JerseyJohn Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 There has been much discussion about the way HQs lag behind the front line units. The explanation has always been that the unit iself represents huge amounts of supplies and troop reserves along with the commanding general and his staff. Why not take the the troop reserves and supply convoys out of the HQs and make them a separate unit? The HQ, meanwhile, would represent only a general and his staff, have no independant combat value, be allowed to stack for free on other units, allow two other units to stack in the same hex with itself, and be indestructable unless cut off from either it's home capital (through any extension of friendly hexes) or a friendly port. In other words, unless completly isolated, a defenseless HQ overrun by an enemy unit is simply stacked with the nearest friendly unit. Instead of having a movement factor, Headquarters would be able to move from any friendly land hex to any other connected friendly land hex. This would extent through controled Ports to other controled ports and from there to any controled land hexes. As an example, If Rommel is in North Africa and the Axis player wants him in occupied London that turn, he clicks on him, there's an unbroken line of hexes to a friendly port, a link to through other friendly ports and hexes to London or some other friendly hex/unit in England, the Axis player selects the target hex, clicks, and Rommel is transferred. There should be no charge for this, it would be the normal mode of movement for HQs. When stacked with one or two other units, as per my earlier HQ thread, HQs would move as part of the stack and would, as stated before, possess no combat factors of their own. HQs should command any combination of troops that are on the same side as themselves. In other words, German and Italian HQs can command German, Italian and any troops of minor allies that are withing range. British, American and French HQs should control British, French and American troops as well as minor allies. -- Exception, Soviet troops can only be controled by Soviet HQs and Soviet HQs can only control Soviet troops. The owning player would be enabled to choose which troops he wants a specific HQ to command. In the case of eligible unassigned units, the computer should prompt the player to either choose a controlling HQ or allow the computer to assign one. The same proceedure should be followed for supply depots. The new Supply Depot Unit would move two hexes a turn and have a defenseive rating of 10, representing an army reserve, with no offensive abilities. It would supply other units exactly the same way HQs do in the present SC and be subject to all the movement restrictions HQs are presently subjected to. Linked below is the earlier HQ Thread where many similar ideas have already been discussed. Link to Expanded HQ Thread [ March 31, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
santabear Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 For newbies like me, the earlier thread is very worthwhile. It raises some valuable topics, and I agree with all of the points mentioned (thanks, JJ). As I get better at the game the supply/HQ issue becomes quite limiting, especially in attempting to use historically consistent methods of attack and defence (trying to play some 'what if' scenarios). A true 'blitzkrieg' is difficult to do in SC unless you have units in pristine condition. Otherwise the HQ's slow down the advance too much, I think. One nice thing about the game to balance the criticism: One of the nice design features of the game is that the scorched earth tactics in Russia really do hinder German supply. The combination of overextended German lines of supply and the Siberian Army can be a real turning point on the Eastern front--a nice combination of game playability & history. PS How does one post links to earlier messages? I've tried the "url" ubb code button, but I can't get to the message. They only have the http://www.battlefront.com/index.htm url. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disorder Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 jerseyjohn --- this would make great addition to a later sc edition. leaders are just basically "placeholders" each giving direction to men, but they themselves not fighting. also having special transport capabilities as did patton, rommell, etc. with the entire axis at your disposal odds are you could comandeer a plane to fly back to a berlin meeting much faster than anyone else! agree completely on these issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 disorder Glad you agree, also glad you elaborated as it makes the idea considerably more understandable. Mike (santabear) Thanks for the feedback and glad you like the idea. Regarding your question on the links: Go to the first page of the Thread you'd like to link. Right click on an open space, then Left click on Properties. Highlight the entire path, then hit [control]+C , Return to the place where you want to put the link, left click URL , backspace till http:// is deleted, Hit [control+v] to copy path into space. Left click okay , Delete (backspace) "webpage" or whatever word is in the slot, add your message, usually "Link to . . ..", Hit okay and that does it. Once in while it will only link to the MAIN BATTLEFRONT Page instead of the first page of the Thread you're looking for. I have no idea why this happens, if it does, you're out of luck. [ March 31, 2003, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 JJ I like your idea about HQ's, well done and sounds like a great idea, but I think that suppy should be kept simple and only be a single link from a city and port to each corps, and not another unit. Surrounded units are to easily supplied now, and need to be more restricted when surrounded, seaports are the same way. The main thrust of the game should be war and fighting, having to worry about supplies and distributions of materials should be relegated to clerks(the computer). Out of supply troops could change color, or text from black to gray, or something? The General(you or I) must open a port or land route to get supplies moving again. Just thinking outloud! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted March 31, 2003 Author Share Posted March 31, 2003 SeaWolf Thinking out loud and doing it very well! Sure, I'd go along with that. It would be like the basic hex war games from the late fifties and early sixties, trace a contiginous controled line back to a friendly supply source and the units are supplied! I doubt it would be that simple, perhaps give the cities and ports individual supply values then the computer calculates how many units are tracing to a given source and if it's strained there are fewer supplies for the invloved units. If there's an abundance of supplies then everyone gets their share. What that would amount to is the Army reserve and Supply function of the HQ unit are both eliminated and the HQ becomes the general and his staff moving freely, stacking and enabling stacking of paired units. On this scale it might be an improvement. I'm sure there'll be a lot of discussion on this so I'll hold off till some others have added their views to this important game aspect. [ March 31, 2003, 04:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts