Timskorn

Scrogdog: Yes, very true, however this begins to tread the realm of micromanagement as you mention. Since current SC2 focuses on the general picture, the design I had in mind would simply be an abstract way of representing carrier warfare. Strike first, but leave yourself vulnerable...or be defensive and wait to see the full enemy naval situation before attacking? Now if this was under an entirely new engine that focuses more on the details, there could still be a fun way to add that level of detail without increasing micro too much.

So that last one was a little long, sue me.

Engine: NEW or CURRENT Synopsis: Dynamic News Events and AAR Log Design Summary: Dynamic News Events are a way to add the sense that you are creating your own history as you play and to add weight to your success and failures. DNE's that occur are then automatically added to a timeline LOG of the history of events that have occurred in the game. Log information can range from a unit gaining an Honor, the capture of a city or capital, the loss of multiple units in a single turn to research breakthroughs and scripted events that trigger. The primary purpose of the DNE is to track major events in the game and then to display them in newspaper format with a corresponding photo, headline and even sound. This can be improved upon by adding multiple "pages" which separate events. Page 1 would be the major news story, while page 2 could deal with lower-level events regarding your side (Axis or Allies), and page 3 could be scripts that have fired and other miscellaneous (Invasion of Crete, diplomatic changes, commission of a new General (HQ), etc). To track major events that the players create through their own actions, a script system that can assess an event that occurs on a single turn (and possibly multiple turns) would need to be created. A dynamic event would be, for example, a major battle involving 8 or more combined units engaging in combat on a single turn and within a specific tile radius. The DNE would assess the amount of units involved, who took the most losses and the nearest city involved in the conflict and then generate a newspaper report about this battle. Example: Russia has 8 units defending around Moscow, Axis attack with 12. The script would keep a tally of units that were damaged for the turn, then calculate the distance between each of them. If 8 or more units were involved, and were within 6 tiles of each other, a DNE generates. DNE's could be generated in other ways, such as when Allied units invade Spain or a variable that keeps track of MPP's sunk via Axis subs and a DNE announcing the mounting toll they are inflicting on Britain when the MPP's reach certain milestones (300 MPP sunk, 500, etc). DNE's would either be a pop-up (as events are now) or a selectable menu option titled "News and Reports" where you can view them for the turn. The LOG would also appear under this menu and which is a timeline of events both large and small. This way you can ignore them if you wish. If they are pop-ups, they would appear for you as soon as a DNE triggers. On the opposing players turn, it would appear after watching the reply. Optional conditions for DNE triggers could apply for naval and air units as well, such as the Allied bombing campaign over Europe or naval clashes that tend to be lower in size but critical in deciding who rules the seas. Optional: DNE also would track multi-turn battles. For example, Battle for Moscow from above. The first DNE fires and a variable is increased by 1. If, on the subsequent turn, enough conflict occurs that would generate a DNE, instead it checks the variable. If its 1, add another 1 and then check if the variable = 2. If its 2, a DNE is generated from the original DNE such as "Battle of Moscow Rages On!" Then you can branch conditions and variables from there to determine the status of this particular battle in subsequent DNE's (Say if Moscow is captured, or Axis troops are pulling back it could declare a Russian victory or eventually a stalemate if the situation hasn't changed for x # of turns). Optional: Historical anecdotes to go along with headlines that parallel the historical date and outcome (Such as when D-Day launches, start of Barbarossa, attacking Leningrad, U-Boat war, when Axis get Tiger tanks, etc). Problem #1: LOTS of variables and situations to track. Could cause some odd headlines for unique situations if the DNE script isn't tracking enough info to give an accurate response. Problem #2: Is it worth the time invested? Would it get too repetitive over multiple games? [ January 08, 2008, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: Timskorn ]

Lars that's OK, the intention was to generate concepts ranging from very small to an entirely new game if you'd like.

In my experience I've had no problem getting throttled as either the Axis or Allies. I've also won with both. I haven't played WaW enough to know what the balance looks like, but SC2 patched up seems to be pretty equal for both sides. Top players have a lot of experience though and can take advantage of any mistake you make, effectively ending games by 1942. The imbalance mostly comes from skill levels.

John: Yes!! I love that idea. This would add a bit of historical flare and also make HQ units more than just a rating. They could still operate just as they are now for people who don't want to mess with the details, but for experienced players they could attach specific units to an HQ to maximize their bonuses. I also like this because it would make lower-level HQ's viable. Some other possible problems would be balance issues and exploits.

