What bout movement of HQs?

[Blashy]

I hope their movement will be equal to a tanks movement and not like in SC.

HQs were highly mobile, heck Rommel even traveled in a tank himself and could communicate with troops this way just as easily.

Generals are in jeeps, much faster than corps, armie and even tanks. Mobile HQs were quite frequent and as mobile as the troops in WW2. I really hope HQs will have more mobility in SC2.

[Edwin P.]

HQ units in SC1 represent logistical supply centers. These centers are not highly mobile.

[Blashy]

Good point. Even so some were highly mobile, alhtough more expensive in equipement.

You could have the possibility of buying HQs with high mobility with an extra 50% of the cost. So a 500mpp Patton would cost 750mpps but would move the same speed as tanks, 3 extra movement points.

[Mr.Dozer]

what about having half tracks that could move army, corps, hqs, across the board like a tank. Also could be used as attack but more for transpoting units.

[Edwin P.]

You can move HQs faster by spending MPPS for operational movement.

PS: HC I like the movement rate of HQs in SC1, it means that you really have to plan your offensives and stop them sometimes to allow supplies to catch up.

[Blashy]

You can't op an HQ in Russia for 5 turns until a city has reached 5 mpps.

[Hubert Cater]

PS: HC I like the movement rate of HQs in SC1, it means that you really have to plan your offensives and stop them sometimes to allow supplies to catch up.

Exactly. If HQ's were included, for example, in any Motorization research benefits you would then have a hard time modelling the ebb and flow on the Russian front.

Interesting topic though, and one we actually discussed as well. As Edwin mentions, I think the consensus was that they are still logistical supply centers that need a reasonable amount of time to set up. Thus the limit in mobility.

It should be mentioned though, that on a relative scale, France is much smaller and Patton will by default seem that much more mobile as the distance from the beaches of Normandy to Paris are much less significant than let's say from Warsaw to Moscow.

[Kuniworth]

Hubert, I think SC 2 will be a blast. Too bad there is some negative people out there who don't think so.

[ September 06, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Kuniworth ]

[hellraiser]

@Kuni - how can't it be? Dudes chanting Kustrabawhatever guru sh!t, and having mottos related to 5to1 ? Sure thing is freakish! And think mr. HC is designing games for ppl like this! OMG!!!

on topic: HQs are fine the way they are, indeed. Rommel using a Volkswagen jeep is one thing, the whole gang behind with tables, maps, phones, meat cans and stuff is another thing.

Also, the concept of supply line was well represented in SC1 - even highly mobile units like panzer divisions or panzergrenadiers would find it hard to advance without gas. Supply is a key concept for any good strategy game and methinks HC did a fine job with it in SC1.

[Kuniworth]

Originally posted by hellraiser:

@Kuni - how can't it be? Dudes chanting Kustrabawhatever guru sh!t, and having mottos related to 5to1 ? Sure thing is freakish! And think mr. HC is designing games for ppl like this! OMG!!!

If you dont like sc 2 why even bother to hang around???

[pzgndr]

An argument could be made for giving UK and USA HQs slightly higher AP, considering the mechanization of those armies. In SC2 each country can have its own unique combat target values. We will probably tend toward more generic CTVs and use research tech differences to discriminate between different national abilities. But we may also include some national CTV differences, and if we don't then players can always make some mods to experiment.

[hellraiser]

kuni you edited your original post - you know damn well why i replied the way i did