pzgndr

Otto, thanks for providing a site for sharing all this stuff. FWIW, I'm going with the updated unit sprites without the dots and the updated flags with the historic Nazi flag. Battlefront can't sell the game in Germany with any Nazi symbols, but the rest of us with 1st Amendment rights can darn well do what we want. I note some of the other sprites are getting very detailed. Too detailed for my taste. Eye candy. Anyone working on terrain mods? I can just about live with everything except the rivers. What's up with them - are they in the hex or on hexsides? They meander all over the place. I don't want straight lines, but a little better definition would be nice. I'd really like to see more rivers added to the map - in Poland, France, Spain, etc. - but Hubert would have to add them since we can't edit anything yet. They were kinda significant in the actual war, if you care about that stuff.

This is a good point. I don't mind the instant builds as much as the instant MPPs from plunder. That one continues to bug me. Instant reinforcements is another matter, where 1-factor units are back up to 10 in one turn. I'd wouldn't mind seeing a limit of 5/turn or something. I'd also like to see some combination of limited reinforcements (say 2/turn) and action, which would allow units to move and fight, or just get out of the way.

Eiffel seems very similar to Ada, another relatively obscure language without a large support community. The increased error checking makes the programming a little more tedious than C++, but results in better code for applications like defense systems or finance which require a high standard of reliability. Ada is available on the free gnat compiler and there's other free documentation and IDEs for Ada. I know West Point is teaching Ada, so it's alive and well. My hat's off to Hubert for choosing to use this type language for game programming. Since he's gotten everything to work well so far (windows-interface, graphics, AI, etc.), maintaining and upgrading the code should proceed smoothly.

The automatic HQ links is interesting and makes for easy play. Perhaps once we see the documentation and see how the HQ links are prioritized then maybe we can play smarter. And perhaps some future option for advanced play could permit players to change the automatic assignments. It seems the HQ effect is binary - a unit either has a link assigned and receives the benefit or it does not. A third possibility may be to provide some reduced benefit for all other unassigned units within a HQ's range. If this could apply to a side's allies, then it may be a way to deal with that issue. For planning purposes, it would be nice to know any unit within range of a friendly HQ will at least get some benefit. Just another idea to think about.

A full function editor would be nice, but I doubt we'll see one with the initial release. TOAW is great - users can create maps, define units, edit the events engine, whatever. However, that game is terribly detailed and you can't just define a 10-factor corps for something on the SC scale without a lot of work. So I like the possibility of using SC for simpler games. In lieu of an editor, I would hope SC could have a default parameters file we could tweak with a text editor. I can't imagine each parameter is hardwired into each code algorithm, so there must be a definition file somewhere. But it's probably not that simple. Anyway, maybe we'll see something later. I must admit that I'm not bored yet with the 1-year demo, even with the several things I don't quite agree with. So the full campaign game should be a blast. I can eventually see a 12-step program for helping people off SC. "Honey, it's 2am! Are you coming to bed???"

Another quick question. Can we use the editor to change the setups for neutrals? I'm primarily wondering about Italy and Russia, but also all neutrals in general. I was just reading another post about where is the Italian air force when they enter the game. Just wondering if we can edit stuff like this or not.

"Steel Coffins" is excellent. Subs could and did engage and sink capital ships, but this was the exception. SC has subs and capital ships going head-to-head, which is not accurate. I like having sub units to manauever, but I'm not impressed with how the U-boat war plays out in SC. It needs tweaking.

Hmmm, this begs a question about whether my suggestion of a Summer 1939 scenario is possible. Could we even have a scenario where Germany, Britain and France start out as active neutrals? Probably not. It's definitely something to keep on the ToDo list for a future version. There would also have to be something to prompt a state of war by a certain date, otherwise you could have a dull game. This raises another question about whether there should be an abstract MPP cost for declaring war. This works well in 3R, and makes you think about whether Italy should DOW Britain or wait for Britain to pay for it. There should be a cost/benefit associated with strategic decisions like this. A similar system would make SC a little more complicated, but should be considered with the active neutrals idea.

I would hope to see a map editor provided someday so we can tweak things ourselves. SC has a lot of robust features which would make for a great game design kit if Hubert moves in that direction. I agree the map is rather bland. The A3R map is a thing of beauty, while SC is, well ... Anyway, I've still got $25 burning a hole in my pocket.

I can live with the setups for now. We could consider a Summer 1939 scenario which gives us a fixed historical setup but allows us a few turns to complete our force pool with a couple of units and reposition forces for an alternate strategy if we want. Perhaps with no spotting in effect until war is declared, to make things really interesting. Either Hubert can provide such a scenario with the game or we can use the editor to make one without too much trouble. Italy and Russia should start the game as active neutrals. Let the historical or random entry determine when they can declare war against the other major powers. Prior to that, they should be able to build their force pool, deploy their defense, perform research, attack minors if they want, or whatever. With FOW, only units within spotting range of attacked minors would be visible to the other major powers, so Italy and Russia could conduct their business in secret and be wildcards in this game. Think of the possibilities! I see this as more important than trying to get manual setups.

I prefer this idea. It would require some work on Hubert's part, but perhaps the AI could select a setup based on the situation. Spain, for example could have a standard setup, a northern defense against a German DOW, or a southern defense against a British DOW. There are not too many options available for most neutrals, but some randomizing would be nice.

I agree, but that's a big IF for the AI right now. I routinely pound the German navy for maybe a lost French cruiser and some other damage. The Luftwaffe can't support both blitzkrieg in France and air patrols from Denmark, so this is a risk.

