Separate HQs from Generals -- Hubert?

[JerseyJohn]

One of the points I was trying to make in a different thread that became enmeshed with other subjects was the idea of HQs and Generals not being one and the same entity.

Each country should have a set number of HQs available to be built. When an existing HQ is destroyed, even if surrounded and wiped out, it's general is destroyed, but the country should have the ability to immediately rebuild the HQ in any of it's cities.

New HQs would be under the command of a general.

If, subsequently, the HQ is destroyed, that particular general ceases to exist but the HQ itself is again available to be rebuilt -- without limit as though the country does not exceed it's maximum number of HQs.

-- -- Generals would either be random or have set values based on their historical performance (or simply set to player whims in the editor).

Once the nation has run through it's preset generals, new generals would be assigned random values and I. D..

My thanks to Edwin P. for his posts in the other two threads where a lot of this was discussed.

If anyone wants to discuss tiers of HQs, please do so in a separate thread so we can concentrate on this concept here and hopefully get an opionion from Hubert.

[Retributar]

It's only Common Sense and reasonable that it be that way!.

[Edwin P.]

On a related tack, I like the idea of seperate generals/admirals, especially if they could be attached to invididual combat units and or HQ units and transferred from commanding a combat unit to commanding a HQ unit.

[Lars]

I'm a little unclear on this. Are you asking for unlimited HQ rebuilds? With a General modifier to the HQ value? Correct?

Seems a little unrealistic and unwieldy. You've lost a heck of a lot of officers when you lose a HQ. Sure, I suppose we could promote Sgt. Shultz to staff (and probably would), but we better start knocking off a significant amount of leadership points on the rebuilds, no matter who the general is. As I pointed out in the other threads, if you put Manstein in charge of a bunch of dunces, he ain't going anywhere.

And just in gameplay terms, if I'm losing HQ's at that rate, it would be time to stop building HQ's and start building Corps...

Maybe if you lost the General idea. I really wish people would quite looking at the name at the top. It doesn't make a dime's worth of difference in the game. How about a rebuilt HQ having, say, 1/2 the value it previously had but at the same price? Might be a lot of coding work for little return, but I suppose if a guy was desperate enough, he might buy one.

[rleete]

Sounds to me something that would be ripe for abuse.

[JerseyJohn]

Retributor,

Glad we agree, I can't see having a major country in a situation where it can't have HQs.

Edwin,

We suggested and discussed the idea of admirals two years ago but it went nowhere. We ran into the simple is beautiful movement.

rleete

I don't understand the ripe for abuse view. In what ways?

Lars,

I'd go along with the idea of dimishing values as a result of HQs that are surrounded and lost (Stalingrad, the equivalent of a small army group) or lost without a land path back to the capital (such as von Arnim being lost in Tunisia). But HQs lost in normal combat don't represent a total loss of personnel so much as a loss of that unit's abilitity to perform it's function. The officers were not all killed or captured.

A major country will always be training new officers, it's anticipates losing a large percentage of them. In some cases promoting Sgt Schultz to officer status is a good idea; it turned out pretty well with Sgt Zhukov.

In terms of the scenario (game editor) if we're looking at earlier times, Nathan Forrest, among many others, rose through the ranks.

Anyway, I'm in full agreement with your view, get rid of the names on the HQs and just assign values whether random or not is immaterial.

Okay, so we won't have generals, only HQs. -- Mainly a shell game anyway.

Let's put it this way:

Each major country is assigned a maximum number of HQs. Initially they are named and have a set value. If an HQ is destroyed it can be rebuilt with a random value. After the first random replacement HQ, each additional HQ will receive a 10% quality drop with a maximum drop of 50% from start.

The player names the generated replacement HQs.

My point is, no major power ever has armies without commanders. No one will be out there deliberately losing HQs.

-- A good safeguard against that would be to have each replacement HQ cost more than it's predecessor so you're paying more for a less effective unit. That ought to encourage players to protect them.

