Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I think you would have to be a bit selective about it. I mean how much effect did Rommels HQ have on the units from Italy? How much impact did German HQ units have on Hungry and Romainian units on the Russian front? very little I would think.

Personally I don't like seeing any playable differance between Common Wealth troops and English toops, I think their techs, HQ's etc should be treated as if they were all English, for the most part that is how it was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Honch:

Do Major Country HQs give their benefits to their minors? If not, they should. For example, Montgomery HQ should be able to give his benefits to the Canadian corps etc.

Canada has some Cat name of "Keller"

That you can purchase and deploy.

Finland has "Mannerheim" and

Spain has "Franco"

And there is a chance of "Commonwealth"

HQ arriving in Egypt.

I would imagine Rumania and Sweden

Could have low-rated HQ's added as well.

Or,

Should you prefer it,

Have an HQ for Poland, why not? ;)

As for default game,

I think it is OK as is.

IMO, leadership benefits very rarely translate

Over to another Nation's soldiers.

If my commander was Patton, let's say,

You think I am going to fight equally hard

When he goes on leave,

Back to visit his beloved polo ponies

In SoCal?

Like, for some Brit "substitute commander?"

No, I don't believe I would,

Unless of course,

It becomes,

Me or him,

Life or death kind of situation.

But,

In general? Nah. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not purchased this game yet, is it far better than Hearts of Iron? It sounds like you can definelty have some unique situations with this version of Strategic command.

is it possible to re-name your units as in the first version, and did they create specailized units such as Guards, WaffenSS, Rangers, or Commando Batalions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I recall, a HQ is supposed to represent the full range of benefits of such an organization, not just the "name" at the top.

Supply and some sort of bonus for minors nearby should be in there. Would have been an better fix than giving Egypt it's very own, imho.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lars, laconic:

As I recall, a HQ is supposed to represent the full range of benefits of such an organization, not just the "name" at the top.

True,

Yet... you would still be "confined"

Within a different place.

IE, different food,

Different tactical training,

Different language in some cases

(... translator required)

And really, a different Gestalt altogether.

Well,

Would this "intruding unit"

Feel.. at home?

Act & react in the same efficient fashion

As under HQ of its own nationality?

I don't believe so. ;)

Jurgen12/26HJ:

... is it possible to re-name your units as in the first version, and did they create specailized units such as Guards, WaffenSS, Rangers, or Commando Batalions?

1) Yes.

2) No... unless,

You would substitute one new unit

In a slot occupied by an old, existing unit.

For instance,

You could take out the Corps.

Rename the Army as... Infantry.

Use the "Corps slot" to put in Commandos and Rangers and what else you might dream up. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Well,

Would this "intruding unit"

Feel.. at home?

Act & react in the same efficient fashion

As under HQ of its own nationality?

I don't believe so. ;)

Neither do I.

But would it act and re-act better than it would without a HQ at all? Yes. Unquestionably yes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Lars:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Desert Dave:

Well,

Would this "intruding unit"

Feel.. at home?

Act & react in the same efficient fashion

As under HQ of its own nationality?

I don't believe so. ;)

Neither do I.

But would it act and re-act better than it would without a HQ at all? Yes. Unquestionably yes. </font>

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd let them give supply at the very least, and not just to minors. Would work it among major allies too. I don't care how much you don't like some German or Italian General running the front, you're going to eat the chow when it shows up.

As for the combat bonus, I'd tie it to the rating of the HQ, but say half for a ballpark figure. Better rating then could reflect a more diplomatically inclined HQ.

Btw, all very nice to point out the minor HQ's in the build list, but has anybody ever bothered to build one? ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The scale of the game effectively means that HQ are Army group HQ’s. On the East front, axis minors as army groups didn’t operate separately, they were attached to German Army Groups, and therefore it should be allowed to attach them. The same should go for allied minors (excluding Commonwealth who should be British units).

It happened in reality, why not in the game?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd let them give supply at the very least, and not just to minors. Would work it among major allies too. I don't care how much you don't like some German or Italian General running the front, you're going to eat the chow when it shows up.

The scale of the game effectively means that HQ are Army group HQ’s. On the East front, axis minors as army groups didn’t operate separately, they were attached to German Army Groups, and therefore it should be allowed to attach them. The same should go for allied minors (excluding Commonwealth who should be British units).

It happened in reality, why not in the game?

Before people get caught up in a typical Internet trumor, HQs DO SUPPLY ACROSS NATIONALITY, even if you can't attach across nationality.

Open the Fall Blau scenario as Axis, and note that the Axis minors near Rostow are being supplied by the Bock HQ.

I don't know whether I'm convinced that Montgomery should add his leadership value to American troops, even f they can draw supply from him.

I'd be more interested in seeing the ability to upgrade allied minor units -- the Canadians and Australians seem a particularly notable example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Montgomery giving leadership to US troops, LoL.

General Clark wanted so much to enter Rome before that guy (they hated each other) that he supposedly was prepared to fire on the Brits just so they would stop advancing, in case they ended up ahead.

In Ortona Montgomery could not even lead Canadian troops, he just came in blasted our Canadian commander for not advancing fast enough and left, not even interested in the valid reason why. He just wanted in Rome before Clark.

Sad thing is Canadian troops would have been the first to enter Rome but the high command ordered them to stop so US troops could be viewed as the principle liberators.

Pretty pathetic when in war even the "good side" lets greed take over. No wonder we are not better off today in the big picture.

[ June 28, 2006, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Blashy: yeah, but I can buy german level 0 garrisons for very few MPPs (Production tech) and use the Balkan troops as frontline troops... they don`t have the same punch as german 3/3/2 troops, but without HQs they get waxed by the russians on a regular basis.... and in the initials phase of the russian campaign you need every single bit of punch.. if you are deep into russia already, the game is decided in most cases anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...