Squigbunny's HQs post

Got any suggestions/wish list items? Put them here!

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, BattleGoat, Moderators

Locked
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Squigbunny's HQs post

Post by red »

Squigbunny made a post in this forum on HQs, but I seem to have deleted it? It described using HQ units to make formations and I replied that the hitch with formations seemed to be the specifics but then thought that wasn't terribly helpful and deleted it, but with a server error page and trying twice and such the whole topic dissapeared. :o Sorry, Squigbunny.
User avatar
Victarus
Lieutenant
Posts: 69
Joined: May 20 2006

Post by Victarus »

I saw the post too, so it definately was there. Good thing I didn't reply though! :D

Concerning the HQ idea, I suppose it depends on if you think of SR2010 as a strategic or tactical game - the variable scales of the maps (from a small country to the entire world) ultimately forces a comprimise in regards to the scale, one that leans more towards strategic in my opinion. I'd prefer without myself - I just assume that units have their own leadership with commanders far behind the front lines. Taking out the command units would be more a special ops mission anyways since you're aiming for a few individuals and their equipment, so I don't think it fits the strategic aspect of the game.
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Post by BigStone »

Congrats Red.. you've been promoted to -moderator-... :D
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
User avatar
Legend
General
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sep 08 2002
Human: Yes
Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by Legend »

Red, you remind me of Homestar Runner, while reading Strong Bad's emails.... --- DELETED!!!!

If Squigbunny could post his thoughts again we can add a few notes. Before and after the release of SR2010 a year ago I've been revisiting hierarchies, grouping, HQ units etc etc... I have some new thoughts that are written down, but more thoughts are welcomed.
Squigbunny
Captain
Posts: 144
Joined: May 25 2006

Re: Squigbunny's HQs post

Post by Squigbunny »

red wrote:Squigbunny made a post in this forum on HQs, but I seem to have deleted it? It described using HQ units to make formations and I replied that the hitch with formations seemed to be the specifics but then thought that wasn't terribly helpful and deleted it, but with a server error page and trying twice and such the whole topic dissapeared. :o Sorry, Squigbunny.
Hi Red ... I thought I'd been banned for some reason!! (ROFL :lol: )

Here is my thinking (such as it is):

At the moment you can have unit groupings (of whatever type) of up to 10.

My suggestion was that we have HQ units that could have multiple attachments so as to replicate division/corps (and avoid the current limitation on groupings). The idea then is that you give the HQ orders e.g. entrench/move or act on initiative, but as a "unit".

Taking out an HQ unit would obviously upset all the attachments and would represent the loss of C3I that the military analysts all focus on when telling you how to win a modern war. In game terms this means that losing an HQ puts the units back on their own initiative (however that is set by the state/military dept) and disrupts divisional/corps plans.

The other advantage of HQ's is to cut down on micromanagement (although clearly you could tinker with individual units if you wanted to) because you would just need to order your HQ with an objective and combat order (move/entrench etc).

I think that was more or less what I was driving at with HQ's and hoped it might spark some interest in the community. :wink: Let me know what you think as I think this has interesting possibilities for developing the military aspects of the game without 'bending it out of shape'.
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

This type of suggestion has come up before. If you search the forum for Hierarchy you'll find most of the discussions on this topic.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
gomer
Corporal
Posts: 3
Joined: Jul 13 2007
Location: Ottawa

Post by gomer »

Hi all,

I'm a newbe, not only to this formum, but to any forum - so please forgive any faus-pas's on my part.

I enjoy SR 2010 so much that I have decided to post something about HQ's for it. I tried searching for "Hierarchy" as Balthagor suggested, but I was not able to find anything - probably my fault. I've been playing SR 2010 for a few months now and I believe I understand at least the basics - well worth the effort.

My main pet-peeve is the screen clutter and effort required to command the many units. I think the use of HQs could solve the problem. I was not able to find any previous discussion on this forum on this topic other than this thread - so I'll post it here. Sorry, in advance if that was wrong.

This is a big post, but here goes :

To help solve the stacking problem, reduce screen clutter, and facilitate issuing commands, there should be a new land unit - the HQ.

HQs could be implemented as a kind of transport unit except that their subordinate units are "attached" and "detached" instead of "loaded" and "unloaded" and so their maximum capacity is measured in the number of attached units (not like the weight of loaded units). This similarity to the existing transports should minimise the re-programming effort.

Like all other units - it should be possible to research HQ formations with different attributes or restrict HQ formations by senario. The standard HQ sizes, costs and the maximum number of attached units is presented in the following table. The cost column is the approximate cost of the HQ relative to the division HQ.

HQ Size Cost Maximum Attached Units

Regiment 35% 3 land units
Brigade 50% 5 land units
Division 100% 11 land units

HQs are units of any of the standard land types (Inf, Recon, Tank, etc.).

HQs have their own attributes (e.g. speed, fire power, range, air dropable, etc.) just like any other land unit. Attached units behave just as loaded units do. I.E. they not visable on the map and move with the parent unit.

The main diferences between an HQ and a transport unit are as follows : The HQ and all attached units share a common supply pool the maximum of which is the sum of the HQ and all attached units. The non-combat attributes (e.g. speed, movement type, air dropable, amphibious, etc.) of an HQ are equal to the most restrictive attribute of the HQ unit itself and any attached units. E.G. if an attached unit is not air dropable, then the HQ is not air dropable. The weight of an HQ is equal to the weight of the HQ unit itself, all attached units, and all loaded units (as cargo in the HQ itself or in any attached unit).

The cargo capacity of an HQ is equal to the sum of the capacity of the HQ unit itself and all attached units. In combat attached units behave as independant units (unlike loaded units) except for experience (see below).

The HQ types can be researched and then purchased/constructed as normal units under the appropriate type. E.G. an infantry HQ is purchased the same as any other infantry unit.

Again, like transport units - no attached unit of an HQ is destroyed until the HQ and all attached units are destroyed. It would otherwise be difficult for the interface to show which attached units are in danger of being destroyed.

In combat, HQs add their experience (or a fraction thereof) to each of their attached units. The degree to which this is applied varies by the type of HQ and the type of attached unit to discourage the inappropriate use of HQs. E.G. we do not want to see an infantry HQ comprised mostly of tanks!

The following table presents the percentage contribution of HQ experience to attached units in combat. The total contribution column simply totals the previous columns. The relative cost column is the approximate cost of an HQ relative to the cost of a tank HQ.

HQ --------------- Attached unit type -------------------- Total Rel.
type Inf Rec Tank AT Art AA Sup Contr. Cost

Infantry 100% 25% 25% 25% 0% 25% 0% 200% 50%
Reconnaissance 0% 100% 50% 25% 0% 25% 0% 200% 50%
Tank 50% 50% 100% 75% 0% 25% 0% 300% 100%
Anti-Tank 25% 25% 75% 100% 0% 25% 0% 250% 75%
Artillery 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 50% 50% 200% 50%
Anti-Air 25% 0% 0% 0% 50% 100% 25% 200% 50%
Supply 0% 25% 0% 0% 0% 25% 100% 150% 25%

It is also possible to have equivalent formations for both sea and air units which also are varied by type and size. However, I would recommend having at least one formation for each (sea and air) to accomdate the larger transportation requirements for HQs and to further mitigate the stacking problem. For sea units it could be the squadron formation which is either free or very inexpensive, may have 11 attached sea units, and contributes nothing in combat. For air units it could be the wing formation which is also either free or very inexpensive, may have 11 attached air units, and contributes nothing in combat. A nice side effect of all formations, is that it is possible to permanently attach escorts to transport formations. This is especally satisfying for summoned transports over which the player does not have direct control and are too often destroyed because their AI controlled path takes them too close to enemy units. There are also many other positive side effects. E.G. useless units such as air transports with a small cargo capacities can now be combined to have at least some practical purpose.

If it does not already exist, then you may want to add this restriction to loading units as cargo. Say the loading unit has X vehicles and weighs x, and say the transport unit has Y vehicles and y cargo capacity, then the loading can only take place if x / X <= y / Y is true. This would eliminate the possibillity of lots of small helicopters trying to load a few heavy tanks.

Arrrgh - the tables did not show properly - is there a way to do this?

Thanx for your attention.
User avatar
Feltan
General
Posts: 1151
Joined: Aug 20 2006
Location: MIDWEST USA

Post by Feltan »

gomer,

Welcome to the forums.

You are plowing old ground here my friend.

I am an ardent supporter of unit heirarchy, and have posted several lengthy suggestions myself. Not too different that what you suggest.

FYI. SR2010 is no longer being modified. The development efforts are on SR2020. We have received no feedback from the developers on heirarchy/headquarters, so no telling what they are planning to do. But, they sure have a lot of good detailed suggestions to ponder!

Regards,
Feltan
ETA Five Minutes ......
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Indeed, welcome to the forum.

Feltan is correct that we've not really given any indication of which way we'll go as far as hierarchy, mostly because we've gotten so many ideas that we've got to get further in the development so that we can start seeing which ones aren't going to work. If you read the latest blogs you'll get a sense for what we're working on (I hope to post a new blog next week) and sooner or later we'll get into unit management issues. At that time, you'll get better feedback on some of your suggestions.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 22072
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Post by Balthagor »

Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
gomer
Corporal
Posts: 3
Joined: Jul 13 2007
Location: Ottawa

Post by gomer »

Thanx Balthagor and Feltan.

I found out how to properly search and I have read all the old stuff on hierarchy. Feltan - I see what you mean about plowing old ground! Balthagor - I will follow your suggested thread "Wicked's Divisional Organization Ideas" and see what transpires for SR 2020.

later
Locked

Return to “Wish List”