Jump to content

Reepicheep

Members
  • Posts

    70
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://members.visi.net/~blnelson/

Converted

  • Location
    Virginia, USA
  • Interests
    Creation science, J. S. Bach, pipe organs, book collecting, WWII, computer games
  • Occupation
    System Administrator

Reepicheep's Achievements

Member

Member (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. The games Imperialism and Risk II demonstrated much the opposite, I think. I'm still waiting for a grand strategic WEGO-style WWII game, preferably with an operational layer reminiscent of the Panzer General series.....
  2. Those are good points. But clearly with only five increases over the war each one represents major (and probably cumulative) advances- doesn't matter what they actually are. Now if research was already completed (as you said), the time required to actually implement it should not be indefinite. Also, given that there was so much involved in actually implementing an increase, rapid-fire increases (at this scale) should not be possible. As I said, my primary concern is the problem of research taking far too long to complete, or research completing far too quickly. Given the grand scale, wild swings as we see now shouldn't be possible, regardless of whether or not it averages out over time. And you don't need to change the current system's random engine at all to correct it- simply add a minimum-time-required limit and a maximum-time-required limit. The results will still average out about the same over time- but will eliminate the really crazy, unrealistic stuff. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't be better. :confused: [ April 18, 2004, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]
  3. Your suggestion is, I know, very similar as far as adding a maximum is concerned; but it does not include a minimum. Getting advances too quickly is just as bad as getting them too slowly. Basically, both of those issues are what need to be corrected; how we get there isn't as big a deal as far as I am concerned. [ April 18, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]
  4. Fair question! In general, playing with tech is more fun than playing with no tech. And having realistic tech timing is more fun than unrealistic tech timing. Thus my point.... To demonstrate the concept, let's say the minimum for one chit invested would be four months (three a year- which may be too much), and the maximum would be a year and a half. Stretch out the probabilities along that line- 1% to 100%. You're guaranteed a return in a year and a half- but could get one after a few months. With such a system, you can still have large swings in randomness, thus replayability; but there will be nothing extremely out of place if properly set up (as I mentioned). (And I don't see how going years with no advances- and then getting them all at once- actually helps replayability anyhow. ) Knowing you're eventually guaranteed a return, however, may encourage players to spread out their chits, instead of stacking them in the most necessary technologies in hopes of getting reasonable results. Thus I suspect what I have proposed actually would result in a more replayable game, if done well. By the way, I'm not criticizing SC2- I think it looks great. Just hadn't seen its research engine mentioned in detail, and was hoping it had been improved in regards to the really crazy random stuff. Basically, I'm not suggesting a complete overhaul- more of a 'shock absorber' addition to cut out the most egregious (and unrealistic) random results.
  5. Given that we had a historical option for nation entry in SC1, I don't think a historical option for tech advances in SC2 is unreasonable. And certainly SC1's tech engine is not very realistic. Once I won jet tech advances for three turns in a row as Russia in the first three turns after they entered. In a current game I did not get level one jets as the UK until Barbarossa- but now have gotten four advances in very short order, putting me ahead of the Germans- who have been ahead of me for much of the game. I enjoy technology trees; but I find that sort of thing to be ridiculous and frustrating- it shouldn't even be possible. In WWII, you're not going to have three major practically applied advances in the same technology three months or so in a row; it's like saying the Germans could have developed and introduced the Tiger one month, the Panther the next, and the King Tiger the month after that- all from the same research stream, not independent streams! I think that for each level of tech investment there ought to be a minimum length of time required to get an advance, and a maximum. Once past the minimum, there would be a small chance for an early advance. That chance would increase as time ticked down to the maximum. There could still be significant swings in technology that way; but if the limits were well set, the overall results would be quite a bit more realistic, and more fun. [ April 18, 2004, 01:15 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]
