desertfox5768 Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 Is it really done that well? An entire hex and 450 mpps for a unit that can't do anything besides sit there? I think the HQ system needs overhauling, such as the ability to assign a commander to a certain theater. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDS_STARFURY Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 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 More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 3, 2002 Share Posted December 3, 2002 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 More sharing options...
82ndReady Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 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 More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 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 More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 I like the HQ in the movie Dirty Dozen that gets taken over during training exercises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GDS_STARFURY Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 The War in Russia HQ system worked fairly well. You could designate which formations belonged to what and if I recall correctly there is even a supply penalty when you change a units HQ. Also the way supply flows from the top to the bottom was modeled nicly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82ndReady Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 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!!!! P.S.- Future playtester available here!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Hey 82nd...no offence but how about tightening up that sig of yours....you turn what ought to be a simple scroll down to read a few posts into a marathon....you'll turn one page of posts into three if you become really active.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 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 More sharing options...
Valadictum Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Valadictum Another interesting idea. Stand by for the usual chorus proclaiming it will make the game too complicated. [ December 04, 2002, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82ndReady Posted December 4, 2002 Share Posted December 4, 2002 Of course JerseyJohn here it comes Valadictum are you crazy! ! ! ! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valadictum Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 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!" [ December 04, 2002, 11:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted December 5, 2002 Share Posted December 5, 2002 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts