pzguderian Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 The question of HQ named after historical commanders is in my opinion a question about 1. game atmosphere 2. game functionality. The last thing is obvious an well implemented already in SC1: the HQ gives the different sides advantages in supply and combat power in a reasonable way. The screenshots suggest this will be handled in the same way which is good. The question about game atmosphere is complicated. In this context we actually want some historical flair to the game, the best commanders to be a part of it. In SC not very interesting commanders like Pavlov and Weichs were in it, but most famous ones like Guderian and Rokossovsky werent. I think that not the actual rank, but the significance should be the important criteria in puttin this list together. Then Guderian would be a good 9-commander. It would be a nice feature though if Guderian disappeared 1941, could then be replaced with a lower rankin commander (without extra costs). In the same way id suggest that Rommel disappear 1944. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven25 Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 The commanders in the game are not based on fame or reputation, but by their ranks in the war. For example, Patton was a general and can be used as a commander. Someone like Winters was only a Major, and was not part of high command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yaggmoth Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 I see SC as a what if .. so in my history Roomel maybe was suscessful in their atempt to eliminate Hitler ,if it pleased you can disband Rommel and buy another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosevelt45 Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 I think that you should be able to put whoever you want in command of your army. e.g.: If I wanted to make Guderian a field marshall I should be able to. Or, if I wanted to transfer Rommel to the kriegsmarine I should have the ability to transform my Rommel HQ into a naval HQ. I think that either way it is a bad idea to make HQ's dissapear because it is historicaly correct. Besides, if the germans were still winning the war, Rommel would have never tried to assasinate Hitler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur Krupp Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 yes-there's all these things to consider. Any sane commander would never dismiss the amount of skilled generals as Hitler did, so allowing you to choose may give the germans an advantage they did not have during the war itself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afrika31 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 the germans would have won the war if they had a better leader, lets be honest Hitler was as much a capable leader as he was a german Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afrika31 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 the germans could have won the war if they had a better leader, lets be honest Hitler was as much a capable leader as he was a german Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roosevelt45 Posted June 18, 2004 Share Posted June 18, 2004 I think we can all agree on that. Although I do think that even if the axis had won WW2, fascism would still have been abolished by now by the means of a revolution or simply a regime change like the USSR had in 1989. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapaho Posted June 20, 2004 Share Posted June 20, 2004 Personally - I think the HQ function would be better served by anonymous 'HQ' tiles that fulfill the current SC1 function of supply. A fixed cost to purchase (eg 400MPP) and the same/similar functionality as SC1. I would then use the current lists (excellently put together on these forums) of commanders to be part of an army or corps formation and thus fulfill a more accurate portrayal of their war time activities and abilities. This may require more genrals being added, especially to the minor axis/allied countries. An example would be when purchasing a German army, an option to purchase a 'named' commander (eg Rommel) to lead this army would be given, for an extra cost. Depending on the historical performance of this commander, experience points would be awarded to the new formation and whilst the commander was leading this army, the minimum experience would be equal to that of the commanders influence. So if you purchase an army, purchase Rommel to lead it and Rommel brought with him 1.5 bars of experience, whilst Rommel led this army the minimum its experience could go would be 1.5 bars. This would allow minor nations to have commanders, as well as having a much larger range due to experience being broken down into more parts. It would also be more historically correct. Essentially Hitler commanded the German army, through the likes of Jodl and you, when playing the game as germany are taking the place of Hitler, with your field HQ's being like Army Group command simply translating to the armies they control the strategic level decisions from above to the army commanders who fight the battles, thus giving your army/corps a more realistic flavour. I have been away a while and have missed a lot of the discussion on these topics of late, so apologies if I have repeated something already posted - as always this post is a 'what I would like to see in SC2' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts