Incorporating other games into HOI 2

[unmerged(19411)]

I was playing a game the other day, and there were many things which seem like a good idea to implement into HOI 2.

Firstly, HQ are seperate, individual units. There are reserve divisions, leaders, supplies e.t.c based within the HQ. Basically, a corp cannot survive without being in it's HQs sphere of influence. It cannot draw supplies, has leadership deficiencies e.t.c. Air units also reside within the HQ, and can be given missions such as 'interdict' or 'bomb airfield'.

All HQs have their one leading HQ, from which they draw supplies, re-inforcements e.t.c. The difference is that the main HQ would be the one which you re-inforce from your national pools, and the main HQs leadership would have the most effect on battles. Also, the sub-ordinate HQs would have their own sub-ordinate leaders.



So what other games' concepts may be in-corporated into HOI 2?

PS Don't mention the name of the other game

Edit: There are seperate main HQs for seperate areas of the front. e.g 'North Army' 'Southern Army' e.t.c.

Are there really no suggestions?

 

[unmerged(25612)]

HQs, in my most humble opinion, should be represented as a state wide unit that is tied to numerous unit. (Or actually those other units are tied to it...)

HQs, again in my most humble opinion, should not be individual units as in some games because each and everytime I played them it was so ridiculously easy to first hit the HQ unit with my artillery/navy/airforce/V2 and then take out the bonusless lonely units.

 

[unmerged(19411)]

A strategic game simulating actual grand strategy has to have grand strategic elements.

Individual HQs are part of it. I don't know what game you were playing, but it sounded pretty lame.

Let's face it, HOI1 had just about the worst combat engine I've ever seen... for a modern day war game.

There's a reason they had 'Supreme Commanders' IRL.

 

[blah.blah.blah]

I think there is some logic in not representing an HQ as a unit in a strategic level wargame. For one thing, an HQ doesn't have a lot of bearing at that level. Now, if we were playing an operational or tactical level game, that would be another matter. But at the strategic level, you have to assume that each division has an integral HQ. Each corps has one, represented by the leader assigned to it. There may be some logic in having army group HQ units. But there is no logic in having national HQ units at all. They would present extraordinarily high value targets, which, in the real world (at that time) could not really have been hit. Not systematically, anyway.

I guess what i am getting at is that the only level at which it makes sense to have HQ units in this game is the army or army group level, and even then the leader system covers it well enough. Though there should certainly be rules for capture (etc) of leaders.

 

[unmerged(19411)]

We'll just have to wait and see what the game holds in store for us

 

[unmerged(18043)]

At least their system is better than Impiralism's fighting system.

But I agree making a HQ unit would be stategically unfair to human players. And i also agree if you can target a HQ and destroy it that would be pretty lame. As a whole I don't see the need for a HQ unit in game.

But PLEASE stop teleporting leaders. It boggles my mind how Zhukov can go from Japan to poland in less than 1 Hour.

 

[blah.blah.blah]

At least their system is better than Impiralism's fighting system.

But I agree making a HQ unit would be stategically unfair to human players. And i also agree if you can target a HQ and destroy it that would be pretty lame. As a whole I don't see the need for a HQ unit in game.

But PLEASE stop teleporting leaders. It boggles my mind how Zhukov can go from Japan to poland in less than 1 Hour.

And that would be so easy to fix too. Here's how I'd do it, and I expect plenty of argument on this

1) when a leader is assigned to a unit, he can't be reassigned for X months (I think 3 would be a good figure).

2) leaders below the rank of general can't be reassigned at all, except for...

3) when a mj gen or lt gen is promoted, he can be reassigned at the time of promotion.

Sound reasonable?

 

[unmerged(25612)]

And that would be so easy to fix too. Here's how I'd do it, and I expect plenty of argument on this

1) when a leader is assigned to a unit, he can't be reassigned for X months (I think 3 would be a good figure).

2) leaders below the rank of general can't be reassigned at all, except for...

3) when a mj gen or lt gen is promoted, he can be reassigned at the time of promotion.

Sound reasonable?

Actually I see the easiest fix as this way: Make the leader suffer from huge efficiency penalties until he "gets to know" his new unit. This introductionary time lasts for a few months (3 maybe). This would also stop the warping from a leader to another when you attack a specific terrain. And with this you would also cover another area of representation (Leaders need to get to know the lower commanders of that army, the equipment, the soldiers, the backrounds... Ie. the stats of the unit in order to know how to lead it with the best possible way.)

Perhaps the time of which it takes should not just stop after three months, but perhaps after a year or so... So that after three months you are neutral of efficience but after that time you begin to accumulate bonus..

Say -50% efficiency at start. +15% per months for two months, +10% for the next month. Then +1% efficience per month for a year. (Resulting in a 112% efficiency overall...)

So that in order to achieve maxium efficiency you need to have the leader for the army for 15 months.

New divisions will lower the bonus according to their size, but never under the 50%, and only under the 100% if they are more than twice of the original size. (Ie. If more than 50% of the army are new recruits, then the bonus will go below 50%)


Just my thought.

 

[blah.blah.blah]

Actually I see the easiest fix as this way: Make the leader suffer from huge efficiency penalties until he "gets to know" his new unit. This introductionary time lasts for a few months (3 maybe). This would also stop the warping from a leader to another when you attack a specific terrain. And with this you would also cover another area of representation (Leaders need to get to know the lower commanders of that army, the equipment, the soldiers, the backrounds... Ie. the stats of the unit in order to know how to lead it with the best possible way.)

Perhaps the time of which it takes should not just stop after three months, but perhaps after a year or so... So that after three months you are neutral of efficience but after that time you begin to accumulate bonus..

Say -50% efficiency at start. +15% per months for two months, +10% for the next month. Then +1% efficience per month for a year. (Resulting in a 112% efficiency overall...)

So that in order to achieve maxium efficiency you need to have the leader for the army for 15 months.

New divisions will lower the bonus according to their size, but never under the 50%, and only under the 100% if they are more than twice of the original size. (Ie. If more than 50% of the army are new recruits, then the bonus will go below 50%)


Just my thought.

Sounds workable to me, except that it wouldn't work too well for the highest ranking generals at times. You know, people like Zhukov who were often used as 'pinch-hitters' of a sort, and moved from trouble point to trouble point as the situation developed. That's the main reason I prefer to just not allow lower ranking leaders to be moved at all from their assigned commands. If you want to move them, promote them

 

[unmerged(26642)]

This is also correct for Model and Manstein. They performed very well at the very first moment.

 

[kalkwerk]

u talkin bout STRATEGIC COMMAND?