ebitt Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 The Headquarters attachment rules are a great improvement. In the Demo it is not possible to attach an Italian Army to a German HQ. Is this correct? Does it also mean that it will not be possible to attach US units to an English HQ or vice versa? What about the Australian and New Zealand units which will appear in Egypt? I am sure many people are going to quibble over the number of units which a HQ can control. By the end of 1943, Vatutin’s 1st Ukrainian Front was controlling seven combined arms armies and two tank armies. It may be a game breaker to allow this many units, but can the editor change the HQ attachment limit? It looks like the game was worth the wait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 No you can't attach HQs with other countries. Australian, New Zealand, Indian and South African units can all be attack to HQs. How many units can be attach can be changed in the editor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebitt Posted April 11, 2006 Author Share Posted April 11, 2006 Thanks for the prompt reply. Bad news for history buffs, but good news for Scenario builders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 How about UK and USA units having the flexibility to attach to either country's HQs? It did happen IRL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Think it's a little less gamey to just have seperate HQs. If Italians can serve under Germans this game will change. Likewise with the French UK.. Historically a Frenchie was put in charge of the Western Front in WW2 in 1940 an inept one.. I wonder if a Compentent Britisher would've been shipped in what the difference might've been. Likewise, Superior German Commanders commanding Italians, happened in N.Africa I know but still! 5 Italian Armies under Rommel, 4 star...real gamey Like wise I'd feel similarly about Patton leading the British Army, and Monty leading the USAF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Could not have said it better myself Liam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ebitt Posted April 12, 2006 Author Share Posted April 12, 2006 Think it's a little less gamey to just have seperate HQs. It may well be less “gamey”, but at this scale you soon run out of tiles (not to mention the MPPs required for building all the necessary HQs). By the end of the drive to Stalingrad Army Group B was holding the reins on three German armies, two Rumanian armies, one Italian army and one Hungarian army. Requiring four HQs to do the work of one isn’t gamey? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Romanian, Italian and Hungarian, you'll be using those to hold off partisans, no need for HQs. If you don't have enough HQs for all your German troops, then you planned poorly . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Epps Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I was messing around with the Demo a little bit more last night and I did happen to see a couple of minor power generals. I hope that this is not a spoiler, but I think I saw Marshall Antonescu, and General Mannerheim. I wasn't able to see how they were incorporated in game play, but I was shocked to see them at all. As far as Army group B being a hodge podge, it was true, Mannstein often had certain difficulties getting orders out to all of his different sub commanders, because of the necessary time for translation, and what not. Shooting from the hip was a little more difficult for him, in this case, and he often expressed his frustration with this necessary evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 As I said, you can buy some HQs for these countries, the option is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Why no allow the HQ to stack with other units? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 Ah no, no stacking please, lets not get into that debate. HQ represent supply routes, covering massive areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 HQ represent supply routes, covering massive areasSo? On the surface it does not seem, (to me), to be a logical reason why an army / corp / airwing cannot be in the same square as an HQ. It actually seems like the reverse would be more logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I could see where cross-attaching would be useful in the small scale scenarios, so maybe that could be added to the editor. But in the Grand Campaign with cross-attaching, I think Mannerheim or Antonescu would get hung out to dry in the desert instead of Rommel. The high level HQs are all going to go to Russia. Or at least should. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted April 12, 2006 Share Posted April 12, 2006 I would like to see HQ units with a bit of chrome - support for a picture of the commanding general in the empty box on the lower right hand side of the screen and/or a randomly selected quote (of x characters or less) from that general obtained from a text file accessible by the editor. Dwight Eisenhower </font>“Pessimism never won any battle.”</font>“In preparing for battle I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.”</font>George S. Patton </font>"I would rather have a good plan today than a perfect plan two weeks from now.”</font>“The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”</font>“Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more.”</font>“I am a soldier, I fight where I am told, and I win where I fight.”</font> [ April 12, 2006, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts