SeaMonkey

Desaix, there are customs that target the various things you have addressed but they are not historical. SC is a game with an historical setting, it does not proceed in an historical manner, it is a "what if". If you want to try a custom design for HtoH that is balanced towards the historical conclusion, "Allies Win", then send me your email address and I will forward you "Sphinx". Be forwarned it is an abbreviated ETO campaign starting in Dec 1940; Poland, LC, France, and Norway have succumbed and Spain has joined the Axis, with Italy bogged down in Greece. No bids or special house rules are necessary, but it is difficult for the Axis to win without some luck between two equal players. [ December 04, 2004, 12:01 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Classic JP.....true vintage...LMAO

Remember everyone HQs represent doctrinal, organizational, and communication efficiency. Also perhaps a level of intelligence gathering advantage over your opponent. You must think abstractly for the operational and tactical levels of SC even though it represents a grand strategy scale, the other scales are just as prevalent. Think about patrol activity, defensive and offensive combined arms deployments, NCO efficiency, junior officer leadership skills, the processing of battlefield information,etc., all at the lower scales,...where's your imagination?

Very good point aesopo. Supply has been abstracted up to this point, what do you propose? I would like a system that requires no micromanagement, just thought. Are you advocating the expenditure of MPPs for combat? If so should armies expend more than corps? Should certain units expend more than others? What about when on defense and in certain types of terrain or weather conditions? Your humble opinion requires details for implementation. A subject worthy of comment from the community, developer, testers?

OH Yeah and.... "Remember the Alamo",....."We Shall Never Surrender"! And Kuni do you remember the words from our illustrious "almost" first lady?

Actually I'm not addressing the players that play TCP, unless they actually do a completed game, this is more for the PBEMers. I have some opponents that carry on for years, yes years, with many completed games as well as the abbreviated version. Perhaps my persistance level is a bit abnormal, long periods of attentiveness seems to be my forte'. Again, if I am the only one that enjoys seeing this game played to completion, we should ask HC to delete this feature for SC2, it may arrive sooner, I can adjust.

So that I'm not misunderstood here, I'm referring to the "Victory Points" at the completion of the game based on the length of time and amount of destroyed units, plus the accumulated MPP generating resources. There may actually be other considerations, not sure, Hubert? This is not an abbreviated end from players' agreement.

I liken SC2 to a fine wine...it'll get better with age.

In total agreement Liam, I only play customs that have both feet in the historical context of WW2. What realistically was feasible and actually considered by the belligerents in some cases. Many of the plans that were nixed by the authority in charge allow us to investigate what supposedly insignificant idiosyncracies could have resulted in a totally different outcome. Relevant strategies by the military minds of that period provide us with a more expansive playground and for the game demand a relative balance to be fun. That is the goal of this custom designer, leave the starships in space.

Good points KH, One facet of my thinking is that, as you presented above, the surrender of the USSR probably would have been more of a government armistice than a capitulation of the people/army. With the vast expanse of eastern USSR to retreat to, I'm sure unorganized resistance would soon become more centralized and focused as new sources of war materials became available to the partisans(Free Soviets) :confused: .

I'm kind of wondering how many contests are actually played to completion, the ones that culminate in a victory point award? Further, how many of you settle a challenge by playing your opponent from both sides(two games) with the ultimate tie breaker being the awarded victory points?

My suggestion to those of you who care to tackle the "Titans" of SC, is you must approach the game with a novel perspective. Now the editor limits us being able to change the mechanics of the game, but the linage of strategy can be altered to a point. For those of us who have played the same campaigns hundreds of times, the initial approach/opening moves are pretty much "cut in stone" with only the variability of tech upgrades to upset the balance. That is why you see people surrender early in the game, the outcome is predictable, not completely, but the odds are in favor and the players become bored. So what can you do to even the playing field? Not much if you haven't dwelt within the depth of the mechanics of SC as Terif has, by investigation or replications to a point of conditioned reaction. But what you can do is choose a custom campaign that neither has ever seen/played. Fire that baby up, don't examine it, and play a mirrored contest. Personally those have been my best SC experiences as of late.

I'm in agreement with Shaka and Bill, just thought I'd throw this out there....trying to stimulate the cranial electrons, seems a little slow before the AARs hit.

