HQs

HQs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan

Message

gwgardner -> HQs (5/9/2019 2:23:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fuzzypup Generals are assinged to HQs. They have 3 attributes. Combat (how well they fight), Mobility (how well they force a retreat), and Tenacity (How aggressive they are and how well they resist retreats). Hi fuzzypup The game looks like a must-buy. I've applied for beta testing and really hope to do that. Could you elaborate on HQs? Command Range, assignment of units to HQs? Is there a heirarchy system, eg Corps assigned to Armies? Do Generals gain experience through success. And anything else you care to elaborate on.

ajarnlance -> RE: HQs (5/9/2019 2:47:15 PM)
I'm hoping that there is a hierarchy system to model the chain of command and that it is possible to see generals get promoted/demoted based on performance, plus seeing generals develop their skills over time.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: HQs (5/9/2019 4:50:17 PM)
HQs have a range of their operation points (movement). If no HQ is available a subordinate will be assigned. Generals attributes are compared between themselves during a combat. HQs provide extra effectiveness recovery due to logistics management Combat – Affects how well each general is at inflicting damage on the enemy and reducing damage on their forces. Mobility – Affects the chances a defenders retreating. Tenacity – Affects the intensity of combat and the chance a defender surrenders when they have no retreat path. There is only one HQ level so there is no confusion for players. The HQs represent armies for all nations and army groups for the USSR in the field.

ajarnlance -> RE: HQs (5/9/2019 6:07:10 PM)
But my units will be organised into Divisions/Corps/Armies yes? And these units can be attached/detached from army HQs?

AlvaroSousa -> RE: HQs (5/10/2019 1:30:44 AM)
Infantry divisions can merge with divisions and small corps Infantry small corps can split into 2 divisions Infantry large corps can split into 1 small corp and 1 division. Armies can be split into 2 small armies. 2 small armies can be merged. This is part of the logistics system to give players some flexibility in units. HQs are just units that provide better logistical support and generals. Different HQs with generals can be used in different situations.

benpark -> RE: HQs (6/27/2019 7:39:06 PM)
Why continue doing the same abstractions of the lighter wargames that we have on offer in over-abundance? Lose this particular abstraction and allow for one large formation in a hex, and one other, smaller unit that can stack (like aircraft is now). That would solve the HQ strangeness, and allow for divisional attachments to corps.

apec -> RE: HQs (6/30/2019 8:35:31 AM)
Hi Fuzzypup, can you provide more details on HQs? i.e. how many units can be attached to individual HQ, how much close to HQ a unit must be for having the benefits, has the player the ability to attach specific units to HQs. Thank you and congrats for your game, really interesting from what I see so far.

Simulacra53 -> RE: HQs (6/30/2019 9:02:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: benpark Why continue doing the same abstractions of the lighter wargames that we have on offer in over-abundance? Lose this particular abstraction and allow for one large formation in a hex, and one other, smaller unit that can stack (like aircraft is now). That would solve the HQ strangeness, and allow for divisional attachments to corps. Good point.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: HQs (6/30/2019 3:53:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: benpark Why continue doing the same abstractions of the lighter wargames that we have on offer in over-abundance? Lose this particular abstraction and allow for one large formation in a hex, and one other, smaller unit that can stack (like aircraft is now). That would solve the HQ strangeness, and allow for divisional attachments to corps. I do not understand what you are saying here.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: HQs (6/30/2019 3:59:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: apec Hi Fuzzypup, can you provide more details on HQs? i.e. how many units can be attached to individual HQ, how much close to HQ a unit must be for having the benefits, has the player the ability to attach specific units to HQs. Thank you and congrats for your game, really interesting from what I see so far. HQs are simple. They support units within their range with their General. They increase the map supply level within their move range. Those are the 2 functions. There is no attachment to units. Units pick the closest HQ to call on their general for combat. This removes the micromanaging for players of this aspect. It means all you have to do is position your HQs and the system takes care of the rest. Generals have combat (how well they fight), mobility (how well they force a retreat and prevent one), and tenacity (how intense the battle is and if they can rally troops and resist surrenders) If you want to hold a spot put a high combat high tenacity general If you want to blitz a spot a high mobility low tenacity general If you want to delay a spot a high combat, low tenacity general as examples. All the modifiers are minor but over the scope of an operation that add up.

benpark -> RE: HQs (6/30/2019 4:34:20 PM)
quote: I do not understand what you are saying here. Why is it necessary to give an HQ unit an entire hex in a corps level game when you have the mechanics for basic stacking?