  6. One thing I haven't seen referenced yet is the nature of the research engine in regards to its randomness. The research results in SC1 can be quite frustrating (and game-skewing) due to sheer randomness; and I hope that's improved in SC2- especially since research can be a lot of fun. There are a couple additional research options I would like to see. One would would be a way to toggle randomess in research (i.e., if selected, research would take a specific number of turns to complete, with no random factor- and that could even be a sliding scale so folks could pick the level of randomness they want). Another would be a 'historical' toggle, in which nations would automatically get advances at the time they did so historically.
  7. Toughening the Med would be key- a UK HQ there would mean a great deal for the allies. Iraq would not be a pushover for the Axis- possibly meaning either the UK or Russia gets Iraq, a swing of 128 MPP's per turn not counting plunder. When the Axis don't get Iraq and the Allies do, it evens up the playing field quite a bit. (And if the scenario is balanced, there is no need for a bid- except perhaps as a handicap. ) Also, another option is to give the US 10 research chits. I reckon that would be historical- the immense cost of atom bomb research showed what the US was capable of, and the atom bomb is not an option in the game. (Would a historical chit allocation be something like 2 in AT, 1 in HT, 1 in Gun-laying, 2 in LR, 2 in JT, and 2 in IT?)
  8. This is our game, right? Sounds very familiar, at least. Anyhow, we've been playing some of the 'other' campaigns in a 'fun' blitz through the holidays. We started with the 1943 scenario- me as Axis. It's obviously imbalanced in favor of the Allies (the Western Allies have a great deal of resources in particular), and I tried to smash Russia quickly. Made it to the gates of Moscow, but was thrown back and soundly thrashed (Russia taking Iraq didn't help- Iraq is a cherry waiting to be almost immediately picked by any Ally in this scenario). We then swapped sides; and Iron gave it a shot, attempting to take minors while holding off the Russian hordes. Sweden, Spain, and Portugal fell- but Russia took Iraq and was pushing hard on the Eastern Front; and the Allies invaded Italy and were about to finish them, while maintaining a D-Day threat. In the current battle (1941), the neutrality of the US makes for a very interesting game. I decided again to attempt the destroy Russia first strategy; and while I have farther to go than in 1943, the Russians have a great deal less- and the Western Allies are not a serious threat at this point. We'll see how it turns out!
  9. Good AAR, fellas. Russian readiness won't start increasing for Sea Lion until 1941- and only then if there are Axis units on or adjacent to London or Manchester.
  10. That was the right thing to do, Rambo. Hoped you would, and glad you did. :cool:
  11. Rambo, the premise of your first paragraph contradicts the premise of your second paragraph. If Terif, as you said, is absolutely precise and an English perfectionist, then he would not have made such a 'slip' if that phrase indeed means what you think it means (which it does not, as I previously demonstrated). Either way, your case is illogical. If his English is too perfect for him to make a lingual mistake and imply something that isn't true, then he is not going to make such a mistake if it is true! Then how can you properly judge his English? Furthermore, I know people who write in excellent English even though it's a second language for them, but who every now and then make an error. Terif hasn't won every game he's played, and it's a little much to ask that he never make a mistake in English.... Regarding the truth, I agree that it should be pursued. However, you could have at least e-mailed Terif and/or HombrePlin directly; and that would have been a wiser course of action. And if you're not willing to believe Terif's statement that he did not cheat, why would you even ask him? That indicates that you believe he is guilty without proof or even good evidence- which is not right or true.
  12. Rambo, a few points. One, Terif's first language is not English; and I know from personal experience that that can indeed have a significant effect on a discussion- even among those who speak good English. For instance, one fellow did not understand the somewhat subtle difference between the meanings of evidence and proof until I explained it to him (and he spoke good English). As has been said, English is tricky until you get the hang of it; and then it's downright impossible. Two, Terif's statement is in no way an admission of cheating. It can simply be referencing what cheating in SC would mean versus cheating, in say, a game of pinochle with a neighbor. For instance, some folks against which I have played can attest to my actions when a PBEM turn crashes on me or gets toasted in same way, and I have to replay it. I am scrupulous about not gaining an overall benefit from it because I especially