Minor Country HQ Units

[Edwin P.]

waltero: And was wondering if some of the minors are going to have HQ's?

I would think that the minor countries would only mobilize a HQ unit and/or additional combat units if they felt threatened.

Example: If Axis DOW Norway and Switzerland I could see Sweden mobilizing an HQ unit and perhaps an additional corps. From what I have read about scripting in SC2 this could probably be added as a custom event.

Note: In my view HQ are not only military leadership, they represent above normal supply and coordination of military units via a centralized structure that gives preference to specific military units. Normally such structure are not present during times of peace, especially among minor nations.

[ March 11, 2005, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[John Hugo]

Minor HQs will be a great addition.

It's silly in SC1 that any nation would not have

military leadership.

[SeaMonkey]

Not Silly! John, read Edwin's "Note:" HQs don't just represent a leader, they represent a superior command and control military infrastructure, like communications, planning, logistical movements, tactical doctrines, etc. Now do you suppose that in WW2, a country such as Belgium, Neth., Lux., had anything close to the military structure of say Germany(ie. they get no Hq)? The results speak for themselves.

[Lars]

Actually I agree with John. A HQ unit is the one thing every country would have, even if they lacked everything else.

No matter what's going on in Edwin's mind.

[Hubert Cater]

HQ minors are possible... it's still undecided which countries will have the option to build them in the default campaigns (for many of the reasons Edwin has described) but with the Editor you could add them to any country you like

[Edwin P.]

It appears that with the new improved editor you can add HQs to the minor country neutrals.

Edited: As HC stated above.

[Edwin P.]

Note: Although its not to be included in SC2, I would have liked to see Unit Commanders that would give a penalty and/or bonus to their specific unit.

Example - You would purchase a unit and have the option to purchase a commander for it for an extra MPP cost. The assigned commander would affect the ability of that unit and that unit only. A unit commander would also enhance the ability of a unit to gain experience.

Example: Patton might give a unit +1 AP. Another commander might give his unit a -1 AP penalty or a bonus/penalty to their attack rating.

[SeaMonkey]

Edwin, what your asking for is the same as Panzer General's unit commander attributes. I think for this scale the Hqs fulfill your suggestion to a certain extent coupled with being able to supply specific units with tech upgrades. Now once that specific unit has enjoyed some extensive experience additions, with a high rating commander supplying support and the tech upgrades....viola...you have your wish. Now just pick out a name from your favorite commanders' list and customize the unit's name, like "Guderian's 24th Panzer Corps", assuming we have enough spaces in the name of the unit.

[Kuniworth]

Edwin what is your favorite colour?

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Edwin, what your asking for is the same as Panzer General's unit commander attributes. I think for this scale the Hqs fulfill your suggestion to a certain extent coupled with being able to supply specific units with tech upgrades. Now once that specific unit has enjoyed some extensive experience additions, with a high rating commander supplying support and the tech upgrades....viola...you have your wish. Now just pick out a name from your favorite commanders' list and customize the unit's name, like "Guderian's 24th Panzer Corps", assuming we have enough spaces in the name of the unit.

Exactly. No offence Edwin but many times I feel that you like to make this into "tactical command" instead of "strategic command".

[Edwin P.]

Kuniworth, its true that I would like to create scenarios at a more operational level using the SC2 Editor.

Sea Monkey, your point is a good one and I agree. Its just that I feel that the corps/division army commanders had a greater impact on the performance of their units than is reflected in SC, and When I think of Patton I think of him as commanding a single unit, not 5 corps or 5 armies.

[SeaMonkey]

Edwin, think of Patton in his true historical context. At the end of the war the 3rd Army had V, XII, XX, and III Corps, with two attached reserves of the 4th and 70th Infantry divisions. Couldn't you stretch your imagination to think of that as 5 corps. Now I do agree that Patton was not an army group commander as he is depicted in SC1 and so in lies your perception of him not commanding 5 armies, which is correct. Heck, I think the USA only had 5 armies on the whole European continent at the end of April 45.

What I would like to see is a more accurate representation of supply in SC2, using MPPs to purchase offensive logistical "Dumps", for lack of a better word. Perhaps automatically moving from their resource origin to the highest HQ, say SHAEF, for an example and then to the Army Group HQs and finally to the Army HQ, each SC turn, as long as there is an unbroken friendly tile link. The HQ receiving the supplies would slowly raise their "Rating" as the "Dumps" accumulate to actually allow an enhanced combat effectiveness to the units under its control. The owning player designates with a right click on the HQ and the subsequent HQ menu allows the distribution of the "Dumps" to the next lower HQ and finally the units receive an automatic distribution dependent upon how close they are to the distributing HQ.

Now I know this is kind of a rough structure in need of fine tuning, but it is ludicrous to see so many unrestrained offensive operations happening all over the SC map every turn. That's not what happened in WW2.

[Blashy]

Look at it this way Edwin, you'll be able to have a more "tactical" game if you wish with the editor.

But I prefer this game to remain at the core like SC, simple to learn, fast to play. Although everyone agrees that a few more features will not hurt this, considering Hubert is keeping it on the "strategic" path.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

HQ minors are possible... it's still undecided which countries will have the option to build them in the default campaigns (for many of the reasons Edwin has described) but with the Editor you could add them to any country you like

Just so long as you know that if Finland does not have a Mannerheim HQ, i will riot

[pzgndr]

We're not sure if Mannerheim should have a rating of 1 or 2. Any suggestions?

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

We're not sure if Mannerheim should have a rating of 1 or 2. Any suggestions?

I was thinking maybe a 6 or 7

[Exel]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Note: In my view HQ are not only military leadership, they represent above normal supply and coordination of military units via a centralized structure that gives preference to specific military units. Normally such structure are not present during times of peace, especially among minor nations.

I'm fully in support of giving all countries a chance to purchase at least one HQ unit. Your point is a very valid one however, and I have to agree with it. In order to not make the HQ units too common, their price could be balanced so that it would take great effort for minors to purchase them, but then again not impossible. Then you should carefully ponder whether or not investing in a HQ unit for a minor would be worth the cost.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Carl G. E. von Mannerheim:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by pzgndr:

We're not sure if Mannerheim should have a rating of 1 or 2. Any suggestions?

I was thinking maybe a 6 or 7 </font>

[Korut Zelva]

who would be candidate for having a HQ in their setup?

Finland, Spain? Greece so that italians can't invade them too easely?

Dunno 'bout Sweden, they had a sizeable army but were they warlike enough to have a HQ? maybe if the Axis has been pretty naughty and evil.

[Exel]

Whether or not to purchase a HQ should be up to the player/AI, it should not be pre-defined for any country. If the player wants to make the hefty investment to get a HQ for a minor nation, why shouldn't he be able to do that? Think of it as development of the army structures. Even if country X didn't in reality have a well organized army, that doesn't mean that they never could've had one. It just would take a lot of resources to do it, but that choice - ie. whether or not to invest in a HQ - should be up to the player.