Simple HQ Rating Idea - Land, Air, Navy

[Edwin P.]

Though this will not be included in Sc2, here is an idea:

Rate each General's HQ unit for their effectiveness in managing the 3 different types of units; Air, Land, Naval, and also allow them to command Naval units.

Example:

Rommel - Land (100%), Air (80%), Naval (20%)

Nimitz - Land (40%), Air (80%), Naval (100%)

Rommel (8) would have a rating of 8 for a land unit (100% x 8), 6 for an air unit (80% x 8), and 2 for a naval unit (20% x 8).

Nimitz (8) would have a rating of 3 for land, 6 for air and 8 for naval units.

[JerseyJohn]

A good idea, Edwin, but ...

1) What about commanders who didn't have one or two of the three elements? Do they get the average of the other two -- or the sole rating if applicable?

2) Do admirals command units at sea?

[Mockylock]

I dont know about the naval ratings. But I like the idea of differentiate HQ's on more than one attribute.

I first thought about:

Attack rating

Defence rating

supply rating

And my guess it that implementation wise this should not be that much work.

A simpler version could be, keep it as is, but give some or all the generals some kind of special ability. Fx lower Eisenhower overall rating but give him a bonus to his supply value. Give Kesselring a bonus when commanding air units or when fighting defensive trench warfare. And maybe some attack bonus for Rommel. Guderian (whom should be included) might get a hige panzer bonus ... and so on.

That would be a simple way to differentiate the generals (game wise and historically) and put some more thought to which one to buy.

[JerseyJohn]

That would make sense too.

I hate to keep saying this, but we had a lot of discussions along these lines two or three years ago on the original SC-site.

One of the things I find interesting is the many different views people will have of the different commanders and what their ratings ought to be.

[Kuniworth]

I don't believe in this idea. Too much effort too little gain. Sorry Edwin.

[Edwin P.]

Perhaps, you are right Kuniworth. :cool:

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

A good idea, Edwin, but ...

1) What about commanders who didn't have one or two of the three elements? Do they get the average of the other two -- or the sole rating if applicable?

2) Do admirals command units at sea?

1) The commander would get the sole rating or a very low rating in the area they are not proficient in managing. Example: Army General Lucus would might get a low rating (20%) or a zero (0%) rating when he is used to command Naval units, but a higher rating when he commands land units.

2) I would allow HQ units to command units at sea if they had a naval rating. A HQs range for the purpose of commanding a naval unit is unlimited and a naval unit's HQ support could only be changed (reassigned) while it is in a port or when that naval unit is destroyed. Think of it as a benefit of a naval unit being manned by a better trained crew - ie an English crew vs a Russian crewed Battle Fleet.

GAME IMPACT: Imagine a HQ has elected to support a naval unit. It can't switch that support to an air or land unit until the unit has returned to a friendly port. This partially reflects the differences between a naval and land logistics unit.

As Mockylock says I would like to see some feature added that differentiates the HQ units. In Sc1 you always purchased the highest rated HQ units. This makes it more of a studied choice as to which one to purchase.

If I am the Germans planning a battle for the Atlantic I might want to purchase a HQ unit skilled in Naval Warfare, knowing that he would not be as effective in managing ground or air units.

Similarly, as the Allies planning a strategic bombing campaign I might want to purchase a HQ unit commanded by a General skilled in managing air units, knowing that he will not be as skilled in managing land forces when D-Day occurs.

Sample Ratings:

Montgomery 8: Land (100%), Air (75%), Naval (0%)

Donitz 7: Land (50%), Air (50%), Naval (100%) (ie land 4, Air 4, Naval 7)

Konev 6: Land (100%), Air (75%), Naval (0%)

Hugh Dowding (UK) 8: Land (50%), Air (100%), Naval (0%) (ie Land 4, Air 8, Naval 0)

[ January 23, 2006, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

A futher refinement:

HQ rating for: Land, Air, Naval and Command

Land - effectiveness when commanding Land Units

Air - ""

Naval - ""

Command - Base number of units the HQ can command.