Ditto for the German fleet in the North Sea. It's no big deal for the French and British fleets to hunt down and eliminate the German Kriegsmarine. Something needs to change to produce some more realistic naval strategies, but I'm not sure what might work best. Maybe some option for evading contact, or reducing the spotting of fleets. This certainly needs to be considered for subs, but surface fleets should also have more flexibility. Reducing the combat damage may also help slow things down and give each side time to withdraw. But there's nowhere to run to in the Med and Baltic, unless we prohibit naval attacks against naval units in port. That might be the way to go.

Hubert, thank you in advance. We'll just have to see the gold demo later today. It is June 11, right???

An update on what changes are being made for the release version would be nice. Also, a copy of a draft user manual would be helpful during the beta period so we can better understand and comment on various details.

Ditto. However, both PTO and ETO scenarios could be included in a future SC2. Except for different map files, it should be the same game. Linking the scenarios may be possible without trying to have a global map, but I'd settle for separate scenarios. The variable turn abstraction should be reconsidered for PTO due to the larger scale. It really needs to be reconsidered for ETO also. The game will play just as quickly and easily with standard 2-week turns and some seasonal effects as it does now, but would be a little bit more realistic and consistent for both theaters.

A slightly enlarged and improved map of Europe needs to happen first. If the code memory issues can be resolved for a much larger map, then a global game could be considered.

Stormbringer, I was making a general comment and not trying to argue with your valid statements. Sorry for any confusion there. SC does have a lot of great features. There have been several posts over past few weeks praising the game and indicating everything is fine the way it is, but feedback is important - even if it appears as criticism. As a game, SC is fun and plays well, but so is Command and Conquer. As a WWII strategy game, however, there's room for improvement to make it more realistic as a simulation. I can always play a fantasy game for fun and not worry about abstractions which don't make perfect sense. It is much more difficult to enjoy a simulation game where results deviate significantly from the historical record. That's where I'm coming from. I believe SC can be made somewhat more realistic without significantly changing the game or making it more complicated.

Ungrateful mob? Who's he talking about fellas? Seriously, Hubert's done a fine job with SC. At risk of dating myself, I've probably been playing Third Reich since before he was born, so I've had a LOT of time to think about the good, the bad, and the ugly game design issues relevant to this scale. Others are die-hard Clash of Steel fans, World in Flames grognards, or just Axis&Allies veterans looking for a fun game. So there are a lot of expectations to satisfy. This is a beta demo, which means Hubert is officially asking for feedback to verify if his design decisions are on the mark for most customers or if changes are warranted. Hollow praise will not move this game from good to great. Constructive criticism will - by pointing out what needs improvement, why, and possibly how. So expect to see more whining and complaining for improvements from us and continued excellent support from Hubert, because we all care.

Naval combat needs tweaking to bring the ratings up. We're seeing big battles between subs and capital ships that are unrealistic. Subs should be more difficult to spot and more difficult to engage during the early years, and likewise less likely to inflict damage on capital ships. Their strength was being able to inflict heavy convoy losses and evade contact with the surface fleets. That's not happening in SC. Let sonar/radar advances change the spotting and engagement probabilities over time. If the sub issues can be resolved, we should see more historical naval strategies rather than the gamey strategies we have now. We don't need major changes, just some "tweaking" of the current probabilities in the code. Rather than try to add new destroyer/ASW units to the game, just let the cruisers have a stronger ASW role than battleships, which should have the stronger surface role for ship-to-ship battles and shore bombardment. Again, some tweaking can make this happen.

This may be very difficult to change, depending on how Hubert set up his action point system in the code. It also gets us on that slippery slope where we start making things more complicated than they need to be. Two items for comment. One, units attacking without moving should have a benefit, or units that move should attack with a penalty. This may already be in the combat model, but it's not clear. Two, it would be better to address retreats and advance after combat rather than complicating the move/attack sequence. #2 should change combat just enough to give us the same overall effect you're looking for. If retreats and advances are added, another slight change would be to relook the damage tables to make combat less bloody and limit reinforcements per turn to about 4. I'm seeing too much destruction of whole armies combined with complete unit recovery (with experience loss noted) during single turns. We really should be seeing some more pushing about (with retreats), moderate losses, and gradual (limited) recovery over time. Some way to move away from the enemy and take on some reinforcements would also be nice. It's not a major problem in this game, but something that could be considered for an advanced combat model later. Another comment about disbanding units, prompted by some of the gamey strategies posted recently. Not only should there be some inefficiency (like 75% of current MPP value, or whatever it is now), there should also be a delay of 1-2 turns before you see those MPPs returned to you. Make you think twice about trying to convert fleets to tanks.

Could the Free French determination process in SC be explained to us? In 3R, it was pretty simple and made sense, even for France's North African minors. Seems like one of the preconditions for German acceptance of Vichy France should be that surviving French forces redeploy to neutral Vichy. Maybe provide a small chance for units outside France to defect to Britain, but this should not be automatic. Vichy should get remaining French forces so it has some defense. Also, if it ever joins the Axis, it would have forces to offer - another incentive for Germany to leave it alone. The current process doesn't make sense.

OK, I understand. This gets back to the free setup issue in general. By limiting us to all these default setups, we don't get to make these choices. Maybe not a big deal with the minors, but certainly for Italy and Russia.

You haven't played the demo? http://www.battlefront.com/products/stratcom/download.html

Not a good solution here. I can't see the Germans having to wait a turn before attacking Denmark, for instance, nor having to suffer Russian attacks for a turn before commencing a "surprise" blitzkrieg. The problem in SC is Italy and Russia not able to have an active role while neutral. This worked well in 3R/A3R. Italy was free to DW anytime, but in SC perhaps a political event threshold could be considered. Russia was restricted to the historical date or if Germany's east front garrison fell below a limit. Both were able to pursue campaigns against minors without getting drawn into the main war. These ideas should be considered in SC.