Good idea, and good point by arado. The dive % is currently still tied to tech level, correct? If this would be in addition to that, you could lower the bonus from 5% to around 3%. A +4 exp. sub would then get a 12% increase to dive chance, which substantial especially when added to its base % chance to dive. Then a destroyer with experience would simply help negate or lower the bonus, but not eliminate a subs ability to dive altogether.

Engine: CURRENT Synopsis: To make carriers operate more effectively, especially to simulate the Carrier War in the Pacific Design Summary: For a fun and more realistic model of Carrier Warfare, particularly in the Pacific, a change in how carriers operate is required. The main objective is to turn them into the most potent and effective ship available to the player in not only dealing with other enemy ships, but in support of land invasions without creating too much micromanagement. In return, they also become the most vulnerable and pursued unit at sea, being the primary target of enemy ships, carriers and aircraft thus resulting in a Carrier War for naval superiority. The core change in design is two-fold. One, Carriers have the ability to launch their fighters defensively and offensively (like how artillery operates). Two, Carriers have the ability to change stances to prioritize targets while striking in defensive mode. Design: Right-click on a Carrier, select "Stances" from the list and select one of three. A. CAP: Fighters from the carrier only fly defensive missions to protect the carrier, or any friendly ships adjacent to it, if attacked by enemy air or if the carrier is directly attacked by enemy ships. If the carrier is attacked directly by an enemy ship, defensive fighters deal damage first, then ships. B. Carriers: Carrier will defensively launch fighters as soon as an enemy carrier enters its LOS. If the enemy carrier is running CAP, fighters resolve combat first. If the enemy carrier is under any other stance, both fighters ignore each other and strike their targets. C. Any: Carrier will defensively launch fighters against any other type of ship that enters its LOS. Tactics: In a Pacific Carrier War, knowing which stances to use when will be key to fighting enemy fleets. On CAP stance, enemy ships and aircraft are free to attack and manuever within your carriers LOS without its fighters being launched in defense. This is purely a defensive stance to protect your carrier and any ships next to it, and to reserve the full strength of your fighters to be used on your turn. On Carrier stance, you take the first opportunity you can to strike at their critical ships if they happen to cross into your LOS but this leaves your carrier vulnerable to direct attack. Using carriers in "Any" stance too much may weaken your fighters against unncessary targets leaving them too weak to attack effectively on your turn, but is a good stance to damage incoming enemy ships before they can attack your fleet. Remember, in a Pacific War, you will likely have two or more carriers together which you can mix and match stances. Problem #1: May open a Pandora's box to program an entirely new naval combat system. Problem #2: Should carriers still "die" at sea even though only their fighters were destroyed in combat? Should carrier fighters have different stats than normal fighters/tac bombers to abstractly represent both the fighter and dive bomber/torpedo wings?

In this situation I think the AI would need to have some non-garrisoned troops sitting around the area in order for it to "take" Kiel. Since they didn't, I don't think they would op-move a unit over, take it and then op-move it back. I think the AI only reacts to troop presence when op-moving, unless its a script.

In that case, he just needs to determine how many people want to buy the game you'd like, and how many people would buy the game we like and then make the one that'll make him the most money.

Haha, Command HQ! My first PC wargame. What a damn blast that was. First time I played multiplayer over a modem too. That game is a great example of being able to abstract a war like WW2, yet give you that great feeling of having control over the entire war. It's an abomination of historical accuracy, but it was fun.

Nice Seamonkey, if a little wordy. I think I understand your concept though. Essentially a "wego" system where you're playing the Head Coach, designating high level orders as well as managing smaller details, right?

