The HQ build time was increased for balancing reasons, which I understand.
In recent games I have observed the rise of a new early game strategy, which I will explain breifly:
1: select a nation with an inland HQ but coastal access and Neighbors with coastal HQ's.
2: move all your troops to just off the coast of their HQ, attack without warning win despite heavy losses, destroy HQ.
3: message player and explain that early game the economic damage of having to rebuild a HQ is crippling, in time taken, lost resource generation, and the resources that must be spent.
4: other player most likely quits, so despite the fact that the battle went heavily in favour of the defending nation in terms of troop losses they lose. - even if they can recapture their HQ they likely cannot become competitive against other nations.
I have seen this strategy quite a bit, and had it attempted on me a couple of times so far. - I have persisted with both games and won both wars, but they are right, the damage is crippling. It is also near impossible to prevent in the early game without access to naval scouting units, and for most nations this strategy is viable on, they can carry it out earlier than it is possible to get units trained up in that role.
This, to me at least, seems slightly against the spirit of the game. More of an unintentional loophole being abused by players who have spotted it.
I also understand that a HQ is something that should be protected, and the heavy morale penalty that comes with losing it is a suitable punishment. However, I also feel that a country recapturing its most recent historical HQ should gain some reward for that, either a cut in the build time or the resource cost (or ideally both).
Looking forward to hearing others experiences of this strategy, ideas for counterplay, peoples opinions on whether it is an issue or not, and ideas other than my solution to resolve it.
In recent games I have observed the rise of a new early game strategy, which I will explain breifly:
1: select a nation with an inland HQ but coastal access and Neighbors with coastal HQ's.
2: move all your troops to just off the coast of their HQ, attack without warning win despite heavy losses, destroy HQ.
3: message player and explain that early game the economic damage of having to rebuild a HQ is crippling, in time taken, lost resource generation, and the resources that must be spent.
4: other player most likely quits, so despite the fact that the battle went heavily in favour of the defending nation in terms of troop losses they lose. - even if they can recapture their HQ they likely cannot become competitive against other nations.
I have seen this strategy quite a bit, and had it attempted on me a couple of times so far. - I have persisted with both games and won both wars, but they are right, the damage is crippling. It is also near impossible to prevent in the early game without access to naval scouting units, and for most nations this strategy is viable on, they can carry it out earlier than it is possible to get units trained up in that role.
This, to me at least, seems slightly against the spirit of the game. More of an unintentional loophole being abused by players who have spotted it.
I also understand that a HQ is something that should be protected, and the heavy morale penalty that comes with losing it is a suitable punishment. However, I also feel that a country recapturing its most recent historical HQ should gain some reward for that, either a cut in the build time or the resource cost (or ideally both).
Looking forward to hearing others experiences of this strategy, ideas for counterplay, peoples opinions on whether it is an issue or not, and ideas other than my solution to resolve it.