Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About BriantheWise

  • Birthday 12/16/1960

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • Website URL


  • Location
  • Interests
  • Occupation

BriantheWise's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (3/3)



  1. My oh my, So many wants and notwants, about what might become SCII. But, first of all, consider, all of what we do have in SC: A truly dynamic and balanced game, especially on TCP with the bidding system (thanks Zap, great idea, no doubt); fast paced, complex to get, easy, so easy, to play; relative realism. Overall, just my opinion, but it's a break out game. (And it's his first one - he's on the right track). The flatform for this is simply outrageously excellent and versatile (I don't know about the code): Therefore, I think, it some ways, some of these opionions/criticisms/wanna haves are somewhat limited. And in many cases, we have travelled this road before, but here's my two nickles worth, if I may, succinctly contribute (echoing some of all of your worthy ideas, and stealing from the games that have come before this): 1) Less Hard Coded: Make it easier to make variant scenarios. Like CVM's concept of WW1. Great concept, CVM, even if the players have to jump through hoops. 2) Of Course, it's got to be global, bigger map, with more hexes, etc. and all. It's got to be able to do WW2 et al, and handle all of wars, modded, that have happened or could happen. 3) Beach hexes: Have one hex islands have a box next to them for the landers and the landed. Based on the scale, it's fight to the death, based on this scale. But that eliminates the worry about landing on a vacant Malta that's been thrashed by just air and naval, etc, and of course, most of the islands in the Pacific. I'm sure you all follow. 4) A separate research screen, closer to CIV3, but not at all like HOI (no comments on that game!) 5) Random events (ala A3R). Added playability, some weird outcomes. It could be turned off of course, or toned down. 6) Political influence (ala COS). Same thing. 7) I wonder about auto air interception. I buy a british air today and before I can transport it, it's intercepted a German air, defending something, like, London, I don't care about. I have no answer to this. 8) An AI that can handle so much more, and still provide replayability. I do not like, honestly, that I know as the allies, Germany cannot/will not invade England. It's ok, I understand, I know it's the toughest part of coding (and it's been done very well), but still... I could go on and on, and I will, but not tonight... Conclusion: I want more of what we have, larger, better. Paratroops - smile. I find that silly. And so on, I won't even go into all of that. Issues ironed out, of course. But over all, bottom line, I want another game Hubert that's like this, but more. And more and more. (my, i'm not greedy at all, am I) Be well, good people. What we got is a great game. What we want is more. Brian the Wise
  2. Wow! Some very technical stuff here...For what it's worth, I'd like to bounce off some of these ideas, particularly Bill Macon's, in part. Having loved A3R, CoS and still loving SC (hated HC), some thoughts: 1) I like the idea of keeping it simple and letting MMP's stay simply as MMP's. Yes, oil was critical, but I would suggest just letting oil hexes have a high value of MMP's similar to now, but maybe as treble value (HOI's mishmash of resources required to put on a war effort makes me think of a misplace effort to incorporate Starcraft resource gathering - doesn't work). 2) COS and A3R allow the major powers to move and invest, while neutral. I liked that. It is limited, but effective (and reduces gambits). 3) Unused MMP's should be allowed to to be invested back into the basic infrastructure to increase the overall base: This would vary, based on the relative efficiency of country (Germany high, USA high, Italy low) - ala A3R. Since the turns would be relatively monthly or some such, the percentage boost would be necessary low (around say average 3%). 4) Over time, the productivity of the hexes grow, ala CoS. Make it annually, and as a percentage. For example: USA has, throwing out a number...500 MMP's as a base. In 39, they operate at 20%, 40 at 40%, 41 at 60%. When they declare war, there is a 40% bump. At '42, at 20%, in 43 add 40%, in 44, add 80%. Something like that. These are hypothetical numbers. I'm just trying to keep it simple. 5) Limit the manpower. Ala Cos. In CoS, if you want to make a new unit, you had to pay a higher price. If you wanted to rebuild a destroyed unit, it was cheaper, because it was reconstituting the elimianated unit. Unless, it was eliminated while surrounded, in which case it was a surrendered unit and you had to buy it all over again. In SC2, you would have a given amount of units that you could buy at face value, and without delay (think the scroll bar in SC with the HQ's (by the way, if an HQ called Rommel dies, it shouldn't be able to be replaced). CoS did this ok, with an OOB, and it could be similar in SC2. If you wanted more or needed more sooner, you would pay a premium and have a wait time (This could be a good brake against making to many air fleets) (also, cool, would be to allow a bit more differentiation of units. CoS introduced very powerful SS units later in the game). anyways, I digress. 