Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gronq

  • Rank


  • Location
    Leeds, UK
  1. Gronq

    Fun Challenge 2011

    Is there an argument to carry this on with the new Gold edition when it's released (building on the matches already played obviously)? Would everyone upgrade?
  2. $25 for those upgrades? Bargain! Also, supporting continued development for a company that listens to the users. As a user you don't have to buy every single release either and that's your individual choice.
  3. Making the Fog of War a bit more, well, foggier... Having played most versions of SC now for a number of years I'd like to see some changes to the fog of war to make battles, quite frankly, a bit riskier. Therefore, some suggestions that I'd be grateful if you all could consider: 1. Units spotted should not be guaranteed to be what they seem. 2. Units in immediate contact with other units should not necessarily show their true tech level (unless battles have been fought previously). The likely battle outcomes displayed should reflect this. 3. Terrain should have an effect on concealment e.g. harder to spot a unit and/or detect the type in forests. 4. Introduce some new research categories: Reconnaissance - ability to spot and accurately determine the type of unit, Concealment - ability to camouflage units, Deception - ability 'fake' units e.g. portray that a Garrison unit is tank group.
  4. Gronq

    Axis Bias

    Me likes. Good suggestion!
  5. Gronq

    New Features

    Allow minor units to be controlled by the power it leans towards prior to activation. Tech upgrades takes place at a risk (in case the minor changes allegiance). This will make for better defensive positions of units if attacked.
  6. Try some simple things first: 1. Reduce the power of TacAir over certain terrain. 2. Close the German Para loophole. 3. Make the US land defences at Pearl Harbour stronger. 4. Give the Russians their engineer sooner, maybe even allow for another in the build queue. These should be very simple to implement. Any others?
  7. Gronq

    Axis Bias

    Having played quite a few H2H games now I'm of the firm opinion that if the Axis player plays aggressively without taking too many risks he will win 99% of the time under the current victory conditions. The only chance the Allies have at present is to go 'all in' for the Italy gambit and actually take Italy out early 1940. This is a massive gamble because if France falls before Italy surrenders the Allies are really knackered (to use a technical term). Jollyguy's suggestions are all good. Certainly some minors should have more risks attached to them if you attack them. Also, as a number of people have said, TacAir is far to powerful at the moment.
  8. Agreed. The game is currently very weighted in favour of the Axis.
  9. Gronq

    New Features

    Done! Never look back...
  10. Gronq

    New Features

    Bored waiting for an Ikea delivery so I thought I'd throw some thoughts into the mix. Features that I'd like to see in updates/redesigns (some of which have already been suggested by others):- Research: 1. Separate research for each major power. However, add a research chit option for Research Collaboration which would increase the likelihood of a hit in areas where your allies are more advanced. 2. Allow research for Intelligence (spying) to achieve hits in areas where your opponents are more advanced. 3. Allow research for Counter Intelligence to stop opponents achieve hits in areas where you are more advanced. 4. Introduce research for Naval Radar and Sonar to improve spotting. 5. Introduce nuclear research but also with the proviso that certain resource tiles would have to be held. For example a heavy water tile in, say, Norway. Decision events: 1. More random and strategic decision events. My view is that these enrich the game and if they weren't there we might as well play chess. Naval warfare: 1. Split each sea and port tile (as is now) into 4 i.e. for every land tile the equivalent at sea would be 4 tiles. This would open up a multitude of interesting ways to handle naval warfare and the interaction between land/air and sea units. 2. More realistic convoys where they have to travel across water and be found by subs/raiders. 3. Allow naval units to 'drop out' of a movement and take action if an enemy unit is spotted by radar and/or sonar. Air warfare: 1. Paratroopers should be able to be intercepted and shot down. Misc: 1. More realistic strategic redeployment as has been stated before. 2. The swap function for units as discussed before. 3. Allow Engineers to build roads and railway lines for improved infrastructure. 4. Allow Engineers to attack fortifications with a bonus e.g. fortification level halved. 5. If nuclear weapons have been achieved, allow for the purchase of nuclear bombers. (say one hit wonders). 6. Give Minors units higher tech later in the game, if attacked, on the assumption that their research has not stood still. Also, more units, there should be a difference in attacking, say Sweden, early in the game vs later. That's enough now as Ikea has turned up. :-) Key is to strike a balance between playability and more realism. However, if players can turn the features on and off themselves that's sorted. ;-) All the best, Marcus
  11. Gronq

    New Features

    More decision events in general is a good thing as it tends to spice things up. Maybe even allow certain research to make certain decision events more likely is another option. I second Sharkmans suggestion re operational movement cost. Also, (and I think someone has suggested this in the past) perhaps limit the distance allowed per turn.
  12. Gronq

    CV question

    Hi John, Probably due to sea conditions. If you're on a rough sea tile you won't be able to launch. All the best!
  13. Gronq

    Fun Challenge 2011

    Not sure that leaderboard is right. I've got 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss (Clausewitz has got a win and a draw against me). All the best!
  14. At the moment paratroopers get to drop for 'free' i.e. there is no defence against them until after they've dropped. Would it be more realistic to enable fighters to attack them prior to the drop? They would, therefore, have to have a fighter escort to minimise casualties prior to the drop itself.
  15. Gronq

    French Navy

    Maybe introduce a Mers El Kebir event where a certain amount of MPPs are spent for the Allies to receive some of the French navy.