Now what am I supposed to do with all these HQ units?

[unmerged(110232)]

Now let me ask you this... is it really necesary to show dozens of units with no combat value whatsoever on the map and force the player to move them behind his troops and take care not to forget them and let them be overrun just to show some sort of command structure? Wouldn't it have been easiert to have a nice command level tree in some interface screen under an additional tab which lets you organize that, maybe a button in a unit that opens a view of its siblings and superior HQs and keep the map reserved for the actual fighting units? It was already ridiculous in HoI2 to have several HQ units on the battlefield and even have the AI attack you with them sometimes but now you have dozens of them and none of them are there to fight, they're just there to hold a general's chair...

I sort of agree with you. The way I see it, the only thing that we lose by abstracting the HQs is the HQ range mechanic. As it is now, troops in far away lands will only have the benefit of a corps HQ, since it is too costly to build army/army group/theater HQs for them. Using an abstracted system, I can't see how that range/cost mechanic could be kept.

On the other hand, the gameplay benefits of an abstracted system might be more valuable.

 

[TzarSamuil]

I just wondered what happens if a HQ is destroyed, there should be some chaos in the divisions it commands. That will be hard to implement if HQ are abstracted and not on the map.
After all IRL they were "on the map".

 

[Subcomandante]

Without the HQ, you'd have to go back to merge divisions into corps and armies, into a single counter. The HQ marks the corps/army on the map.

I disagree that it is bad for gameplay to have HQs around. Corps have an additional division now, so what? You move it with the corps, or move the corps through it as a user interface. Seems to me nothing but a "change bad!" argument. Imo the command structure is one of the best things of HOI3. It gives armies much needed, well, structure. Not only in your head, but right there on the map.

 

[unmerged(110232)]

I just wondered what happens if a HQ is destroyed, there should be some chaos in the divisions it commands. That will be hard to implement if HQ are abstracted and not on the map.
After all IRL they were "on the map".

IRL, everything was "on the map". In the game, a lot of stuff is abstracted. For example, you can't hurt divisions in the production que with strategical bombing. Somewhere, we have to draw a line between detail and gameplay. And I'm not sure HQs belong to the on-map side of that line.

Without the HQ, you'd have to go back to merge divisions into corps and armies, into a single counter. The HQ marks the corps/army on the map.

I disagree that it is bad for gameplay to have HQs around. Corps have an additional division now, so what? You move it with the corps, or move the corps through it as a user interface. Seems to me nothing but a "change bad!" argument. Imo the command structure is one of the best things of HOI3. It gives armies much needed, well, structure. Not only in your head, but right there on the map.

We can still have a HQ marker on the map, even though the HQ itself is not an on-map unit. As such, it would work exactly like it does now, except for the fact that you won't have to remember to move that HQ when your units move, etc.

 

[TzarSamuil]

IRL, everything was "on the map". In the game, a lot of stuff is abstracted. For example, you can't hurt divisions in the production que with strategical bombing. Somewhere, we have to draw a line between detail and gameplay. And I'm not sure HQs belong to the on-map side of that line.

well it's not so abstracted, factories are on the map, bomb them and hinder production queue by lowering IC

Since AFAIK Strategical bombing didn't really had much effect on destroying factories, but rather did far more damage to civilians, and this is something not to be implemented in the game i think strat bombing it's ok, even somewhat overpowered, because you can actually reduce enemy IC with 50-60% easily

 

[Subcomandante]

We can still have a HQ marker on the map, even though the HQ itself is not an on-map unit. As such, it would work exactly like it does now, except for the fact that you won't have to remember to move that HQ when your units move, etc.

But can it still be attacked?

 

[TzarSamuil]

Do you know how unlikely that is to happen real life? Do you honestly believe a commander will get captured before his troops are overrun? Don't you think HE knows the best of all people when to get the hell away from there?

[\QUOTE]

Well with the current system, the general/officers always escape in the capital, but hq is returned to capital and looses command over the units, this is not at all that rare

moving in front the HQ, forgeting divisions etc. was something that happened, removing from the game will actually be unrealistic, although it will be player friendly

 

[unmerged(110232)]

well it's not so abstracted, factories are on the map, bomb them and hinder production queue by lowering IC

Since AFAIK Strategical bombing didn't really had much effect on destroying factories, but rather did far more damage to civilians, and this is something not to be implemented in the game i think strat bombing it's ok, even somewhat overpowered, because you can actually reduce enemy IC with 50-60% easily

The units in the production que are invincible, but as soon as they are finished they are not. This is a pure gameplay over detail decision.

But can it still be attacked?

No. Which I don't think is needed. How often were anything higher than a division HQ attacked on the ground anyway? Aerial attacks can be abstracted by the interdiction mission.

 

[unmerged(131628)]

every lvl of HQ has a distance range in which the bonuses work...theatres are like really big...and armees a little smaller and corp hq only a couple of miles...

on the other hand...i dont use the higher HQs in combat...but the lowest...corps(?) 'xxx' i use to attack too...but that is because i attack with corps together if at all possible...the rest of the HQ are behind the front line

I agree.

 

[TzarSamuil]

The units in the production que are invincible, but as soon as they are finished they are not. This is a pure gameplay over detail decision.

Well the units in the end of the production queue (assumingly those with lowest priority) suffer from ic reductions. You just stop building them because your ic is not enough (if you use all of your ic).

 

[diesekiel]

It is true that having to move units that can't fight is somewhat strange. I mean you don't have to move the supply units on the map, and things stay realistic. I wouldn't mind moving some of these HQs, so long as there aren't too many of them. In the demo, the number of HQs compared to the number of divisions is quite ridiculous. But when you reorganize your whole Army into bigger armies, it is far better. For instance, I use the 3 Heeresgruppen and no hierarchic level under this one. Only divisions, like in HoI 2.

 

[unmerged(110232)]

Well the units in the end of the production queue (assumingly those with lowest priority) suffer from ic reductions. You just stop building them because your ic is not enough (if you use all of your ic).

I said that they are invincible. You can't hurt tanks in the factories, but you can hurt tanks in the field. Anyway, this is a pointless discussion.

My point is that for the sake of good gameplay, details sometimes have to be omitted.