Just how much do HQ units help their controlled units?

[japinard]

I'm having trouble figuring out just how much the HQ units help those under their command.

Can someone help put it in perspective for me?

[Norse]

Good question, I have noticed readiness increase between 30% to 100% depending on quality of the HQ, supply and experience points

A battered corp completely out of supply have been at 12% readiness, with 4 point experience units attached to my best headquarters have had 110%+ readiness score.

[ October 22, 2002, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[Norse]

[ October 22, 2002, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Norse ]

[I/O Error]

One way to put it in perspective is to try and operate an Italian army east of their starting position in North Africa or a German army in Canada without a headquarters. Pretty soon you get a mob that just can't do anything.

[ October 22, 2002, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: I/O Error ]

[ev]

I am troubled by the lack of control we have over which units are asigned to each HQ.

Sometimes it gets pretty messy. Specially if you have multiple HQs near each other. You never know which units will be assigned to which HQ next turn. (...which will make a difference if the ratings of each HQ are very different.)

I wish we could give HQ's at least some priorities regarding which units within its range will be commanded by that HQ.

Also, I don't understand why do we need to limmit to 5 units the number of units controlled by an HQ. Since an HQ has an effective radius of 5 hexes, It seems at first glance, that we should allow a single HQ to control a larger number of units ...large enough to effectively defend the radius of 5 hexes in each direction supported by that HQ.

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by ev:

I am troubled by the lack of control we have over which units are asigned to each HQ.

Sometimes it gets pretty messy. Specially if you have multiple HQs near each other. You never know which units will be assigned to which HQ next turn. (...which will make a difference if the ratings of each HQ are very different.)

I wish we could give HQ's at least some priorities regarding which units within its range will be commanded by that HQ.

Also, I don't understand why do we need to limmit to 5 units the number of units controlled by an HQ. Since an HQ has an effective radius of 5 hexes, It seems at first glance, that we should allow a single HQ to control a larger number of units ...large enough to effectively defend the radius of 5 hexes in each direction supported by that HQ.

I hope this is something that gets fixed in the last patch. I think there has to be some way to have control over what units are assigned to what hq. I may not be attacking with any ground units on a specific turn, perhaps just air and strategic attacks - why shouldnt I be able to have my best hq controlling the air units.

Here is a question for everyone though - should you be able to indiscriminately change what units are attached to what hq every turn. Should there be some kind of limit or restrictions on changing.

[RicKhan]

Many of the questions and concerns posted here have vexed me as i play SC.

These Things i know: :confused:

1. Closer to Hq is better

2. Higher rating HQ seems to take charge of 5 units before next 5 are chosen. Example, I have 11 units and 4 HQ's in France. Mainstein takes 5, Rommel takes 5, Model take 1, Weiss gets nothing.

Answer Send 1 Hq somwhere to utilize its command Rating, and build 4 more units asap.

3. HQ has 5 supply rating if no port/city is accessible. Do all u can to open a port or clear a way to friendly lines or to a city. And even that may not help if to far away. Chaining can help in this circumstance.

4. Never invade without an HQ. Your Supply level will drop to zero next turn and no HQ support is available.

5. Protect HQ's when retreating or u may find your army without leaders and cut to pieces before the next line can be developed.

I would like to see the following someday,

the ability to permanetly assign units to a HQ,

4 types of Leaders Air, Sea, Land and Political,

Rename Leaders. :cool:

It is fun to dream. :eek:

[pzgndr]

Originally posted by japinard:

I'm having trouble figuring out just how much the HQ units help those under their command.

Can someone help put it in perspective for me?

Here's the formula given in the manual:

Readiness = (supply + strength + command rating + combat morale bonus) / 3

From this, HQs provide additional supply if out of range of friendly cities, the leader's command rating, and the combat morale bonus based on the HQ's experience. Compared to an out-of-supply and/or out-of-command unit of the same strength, units under HQ command could have about double the readiness, maybe more depending on the HQ. Attacker and defender losses are affected accordingly. So there's a definite benefit.

As for not being able to micromanage which units are under HQ command, I consider that a friendly FOW issue. It's an OK abstraction, considering both sides have to deal with the same frustrating limitations. Some way to manually change the automatic HQ links would be a nice option for SC2, and perhaps some partial HQ command benefits for all other units within range - including minor allies. All units within range already receive the supply benefit, and that's improtant. However, to keep HQs critical to the game, their command benefits should be unique and limited.

The current solution for ensuring you have adequate HQ control is to buy more HQs. You end up paying a price one way or another.