Example:

Eisenhower might be able to support 7 units at once - not a good a combat general as patton, but better at coordinating the supply of multiple armies.

Patton may only be able to support 3 units at once - ie a great combat general, but better suited to commanding 3 or fewer armies.

This refinement really offers players a wider range of choices among generals.

[ January 26, 2006, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

There are parts of it I do like, but, as was said earlier, I don't think it will ever be used and am not sure that, in this game context it's worth doing, again, as was already said.

I remember a lot of paper map and cardboard pieces games from the seventies that were great and had elaborate categories like morale, attack, defense, melee value, missle value, rally value, # of units value, radius of control value, etc & etc, but they were all campaign or battle games, usually incorporating facing as well for the individual units and stacks.

-- Remember playing those things and, at the worst possible time a fold in the map would pop up and a dozen cardboard counters would go scattering?! :eek:

[Edwin P.]

I remember those to. Perhaps the best games I played where where you had to draw activation chits - SPI's War Between the States Game - You could use it to activate one unit, or a HQ unit that would activate X units under its command.

I also remember playing battle games -especially in the ancients and Napoleonic era - where you had to roll a number or higher for that combat unit (or units commanded by that HQ) to move that turn. They were usually very well founght games, as you were uncertain if the unit would obey your commands.

[JerseyJohn]

Those are the ones.

I especially loved that ancient battles game. It was interesting to see the Greeks winning battles abainst the Persians because their units would either remain in place or go haywire while the better led Macedonian Army kept moving relentlessly forward, breaking the Persian center.

The Roman Punic War scenarios and the ones against Pyrrus of Macedon in Southern Italy, also the hypotheticals of Alexander vs the Romans were all great.

SPI had a lot of great ones, that Civil War game was terrific.

The first of their games that I had was Grande Armee, around 1972, and it was fantastic, really changed my thinking about war games. Hell, even the freebie that came with the magazine, Waterloo (especially the second version) was really outstanding.

It's unfortunate nobody's picked up on those old games and made them for computer. Even human vs human, with the computer doing all the drudge work, now incorporating FoW and sighting would be fantastid -- if an AI handled them half decent a lot of people would be in heaven.

[santabear]

Of course the all-time winner was PanzerBlitz, but I always enjoyed one called "The Next War." Well all 10 or so games of it that I played. It took weeks to play the damn thing!

SB

[JerseyJohn]

PanzerBlitz was great and so was it's companion volume for the Western Front. And they had the advantage of being on a solid map, no popping up if you pressed it too hard.

There were a lot of games that had way too many pieces and map pieces, some needed a large piece of floor space for the map to be assembled in sections. One of the SPI games on the Russian Campaign was like that, it had hundreds of pieces in it's starting OOB.

-- Of course those monsters were usually meant to be played as scenarios instead of the full campaign.

[Edwin P.]

I wonder if HC would consider, after releasing SC2, doing a battle oriented version which would support unit activation/unit command activation?

This would really work well in recreating battles ranging from the Ancient Times through the American Civil War. OF course, a few more terrain types would have to be added - roads - Ie move from 1 road tile side to another road tileside costs 1/3mp, elevations - bonus when defending on a higher elevation or spotting from a higher elevation, forests block line of sight, - but nothing major. The core game system would remain the same as for SC2.

1) Unit Command Activation

--- A unit must roll a X (5) or lower to move.

--- A HQ unit must roll its rating or lower for the units attached to it to move.

2) Terrain

--- Roads - lower AP (1/3rd) cost for moving from 1 road tile side to another.

--- Elevation - block line of sight for units at a lower elevation

--- Forests - block line of sight

--- Swamp - Greater AP cost for cavalry

3) Battle Results

--- Rout - Routed unit flees towards rear and if moves off map is removed from the battle. Unit must make a rally check to recover from a rout. Bonus to rally check if HQ unit is within range.

