Agreed, Hollywood >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OUT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 The only problem standing is would that only change current gambits strategies to suite? Also those HQs and airfleets would be better suited to be made into corps though perhaps less historically accurate. I can't really see Greece with much worthwhile air though? Perhaps we could make a -1 tech air representing all previous air before 30s tech? Howa bout DeGaul for Free French Level 8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Liam The idea has nothing to do with current gambits and play techniques, it has to do with the game as an overall entity. Fixing problems in the game but doing it to suit current game techniques is nonsensical. Assigning an HQ to Finland, for example solves a major and unnessesary problem. The Finnish Army can't fight in the regiouns it fought at historically because if it does it has ZERO supplies! Greece is another one, her two mountain armies, which historically fought very successfully around Albania, can't do so because they enter the game with ZERO supplies! Denmark, the Low Countries, Iraq, Norway, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Canada, Vichy France, Ireland and Portugal are all countries that would not receive HQs. I honestly hope we don't end up giving them extra units instead of HQs. Then we'd just have another bunch of unimprovable, useless and out of supply corps to contend with. Enough cannon fodder already. HQs to provide supplies are an improvement; additional useless units are just more sludge to get in the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ham Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 It's Mannerheim. NOT _von_ Mannerheim. Further reading for the interested: http://www.mannerheim.fi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by ham: It's Mannerheim. NOT _von_ Mannerheim. What happened to the guy who used to post here under that moniker? John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 sounds good to me, even though i think that the current map is simply to small for minor country HQs. And the leadership levels should be discussed as well. - ham: maybe this helps: in german the name is "Feldmarschal Carl Gustaf Emil Freiherr von Mannerheim". Maybe the Finns don't speak german (lol) or don't need a "von" to show the aristocracy roots of a person [ March 14, 2003, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Ham What can I say, you're brilliant. Do you have any opinions that are worth anything or do you just correct spelling and peripheral trivialties. [ March 14, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Xwormwood We're talking about adding a handful or units scattered across the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishGuards Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 I think that minor Hqs are an excellent idea ... ranging between 3 and 6 ... for the supply and strength of 5 for each countries had them ... they could each sup 3 units would stop alot of easy conquers .. and for countries w 1 or 2 units .. no Hqs .. just bump their supply up 1 level ... but also let them disband .. prevent cheap attacks by major powers to gain exp or whatever it is.. gonna get conquered anyway Anastoueou or something for Rum .. Prince Paul for Yugo ... Franco for Spain .. Sweden and Turkey also should be included ... Add 1 ship for the larger minors ... great idea in my mind thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Originally posted by John DiFool: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ham: It's Mannerheim. NOT _von_ Mannerheim. What happened to the guy who used to post here under that moniker? John DiFool </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Irish Guards Glad you like it. A naval unit for countries like Turkey, Sweden and Spain wouldn't be bad idea. Turkey's could help guard the Dardenelles as it did historically. Sweden's could be placed near Stockholm. Spain's -- I'm not sure, but probably in the Mediteranean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jergan88 Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 The only problem I can see with the idea is space issues. For example, Greece. If unit stacking was introduced, I say that the corp and the hq would be on the capital of Greece. I also think that in later versions of SC HQs should be made much weaker than they are right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 14, 2003 Author Share Posted March 14, 2003 Jergan88 If you mean much weaker because they're stackable it isn't a bad idea. As they are now, however, they're very slow and don't even supply their own allied units -- so what's to weaken? I feel they're basically an essential unit, otherwise troops need to hug cities for meager amounts of supplies. Unfortunately as they are now they're only essential and not very useful. To me any country that has more than a simple garrison corps or two would also have an HQ unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 I believe Jerge88 was refering to the strength points of the HQ. As others do, I believe he feels it is too strong, since it is not easy to elminate the unit. On the other hand, I tend to believe that the HQ's have units equivalent to a Corp, that are in "reserve" status. Hence, no attack. But they can defend, as well as what provides the "combat bonus" the HQ's give units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 