want to avoid cheating in SC. Granted, I don't want to cheat in anything- but cheating in SC is something about which folks tend to be especially cognizant. Thus that can inspire further caution in those who do not want to cheat- hence Terif's statement. Three, Terif is a smart chap- why would he say anything that would so obviously incriminate himself, given your definition of what he said? Four, what good could have come from starting this topic in the first place? If you trust Terif enough to take his word for it, why even bring it up? That trust in itself indicates he wouldn't cheat! And you could just as easily have e-mailed him or the other fellow; yet you chose a course of action that regardless of the truth of the matter could negatively affect both Terif's reputation and your own. In short, there is no good evidence whatsoever that Terif is cheating or has cheated; rather, there is much the opposite. Starting this topic was not wise. Perhaps you should consider your reaction were someone to untruthfully hint something about receiving a cheating program from you, and were someone else to emblazon that on the forums....
  13. Sorry- still not convinced it's realistic, even if it has its good points. When I got the 0:2 result instead of the predicted 0:3, it meant I was doomed to a 10% increase. Would there have been any difference in my army's strength had Poland fallen instead? No. The same units would have been there. Why would Russia have been interested enough to begin preparing for war? Poland was obviously doomed- Germany was simply being methodical instead of overwhelming. When Poland's last two units refused to surrender when Warsaw was occupied- dooming me to another 10% increase, would there have been any difference in my army's strength had it fallen instead? No. Again, why would Russia have been that interested? Poland was obviously doomed; Germany was not going to lose- there was just some scattered resistance to chase down. The massive 20% jump in readiness doesn't seem realistic to me at all- even if it has its good points. A methodical assault on Poland as opposed to an overwhelming blitzkrieg shouldn't result in such a penalty- Germany would not be viewed as being weak. I would say only if it appeared Germany was struggling to take Poland- regardless of the time used- should Russian readiness increase in such a manner (exploits aside). And to apply this to Germany's other overwhelming victory, do we want to define taking France a few turns or so after it fell historically as struggling? If the Poland rule is realistic, shouldn't there be a massive readiness increase there as well- even if Paris is about to fall?
  14. Terif. :eek: Anyhow, I understand and agree that the Allies need help- but does it have to be unrealistic help? I don't think that the current Poland situation is realistic. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's my main contention (along with the fact that random factors can have an immense- and unrealistic- effect if the battle in Poland gets close).
  15. Am playing a game in which I failed to take Poland until about the eighth turn or so (three past the point at which Russian readiness climbs). I might have avoided the big increases- but a 0:3 odds attack on the Warsaw garrison wound up being 0:2; and I couldn't finish it off, take Warsaw (with my HQ), and perhaps get a good roll for surrender. About 10% was added to Russian readiness as a result. I then took Warsaw next turn, leaving Poland with two units- but they didn't surrender, adding about 10 more percentage points to Russian readiness (it's over 60 now). They finally surrendered next turn. My point is that that is an enormous effect to be riding on a few random rolls so early in the game. I'm probably sunk. Granted, I shouldn't have been in that position- my mistake; but it seems unrealistic that it's possible for a player to be in such a position so early. I know that the feature was added to prevent players from not taking Warsaw and exploiting the result, but it seems to me that playing to keep a player from taking Poland to force them to get a readiness penalty is equally an exploit (and I've tried it myself; I'm not blaming anyone ). I'd suggest (for SC2, perhaps) that Russian readiness should only increase if Warsaw is empty and still owned by the Polish by a certain point, or if by that certain point the Polish garrison is surrounded and cannot move off the hex (that prevents a possible exploit). That would indicate that the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is not being followed- which seems to me to be the only historical reason Russian readiness would increase at that point. Since there is no similarly immediate readiness penalty if the Germans don't take France in a few weeks (or if they alternatively get bogged down badly), I don't see that there should be a readiness penalty simply because Germany didn't quite meet the historical timeline on Poland. [ October 29, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Reepicheep ]
×
×
  • Create New...