--- Retreat 1/2

4) Rail Movement

--- Based on number of rail movement points

5) Supply Center Unit or Mapside

--- ie must trace a supply line to a supply unit or mapside to be in supply.

6) FOW determined by Line of Sight and Range

--- Example Base Range might be 10 tiles across clear terrain, but forests or elevations or city tiles block line of sight at 4 tiles distance, so you can't see beyond the blocking tile, except if you had a balloon recon unit.

[ January 26, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Summary of HQ ideas:

1. Different Combat Bonuses based on the commanding General - ie movement, attack, defense.

2. Variable Level of Effectiveness based on unit type - Air, Land, Naval

3. Variable Level of Units a HQ unit can support

Example: Eisenhower can support 6 combat units, Patton 3, but Patton is rated higher for combat.

4. HQs can affect naval units

5. Soft Limit Bonus based on HQ Unit Selected

Example: Donitz - Sub Build Limit +2

Example: Dowding - Bomber Build Limit +2

An Axis Player might purchase Donitz, a low rated combat HQ unit, in order to secure a higher build limit for submarines.

6. Portrait of Commanding General

7. HQ unit can be ordered to act as a Combat HQ unit or Supreme Commander HQ Unit (a Supreme Commander HQ unit gives a bonus only to HQ units that it supports, only one Supreme HQ unit per country).

[jon_j_rambo]

How about HQ's "getting in the zone"? Patton has a reincarnation flashback & goes Legend?

[Edwin P.]

Sample HQ Leaders and associated build limit Bonus:

General Dornberger (GER) - +2 build limit for Rockets

Admiral Donitz (GER) - +2 build limit for subs

General Kurt Student (Ger) - +1 build limit for parachutists

Air Marshal Arthur "Butcher" Harris (UK) - +2 build limit for bombers

General William Blanchard (US) - +2 build limit for bombers

General Ridgeway (US) - +1 build limit for parachutists

Admiral King (US) - +1 carrier build limit

*Note: Only a few HQ units would give a build limit bonus for specific units. These HQ would in have a lower rating than other HQ leader units. This gives players a choice - select a leader with a higher combat rating or one that gives you a build limit bonus for; battleships, bombers, carriers, engineers, parachutists, rockets or subs.

Example: As the Axis player (or AI) planning to launch a battle for the Atlantic I might purchase Admiral Donitz (5) as he would give me a +2 build limit bonus on submarines.

Example: As the Allied Player planning to bomb the Axis into Submission I might consider purchasing General "Butcher" Harris (4) to secure a higher build limit for my bombers, knowing that he would not be very effective in supporting land units or air fleets.

[ February 02, 2006, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Tagwyn]

Forget meaningless promises!! Look at Hearts of Iron II, vs. 1.3. Already has these ideas incorporated. SAC is a beer and chips game anyway. Tag

[jon_j_rambo]

Beer & Chips, where? My game box didn't even have an instruction manual!

[Desert Dave]

Beer & Chips, where? My game box didn't even have an instruction manual!

Well, jjr, from all accounts

(... ah, as we notice, many of them

your unbiased own, LOL )

You didn't NEED a Manual

So to reach - pretty doggone close

To the top of the heap, eh?

You took to it like a Sunday golfer

Takes to water!

As for the beer & chips,

Forget 'em,

They're both poison.

Quit them both and you can play

SC-2 until yer 100.

[jon_j_rambo]

@Desert Dave --- That's the best advice anybody has given me all week, no more beer & chips, I want to play SC in the nursing home.

[SeaMonkey]

Is it better to burn out, than to fade away?

My! my! Hey! hey!

[jon_j_rambo]

@SeaMonkeySpank --- No, it's not better to burn out, or to burn afterlife either. By the way, you know where your quote was used in a movie? "It's better to burn out, than fade away!" --- the badass dude in the classic movie, Highlander in the church scene.

[SeaMonkey]

Not my quote Rambonehead...Neil Young's.