15, 2003 Author Share Posted March 15, 2003 Also, do we really want to have HQs eliminated so easily? If eliminated can they be replaced or are they simply gone? Agreed, as we've both said several times before, HQs would have reserve infantry attached. As to the speed issue, it seems to be a question of two things, whether or not that infantry is motorized or on foot, and whether or not the HQ is officers in vehichles or an automatically attached supply depot, a very inteligent question posed by Steve C. If supply depots are assumed to be attached I'd like them to be seperate units retaining that slow speed while the HQs are capable of keeping up witht their fastest troops. This would not just allow greater realism (frontline generals like Rommel, Guderian and Patton) but would also allow for a more interesting game. [ March 15, 2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disorder Posted March 15, 2003 Share Posted March 15, 2003 this is an excellent idea,jersey john! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 15, 2003 Author Share Posted March 15, 2003 Glad you like it, disorder. [ March 15, 2003, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted March 16, 2003 Share Posted March 16, 2003 Originally posted by John DiFool: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ham: It's Mannerheim. NOT _von_ Mannerheim. What happened to the guy who used to post here under that moniker? John DiFool </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DalmatiaPartisan Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 also possible tip Yougoslav partisans should have Tito HQ. By the way I dont think this idea is good- the better way to solve these problems is to make armies(like 2 northern greek armies)not to start with 0 supply if Athens cut off-they should have some supply of course. This idea would be good if the map was bigger and more smaller units on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 A couple of thoughts JJ, as I agree, the supply model in SC1 certainly leaves units lacking (some can't even move in mountainous terrain). Units should always be able to move at least one hex per turn, this should be default. I believe HQs do model supply depots, but instead of a separate unit, how about those commanders you mentioned as having a special ability...movement of 3, of course at an additional MPP expense. Obviously this is all about hypothesizing for SC2, just hope HC is listening.... and we know he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curry Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 If the Itialians can have up to three HQ's certainly some if not all of the countries mentioned should be allowed to have or get one. Good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 18, 2003 Author Share Posted August 18, 2003 Dalmatian Yes, I'd prefer a different solution myself, but the game system seems to have this limited to HQs. In Greece it's solved with an HQ north of Athens, in Finland with an HQ east of Helsinki and in Spain with one northwest of Madrid, leaving Sweden and Poland as the only two minors with large armies in need of a HQs. I think the present system is senseless; why give Finland and Greece armies if they start off being both imobile and out of supply? This is strickly a flaw in the game, made obvious by the fact that the Greeks were actually invading Albania, something they can't possibly do in this game as they've got no supplies that far north! SeaMonkey Sure, those are great solutions and I agree with them. But instead of having to wait for SC2 I can't understand why each of those minors can't just be given an HQ in this version of SC so they can be more than sacrificial lambs. Curry Glad you agree, I think this is an important and poorly treated aspect of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 This is great idea JerseyJohn ,I completely agree with you on all points. The game as it is now would only become better with the introduction of minor HQ's. And on a bigger map it would even be better. And on a bigger map majors like Germany,US and Russia (perhaps UK as well) should be given the choice of buying motorized HQ's or normal ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted August 18, 2003 Share Posted August 18, 2003 Based on the way it currently works, I sometimes wonder if the lack of minor HQs isn't intentional. In other words, the game design wants you to send a German HQ to Finland or a British HQ to Greece. In Greece's case, the amphib assault on Athens knocks it out in a turn, but maybe the game design is to use the British fleet in the Med to prevent such a thing. Even with that thought process, Spain and Sweden should have a HQ. Turkey as well, though we don't complain about it because it hardly gets involved. The more I think about it, the Allies (assuming they had a HQ in Egypt) sending a HQ to Greece would in SC terms come very close to representing what really happened. Any offensive in North Africa by the Allies would come to a halt because of lack of supply. Of course, none of us play it that way, since building a HQ and sending it to Egypt is considered a waste. If Germany commits a HQ to Finland, Finland will survive. This also seems a accurate way of representing German support for Finland. I can't say I'm convinced that Poland should have a HQ. But I wonder if some of its units shouldn't be more entrenched. [ August 18, 2003, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts