Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
jon_j_rambo

[Rambo] Official Legend pre-game talk thread

Recommended Posts

Okay folks, it's been 7 years, I'm still here, still alive, and still the top dog. I've survived several bannings, lead the US to victory in the Ryder Cup.....enough, you know my resume. Lets get to business. This time, I'm staying out of all the BS. Made my own thread so I don't get banned because some thin skinned dude cries over an island supply route.

Here's what quickly comes to mind:

1) Make, test, and release a real, fair & balanced default global scenario. Every release has fallen short in play balance ("I will never lose as Germans", "I will never lose with Yanks"). Seriously, there's always a big circle jerk of testers saying "thank you", "Oh, I thank You", "It's been great, is great"............If you test this thing for real, I better not be able to break your scenario on the first try. Whoever tested SC-Pacific didn't have a clue. If you're offended by that, then you should be offended. After my banning, it took how many months for you all to believe me, have it fixed, re-release the scenario, and waster everybody's time with updates, downloads, download rules, etc.

2) Make more units! Make more features! Make more everything! Don't give me this "use the editor crap". I'm not spending the $65 to have a homework assignment to design crap. I'm a player, a competitor, & I hate to "work" for a game I bought.

*** Bottom line ***

Get a great default campaign tested. Have all the crap ready to go before release. Far as the details, I'm staying out of all the inbreeder fights this time around.

I've got a crispy credit card dying to charge $65 for a good game. I've been playing Vypuero's World Campaign, that's the only thing that has kept the Legend around.

-Legend >>> OUT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hyperbole aside, I think your post speaks very well to one of the main strengths of the SC series, which is of course its conduciveness for competitive game play.

That being said, doesn't Terif still have your number ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A crispy credit card and a mind that works like "hey, i don't need my money, you take it!" is what i got.

I don't need a bigger ETO scenario, but an ultra big world campaign (mapsize).

If still possible with a bigger map than the one we can see on the first two screenshots.

And it would be nice if the concept of two (or even more) strength points (the carriers) introduced in PT would be widened out about a lot more units.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a greater varity of unit pictures for major and minor nations!

Some examples i can récall are the italian tanks instead for a Pz IV as tech 3 Tanks the should get a P26/40 and instead a Tiger a P43.

The same goes for aircraft. You could use for the last Tech the Reggiane 2007 and for the Focke Wulf a Reggiane 2005.

The Italian Bombers are weak represented too. What about Fiat BR. 20 for Tech 0 (T0), SM 79 (T1), SM 84 (T2). Piaggio P108 (T3), Piaggio P133 (T4), ähm Jet Piaggio for T5.

Italian attack planes:

Breda Ba 64 T0, Junger 87 T1 and SM 93 T2

My proposition for japanese tanks are following.

Type 95 Ha-Go T0, Type 97 Chi-Ha T1, Type 97 Shinhoto Chi-ha T2, Type 3 Chi-Nu T3, Type 4 Chi-To T4, Type 5 Chi-Ri T5

For the French we could use the ARL 44 T5?

Another Suggestion.

Especially in PT we encounter ships build with elite 2 (Yamato) or 1 (Iowa).

Why is it impossible to build such things by self or to repair it completely to its old status.

What about introducing a system for bigger ships to build them in elite an allow to repair them to that but on the other run other ships can not be increased in that way. Imagine a Royal Oak with the Fire Power of a Yamato.

It should be possible until Elite 3 (See Super Yamato 20")

Something like that would be cool for Carriers (Midway, Shinano, Taiho-Kai, Malta Project or even the Habakkuk Project)

Naval Warfare should still resemble advanced Ship Radar and new Ammunition projectiles.

Cheers

Dominik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rambo,what you say makes alot of sense but how far do you want to go as far as realism is concerned?If you go to far then the Axis will never win.You win so much because you are one of the best players there is.Imho to make a game winnable for either side then you have to omit certain things.Im not saying more couldnt be done but if you get to crazy how many people will want to buy it.Hubert has to look at that to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have my reservations about the all encompassing map. I really prefer that the theaters of conflict be emphasized, as you did Nupremal.

On the other hand, if there could be some kind of incentive for the majors to project into the historically ignored regions then I could be won over.

Now you realize we will take SC to a more Civ oriented game, albeit beneath the WW2 era umbrella, with such a scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SeaMonkey makes a good point. People need to understand this. In order to have a good default global scenario, the VICTORY CONDITIONS ARE VERY IMPORTANT. Because if you play an "imbalanced strategy", such as over concentrate in one theater over another, how are the victory conditions going to deal with this? Seriously, the USA could ignore either Japan or Germany, and pound one of them. What's the rules? What's the victory conditions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rambo you are right.

The Victory Conditions can be adjusted or via Script the player is forced to fight on both theatres.

for example if the USA only concentrates on europe china would sign a Peace treaty with japan and become pro-Japanese. Additionaly partisans would stop to fight against Japan.

On the Atlantic front the russians can feel betrayed or be left in the lurch.

After the fall of moskov they are going to sign a peace treaty with the Germans and create an new USSR (For short time outknocked; 50% activation) behind the Archanglesk-Astrachan Line.

Just my 2 cents

Cheers

Dominik ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@kowalewski --- For sure, getting the right victory conditions is very imporantant. VC dictate player strategy, which is a domino effect for everything. With a global game, what is important to take/capture/hold in the end. Or even during the game, etc. Can either side achieve a quick victory before the end of the time restrictions. What areas are going to be important. Is it just capitals. What is the value of the Middle East? India? Etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) yes

2) yes

3) no, probably more work than fun

My all time favourita board game, Ted Racers "The Great war in europe" (WW1, 1000+ counters) had a smooth solution: two big maps

While player one plans his moves on map 1, player two does the same on map number 2.

If you would divide the world into two big maps which are connected through arrows or operational movement, than in a H2H game you would never be bored...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like an optional victory condition that would allow me to assign a point value to resources. - i.e. an "objectives" victory condition (unlike whatever bizarre way that works now for objectives, which seems like something no one would ever want to use).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...