|
BigJ62 -> RE: About HQs (8/29/2009 6:40:19 PM)
|
Correct, why should any unit get a ‘HQ PLANNING BONUS’ if said HQ is planning to invade for all we know Mars.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Icedawg
quote:
ORIGINAL: romanovich
Related to a unit benefiting from prepping for a target:
I believe it was said that the HQ of a unit prepping for an objective needs to be prepping that same target at the time the subordinate unit is carrying out its move on the objective (i.e. disembarks for the invasion, if such was the objective) in order to get the prep bonus.
I didn't think about that too much until I read some entries related to the new beta vs of patch 1:
quote:
ORIGINAL: StoneAge
55. When calculating the bonus for land unit planning for a target, the land unit and its HQs (corps and command) must be planning for same target to get the bonuses.
What Does this mean?
Does this mean that the 14th Army can only have 1 planning target set for the whole 14th Army at one time
As it reads literally, it's even worse. Everything within Southern army only gets a bonus if Southern Army HQ is planning for the same target they are. Is that really what this means? That's quite a change...
Also, does it matter how much prep the command HQ has? Could you have units, at, say 100 prep for various spots and change the command HQ each day to change the unit(s) that get the bonus?
end quote
In light of that - 'the HQ must prep as unit does'-rule would have huge implications. So much for the Japs is Southern Army, for example. Ultimately, most LCUs in the early going report up to HQ Southern Army. How do you have to play that as Jap in order to get the prep bonuses? How does the HQ bonus rule work exactly?
I suspect patch item #55 is meant to read as follows
"55. When calculating the bonus for land units planning for a target, in order for a corps HQ to add its bonus, the corps HQ must be planning for the same target as the LCU and must be in range. In order for a command HQ to add its bonus, the corps HQ and the command HQ must be planning for the same target as the LCU and both HQ's must be in range. In addition, the command HQ may act as a corps HQ and contribute a "corps-level" bonus only if the command HQ is in range and planning for the same target as the LCU, and no corps HQ is in range. LCU's can still prep for different targets than their parent HQ's, they simply will not receive any HQ bonus."
I think the new rule was intended to make it impossible for HQ's to contribute a bonus when they were not also planning for the target in question. I believe as the game originally functioned you would get ridiculous situations like this. Let's imagine the 41st Rgt (25th Army) is prepped for and attacks Malacca. Also in Malacca, but prepped for Singapore are the 25th Army HQ and the Southern Army HQ. Prior to the patch, both HQ's would give bonuses to the 41st Rgt simply because they were within range. The planning targets were irrelevant. The patch was intended to fix this.
I believe that the developers intend the system to work according to my wording above, not the original wording. You're right, the original wording would make it next to impossible for large commands to branch out in multiple directions. The rephrased version makes sense. It would allow individual LCU's to act independently, but they would be unable to get extra help from their HQ's. Corps HQ's could act to improve the function of units in range, but only if the HQ and the LCU are planning for the same target (the corps HQ can only help with one target at a time). Command HQ's could only help corps HQ's if they were also planning for the same target as a corps HQ. Lastly, command HQ's could substitute as corps HQ's when a corps HQ is not in range. All of these effects make sense, and I think/hope it's how the developers intended the rule to operate.
As a bit of an aside, it seems to me that computer-game-related writers very often imply (and do not explicitly state what they mean). [:@] Romanovich's understandable confusion is the result.
As a person with many years of science-related writing (professional journals, students' lab reports and such), I've gotten used to people explicitly saying everything they need to say. If something is not explicitly stated, then it is not meant to be conveyed to the reader. There is no assuming. If you intend something to be, say it. Assume nothing, state everything. I wish writers in other fields could follow this guideline. (I know it would add greatly to the length of passages, but at least they would be clear and unambiguous.)
|
|
|
|