I thought this would be a fun exercise for everyone. Whether or not SC3 will be made, another expansion for SC2 or something completely different this is still a good way to hone your designing mind. And if SC3 or something similar WILL be made, maybe something from this thread will contribute toward its design. The challenge with design is complex. You have to weigh in many different factors and intangibles that may not even have anything directly to do with your idea. For every idea should spring forth many more questions. So for this challenge, you will present your idea short and sweet within a tight framework. Your goal is to convince the reader (Ie, typically the designer/programmer) that this is a beneficial addition that has little reason not to be added. Below is the template to use when posting your design concept. It can be as complex or simple as you want, and could even be a design doc on why hexes should replace tiles. A really good design doc would also include picture examples of what you're trying to describe, but isn't necessary. Engine: (Whether your idea should fit into the existing SC2/WaW game engine or for an entirely new engine, like if SC3 would be a real-time game for example. State NEW or CURRENT) Synopsis: (A one-sentence description of your idea) Design Summary: (Maximum 3 paragraph description of your idea and an example of how it would work in-game. If your idea requires more than that you should rethink what you are trying to accomplish. Be concise!) Problem #1: (You must objectively think what problems your idea would create. You don't need to solve it here. If you don't fill these out you haven't thought enough about it! One or two sentences max) Problem #2: (Examples: It breaks another feature. Too programming/art intensive. Doesn't fit with the overall design. Would it actually make the game funner, or just more tedious, etc.) When fleshing the idea out, try to imagine yourself as the designer and not just the player. What are the pros and cons of this concept? Can you think of an alternative way to convey the same idea that would take less time to implement? It usually doesn't make good business sense to invest a lot of time and money into an idea that you can get relatively the same benefits from doing an easier concept. Not many people want to spend 20 hours doing something they can do alternatively in 5 and get a similar effect. Is your idea FUN? Or do you want it simply because its historically accurate? Can it be both but with some novel compromising/sacrificing? One of the toughest things to do is having to trim the fat off your idea, but rarely does an idea go from your brain to paper to implementation without having to lop off its leg or arm in the process. Feel free to ask questions on designs too. Be constructive with your criticism. Nobody wants to hear why so and so doesn't agree with it without a good reason why. If you want to truly critique, offer your own design doc that would replace/enhance the persons your being critical of. Have fun!

I've never messed with them much, but I believe there are a bunch of script settings you can turn on or off before you start a game so that the game plays out very historically (such as having countries like the US join on the historical date). No need to go into the editor at all.

It's these kinds of gameplay details that are not in the game for a purpose. Among many, many others in SC2 which are either abstracted or represented in some other way. There's a tradeoff for every design decision. If you view SC2 in that light it's an extremely well designed and balanced game. HC could have diverged from that and kept tacking on details here and there, slowly whittling away abstracted elements. Then you're in this weird area where you don't know what the game is trying to be. "Why is this so detailed, but this abstracted? It's clearly just important!".

It's abstraction and it works fine in SC2. The "Malta Effect" abstracts the British ability to interdict shipping, even if you don't have air their.

1. It's a little of both. Rockets became superweapons in the game, but it's also up to me to either make him pay for his decision to invest in rockets or find a way to cripple them. 2. Yes, rockets have been "altered" so they reflect their historical use more accurately. They are now mostly effective against resources and not units. WaW, compared to SC2, seems to have "balanced" some of the units such as rockets and fighters. Axis air power always comes up in discussions about being too powerful, even in WaW. But WaW split the duty of the SC2 fighter into two roles now, that of fighter and tac bomber which in turn increases the investment cost of relying on heavy airpower. You can't just buy one unit and upgrade one tech to dominate air and ground, now you need fighters and tac. Personally I prefer WaW's style so far. SC2, as Terif argues, might be the preference of high-level competitive multiplayer gaming, but for the rest of us WaW is the superior choice. I'm glad you enjoyed the AAR!

Air isn't as powerful as it used to be. As Russia, don't completely ignore your fighters. You don't need tac bombers, but you can upgrade your fighters and buy and extra 1 or 2. That, along with some AA can help stall Axis air power. I'd also highly recommend that you don't defend cities with an HQ unit. They are vulnerable to every kind of attack. In a key city like Stalingrad you should have an Army or Tank unit defending. I'm on the fence about having AA guns fire more than once per turn. Logically it makes sense, but they would do an insane amount of damage once you get them to level 2 or higher. Right now they are very cheap to produce too. If they can fire more than once a turn they would need to be a costlier unit, as they'd in turn either negate air attacks in areas altogether (to avoid taking damage) or they'd cause too much MPP worth of damage. Completely stifling Axis air should not be an easy task. [ January 01, 2008, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Timskorn ]

I was going to mention something in regards to that with stacking. With WaW I feel we finally have more units to fill in the map, such as the Axis' ability to make three distinct Army groups for Barbarossa now. With stacking, in the current SC2 setup, we'd require even more units as a lot of them would be consolidated into a single hex, creating a feeling of "emptiness" on the map and focusing the fights way too much on small groups of units. This would, as Bill mentioned, create longer games to play. In a way, upgrades abstracts stacking a bit by allowing units to have additional abilities like AT and motorization. I'd also agree with Bill in that I love the short turns we can do in the SC series. A global campaign would make them longer, of course, but that's acceptable considering the scope. I certainly enjoy detailed games where I can micromanage many aspects of economy and military (EU series, for example), and maybe HC will move in that direction, who knows? Like I said before, we already have SC1, SC2 and WaW if we want to continue playing this style of strategic game, and now we're getting a global scenario, so would SC3 continue along those lines with only a handful of key gameplay changes and graphics, or would it try and be a totally new style of wargame?

