Jump to content

HQ system


desertfox5768
 Share

Recommended Posts

In reality a HQ had very little in the way of weaponry. Instead these units were tasked with running the war, ie: paperwork and supply. I dont recall any senior level command staff taking an active part in combat with possibly the sole exception of the final defence of Berlin and maybe when a offensive went so far as to massivly overrun a rear area. What the HQ unit in SC might need is a slightly better air defence value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

desertfox5768 and GDS_STARFURY --

Oddly enough, while you were making your posts I was posting the following in another forum, (to Each His Own) but it probably belongs here!

Reentered from the Forum "To Each His Own" started by mkctanker

I'd like to see a grand-tactical game that has a really good system of relegating command to lower echelon HQs. I've seen it in many earlier games but most of the time it didn't work out very well.

For example, if the game involvels Barbarossa, as the German I'd like to give each Army Group three objectives as first, second and third priorities and not have to worry about how the air support, supply, etc., is allocated -- get the human out of micromanagement. Or, if the player is really into every detail, then fine, he can insert himself into as many HQ positions as he chooses.

In the Barbarossa example, Army Group North, with Liszt as commander, might have Riga as his number one objective, etc., while Army Group South, under von Runstedt would have Kiev #1, Odessa #2, and, say Donitz Basin #3. Army Group Center would be going for Minsk, then Smolensk, etc..

I'm sure it's been done already. I remember exactly such a game twenty years ago for the C-64! Except in those early days the programs had many gliches, such as not being able to find the Crimea! Today's programmers should be able to serve these things up for breakfast and have them work to perfection.

I recall some DOS games such as Tanks II that went in that direction, but I don't think those systems were evolved into more recent windows programming technology.

While most of these things wouldn't necessarily be appropriate to this game there is one change I'd like to see in SC's HQ system -- I think the owning player should have the option of deciding which specific units each HQ has attached to it.

[ December 03, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What the HQ unit in SC might need is a slightly better air defence value.
I agree, HQ's are presented as support units to excute tactics and add logistic support but each HQ did have the ability to defend itself in every manner with Air defense capabiliy and ground support even though it was minimal, it still existed!!!

As for adding more to the HQ role I believe it serves itself well in "SC" as it is currently. To Overhaul HQ's and have theater commanders and lesser would just over complicate the game. When you look at the game for what it is, it was never designed nor intended to become more detailed than it is now! Jersey John your looking for something like "War in Russia" or something like that? SC II could be and maybe it will be more detailed but really it should be an addition to SC not something in of itself!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

82ndReady

Agreed, as the game is now most of that is out of the question.

The only thing I'd like to see in the next patch regarding HQ, is for the owning player to designate specifically which nearby units the HQ would control.

[ December 03, 2002, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I'd like to see in the next patch regarding HQ, is for the owning player to designate specifically which nearby units the HQ would control.
I believe the idea was to force the players to have expend MPP to support any campaign either side runs! For example you have 15 units attacking Russia you would need at least 3 HQ's if you wanted to keep them in supply and add bonuses when attacking or defending.

Although I see your point, when many units are clustered it appears to me also that it may be a random selection to which units are supported and which units are not. But being able to decide goes back to purchasing the support to do so!

Remember this games scale and what its expected to manage, to ask for it to manage units per HQ takes away from its size and its built in assuming logic per situation. I believe adding this does not fit in and would not add to game play.

Just a note to Hubert:

I enjoy this game and appreciate what Hubert accomplished with it and what he will accomplish in future games(more please), keep up the good work Hubert!

I only ask one thing from Hubert, make a game stupid simple but with enough complexity to make it challenging and long lasting!! I believe you have done this with "SC" keep this in mind when creating your next, which im sure you will! Thanks again Hubert I'm now back into board gaming more than ever, and I can't believe its on the PC of all things!! No more little counters to pick after its all over ahhhhh!!!! smile.gif

P.S.-

Future playtester available here!!! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

82ndReady

I have nothing against buying an HQ for every five units in a campaign. But in cases such as The Battle of Britain I'd like to place my airfleets under the available HQs ahead of garrison corps.

I also realize this version of SC can't have HQs making tactical decisions -- but I have no idea what SC II will be and, if it has the capabilities to do so I'd like the idea to be popping around.

Over-all, like most other players, I can live with SC even as it is. I'm just hoping it can be even better as Hubert incorporates the ideas of others, as I'm sure he's presently doing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the German and Russians are allowed 10+HQ on land and the Brits on about 5, then something should be there to represent the RN Admirals who did so much to win the war at Sea, ones like Ramsay who masterminded the rescue of the BEF, or Cunningham who splatted the Italian Navy. How can men such as these not be represented when American generals like Clarke are? He was only an army commander and had nothing to do with grand strategy.

As for difficult? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valadictum

That's true -- also, Admirals (presumably Flagships) might keep units at sea from falling to zero supply levels, which is just plain boring -- there should always be supply ships, if not from the homeland then from friendly neutrals. Admirals would help represent that.

82ndReady

Great trailer -- another line, almost in the same scene, the President saying, "Gentlemen, you can't fight here -- This is the War Room!"

pres-ambas.jpg

[ December 04, 2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Valadictum:

Have Air HQ's, Ground HQ's (like now) and Sea HQ's. Ground HQ's would be able to control no more than one air unit and no sea units, air HQ's would be all air and sea HQ's all sea.

I like it, although I'd drop the "Ground HQs can control one air unit" bit.

I actually think it would simplify things for players, not complicate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...