Well it is a realistic concept, V-1s were intercepted. Perhaps inconsequential, but let's think about this. I'll be the first to agree that V-2s were outside the possibilty of being intercepted. V-1s though? If your jet tech level is high enough should the intercepts be more effective? And further what level rocket tech should V-2 design kick in? Now if intercepts for V-1s is allowed do we see an abusive strategy of depleting your opponents optioned intercept resources by the use of rockets or is it a realistic tactic?

Well Liam, my guess is it will be a fine balance as weather will play a definitive role in the use of your airpower and mud decrease your mobility. There has been some hint that airpower may have a different consequence on your ground units, like lowering your units' morale, the new feature. Besides with AA tech possibly adding to ground unit air defense factors, air tendency leans to a more disruptive role than the killer it was in SC1. Never the less I would like to see some enhancement of CAS efficiency in the later war years as it was developing expotentially as a highly mobile 3D artillery function. Look at present day applications, pretty formidable.

Not to mention their code breaking endeavors. Imagine what Rommel wouldn't have accomplished if he hadn't had the benefit of the "good source". A US military liason in the desert constantly updated the Pentagon using the "black" diplomatic code which had been compromised by the Germans. The officer, name escapes me, Feller or Heller, sent highly detailed reports of the British disposition, supplies, morale, and intelligence that they had extracted from there endeavors, all deciphered and forwarded to Rommel. Now you know why he was so successful from the Cauldron to El Alamein, taking Tobruk in the mix. The leak was finally fixed before the second battle of El Alamein.

Heck Tim this was one of the firsts mods in SC, the sprites were worked over by a number of gifted artists. Seems likely that story will be repeated or you can do it yourself, a matter of personal preference.

Now I know someone has got to have already thought about this, but what if for a fee, we could log on to a server that is maintained by Battlefront/programmed by HC that would give us a game at anytime with new updated AI moves. Naturally us "fanboys" would be glad to help with suggestions to upgrade the server's strategies, and perhaps contribute new custom campaigns for a really competent gaming opponent, accessible immediately. Is this economically feasible? Does anyone care?

Well Bill, How about some of those "possibilities", are we in the neighborhood with the factor slowdown. I'm inclined to KDG's suggestion, with a slight tweak .75, .5, .25. Of course we could consider some more complicated scenarios that are taken into account by CPU computations. How about an additional experience enhancement for engaging more experienced enemy units, ie. "Learn from thy Enemy".

JourneymanBadbeer, Talk is cheap!

Simmer MG, don't worry, get the game, the community will gladly victimize you, PBEM, TCIP, or otherwise, and you will like it. SC2 will be released when its ready, learn the ropes with SC1 and don't pick up the soap.

According to my sources, between Sept. 8, 1944 and March 27, 1945 out of 1054 Rockets landing on England, 517 hit London. No mention of the intended targets for the V-2. If London was the intended target that is an approximate rate of accuracy of 50%, pretty decent for an infant delivery system without the benefits JJ describes above.

Alright, I'm awaiting some dissention here, anyone? Perhaps the factors should be more extreme, say .5 and .25. especially in light of the "elite" reinforcement effect.

Easy Les, multiplicative factor for determining experience after second bar is .75, after third .5, simple eh

This may be a bit controversial, but I've got to throw it out there for the sake of realism. The topic is the way combat units accumulate experience in SC compared to reality. Obviously experience is accumulated through combat and to a lesser degree from training, but primarily from combat...do we all agree? I'm not concerned so much with the training issue, as that can be achieved somewhat through partisan combat. What seems unrealistic is that SC combat units obtain experience at the same rate depending on the success of combat. Success rewards I have no problem with, its the rate. Seems to me as a unit accumulates experience there should come a point, maybe after a couple of bars, a slow down in further accumulation should occur, ie. it is more difficult to come by. Green units should develop quickly to a certain point, but that experience rate of accumulation should perhaps take 2 or 3 more successful combats to get the next step of enhancement and by the time the 4th bar kicks in it should take even more. In this manner we won't have a bunch of fully experienced combat units running all over the map like in SC. Since Elite status, further strengthening will be tied to experience bars I believe this slow down will be even more appropriate for SC2. What's your opinion?