6) Lend Lease and Murmansk and convoys: I definitely think this should be incorporated, but you would have to go with sea zone naval and strategic (uboat) warfare. And there would definitely have to be a cost, depending on destination, weather and interception. Say Murmansk from the U. S. (As an aside, the US - or Britain and even Italy for that matter, would only be able to tranship so much per turn. These countries would have so much convoy MMP points at the beginning of the game. To increase MMP convoying capability, you would have to invest in it.. Anyways, Say Murmansk from the U. S.: 40 MMPs. 5% loss due to transhipment in summer, 10% in winter. Say there is interception. This could cost an additional amount of loss (as well as loss to the convory capacity). So maybe only 26 MMP's make it. On the next turn. You could even implement this part for Germany, convoring MMP's from Sweden and possibly Norway. Still though, I think it's pretty basic and easy to implement designer wise, and not a burden on playability. To conclude this post, for now... A3R is a great board game and simplified by necessity, but some of the rules concerning economics they have could easily be adapted into SC2. CoS was a great computer game and many of their rules concerning economics, among other things, can be adapted into SC2. SC takes it to a whole new level and SC2 could be the game of all strategic games. Ever. Anything I can contribute, from ideas, to beta testing, etc. I would love to participate in. Brian
  3. I was at CompUSA looking for a decent game to buy (there aren't any - waiting for MOO3, I guess). Saw the January, 93 issue opened. I think it was PC Gamer. Pretty sure. In the mail section on page 3, they had about a one third page box with a good size screen print of SC during the German invasion of France. The map looked good. Interestingly, the Germans had a good size navy, in a line, screening against Britain above Holland: I think it was 3 strength 12 U-boats, and a 14 Fleet. Wow! I wish I could do that!. Anyways, the writer was saying that She, I think it was a She, had read the review about Strategic Command, was interested to get it but couldn't find it anywhere. The editors response was that the game was made by Battlefront, one of two companies, the other being Shrapnel, that sell games only by mail, and are single handedly keeping the genre of hard core wargaming alive. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but it looked like good, cool free advertising. (I bet Hurberts girlfriend wrote the letter...kidding). Anyways, it was nice to see. Brian
  4. Dear Sirs, Please add my name to the list. It looks like it working out very well. Thank you.
  5. I was wondering how this would turn out. However, this was a very short AAR for such a key game... Heuristic, I just don't understand how the gambits didn't work! Irish Guards, I'm glad Heuristic beat me. It feels better that way.... And please, let the AAR against Hubert please go on for a few postings. Please? Brian
  6. Great thoughts....Thank you. Les, I would make the game space like a wide map, with a couple of strategic arrows that would flip you to the other side of the world. For example, say, you have an invasion force down in lower Argentina (I don't know the name of the Sea there), move onto the arrow, next turn show up in the Cape of Good Hope. There would be few arrows on the North. Regions do work. Both at Sea and on land. HQ's are key, but they needn't be adjacent. Just in the same "zone", region. Same with Air, in my opinion. Air and HQ's are optimum inside their region (defense), and less so, in the adjacent zones, that they are attacking. Again, you get into bridgehead thinking here (must take some hexes in this zone, so i can move my HQ and air in for better effectivity....) Regarding Naval: I definitely agree with you. Opposing forces would co exist. And fight, based on a random factor including weather. Think the Bismarck, so something like. Random possibilities of interception, while at the same time Bismarck has random opportunities of engagement, convoy interception, supply disruption....etc. I was thinking something like this: One zone, two opposing ports, with their ships. Four options: Control (ie also meaning kill anything that sails in your zone), Raid, Supply, and for subs, convoy kill. You set your buttons for each region/sea zone, with the ships you have available, carriers too. Based on a random factor, naval actions, day or night, air or surface, will happen. The good thing about this approach, is you can have more