SuperTed
-
Posts
2,711 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by SuperTed
-
-
Bill,
Hubert has said he is willing to consider patches and upgrades in the form of SC2. Beyond that, I don't know what jis specific plans are. At this point, he may not either.
I agree that it is less trouble to avoid house rules and that is the way I prefer to play. However, I am guessing, based on the idea's I've seen, there are a lot of people that would like to tinker with the game by trying different rule sets. I think it would nice to have the rules out there, giving players the option of using all, some, or none of them.
-
Aloid,Originally posted by Aloid:SC was supposed to be out last Friday. IIRC, CM:BB had some incomplete features during the preview last week. Maybe they are done, but I think we should see SC first...
ST? what ya think?
Aloid
I think CMBB is gonna rock!
-
-
A few technical difficulties are preventing me from getting the next scenarios out the door. Things should be resolved in a couple days.
-
Bill,Originally posted by Bill Macon:...Ugh!...
Point well taken.
I agree that there are some cumbersome ideas, but I am just throwing out some potential issues for consideration. Many players will prefer to play SC as it is, without the headache of having extra rules applied. However, I am sure there are others who would like to try some different approaches and have some house rules in place to assure they and their opponents are on the same page.
Also, these are issues that should probably be addressed before a ladder is established. I would sure hate to see a ladder turn into "the gamiest player wins" situation. I believe it would be a first in the history of ladder play.
-
CVM,Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Cant declare war? Maybe there is a miscommuication but everytime i launch barbarossa i get a message that says that finland has declared war on USSR. Or are we talkin bout 2 different things?
A few posts up, you said:
"But still in some cases u should be able to just declare war on 1 country, of course other countries can declare war on you then....(sic)"
I assumed you meant a player could declare war on one nation without dragging that nation's allies into the conflict. Is my assumption incorrect?
-
CVM,Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Finland Declares war on USSR, although britain declared war, the only attack made by them was 1 airraid made by 3 bombers. Something that wouldnt show up in this game. And to the best of my knowledge, the US never declared war on finland.
I know you guys r sick of 'Finland' but i had to make a point.
I knew Finland was coming. I could feel it.
Anyway, Finland cannot declare war on anybody, so it seems to be a moot point.
-
CVM,Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:And in a game with the AI it should be this wat, but in a game with a human opponent it should have to actually be said.
Do you have an example from WWII when a DoW on an active participant did not automatically result in the above "friends and enemies" formula?
-
CVM,Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Good piont, after all thats the reason we allied with russia! (no debate please) . But still in some cases u should be able to just declare war on 1 country, of course other countries can declare war on you then....
Actually, in every case a player declares war on one country. Just assume the declaration is followed by the counter-declarations.
-
Need said "game engine" to know what is still gamey, and what Hubert has tweeked to counter it.Originally posted by Aloid:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by SuperTed:
Great stuff, guys!
<snip> ... within the game engine. <snip>...
Don't ya know!
Shouldn't the diplomatic hit come in the form of other Neutrals siding with your enemy?
I still say DOW and invasion should happen any time, unless the tweeks are to weak.
Aloid</font>
-
CVM,Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim:Good points well made. SuperTed, i a pbem game i think you should be able to declare war on 1 country, not a whole alliance, if historically accurate, for instance, if i want to declare war on JUST romania in 1939, the british player should not be able to send troops there?
Good idea?? :confused:
The truth is that would not be historically accurate. The alliances were designed for mutual assistance. So, the enemy of my friend is my enemy and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
-
Great stuff, guys!
Allow me to clarify one point. The idea of this thread is to identify potential points of contention between players and develop some rules that could be used to address these. The rules would have to work within the game engine. I am not asking for proposals on how to change the engine itself (there are plenty of those elsewhere in the forum
). Rather, I am suggesting that we work together within the system to give players options for how they would like to play.Here are a couple ideas for you to consider:
1) DoWs must be made at the end of a player's turn, after all movement, combat, and MPP expenditures have been made.
2) A previously neutral country is allowed one turn where neither side may cross their borders.
3) If a country wishes to violate #2, they must purchase a corps and sea transport it to their enemy. This unit would remain at sea, to be destroyed by the enemy. The cost of this unit represents the diplomatic hit of treachery.
4) #3 never applies to the use of a seaborne invasion on a neutral country. So, a same-turn land invasion of Sweden is okay (at a price), but a same-turn sea invasion is not.
The assumption behind all these rules is that the players trust each other to implement them fairly. For potential ladder play, it is suggested that all saved game files be saved by both players. This will allow a judge to check for rules infractions, if needed.
What do you think?
-
-
CVM,
That is a great start!
What would you suggest to prevent that?
-
Now that thoughts are turning to playing entire campaigns against other humans, it would be a good idea to get some ground rules in place. Some players will likely have no problem playing a wide open style with no restrictions, but others will want to tweak the gameplay with rules to suit their personal tastes.
If players know what the gamey strategies and game limitations are, they can discuss what rules they'd like to use, if any. I suggest starting the ball rolling by listing the gamey strategies and rules suggestions below.
-
Valadictum,Originally posted by Valadictum:Are any of the Beta Boys actually girls? Just curious.
Nope. I checked...
-
What's that you say? You like mods? Well, Scipio has more at WarfareHQ. I think you'll like these. Get yourself over to CMHQ right away to get the details!
-
Well, the official word has come: Gary Kump is back in the saddle again and has big plans for CM Outpost! Get the details at CMHQ.
-
CN,Originally posted by Camicie Nere:I stand corrected. Now how do I get to be one of the beta boys? At least for the subsequent versions!
You really don't want to know. :eek:
-
CN,Originally posted by Camicie Nere:...HC and the boys...
It's Hubert and the Beta Boys!
Sheesh!
-
-
Hubert,
That's what I suspected.
-
CVM,
Thank you. Your heart is definitely in the right place. Unfortunately, as Bill mentioned, it's not as easy as that. I am sure Hubert will find a way to make SC fly and give it the security it needs.
-
DD,Originally posted by DevilDog:...watch your MPP stockpile totals when you get bombed...
I tried your suggestion, but I found it very hard to play when I got bombed.
Once I get rid of the hangover, I'll try again...
SC Preview Posted at MonkeyReview
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
Okay, who let in the reviewer?! I thought Straha was on security duty. Sheesh!
Chris, if you'd like to do PBEM, just let me know. It really makes a difference.