[Lars]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Let's put it this way:

Each major country is assigned a maximum number of HQs. Initially they are named and have a set value. If an HQ is destroyed it can be rebuilt with a random value. After the first random replacement HQ, each additional HQ will receive a 10% quality drop with a maximum drop of 50% from start.

The player names the generated replacement HQs.

My point is, no major power ever has armies without commanders. No one will be out there deliberately losing HQs.

-- A good safeguard against that would be to have each replacement HQ cost more than it's predecessor so you're paying more for a less effective unit. That ought to encourage players to protect them.

Ok. that sounds reasonable. And random first rebuilt HQ value might represent the odd genius rising through the ranks (if you get lucky and get a high value). But for the second and succeeding rebuilt HQs, I'd really cut the values, maybe down to a 2 or 3. You'd only be buying the things for supply at that point anyway. I'm just not sure how often the situation is going to come up though.

Hey, how about a negative value for when you've finally work you're way down to the Himmler's of the world?

[JerseyJohn]

And Goebels! I forgot he attempted to command troops till I happened to notice it on a documentary last week, I think it was in Berlin 1945. After a few shots he was commanding them from the Fuhrer bunker!

Yeah, I'd say the lowest normal HQ should be a 3 and after a couple of rebuilds they could drop to 1 or 2.

In the scenario editor I think there should be a total random option, where each of the normal HQs would be between 3 and 9 with rebuilds ranging from 1 to 6.

[rleete]

As to the abuse comment: I meant something like disbanding a HQ that is cut off (or about to be), and not losing that general. When I catch Zukov in a pocket, I expect to eliminate him unless the USSR can break out.

[rleete]

Okay, rereading, I think I misunderstood. If eliminating a HQ just kills the general, but another HQ can be built, it makes the HQ limit a moot feature.

I like the fact that killing off an early D-day invasion (and the HQ involved) means that the US or UK is now handicapped because they have lost that HQ forever. Same thing with killing German HQ; you get a couple of them, and they are really strapped in supplying a broad front in the east.

[JerseyJohn]

rleete

From a purely logistical point of view, losing an HQ would add transport to the loss of the general and also the troops (presumably a reserve) built around it.

So if we have it where

1) -- each replacement HQ becomes increasingly expensive,

That would relect the national strain in having to replace the lost trucks.

2) -- lower command c,apabilities,

That would reflect the drain on the officer corps from excessive losses.

So the formula becomes,

replacement HQ = greater cost + lower capability.

-- Not much of a bargain while allowing a nation some ability to recover from past disassters.

[Hubert Cater]

Interesting idea but unfortunately not likely to change this late in the game... perhaps something to think about in the future though

[Blashy]

Yes interesting, but edging towards micro managing.

I'm interested in this game because it steers away from the micro managing necessity.

[JerseyJohn]

Blashy

There would be nothing extra for the player to do, it would all be in the program -- so what does it have to do with micromanagement? :confused:

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Interesting idea but unfortunately not likely to change this late in the game... perhaps something to think about in the future though

Hubert,

I'm glad to hear the design is far enough along that something like this couldn't be added -- that's good news indeed!

Glad you'll be keeping it on the back burner; we all remember ideas that started out that way in SC1 and later wound up being added through a patch. :cool:

[Komet-163]

Regarding HQ's. If An Enemy Attacks A HQ and The HQ's strength Is reduced, When One Reinforces the UnderStrength HQ it will lose Experience yes, But will this New Elite Unit restrenght apply to HQ's so Essentially What happens is When A HQ is attacked and Say X amount of Its Officers are killed, When you restrength it, The HQ will Draw Officers From the Units that It is In Command of?

So (sorry if i'm dragging) The Experience of Say Y and Z Corps is Lowered as new officers take command there and the Experienced Officers Go to the HQ The HQ Increases Strength With No loss of Experience (this is Of Course Dependant on the Experience levels of the Units the officers are being Drawn from.) While The Combat Units Keep their Current Strenght But lose some Experience.

Sorry if thats hard to follow but i hope you get the Idea.