ships (we all love our ships), with no added logistic complications. Set it and go, and then if there is a battle, go to sub menu. Responding to your post: HQ's would not need to be adjacent, just in the same zone/region. Jersey John: I agree with you. But I still go to zones. And the options I mentioned. If the navy does control the sea, challenges it and keeps it, then each ship can bombard whatever units are in that zone, assuming that they have not already fought. If the naval units did a battle with the opposing navy, they're done and have to wait until the next turn. Speaking of which, each turn would be two months. As regards invading island bases, easy. Picture this: Island, Malta, Tarawa, etc...Two squares for each island, superimposed on the map. On the left is the defending, on the right is the attacker, they coexist on the square until combat is done (usually in one turn. otherwise, generally, based on supply considerations, the defender will probably counter attack, if able. Depends). John, thanks for noticing that point about the loss of merchant ships. In the game, it probably wouldn't be very key for very long. But as you know, during late 41 and early 42, England was starving to death on materials and food, etc. But it wasn't because they didn't have that available, they just couldn't get to their island, or Archangel, for the Russians. Murmansk too, during the summer months (I think that's how it went, or visa versa). In the game, to simplify, it would be a special rule that would only apply to Britain and Japan. Something like allocating this many MMP's to this spot, but due to losses in the merchant fleet, only 80%, or 90 or 70, depending, will get there. Follow? Another thing you brough up is weather. It's not over looked in SC1, not much, and mostly hidden. I would make it a much more blantant feature. Except in North Africa, where it is always to sunny, Weather played such a major part in the war. You know the game: Moscow, Stalingrad, Coral Sea, almost even, but not quite, Midway (it was sunny). All zones would have an interdependant weather scheme, based on the calender and random therefrom.
  7. I like this thread so much, I bounced off it, and started another, before this one could get buried. Great stuff.
  8. I'm kind of bouncing off several threads here, including especially and most recently, Les Sarges "I was lost...", and bouncing also off Jersey Johns comments... Hubert, here is how I would do it. I am assuming you are going to use the SC platform as the basic premise: Briefly (leaving many of the edges out, but you will get the idea) Part 1, Land and land units: Working within the premise 1) No stacking except with beachheads. Islands and coastal hexes all have a sub hex set for attack/defend. Double stacking allowed, fight to the death for the hex, supply is key, it can be in doubt for a period of time. It would be a sub menu and you would double click on the hex. This allows invasions against a fortified France, an occupied Malta, and all of the landings in the Pacific on little islands. It works, trust me. Part II: Ocean and Naval Units: You will have to go with zones. Hexes can be used for calculations, but there must be zones, where in the opponents commits their navies, and convoys and uboats, and air. Similar to Clash of Steel, more similar to Victory in the Pacific. Sides will commit their ships and invasions to be successful or not, including convoys, chance will play a factor. If a battle occurs, go to sub menu on how to play it out (I'll talk on that another day). Part III: Air. This would be similar to how it is now, but also each air unit would patrol a zone, land or sea and participate accordingly. Part IV: Economics: This gets complicated to describe, but I would have this on a whole separate preturn sub menu. The AI would be able to handle this I am sure. Picture it this way, going from left to right.... MMP's go into the various funnels. Those are an assortment of opportunities and costs. We are making it simple and playable, and therefore it's simplified, but in this, there is a time lag. Say there are ten options as follows: (a factory can say, utilize 50 MMP's) Build factory Increase ship building Research Build ships Build convoys etc... Not to go into the depth of HOI (which was insane!), but to let, say, the U. S. build up, with many many MMP's, but in the beginning not knowing how to use them....I have the diagram, I just can't quite describe it well. Part V: Convoys. Now think War at Sea. Make it simple. If the convoys get damaged, the ability of transporting will also be reduced. This can be abstracted, though. For Britain, say, they have key sources of supply in Britain, Egypt, India. MMP's flow freely between. Units do not. For America, MMP's do not flow freely to say Hawaii. They must be convoyed, and are subjected to sub, or surface attack. The key here is not to make it complicated, but yet make it key. Place a convoy in that sea zone. If