SeaMonkey
-
Posts
4,109 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by SeaMonkey
-
-
We really are spoiled! I have tried various other games, of different scales, different mechanics, real time, shooters, etc. but I just keep coming back. I find every time I try a new game out, I end up comparing it to SC, and they never seem to stack up.
Really....I really do try, I give them a decent effort, but I just can't get past this SC creation, it's like a maelstrom, it keeps sucking you back in.
-
Thank you Bill, you and Hubert, and now Al are most accomodating.
-
Hard to argue with Fintilgin's logic!
-
Excellent, thanks Hubert. Any possibility of a 3 hex/tile setting, SC3 / AoD?
-
Let me see if I've got this correct, the minimum supply value an HQ can have is equal to the infrastructure tech level of the owning country?
So, if an HQ is surrounded in a resource/supply center and that r/sc has slowly been reduced to zero over the number of turns of isolation required and if the country's infrastructure tech level is zero, the HQ will be unable to reinforce its strength? HQ str = 9 * supply (0) / 10 = supply giving value, which would be 0, so no supply for any accompanying units in the pocket also?
Do the surrounding enemy units(requirement 4 units) need to be adjacent to the supply source or the HQ unit or both or can friendly(to the surrounded HQ) units insulate the supply source / HQ from isolation status, keeping the enemy units from being in an adjacent tile?
Now, if an isolated HQ has been reduced to strength 2 and the infrastructure tech of the owning country is 3 and the supply source the HQ occupies has been reduced to 0, then the minimum supply for the HQ is three and it can reinforce its strength to 6 every turn there after?
If infrastructure tech 2, reinforcing isolated HQ can go to 5 strength, IT = 1, HQ str. max = 4; IT = 5, HQ = 8 strength max., for every turn of potential reinforcement, is this correct?
And of course the isolated supply source's value degradation can be facilitated by units using strategic attack against the surrounded supply source, correct?
-
Yeah, I see that, I guess I wasn't clear enough, sorry, I was referring to BF ultimate, didn't you say something about the different scales?
-
Easy to comprehend your concern Mike, we're in agreement, "outstanding, but not quite perfect", that's why we'll continue to work to make it so!
-
Huh! So much emphasis.....sounds like more Pravda propaganda!
Red's are toast in St. Petersburg!:cool: -
Ahhh, I see, seems someone needs to code a "pass-through" feature. So...are you coding for SC or are you just scenario designing?
-
So Al, how is that Pacific vs Eurpoean scale difference going to affect aircraft ranges, I mean what if the Japs go for Madagascar, or the entry way into the Persian Gulf. The Nazis make it to India?
Is this going to be a full World map or just like BF with the normal areas of combat highlighted?
-
Count me converted!
-
Sorry Big Al, perhaps a little extreme, but it would make for a fluid front and Mike, the scale per tile/hex is variable subject to the designer.
We would never see a North African campaign that would have units retreat a couple hundred miles over a two week period..
..banish the thought! -
We'll need input from the developers and Betas as to which is the most balanced campaign.
-
You sell yourself short Big Al, Brute Force is more than accomodating, playable wise, but I'm positive the new rendition will be a great enhancement of your original foray.
-
What an epic Leningrad battle! Come on GoW, cut the city off and it will be a shining example of the Reich's dominance over the corrupt Bolsheviks.
-
And who does the rule interpretations(RAW)?
Any visual aides to help with the phase progression, CRTs?
-
I'm sure the coders/prgrammers will disagree with me, but play balancing a scenario is probably the most time consuming operation involved with game releasing, unless, of course, you just don't care!
-
An interesting thought, perhaps the affinity for a unit to retreat should be coupled to the nation's NM level and possibly its degree of experience. Now I know many units, especially German and Japanese fought with sheer determination in defense of their countries towards the end of the war(maybe not always the smartest thing). Still, you cannot discount that the general feeling of well being about one's armed forces would not work into the thought patterns of its soldiers.
Some countries fold up earlier than others. There could be events that change the relative strength level a unit retreats one, two tiles/hexes, or possibly 3 representing a rout of the personnel.
-
Can you imagine how long it will take to complete one turn, either on-line or PBEM, of MWiF with all the phases, especially during the middle to late years.
-
Well it's always good to rehash these old dilemmas of the SC features and I'm sure we'll see some adjustments in the SC3 engine, but I've kind of grown accustomed to the tile orientation and it does work extremely well in my viewpoint.
Big Al always makes a good point about realism vs playability, there's always a trade off and if we can keep the "abstract" portion of our minds stimulated we can always rationalize one over the other. We know, SC is becoming more complex and requires more player interaction, not so difficult for us veterans, but the new guys and the AI won't flourish if we don't make good decisions on "feature creep", although some will be attracted to the additional complexity.
So..... with all that hot air(albeit old), I'm going to add some to the balloon, how about(for SC3) we can click off the unit and come back to it to finish the remaining APs.
-
An understandable position Mike, about the lack of real port representations, but that should be for the map designers to fix. I'm more in favor of the limited amphib mission as it was in the Pacific and also in the European theater.
I believe I've stated before that an additional feature for the engineer unit could replicate the ability to have a mobile port capability, sort of like the Mulberries. I don't see why(for SC3) engineer units couldn't build ports(limited capacity according to build times), air bases, extend roads and rails, etc, just like they accomplish fortifications presently.
In addition, the number of engineer units should be coupled to the level of a country's "infrastructure' tech, showing the dedication and allocation of resources needed for those extensive operations.
Perhaps in the present SC structure we could see an engineer unit assist a non SF unit an amphibious capability by being adjacent to the unit without the port requirement.
-
And while I'm on the "the rant", you know what else I find fricken ridiculous? Land based air's complete ineffectiveness against naval units. While I can see LB air sustaining losses, especially against naval units with teched up anti-air, I'm am completely dumbfounded when LB air attacks naval units and fail to get any strength losses against said units.
Anyone ever heard of the "Repulse" and the "Prince of Wales"? The whole island hopping campaign of the Pacific, especially the SW Pac, was about LB air being the key to power projection and dominance over specific regions of conflict. Any surface naval units foolish enough to invade a prominant LB air's operational radius was asking to be vanquished, well...at least in daylight, not this anemic SC crap of all powerful surface units sailing around bombarding any unit within their reach.
-
And most were thinner than this well fed heifer!
-
Simply because normal transport cannot navigate shallow waters is why there is a need for the specialized vehicles represented in amphibious operations. Amadeus, there is a big difference when a cruise liner(ala Carnival) can come to a deep water port and embark units the size represented in SC and the assault that comes across beaches, reefs, underwater obstacles(manmade), etc that is initiated by Special forces and their accompanying assets.
As I have stated before, only SFs and a number of corps equal to the amphibious tech level of the owning nation should be allowed to conduct the amphibious assault as featured in SC. It is absolutely ludicrous to think that numerous amphib forces could sail leisurely around the SC map and conduct amphibious assaults as now is represented by the SC engine.
Red's are toast in St. Petersburg!:cool:
..banish the thought!
New large Global map in BOTH Assault on.... games?
in Strategic Command - Assault on Communism
Posted
Other than doubling the size of the map, do you have any other thoughts for adjustments to the "Ultimate" map?