teutonkopf Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 I think Naval HQ Units should be added. In a global map naval warfare becomes critical. Naval HQ Units would be assigned to a flagship and would transfer to another flagship should their flagship be sunk. There would be a small chance that the Naval HQ Unit would be destroyed when their flagship is sunk and a normal chance that the Naval HQ Unit's strength would be reduced. The command range of Naval HQ Units would be greater than Land HQ Units and the number of attachments may also need to be different. In a global map the roles of Yamamoto, Nimitz, Doenitz, Cunningham, Halsey, Spruance, Ozawa, Kurita, Kretschmer, and other naval commanders CANNOT be ignored or trivialized! v/r, teuton-K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhucul Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 This has been discussed before and it is a good idea. Maybe SC3. Naval units could have a leader attached to them who has specific abilities, just like a unit improvement. If this is done then tactical commanders on land and air units should also be added. In this way, each land unit can have a specific "leader" attached to it like a unit improvement that has special abilities. (Yes....very similar to CEAW) In this way we can add Guderian, Paulus, Student etc. I would also argue that Patton is a "tactical" commander, not an HQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teutonkopf Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 Can you point me to the previous discussion? I'd like to read it. I did a search before making my post, but it said "HQ" was too short (less than 3 characters) and would not perform the search. So I did a search for "headquarters" which returned no results... v/r, tk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I'm with you all the way fuhrer-T. I remember this being discussed long time ago. Like 5 years ago during SC-2 design. Think that Forum was erased by BF. v/r, Camp Rambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LampCord Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I think naval HQ's are a great idea. They could even be a separate unit mirroring the way HQ's work for land. They don't participate in combat themselves but instead positively affect the units that are attached to them. That would allow for the possibility of naval HQ's without having to take the huge step of having individual commanders for each unit which, while a good idea, would be a much more radical change than simply having a naval HQ unit that functions at sea in a similar way to land HQ's now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CSS Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Death Head , I actually agree solidly with you on this! On this scale where we do have land HQ's we actually DO need Naval HQ's. This is a GREAT idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Maybe give naval HQ's the ability to pass on "defensive" orders to units. The whole naval thing is cheesy. Ships should be given a bigger ZOC, able to intercept or run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts