Register Register

Author Topic: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?  (Read 4971 times)

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 972
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #30 on: 03 December 2019, 19:57:37 »
I quite like C3Ms for command rides.  Not that the Commander should be easy to knock out in the first place, but sneaking through to knock out that Cyclops becomes that much harder when its surrounding bodyguard lance (or even an entire Company) is sharing targeting data with each other.

Edit: To the actual topic, I don't think Comms equipment has much of an effect on BV, and it's fairly cheap, so it's an easy and effective force multiplier that's easily worth using outside of Solaris VII.
« Last Edit: 03 December 2019, 20:00:04 by Retry »

pheonixstorm

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 5223
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #31 on: 04 December 2019, 18:09:28 »
Lance and company commanders fight but not battalion commanders and especially not regimental commanders.

As for C3M. I do so enjoy company networks but it bugs me to death that I have to put two C3M on a single unit rather than put the 4th C3M on say a Mobile HQ.

3 lance with C3M -> 3 C3S
Single C3M on the HQ.

Why can't it be done?? Its still within the rules of the C3 itself 3 slaves per master, 3 masters per company master. Why should it matter where that final C3M sits so long as the unit is on the map. :bang: :ticked: :crash:

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20116
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #32 on: 04 December 2019, 18:53:48 »
I would go with that personally.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3938
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #33 on: 04 December 2019, 21:30:37 »
Or literally any small unit tactics group.  If you have two people on a side in a military engagement, you get one that's the guy in charge or they die very soon afterwards.

  In any small unit engagement you have one guy making the shots where he is under fire and yes also firing off rounds of his own, because the reality is, if you have someone sitting safe from the engagement then they function off of incomplete information and you have to deal with communication break downs and other issues.

  Given most engagements in the BT universe are 4-12 units (and most formations are lucky to see above 12 units during massive parts of the universe history), yeah, the commander is usually on the field. Even if we are talking a large group, like a battalion or regiment, There will be commanders for the battalion, company, and lance, because the reality is that the more people under your span of control, the more broad you need to give your orders.  The Battalion commander tells the company to achieve Objective Y, the company commander will tell Bravo lance to so secure the LZ, but the Lance Commander will give detailed tactics since they have the most information.

Your flight example is actually a quite apt metaphor, in the modern military we still have squadron leaders and wing commanders and use them extensively, and they have operational command when deployed on mission.  But just because you have a commander, doesn't mean you put a brainless peon who can't think for themselves under him.

I think this discussion is treading dangerously into mistaking "Leader" for "Commander".  a Commander's weapon isn't his rifle, it's not his pistol.  it's not his tank or his APC or his Helicopter or his 'mech.  His weapon is/are his soldiers.  a Poor Commander fights with his rifle, this is not like a Leader, a Leader fights with his rifle, and guides his personnel, but only to achieve the Commander's objectives.

This is what made Victor such a gawd-awful commander AND leader.  His only saving grace being that his opponents were also trying to ride both horses and he was lucky in his subordinates having enough initiative and intelligence to 'fill the gaps' in his shortcomings.

Focht, by contrast, was a Commander, and understood the difference between Command, and Leadership to a degree that let him put green troops up against the Elite of the Clans at Tukayyiid and win-because while the Clans had a whole mess of Leaders they didn't have any decent commanders.

a C3M is a Leader's tool.  a Command Console or Command post, is a Commander's tool.  This is even reflected in the bonuses-the C3M gives C3 equipped units bonuses to weapons fire, but a command post or console gives a bonus to UNIT initiative.  that is, a bonus to the strategic/tactical position for the entire force, rather than just a to-hit bonus on a number of select elements of that force.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Insaniac99

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 417
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #34 on: 05 December 2019, 01:30:26 »
I respectfully disagree with those definitions.

  A Leader is a person who inspires their people or who sets the tone and gets people to do what they would not normally do through inspiration, respect, and/or fortitude.

A Commander is merely anyone who has the authority to make someone do something, or fear legal retribution if they do not.

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 34990
  • Carpe Arcanum Cibum
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #35 on: 05 December 2019, 01:32:21 »
I agree in terms of real life. In game terms, not so much.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Insaniac99

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 417
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #36 on: 05 December 2019, 01:43:40 »
Well, if we are exclusively talking about game then I'd respectfully disagree even more. Many scenarios have players designate a "commander" and improve their gunnery and piloting and get an initiative bonus as long as their mech is alive and on the field -- often with a penalty for when they are removed from combat.

That indicates a commander in game is typically on the field and fighting with his troops

Weirdo

  • Painter of Borth the Magic Puma
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant General
  • *
  • Posts: 34990
  • Carpe Arcanum Cibum
    • Christina Dickinson Writes
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #37 on: 05 December 2019, 02:45:32 »
In the field, yes. Fighting with the troops and risking said initiative bonus is your choice.

It may be a common trope in Battletech writing that the terms 'ace' and 'commander' are assumed to be synonymous, but nothing forces players to continue that mistake if they choose not to.
"Thanks to Megamek, I can finally play BattleTech the way it was meant to be played--pantsless!"   -Neko Bijin
"It's just that the Hegemony had one answer to every naval problem. 'I kills it with my battleships.'" - Liam's Ghost
"...finally, giant space panties don't seem so strange." - Whistler
"Damn you, Weirdo... Damn you for being right!" - Paul
"...I was this many years old when I found out that licking a touchscreen in excitement is a bad idea." - JadeHellbringer
"We are the tribal elders. Weirdo is the mushroom specialist." - Worktroll

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2085
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #38 on: 05 December 2019, 10:11:14 »
Player: Well, my Strategy and Tactics skills are above average.
Me: Really? Let's see.
Player: Here.
Me: They are pretty impressive.
Player:Where's my 'mech going to be placed on the field?
Me: In the hangar -Your assignment will be at the command center in the dropship; Your talents are too valuable to be wasted on the battlefield with the expendables, welcome to my staff.

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #39 on: 05 December 2019, 10:52:26 »
That +1 Initiative bonus will work wonders for that company of Urbanmechs operating in the open field.  I'm sure the extra maneuvering advantage will be well utilized.

How about fielding a Mobile HQ and three Jeeps in a 500 BV fight?  The initiative advantage should help the Jeeps survive on the field, more than another 300BV of actual fighting equipment, right?

As pointed out, the Mobile HQ is a force multiplier, applicable and highly valuable in many combat situations, but isn't necessarily worth its BV in all cases.  The OP's question does not warrant a straight "yes" or "no" answer.

Lorcan Nagle

  • 75 tons of heavy metal mayhem
  • Global Moderator
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9890
  • We're back, baby!
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #40 on: 05 December 2019, 11:21:31 »
Lance and company commanders fight but not battalion commanders and especially not regimental commanders.

As for C3M. I do so enjoy company networks but it bugs me to death that I have to put two C3M on a single unit rather than put the 4th C3M on say a Mobile HQ.

3 lance with C3M -> 3 C3S
Single C3M on the HQ.

Why can't it be done?? Its still within the rules of the C3 itself 3 slaves per master, 3 masters per company master. Why should it matter where that final C3M sits so long as the unit is on the map. :bang: :ticked: :crash:

You can put the last two C3 masters in two separate units, so long as they're part of the same lance.  So you could field a company of:

Command Lance : MHQ with C3 master, unit with C3 master, 2 slaves
Lance 1: Unit with C3 master, 3 slaves
Lance 2: Unit with C3 master, 3 slaves.

Or even have a MHQ with two masters and 3 slave units in the command lance.


The moderator formerly known as the user formerly known as nenechan

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3938
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #41 on: 06 December 2019, 23:32:19 »
I respectfully disagree with those definitions.

  A Leader is a person who inspires their people or who sets the tone and gets people to do what they would not normally do through inspiration, respect, and/or fortitude.

A Commander is merely anyone who has the authority to make someone do something, or fear legal retribution if they do not.

Leader or Commander, both can be empty titles, Insaniac.  We're talking function here.

FUNCTIONALLY a Commander's weapon are his troops, not his personal gear.  Anastasius Focht was a Commander in function, he didn't strap an assault 'mech to his ass and run off to shoot at bad guys while distractedly barking orders he couldn't follow up on because the Targeting Reticle is full of bogies.

(this being how Victor "commands"-from a position where he doesn't know what's going on beyond direct line of sight.  Lucky for the dwarf, most of his opponents also think this is a good way to command...and he has a mile of plot-armor protection and such to bend the reality so he can succeed.)

That +1 Initiative bonus will work wonders for that company of Urbanmechs operating in the open field.  I'm sure the extra maneuvering advantage will be well utilized.

How about fielding a Mobile HQ and three Jeeps in a 500 BV fight?  The initiative advantage should help the Jeeps survive on the field, more than another 300BV of actual fighting equipment, right?

As pointed out, the Mobile HQ is a force multiplier, applicable and highly valuable in many combat situations, but isn't necessarily worth its BV in all cases.  The OP's question does not warrant a straight "yes" or "no" answer.

is 300 BV the right value? well the books say so, but it's highly situational-initiative bonus is more of a multiplier, rather than additive function.  in a sense it's a bit like that C3 network (or C3i).  It's worth zip if all you have are Urbies and Jeeps up against clantech forces or Manei Domini.

that's kinda true of ANY multiplier though.  the initiative bonus can be absolutely worthless-in the wrong hands.  Even with superior firepower, even with superior firepower ALSO augmented by a C3 network.

but we've had debates over asymmetrical forces and 'initiative banking' behaviours, and there's a reason for that that was clearly illustrated by the (now abandoned) efforts to impose the Force Size Multiplier (FSM) to BV-2.  (When people will move a lone infantryman and save their best units for their last move in the initiative/move phase, that should suggest Initiative has a definite value in shaping the field!)

so maybe the question is not "Is it worth using?" but "Is it properly valued?"

is 300 BV enough? is it too much? that's a lot dependent on the rest of the force composition.  a lance of Urbies supported by jeeps? maybe not so much.  But, with relatively well-built forces of reasonable size?

maybe it's undervalued.  Maybe 300 bv is too low, and what was published as an additive value should be a multiplier instead?  you can do edge-cases either way.

for example, is a CP worth it if all you have are securitymechs and pitchfork infantry up against a bunch of mercs flush with clantech? probably not.  at the same token, though, how overpowering would it be to have those clantech plus C3 plus a command post up against disorganized pirates in 20 ton bugmechs?

When both forces are roughly in parity, however, the initiative bonus can be a significant player. Likewise for a C3 network.

It almost should be re-evaluated as a multiplier for setting BV in a scenario.  A 3025 balanced company with a CP versus a 3025 balanced company *(or even slightly heavier) has a pretty decent chance of winning the engagement if both players are of roughly equal skill.  Better than 50% from start to finish.

it's only when you get into the really gross imbalances that either piece of equipment (C3, or CP) becomes either useless or overpowered.

The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16628
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #42 on: 07 December 2019, 07:52:22 »
I think any real answers to the value question will have to go down in the Fan Rules section...

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3938
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #43 on: 07 December 2019, 13:00:46 »
I think any real answers to the value question will have to go down in the Fan Rules section...

i kinda figure that's more if people start actually making rules proposals, rather than discussing the merits of the existing rules vs. systems and whether the values as they exist are actually appropriately reflecting the game impact of the gear in question.
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16628
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #44 on: 07 December 2019, 13:08:25 »
Has anyone actually said they thought the BV for a Mobile HQ is "right"?  Personally, I've never seen any value in the BV system.

Retry

  • Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 972
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #45 on: 07 December 2019, 14:02:53 »
IIRC MHQs don't pay BV for that initiative bonus at all, so that 300ish BV basically just accounts for the lightly armed platform with a medium laser.

Mohammed As`Zaman Bey

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2085
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #46 on: 07 December 2019, 14:36:07 »
IIRC MHQs don't pay BV for that initiative bonus at all, so that 300ish BV basically just accounts for the lightly armed platform with a medium laser.
True, the game doesn't place BV value on many abilities, such as special abilities and traits. I've seen battles won by players using Edge tactically, to adjust a hit to a crucial location or enhance a roll, especially when players with three or more Edge wait until the opponent has exhausted their own Edge.

Insaniac99

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 417
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #47 on: 07 December 2019, 14:37:18 »
Leader or Commander, both can be empty titles, Insaniac.  We're talking function here.

I said what I meant.  A leader inspires his men to do better.  A Commander merely has authority.  A Leader may be a commander, and a commander may be a leader.  Neither refers to "the tools they use".

That said,  I don't think we will change each other's minds, or help find an answer to the original question and it might be best to drop it.

Has anyone actually said they thought the BV for a Mobile HQ is "right"?  Personally, I've never seen any value in the BV system.

I find BV very helpful when playing one-off games.  It prevents arguments about whether or not a Mad Cat vs an Atlas is a fair fight.

IIRC MHQs don't pay BV for that initiative bonus at all, so that 300ish BV basically just accounts for the lightly armed platform with a medium laser.

I believe that is correct. 

300BV is a steal for larger BV games with a highly maneuverable force, but a ripoff is smaller or slow-moving forces.

True, the game doesn't place BV value on many abilities, such as special abilities and traits. I've seen battles won by players using Edge tactically, to adjust a hit to a crucial location or enhance a roll, especially when players with three or more Edge wait until the opponent has exhausted their own Edge.

  Having it be a percentage would be nice if BV3 ever game about but until then, I think we have the answer to the original question. 

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 565
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #48 on: 07 December 2019, 16:19:01 »
I don't think that Mobile HQ is required unless you make a regiment(or bigger unit's) command and put it far behind of the frontline. In fluffwise it should be exists, with at least one colonel or star and the person's staffs.

If you want to something similar in the company or battalion level, you can take a unit with Command Console instead. It provides you the better buff as well. I bet that most battalion in the real worlds will have a mobile HQ, and for battalion a mobile HQ seems not a bad idea but it must be set back far behind of the combat zone anyways.

Cannonshop

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3938
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #49 on: 07 December 2019, 21:09:41 »
I don't think that Mobile HQ is required unless you make a regiment(or bigger unit's) command and put it far behind of the frontline. In fluffwise it should be exists, with at least one colonel or star and the person's staffs.

If you want to something similar in the company or battalion level, you can take a unit with Command Console instead. It provides you the better buff as well. I bet that most battalion in the real worlds will have a mobile HQ, and for battalion a mobile HQ seems not a bad idea but it must be set back far behind of the combat zone anyways.

so maybe more of an "Alpha Strike" level asset then?  or perhaps a scenario piece where one side is trying to knock out the MHQ on the other side during a headhunting mission (Scenario level rules)?
The core rules for interacting with me:

1.) I am not a moderator, game developer, member of Cryptic staff, relative of any members of cryptic staff, not close friends with anyone involved with the game, not a distributor of product, not an employee, employer, professional reviewer, or member of any powerful conspiracies.  What I think is my own and has no impact on the Battletech franchise in any way, shape, or form.

2) If you don't like something I've said, refer to rule 1.  If you do, god help you poor soul, you're screwed up.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 16628
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #50 on: 07 December 2019, 21:27:01 »
The appropriate amount of communications gear for a battalion is 3 tons (+1 initiative), 4 if they want to talk to satellites.  Seven tons and up (for +2 initiative, and normally what a Mobile HQ has) is for higher echelons.  The fact Combat Vehicles (and 'Mechs) get one ton "free" as part of their control gear/cockpit makes this very easy to achieve.

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20116
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #51 on: 08 December 2019, 04:01:16 »
I don't think that Mobile HQ is required unless you make a regiment(or bigger unit's) command and put it far behind of the frontline. In fluffwise it should be exists, with at least one colonel or star and the person's staffs.

If you want to something similar in the company or battalion level, you can take a unit with Command Console instead. It provides you the better buff as well. I bet that most battalion in the real worlds will have a mobile HQ, and for battalion a mobile HQ seems not a bad idea but it must be set back far behind of the combat zone anyways.

Battery/Companies have that depending on branch . . . Battalions definitely have a equivalent set up . . . you should see the pop out trucks.
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 565
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #52 on: 08 December 2019, 06:17:22 »
Yeah. That's my mistake. Command staffs do exists on battalion level so it is nothing wrong to have one for battalion.

But anyway, in Battletech games I think that it is more like the scenario piece rather than an actual roaster component. Tactical support staffs would be needed if your commander is on the frontline, but it doesn't required to be on the heart of the battle unless the attacker want to do headhunting mission and the defender is the guards of HQ. And that's why it is MOBILE HQ in the first place - to avoid enemy headhunters.

In company level, company commander is required to be advance with the commander's subordinates, but in battalion or more level, the commander only needs to issue the order to the others.

Kovax

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
  • Taking over the Universe one mapsheet at a time
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #53 on: 09 December 2019, 11:01:48 »
In my opinion, a Mobile HQ should have both a fixed BV and a modest % multiplier for the entire force under its command.  The fixed (but low) BV accounts for the fact that its got a weapon and armor, and CAN engage in combat, although it's not really much good at it.  The BV multiplier accounts for its effect on its subordinate units (including itself).  Put it in a lance with 3 jeeps and that multiplier is negligible, or else put it in a Company with a group of Heavy and Assault 'Mechs and vehicles and that BV becomes rather substantial.

Sartris

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 11411
  • CR 21 Bullshit Elemental
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #54 on: 09 December 2019, 11:18:14 »
definitely more than the base BV for the unit.

... does the bonus still apply if you deploy the mobile HQ as a hidden unit?

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9593
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #55 on: 09 December 2019, 13:10:42 »
That indicates a commander in game is typically on the field and fighting with his troops

In a game the commander is never on the field. He's the player.
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

Insaniac99

  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 417
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #56 on: 09 December 2019, 13:32:59 »
In a game the commander is never on the field. He's the player.

A: Many scenarios designate a single unit on the field to be the commander.  Therefore a commander would be on the field.

B: If you are playing an RPG where each player is one character on the board and one of the players happens to be the commander, you have a commander on the field.

C: If you have a squad leader, or a Lance Commander -- which every lance should have -- then you have a commander on the field unless you are playing a mech short on your lance.




PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 565
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #57 on: 09 December 2019, 14:04:49 »
On the military term, usually 'commander' means the commanding officer of the company or higher level of structure, and the other commanding personnel is 'leader'. So, in this case, if you don't bring a company level or bigger unit, you don't have a commander in the most case.

But, it does not means you can't have a company sized roaster. And as above the word commander is also a game term that nominated leader of the force as well. The player is not exist in the game and is not a commander at all, however.

Kit deSummersville

  • Precentor of Lies
  • Freelance Writer
  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9593
  • The epicness continues!
    • Insights and Complaints on Twitter
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #58 on: 09 December 2019, 14:35:18 »
The player is not exist in the game and is not a commander at all, however.

Your pieces won't move without the player moving them, let alone decide what to do.
Looking for an official answer? Check the Catalyst Interaction Forums.

Freelancer for hire, not an official CGL or IMR representative.

Everyone else's job is easy, so tell them how to do it, everyone loves that!

Millard Fillmore's favorite BattleTech writer.

PuppyLikesLaserPointers

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 565
Re: Is a Mobile HQ worth using?
« Reply #59 on: 10 December 2019, 06:23:34 »
Your pieces won't move without the player moving them, let alone decide what to do.

But we are not in the game. Rather, we are oversee and move the pieces from the above.

 

Register