Army HQ's

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • I think everyone dwelloing on these forums agree that CoW is a great game for the pure mechanics of combat and weapon systems involved.

      However, there is a huge element missing. Armies of this era were so big, that the command structures became equally important as the achievements of the front line units. Some of these elements are often referred to as "C3I" which stands for command, control, communications and intelligence. The importance of this subject can hardly be exaggerated: for example, the German army was inferior in both numbers and weapon quality for the entire war, yet they managed many victories, and even the speed of their defeat was much slower than their huge number inferiority in the field would predict. The difference was in their C3I, which was superior to any other nation in this period, and very much so to the Soviets.

      To come to my point, I would suggest adding C3I simulators in CoW. A possible way might be the following.

      Introduction of a new land unit: Army HQ. This units is pretty expensive, like 20-30k of resources. It has very little combat value of its own (though it has significant hit points and maybe a significant AA value), but it exerts its "influence" on other units that are operating near it. This would work similar to the distance-to-capital mechanism for population morale: When an HQ is near (less than, say, two provinces away) a unit performs above par (say 150%), when it is about 4 provs away, the unit performs normal, and then gradually down to a minimum of 50% (army HQ is nowhere near)

      For players, this adds a new dimension of play, answering questions like:
      - What should be the balance between investments made in combat and command units?
      - Which active fronts need how many HQ's so combat units operate optimally?
      - Should I assign a HQ to defend a remote area in case it is attacked?
      - How close should I move the HQ to the front, so they are not overrun?

      Some more remarks:
      Army HQ's should move quickly (light tank speed), build requirements include IC and infra L1
      Players recieve one (or maybe two?) free HQ's with their initial unit set
      I don't think they need a seperate research tree (though it certainly is possible, increasing stats of HQ units in terms of effective range)

      They cross water in normal sea convoy mode, but they ARE operational in the water so fleets can also benefit from HQ attributes (alternatively, there might be a "flagship" water unit to function as HQ)


      What do you guys think?
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • I support this idea, but i said before that there should be leaders, they would be expensive and only 1-2 made at a time, they would increase the morale of provinces and armies they pass through, and stacked with other armies, those armies are stronger and do more damage, and they would have a 95% chance of being the last unit to die in a stack
      Forum Gang Mascot
      Girls game too


      dxcalc.com/cow
    • Sounds like the old game of Strategic Command (which was a somewhat simpler, yet better Hearts of Iron), I like the idea.

      The way you are suggesting it, it should be easy to code - as codewise I could imagine it works similar to aircraft carriers. Combine it with the code for the capital distance, et voila. But perhaps its more complex than my imagination suggests, Im no coder:)

      1 small remark though - because of the relative simplicity of this game and the (high) costs of the HQ, Im unsure about penalties given if they are too far away. It would make them 'too' mandatory, instead of giving the player an A/B choice in regard to army composition.

      Also, I feel that the bonus should be visible for the enemy as well (aka the combat numbers of the affected units are different if you click on them)

      Regarding speed: In Strategic Command they were actually quite slow. It was a hex based game, and they could only move 2 hexes, while a tank could move 5 or 6 (depended on terrain and supply etc too) and a regular infantry 3 or 4. That would also encourage a slow but steady advance, instead of the well known light tank guerilla ravage.
    • "... and then gradually down to a minimum of 50% (army HQ is nowhere near)"
      i don't think units should be less than 100%.
      Interesting idea. I think a 50% combat boost would unbalance the game in favor of players who can build more HQs. Fortifications already provide a combat boost. Troops in a fortication already take 55-75% less damage. Throw in a 50% HQ defense bonus and you turn this into trench warfare of WW1 till the rockets start flying. The game is already a slow game. It would give people more incentive to build more fortifications in areas they suspect will be attacked.
      HQs were generally vulnerable to attack. So they tended to be away from the front. they would have had other types of units between them and the front. Having worked in HQs, they typically don't have much in the way of hit points. HQs are weak like artillery. They would have administrative types that could fire rifles and an MP unit attached. Like artillery, you would have to have units in between to keep them from being overrun. HQs handle functions like strategy, logistics, etc. A mobile HQ would be like jeeps and some light trucks to move items the HQ needs. So HQ should have low hit points. HQ don't have any inherent AA capability. HQs in a war zone would post sentries but could easily be overrun. In WWII, HQ were behind the lines. In Vietnam, forward HQs were especially vulnerable even when other types of units were present to defend them.
    • Regardless of how realistic this hypothetical unit might be, the important thing would be that it's strengths and weaknesses are properly balanced. This would probably take a lot of testing to see how players actually used them and it would likely change as we learned how to use them.
    • The point about giving them hitpoints and AA was to prevent them being too vulnerable from the air/missiles. Lawrence, it should be way too expensive to use it as a damage soaker.

      Speed: maybe you guys have a point. I was suggesting high speed for realism reasons: it's easier to "fly in" commanders and staff, then bringing heavy equipment. From a gameplay standpoint, it is good that your choices about command are flexible, thus moving HQ's between fronts should be relatively easy.

      What if it was an air unit? It could be quickly transported through the airbase network, yet detail battlefield movement would be truck speed.

      I absolutely agree with DXC that this is unit that will need a lot of balancing, and should also include the factor of players learning to use them.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • If there was a unit such as this, there should be limitations on the numbers you have. And this limitation would hurt the players who are controlling more area than those with less area. I think 5 units like this would be too much. If you keep 1 on each of your fronts, you should be fine. It would be nearly impossible to make a comeback to players who develop these early on. Even if you simply had 2, I think it would still be an advantage. Maybe it should be a building which is similar to the capital by being limited to one. It could take 6 hours to build, and be a lower cost.
      "Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster." ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

      "War does not determine who is right - only who is left."
    • It would not be a question of "if you had them". EVERYONE would have them and research effect should be minimal. The choice would be in how MANY you have (they're expensive!) and where you place them.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • It would be limited by how expensive it is. If this unit was implemented into CoW, I think it should increase:

      A. Buff Unit Speed - Adds +2 to unit speed
      B. Buff Unit Attack - Adds +2 to unit attack
      C. Buff Unit Defense - Adds +3 to unit defense
      D. Buff Unit HP - Adds +5 to unit HP
      E. Buff Unit Morale - Keeps unit morale higher.
      "ANU! CHEEKI BREEKI IV DAMKE!"
    • Like this idea. But maybe rethink this whole concept and imagine if it was a building. Depends on what the game wants to be. If it wants to be realistic, then we have to assume, that the commands don't proceed instantly. Let's say the starting HQ is the capital. The further away from the capital, then the commands will be delayed. Player can, let's say, have up to 3 HQs, if your HQ is destroyed, then you get penalty in form of delaying your commands. All you said at the start would be preserved (Stat bonus and such).

      Just my opinion, though.
    • Perhaps something like the officers in conflict of nations, each different unit class has an officer that boosts the unit’s effectiveness, E.g. better damage health etc, I think 20-30k resources is a bit too much, and that it may be better to automatically assign a commanding unit in stacks, that serves this purpose instead.
      President of The Forum.

      (As elected October 2023).

      Can be found on Call of War itself as "Zaktty".