AlvaroSousa -> RE: HQs (6/30/2019 6:01:55 PM)
Because HQs do have assets with them which can be attacked.

apec -> RE: HQs (6/30/2019 6:18:21 PM)
Understood, Thank you [:)]

sol_invictus -> RE: HQs (7/16/2019 5:54:23 PM)
Warplan looks like a solid game and I am following the development very closely. I do prefer that units be directly attached to HQ's but at this scale I can understand your desire to make it more flexible to decrease micro-management. Personally I don't think it would create a huge amount and that the attachment of units to HQ's would bring more to the game than any micro-management problems it would cause but that remains to be seen. From the sounds of it the player will want to keep his HQ's very close to the front in order to receive the combat bonuses but it seems like that will cause its own micro-management since the player will have to be careful to make sure that his combat units are under the control of the HQ that is desired. If an armor corps is equidistant from two HQ's how is it determined which HQ controls the armor corps? Also, since maneuver units can't stack it also seems that the HQ's that are close to the front will be very vulnerable with the multi-phased movement and combat system in the game. I find it odd that since stacking of corps/divisions with air units are allowed why two corps or a corps and a division stacking is not allowed. This might not be a big problem in Poland or France; though still odd; but in Russia the inability to stack at least two corps will lead to a solid front that is packed with Russian corps several corps deep and a difficulty in concentrating a large force for an attack on a specific hex.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: HQs (7/16/2019 7:41:03 PM)
You can split and detached infantry corps/army units. So this fills in the holes. The micromanaging of the HQ position is a matter of weighing all options for the player vs ease of use vs versatility. They command range is 5 hexes for an HQ. It is a lot easier to work this than you think it is. As for them getting attacked behind the lines the game has ZoC which automatically costs +1 operation points to enter a hex. I am still unsure if I want to keep it at 1 or make it 2. Units can always move at least one hex if they have full movement. Russia BIG attacks. They can do this with a different mechanic. So say you have a front line. You have 4 corps in front and 4 corps behind. The front 4 corps expend 4 of their 5 operation points beating down the German front line.... Now you take all the back corps and swap with the front ones. Now fresh ones are now in front and repeat the process. Swapping is very easy in the game. Just hover over a friendly unit. Keep in mind doubling the number of men running across the field doesn't directly translate into doubling the fire power. It just better ensures more get across the field at the sacrifice of others.

sol_invictus -> RE: HQs (7/16/2019 10:21:05 PM)
quote: You can split and detached infantry corps/army units. So this fills in the holes. The micromanaging of the HQ position is a matter of weighing all options for the player vs ease of use vs versatility. They command range is 5 hexes for an HQ. It is a lot easier to work this than you think it is. As for them getting attacked behind the lines the game has ZoC which automatically costs +1 operation points to enter a hex. I am still unsure if I want to keep it at 1 or make it 2. Units can always move at least one hex if they have full movement. Russia BIG attacks. They can do this with a different mechanic. So say you have a front line. You have 4 corps in front and 4 corps behind. The front 4 corps expend 4 of their 5 operation points beating down the German front line.... Now you take all the back corps and swap with the front ones. Now fresh ones are now in front and repeat the process. Swapping is very easy in the game. Just hover over a friendly unit. Keep in mind doubling the number of men running across the field doesn't directly translate into doubling the fire power. It just better ensures more get across the field at the sacrifice of others. Thanks for the response. Looking forward to seeing how this all works out!

MOS96B2P -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 4:07:28 PM)
The HQs add an interesting element to the game. I wonder if it may be less complicated to have an option to attach units to a specific HQ. As it is now a unit may not take it's abilities from the desired HQ at the needed time. Example: A player has an infantry heavy army holding a sector of the front line with a good defensive general. He then moves up a tank heavy army with a breakthrough type general to attack this area of the front. Some tank units may use the infantry HQ and some infantry units may use the tank HQ. This will cause the player to micro-manage the HQs to try to get most of the tanks under the tank HQ and infantry under the Infantry HQ which will not be possible for every unit. This will be a reoccurring situation when attacking / counter attacking especially when tanks are attacking through infantry. There will also be cases when a unit is equal distance between two HQs (not sure how that is handled). Maybe an advanced option where sub-units can be attached and detached to a HQ as needed? The current option where sub-units report to the closest HQ could remain for players who don't want to organize their armies under HQs. Just a thought. Thanks for creating a cool game.

sol_invictus -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 4:58:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MOS96B2P The HQs add an interesting element to the game. I wonder if it may be less complicated to have an option to attach units to a specific HQ. As it is now a unit may not take it's abilities from the desired HQ at the needed time. Example: A player has an infantry heavy army holding a sector of the front line with a good defensive general. He then moves up a tank heavy army with a breakthrough type general to attack this area of the front. Some tank units may use the infantry HQ and some infantry units may use the tank HQ. This will cause the player to micro-manage the HQs to try to get most of the tanks under the tank HQ and infantry under the Infantry HQ which will not be possible for every unit. This will be a reoccurring situation when attacking / counter attacking especially when tanks are attacking through infantry. There will also be cases when a unit is equal distance between two HQs (not sure how that is handled). Maybe an advanced option where sub-units can be attached and detached to a HQ as needed? The current option where sub-units report to the closest HQ could remain for players who don't want to organize their armies under HQs. Just a thought. Thanks for creating a cool game. Without having played the game; the way HQs are handled is one of my few beefs with it. I would greatly prefer to directly attach units to individual HQs.

