 |
|
HQ: Rule Change Consideration - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: HQ: Rule Change Consideration (/showthread.php?tid=37243) |
HQ: Rule Change Consideration - HirooOnoda - 10-08-2006 I have long thought that the consequences for losing an headquarters unit should be more drastic, at least for the turn following the destruction of the HQ. Depending upon a moral check a unit under the command of the destroyed HQ could suffer: A. Reduced OP points. B. Become fixed. This would appear logical, especially with the Russian or Italian units, as many battalions wouldn't dare move without permission or direction from their HQs. I just can't accept that hordes of Russian bns would continue advancing or encirciling some German unit if they were out of command or their HQ was destroyed. In 1941 and 1942 Russian units became appoplectic when they couldn't reach their HQs. Just some ideas for some future patch of the series. RE: HQ: Rule Change Consideration - CptCav - 10-09-2006 I would like to see the penalty for losing a HQ be the disruption of all units assigned. Furthermore, they could not become undisrupted until a replacement HQ came on to the map. In the case of a superior HQ being eliminated, I would have all subordinate HQ's be hit with a OUT OF COMMAND penalty until a replacement HQ showed up. Regards, CptCav PS, I like what I am reading on the new command rules change being implemented. RE:��HQ: Rule Change Consideration - Dave68124 - 10-10-2006 CptCav Wrote:I would like to see the penalty for losing a HQ be the disruption of all units assigned. Furthermore, they could not become undisrupted until a replacement HQ came on to the map. I would agree with the penalties, but I would disagree with having to come on from the map edge (if I am reading it correctly). The maps are so large it could be even a bigger burden to get the HQ back in range, plus code logistics of putting a HQ on the map edge v. in with another unit as it occurs now. On top of that and at least in modern terms, there was always a back-up HQ or 'jump TOC' or 'Advance TOC' that was set up just in case Arty found the main TOC. RE: HQ: Rule Change Consideration - CptCav - 10-10-2006 Dave68124, No, HQ's would re-appear on map in the vicinity of the units assigned as per the current rules. Coming from the map edge would not make sense. Regards, CptCav RE:��HQ: Rule Change Consideration - SGT Rice - 10-10-2006 CptCav Wrote:I would like to see the penalty for losing a HQ be the disruption of all units assigned. Furthermore, they could not become undisrupted until a replacement HQ came on to the map. How about all units being subject to a morale check? Low morale subordinates would probably break; A morale subordinates probably not, perhaps with a loss of movement points. |
){kind=link}