Microtransactions and "installments" seems to be the new trendy pricing model. If Hubert added that kind of coding in for a WaW global campaign, not to mention the time they're taking to make the conversion + scripts, I'd be more than happy to pay $5 or $10 or even $15 for a sorta of 'upgrade patch' that included the WaW global campaign. Considering this kind of work takes time away from creating a new game or expansion that actually makes money, seems perfectly reasonably to me!

What do you mean by "what actually occurred"? That can entail a pandora's box of details. It seems HC had a pretty clear vision of what he wanted out of the SC series and he attained that and, to me and for many others, created a classic title that'll be played for years to come. SC1, SC2 and WaW have all been easy purchases for me. HC's design philosophy may alienate some grognards but in the process seem to have attracted new players to wargaming. For me personally, I hope HC sticks to his guns at what he's done best, creating an engrossing wargame that almost anyone can play and enjoy. If adding stacking and hexes and one-road blitzkriegs and splitting up resources by metal types and whatever else will continue that, great.

Winter 1941: The RN and Italians clash in the waters east of Tunisia, ending in a loss for the UK which escaped with only a couple ships. The Italians lost a cruiser. In positive news, the British Army has reclaimed the entirety of North Africa without any losses. They faced and destroyed two Italian Armies, 1 Corp. and 1 German Corp. In Russia the Germans speed along, capturing all the front cities with little resistance from Soviet troops which lost only 1 Corp. and managed to retreat a 1 strength Army to safety. Massive German troops concentrated outside Leningrad area. Britain's sea lanes have remained open most of the game, coming under only minor shipping attack.

Yeah, nothing like going out on top!

lparkh: Depends on who you play against in multiplayer too. As Terif put it, and most of us wouldn't know, you need to play WaW as much as he has and at the skill level he is and against similarly competent players to be in his situation. Everyone else can probably still try varying strategies and get away with it.

Some good thoughts here but we should also look at things from the dev's perspective. How important are hexes? I'm personally not a long-time hex gamer, so I have no real opinion about this. I think tiles are fine but have they alientated a lot of grognards who demand hexes, or has it successfuly made a wargame "look" more pleasing to newcomers? Retreat rules were discussed in another thread. Currently I believe they are unnecessary for how SC2 is designed. The other things listed are little additions that may or may not add much to the game. AI is always difficult, but it appears HC has done a great job with it in WaW. I tend to think higher level design regarding a SC3 or whatever other game HC plans on making. What's the design goal? The beauty of SC has always been its simplicity in allowing a player to experience the strategic decisions of WW2. WaW was a bit of a departure from that by adding new units with new roles. It seems the next logical step for the franchise would be to make a global campaign. Doing a Pacific-only version may limit potential sales, and the global campaign is already out for SC2 and being converted for WaW. So what could be done to inspire people to buy a global campaign SC when they already have access to one? A re-designed UI, updated graphics and an evolved gameplay style could do the trick to not only get us to buy it but entice "global players" to buy it (Such as the huge crowd who owns the HoI series). SC3, in my opinion, should take things up to a new level and offer a distinct experience from SC2 and WaW. You can keep those on your PC and play them whenever if you want that kind of experience. It's always a risk though. Just look at the Combat Mission series. It's tempting to keep churning out the same game but with new enhancements/theater/etc, but essentially the same gameplay. Us crusty guys in the forums will probably keep buying them, but ultimately it doesn't bring in new sales and in the CM situation they saw declining sales, so they tried something new with Shock Force. Anyway, I would love to see SC3 as a large, detailed look at WW2 global warfare. Essentially making each theater and aspect of gameplay unique enough to stand on its own so that everything feels distinct. The War in Russia, the U-Boat war and naval warfare, the Pacific theater (Island hopping, carrier combat, etc), political wranglings, research system, North Africa, etc. Not necessarily making things more complicated and micro-managed in the process, either, just giving us a global campaign that has each part fleshed out to a point where you could separate it from the main game and have it stand on its own as a fun experience.