Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: wac29

What do other people think about the 25 hex and moving HQ rules?

quote:

ORIGINAL: wac29

It seems to me the HQ buildup rules under 1.08 will result in much stronger german 41 offensives because:

The 25 hex rule vs. 20MP. This is especially significant in the center for turns 3-6 because of all the rivers and in the north for turns 6-12 because of the forests. This will result in buildups much further, hex-wise, from the railheads than before.

Being able to move the HQ on the turn of buildup. This eliminates the elaborate positioning of HQ's the turn before the buildup and of calculating the 20MP range. It will also enable buildups turn after turn vs. before was every other turn with the same HQ. The small penalty of getting slightly less supply because of using up a percentage of your movement points is overwhelmed, to me, by the flexibility of being able to move it at all on the buildup turn.

Re-assigning units to different HQs to save AP still works. For example, 2 corps of 3 mobile units each. Reassign the three units in the second corps to the first. Do the buildup with all six assigned to the first corps. AP cost is about 32 vs. 2 buildups of about 25 each =50. Because of the lower AP reassignment cost it will cost 6-12 AP to reassign roundtrip, resulting in a savings of 8-12 AP net.


I think you will see German players doing buildups multiple turns in a row on the same units and this will be quite difficult for the Red Army in 1941 to stop. Plus, with the lower AP reassignment costs for units and leaders there should be more AP available for buildups.

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

quote:

ORIGINAL: wac29

What do other people think about the 25 hex and moving HQ rules?

Well I suspect it's going to be too strong.
We'll see once Pelton posts the results from his 1.08 games. I should think he's having a field day with 1.08.
I'd like to scrap HQ buildup completely. I'd prefer something like a 'priority' button on HQs which would allow for extra supplies in incremental steps, say 10% per click at a cost in APs with a maximum percentage allowed per turn related to distance from rail head.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Northern Star

I suggest you to wait a bit before making other changes... the HQBU costs so many APs that it will be impossible in my opinion to make so many HQBU in few turns.
In my last Road to Moscow pbem I didn't manage to do a single HQBU in 9 turns. Now we'll see... I doubt it will work against heavily reinforced lines. Remember it only gives you more MP and not more strength.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

HQ build up is already too powerful in the old version, in my game with Saper222, he did many HQ build up, and much to my surprise, he seemed didn't have vehicle shortage.
Before I played with him, I didn't realize that GHC didn't have Vehicle shortage no matter how many HQ build up it made. I only made 3-4 HQ build up in my GHC games (though none of my GHC games past T15).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Don't be a newbie whining.

quote:

ORIGINAL: timmyab

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton
Don't be a newbie whining.

Lol, I'm not whining, I prefer to play the Axis side anyway. I have a suspicion that the Axis side will be too strong in 41 and 42, that's all. Only time will tell if I'm right or not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

HQ buildup was perverted/misused by some players + the additional supplies/fuel were created out of thin air or taken from locations all over the map.
This rework should prevent misuse + player should see increased vehicle usage for buildup.
As with many other changes in 1.08 this needs a wider audience for testing and finetuning.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

HQ build up is already too powerful in the old version, in my game with Saper222, he did many HQ build up, and much to my surprise, he seemed didn't have vehicle shortage.
Before I played with him, I didn't realize that GHC didn't have Vehicle shortage no matter how many HQ build up it made. I only made 3-4 HQ build up in my GHC games (though none of my GHC games past T15).

Saper was using the port HQBU exploit and a few others.

He was doing them 30 hexes past Rail heads, Saper is king of fuel exploits for sure.

I think we have with MT's help nerfed all of them

If saper does the HQBU's like he use to he be down on trucks before winter and he would get as real ass kicking during the 41/42 winter.

Saper is a good SHC player, but as GHC I think all his toys have been taken away

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pelton

quote:

ORIGINAL: mktours

HQ build up is already too powerful in the old version, in my game with Saper222, he did many HQ build up, and much to my surprise, he seemed didn't have vehicle shortage.
Before I played with him, I didn't realize that GHC didn't have Vehicle shortage no matter how many HQ build up it made. I only made 3-4 HQ build up in my GHC games (though none of my GHC games past T15).

Saper was using the port HQBU exploit and a few others.

He was doing them 30 hexes past Rail heads, Saper is king of fuel exploits for sure.

I think we have with MT's help nerfed all of them

If saper does the HQBU's like he use to he be down on trucks before winter and he would get as real ass kicking during the 41/42 winter.

Saper is a good SHC player, but as GHC I think all his toys have been taken away

I didn't see Saper doing anything wrong regarding HQ build up in the game between him and me, it is the number of HQ build ups that surprised me.
I think what Wac29 and others are talking is that the new HQ build up is more powerful than before, and he made a very good argument, it is nothing about trying to take some advantage from GHC or try to make the game more in favor of SHC.
The HQ build up is a small issue in this huge game. In my game with Saper, Saper's GHC is deeply hopeless from 1943 spring on, so you see I am not complaining about the HQ build ups he made. People are discussing technical issues here, not game balance.