Kuniworth Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 One of the most unrealistic "features" of sc was how you get commanders. You'd have to buy them like buying candy in a grossery store. That is a very bad solution in a grand strategic game. I propose that we still buy HQ:s but appoint which leaders we want to them instead. Example; With the threat of D-day Germany decides to create an army group in France. The german player buys a hq and have a look in his "commanders pool". He sees that Guderian are available for service and appoint him as commander in chief of the armygroup. Guderians rating will now decide the performance of the hq. The german player then starts thinking about what to call the armygroup. He decides and then rename the armygroup's name to "AG France". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 Good point, but it's another design decision. You could make it historical, where the leaders are just given to you at a certain time. The game "Civil War" is designed this way. How many German leaders are really used (bought)? 6, at the most? Who is going to buy the sorry German leaders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 I like the concept of HQ units and how SC implements them. But as Rambo says, who is going to buy the sorry German leaders. The issue is how to create the uncertainty of war when you did not know for certain how well your commanders would perform in battle. Perhaps a system in which a HQ units Commander is selected randomly. Then a player can replace that HQ leader with another one at a cost. What cost? - Say 100MPP - The HQ effectiveness is negated for 2 turns while the leader is replaced - Depending on the government the replaced leader might be Shot (Russia) or put back in the pool as a know commander. - Also political considerations might prevent you from always replacing generals, the chance of this occuring is higher for Italy and France. - Also if the HQ unit is attacked their should be a small chance (say 1%) that its leader is killed and replaced by a randomly selected general. Just a few thoughts on the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 Who is going to buy the sorry German leaders? Right. And who's to say how alternate history turns out in a game? It may almost be better to have a standard cost for all HQs and have command ratings randomly assigned. Buy an HQ and maybe get a good one, maybe get a bad one. As it is, we're buying an overall HQ capability and the leader names are provided for flavor. If you don't focus on the names too much, the HQs are fine as is. It would be nice to have the leaders separate from the HQ unit itself and then be able to assign/reassign them. Also have some random chance of the leaders being killed or relieved of command. But that is a complex design decision and maybe it will be considered and maybe not. Focus on the HQ unit for the time being. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 How about just buying a general HQ unit without being able to select which one? The rank and name of the unit would then be randomly selected from a list. If you were lucky, you could get Rommel, but you'd have no way of knowing it in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted April 27, 2004 Author Share Posted April 27, 2004 Originally posted by Exel: How about just buying a general HQ unit without being able to select which one? The rank and name of the unit would then be randomly selected from a list. If you were lucky, you could get Rommel, but you'd have no way of knowing it in advance. I doubt Stalin was sitting in Moscow december 1941 thinking "Hm let's create a hq to defend our capitol, let luck decide who is gonna lead it." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 IMHO, that is just "candy" for the game. I like the format as it is now, better HQ more money. Simple. Many things mentioned on these boards are good ideas, but if too many are implemented, it will take away from SC2's appeal of not much micro management. World in Flames will have all the micro management you could wish for, wait for that one . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted April 27, 2004 Author Share Posted April 27, 2004 Originally posted by Blashy: Many things mentioned on these boards are good ideas, but if too many are implemented, it will take away from SC2's appeal of not much micro management. Yes I have the same fear as well. THat's why I like discussing those issues so maybe we can come up with a good and simple solution to the problems. Discussion is never wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exel Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 Originally posted by Kuniworth: I doubt Stalin was sitting in Moscow december 1941 thinking "Hm let's create a hq to defend our capitol, let luck decide who is gonna lead it." No, but neither could he know the true potential and abilities of Zhukov at that point. The choice of putting someone new in charge is always a gamble, more or less. Many of the to-become great leaders were strongly criticized by their superiors and predecessors before (and even after) they had shown their talents. That list is long, but Guderian, Monty and - indeed - Zhukov should make adequate examples to prove my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 Just make the lousy HQ's cheaper, then they might get bought. Right now cost variation between a good HQ and a bad one isn't wide enough. I'd use the following: Level 9 HQ - 540 Level 8 HQ - 500 Level 7 HQ - 460 Level 6 HQ - 420 Level 5 HQ - 380 Level 4 HQ - 340 Level 3 HQ - 300 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 27, 2004 Share Posted April 27, 2004 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Who is going to buy the sorry German leaders? I used to buy the lower rated German leaders all the time. If all I wanted them to do was work as a supply chain or hold a section of front, why waste a good leader unit when I can get a cheap one and maybe an extra corps to boot? I don't know why some people around here are so fixated on the names, all that ever mattered to me was, is the guy a 9 or a 6? Heck, I might even take nothing but 6's if it came with a couple extra tank corps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by Kuniworth: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Exel: How about just buying a general HQ unit without being able to select which one? The rank and name of the unit would then be randomly selected from a list. If you were lucky, you could get Rommel, but you'd have no way of knowing it in advance. I doubt Stalin was sitting in Moscow december 1941 thinking "Hm let's create a hq to defend our capitol, let luck decide who is gonna lead it." </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 We can never have a "realistic" HQ system, because we are operating from hindsight. The problem with rated HQ's is that no one is going pick a bad HQ for a critical position. The easiest and most effective solution, is to simply make the HQ costs the same per nation, then randomly determine who will be in command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: The easiest and most effective solution, is to simply make the HQ costs the same per nation, then randomly determine who will be in command.]I agree. Although I would also like to give the Russians the opportunity to shoot bad HQ units (ie shoot the general in charge and permanently remove this HQ unit from the force pool) and get a free replacement a few turns later. Thus the Russians would be able to replace poor picks but at a cost of not having a HQ unit available for a few turns, and they might end up getting a new unit that is worst than the one they disbanded. This would differentiate Communist Russia from the other Allied nations and reflect Stalin's tendency to shoot poorly performing generals. I would also give each nation at least one HQ with a known value to select based on their reputation and position when the war first broke out. For example - for the United States it would be Eisenhower. Then a player could decide between Eisenhower at 540MPP and a randomly determined HQ unit at 400MPP. For Russia the known HQ unit would be Timoshenko (5). [ April 27, 2004, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted April 28, 2004 Share Posted April 28, 2004 Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: We can never have a "realistic" HQ system, because we are operating from hindsight. The problem with rated HQ's is that no one is going pick a bad HQ for a critical position. The easiest and most effective solution, is to simply make the HQ costs the same per nation, then randomly determine who will be in command. I like that idea. But make the rating visible and have it go up or down as the game progresses and the HQ wins/loses battles. Are you going to stick with Rommel when your own incompetence has knocked him down to a 4? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts