Matrix Games Forums

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.

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.

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.

But my units will be organised into Divisions/Corps/Armies yes? And these units can be attached/detached from army HQs?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Because HQs do have assets with them which can be attacked.

Understood, Thank you [:)]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

Perhaps in the future I will have complete auto attachment with a manual override.

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.