Love the game but just want to make 3 simple suggestions

[Azmodius]

Hello,

I'm enjoying the game a lot and see a ton of potential, especially for multiplayer. I also play both Panzer Corps 2 and Order of Battle WW2, and based on my experience with those games, I think this game could use a couple minor additions to really make it shine. These are all directed at skirmish and multiplayer, btw.

1. Deployment:

It would be nice if I could decide where to deploy my forces. And since you have a really easy-to-use and robust map editor, I think we should also be able to paint those zones into our custom maps. I'm not sure I understand why the developers went in the current direction with deployment; it feels a bit arbitrary.

2. A new game mode/win condition

In other similar games, often you get set a specific win condition or objective, which will afford you victory immediately if you obtain it, or perhaps you will gain victory if you hold the objective for a number of turns. Currently, in terms of map control, we use a ticker system that counts up VP until the end of the match. It's fine, but I'd much rather have a clear objective and have the match be over rather than have constant back and forth over the course of the game. Plus, it would feel more realistic and also encourage planning and strategy. It also means, once you hit the win condition, the game is over, and you don't have to play a long drawn-out loss if the game is not going your way.

3. Mirror match up

Order of Battle WW2 and Panzer Corps 2 allow you to play a mirror match. This is where you play a map with a fixed objective twice, once with the attacker's forces and once with the defender's forces. The two games are then scored together to determine the winner. I think this would work extremely well with Headquaters as well as pair nicely with my point 2. The huge advantage of this play style is that you don't have to have a balanced map to have a fair game. This is both far more realistic and also way more interesting because it provides a way for the player to experience a narrative within the game. You could add a notes field into the map editor where players can publish their story with their maps on the workshop.

Well, that's it! I'm really enjoying the game so far; it's got some great potential!

What do ya'all think?

[Tassadar]

1. Deployment:

It would be nice if I could decide where to deploy my forces. And since you have a really easy-to-use and robust map editor, I think we should also be able to paint those zones into our custom maps. I'm not sure I understand why the developers went in the current direction with deployment; it feels a bit arbitrary.

This bothered me the most apart from not having a larger, more customizable core force in the campaign and being stuck with half of my units being auxiliaries. The number of times the game put my recon in the back and the slowest, least maneuverable unit in the front of a narrow passage was quite frustrating!

[Azmodius]

This bothered me the most apart from not having a larger, more customizable core force in the campaign and being stuck with half of my units being auxiliaries. The number of times the game put my recon in the back and the slowest, least maneuverable unit in the front of a narrow passage was quite frustrating!

Yeah, 100% I don't understand the reasoning behind the choice they made on this. All I can imagine is that they ran out of time and were pressured to release before they could get to implementing a better system.

But what a shortsighted thing to do. It's not like this market is saturated with games. If they had just put in the little extra effort, they would have a game that could maintain a massive (relatively speaking) following. The game could become the go-to game for WW2 tactical combat. In this space, thats a title that could last a very long time.

As it stands, I'm personally likely to go back to my go-to games after a while.

Sorry to be negative, I just feel like they could have hit the nail on the head with this one, but they missed it by "this much," as the saying goes.

[Tassadar]

I am far more understanding of Starni games that many other developers given the overall conditions they have to work under. So while things could maybe have been different here and there, I don't have an issue with any flaws of Headquarters World War II and mostly consider these things to look forward in case this game ever gets a sequel. I strongly believe that a similar title expanding on all the different options this has to offer would be something really cools an unique, but a path needs to be paved for now with trial and error.

[Celeborn]

Hello,

I'm enjoying the game a lot and see a ton of potential, especially for multiplayer. I also play both Panzer Corps 2 and Order of Battle WW2, and based on my experience with those games, I think this game could use a couple minor additions to really make it shine. These are all directed at skirmish and multiplayer, btw.

1. Deployment:

It would be nice if I could decide where to deploy my forces. And since you have a really easy-to-use and robust map editor, I think we should also be able to paint those zones into our custom maps. I'm not sure I understand why the developers went in the current direction with deployment; it feels a bit arbitrary.

2. A new game mode/win condition

In other similar games, often you get set a specific win condition or objective, which will afford you victory immediately if you obtain it, or perhaps you will gain victory if you hold the objective for a number of turns. Currently, in terms of map control, we use a ticker system that counts up VP until the end of the match. It's fine, but I'd much rather have a clear objective and have the match be over rather than have constant back and forth over the course of the game. Plus, it would feel more realistic and also encourage planning and strategy. It also means, once you hit the win condition, the game is over, and you don't have to play a long drawn-out loss if the game is not going your way.

3. Mirror match up

Order of Battle WW2 and Panzer Corps 2 allow you to play a mirror match. This is where you play a map with a fixed objective twice, once with the attacker's forces and once with the defender's forces. The two games are then scored together to determine the winner. I think this would work extremely well with Headquaters as well as pair nicely with my point 2. The huge advantage of this play style is that you don't have to have a balanced map to have a fair game. This is both far more realistic and also way more interesting because it provides a way for the player to experience a narrative within the game. You could add a notes field into the map editor where players can publish their story with their maps on the workshop.

Well, that's it! I'm really enjoying the game so far; it's got some great potential!

What do ya'all think?

Very much agree with all three, especially #3 which would allow HQS to similarly use actual historical scenarios in a tournament. (of course someone would need to create those scenarios first...)