AlvaroSousa -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 6:21:41 PM)
Perhaps in the future I will have complete auto attachment with a manual override.

sol_invictus -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 7:00:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alvaro Sousa Perhaps in the future I will have complete auto attachment with a manual override. That would be great! Options are always appreciated.

MOS96B2P -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 7:49:37 PM)
Thanks for considering the possibility and for responding to all these forum posts while you're also trying to get a game out the door. [;)]

AlbertN -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 8:27:26 PM)
More interested in learning if Commanders can gain ratings. Given - the HQ tale can be quite improved and expanded over time to better the game.

Fred98 -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 8:30:42 PM)
In the past I have had ideas for HQs and this game seems to be following my wishes. My idea: Some generals are very good at attack Some generals are very good at defence Some generals are very good at supply Place a general unit on the map and any friendly units in range receive the benefits of that general. Some generals hold a higher rank and/or are better than others and so they have a greater range. Using a mouse to attach a general to any unit is a waste of time and would cause the game to turn into a click fest. And what if you forget to attach a unit because you are busy with your turn? .

AlvaroSousa -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 9:48:58 PM)
Generals do gain experience in their attributes.

Michael T -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 10:00:17 PM)
I can envisage some gamey situations with the current HQ setup. Like having two HQ's set, one for attacking and one for defending. Leapfrogging each other, attacking HQ moves up to influence attacks early in the turn, then the defensive HQ leapfrogs to influence defence for the opponents turn. Stuff like that.

MOS96B2P -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 10:16:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Fred98 In the past I have had ideas for HQs and this game seems to be following my wishes. My idea: Some generals are very good at attack Some generals are very good at defence Some generals are very good at supply Place a general unit on the map and any friendly units in range receive the benefits of that general. Some generals hold a higher rank and/or are better than others and so they have a greater range. Using a mouse to attach a general to any unit is a waste of time and would cause the game to turn into a click fest. And what if you forget to attach a unit because you are busy with your turn? . The option of assigning a unit to a HQ would cause the unit to draw its capabilities from the desired HQ. HQs have a radius of 5 hexagons (so 10 across a front). I think it will be fairly common to have a defensive capable general/HQ and an offensive capable general/HQ with overlapping command range. Especially during offensive & counter offensive operations. This is what is likely to happen now: You move mechanized units up close to the front for the big offensive and several of your tank corps unintentionally draw their command capabilities from the tenacious defending general instead of the desired breakthrough general. The option to assign the units to the desired HQ would take care of the above situations and would often be necessary to make a unit have the correct general/HQ capability. This assignment of units to a HQ could be done as often as a player desired so would never be a click-fest unless the player was constantly re-assigning units for some reason. I would assign a newly fielded armored corps to a tank army (with a breakthrough general) and assign the newly fielded infantry corps with the AT gun capability to an infantry army (with the tenacious general). I would probably seldom change this initial assignment. If you forgot to assign your unit to a HQ the game would assign the unit (as it does now) to the closest HQ which was in range (possibly with unintended consequences). How would you suggest dealing with units unintentionally drawing general/HQ capabilities from the wrong general/HQ? Maybe there is a better way...

AlbertN -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 10:18:10 PM)
You can have various settings / attributes besides just that. How many units they command? (leadership, someone can be very good but command only a handful of units; logistics - how much they affect supply instead of a fixed number, like this HQ is in a 3 supply hex, it 'spreads' supply as 4, or maybe 5, or maybe 7!; range - all HQ same range? Some can have shorter range, others longer, etc).

MOS96B2P -> RE: HQs (10/21/2019 10:32:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Michael T I can envisage some gamey situations with the current HQ setup. Like having two HQ's set, one for attacking and one for defending. Leapfrogging each other, attacking HQ moves up to influence attacks early in the turn, then the defensive HQ leapfrogs to influence defence for the opponents turn. Stuff like that. I think having units assigned to specific HQs would mitigate this potential gamey behavior. At the end of the turn when the defensive HQ comes forward it would still only control its assigned units (probably infantry corps). So would not be able to give the just finished attacking units (probably armor) a defensive General/HQ. At least I think this is how it could be made to work.

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.671875