it gets sunk, lose MMP's, supply, and some shipping value (ability to ship). If it's units, well it's units, just like it is now, but in zones. Part VI: Growth: HOI got all messed up by over complicating things. For simplicity sake, stick with MMP. Going back to the panel and the grid, if a player can't, or doesn't want to cram everything down the funnel to make things, the player can invest in new factories that open the funnel. Germany could only make so many ships at a time and each took time. More ships, invest in a ship factory. Already invested to the max on ship factories, invest in basic factories that will allow the building of a new ship factory. Do you follow? I'm explaining it poorly, but it's linear and works. Can work. Part VII: The World... Hexes on land and hexes at sea, with zones, I would make the whole world on the scale as it is in SC I. There will be dead spots of course, but a mouse scrolls well. Part VIII: Diplomacy: A new model, with influences and the possibilities of bringing in Argentian, Mexico, etc, into the war. Lots to say on this, but I don't want to at this time. Too much to say. Conclusion: For now, at least: SC is great. I love it, we love. The only reason why we talk about it so much (and criticize it), is because we love it. That said, we want (or I do, anyways), Global SC. SC 2. SC 2 for me. WE have to work on what has been created thus far. I think the platform can be extended. I don't know if the AI can handle that extension, or if it's economically feasible to try to do so. I think it is. I would like to help. I see how it can work. And SC Global would be for me, the game of all games. That's my opinion. (more than) nuf sed. comments? Hi Brian
  9. Hey Wildcat, It was a bit harsh. Harsher than I intended it. I apologize for that. I guess I was just trying to say hey wake up! The AI will not be as smart as a human player. But at least it moves faster and is there waiting for you when you turn on the game. And, the SC AI is a lot smarter than the AI in most complex games I've played. So I commend it (still, wish the German AI could do Sea Lion, but since it can't, I accept that as a strategic limitation, along with others). I personally am amazed at how many times I can keep playing this game over and over and again. That's a sign of a great game. And the funny thing is, I haven't even made much progress towards playing the scenarios. Keep at it, Wild Cat. I'll play you live some time and when asked, show you a trick or two, but only if you ask and only in fun. And keep posting too. We like newbie comments. It lets us pretend us oldbies are smart. Brian
  10. Comrade Trapp, With the Italian Gambit, the allies actually do pay a price: They have to spend 30 MMP's to get to Italy, and another 30 MMP's to get out of there, and they will have to get out of there. The readiness of the U.S and Russia goes down, even further (though not quite enough, in my opinion. I think the U. S. should go way way way in the hole with this kind of gambit). They will get an extra 10 MMP's per turn, to be sure. But on the other hand, Italy is now in the war and bringing in about 90 MMP's per turn. In some ways, it counteracts the Dutch gambit, because the Allies won't be able to fortify the southern line in time (with just the Dutch gambit, and a bit of luck on readiness, sometimes the French can have three corps on the Italian border to defend that flank and devote everything else they have to the German side of things. Overall, it makes things a bit of a free for all, which is good. I played Heuristic when he did the double gambit, still took France, and it almost worked out ok. But not quite. But that was my fault...It can be countered. Jeff Gilbert, Picture this. The fleet from Alexandria and Gibralter, and the french fleet from Marseilles, sitting just outside of taranto. Allies declare war and land with two corps. I assume one is from Tunisia, and the other has got to be from Gibralter, just at the narrow part of the boot. Italian fleets are hemmed in and pounded, Italian fleet in Taranto is attacked overland. Overall, Two fleets and the sub of the Italian fleet are killed, but will hurt the Allies, the Italians can bottle up the damage as needs be. Again, I just made mistakes against this gambit, and over reacted.... I think it's a cool set of moves that can be done, yet am not sure if it's to be recommended. On the other hand, it can kill a Rambo. Smile.
  11. Sandcastle, It is... Say you are the Axis, and bother to take Malta. On it's own, it's a no never mind, except for 10 MMP's to you, and not to the UK. But, follow it up with taking Alexandia and then after Iraq (very key). Now, suddenly and quietly, Tripolitania, Tobruk, Alexandia, Suez, Lebonon, and all of Irag, become 10MMP sites, instead of being limited to 5, if Malta stays allied. Exclusive of Malta, which stays at 5, this adds a whopping 40+ MMP's per turn (add in the fifteen take aways). Just from taking Malta. I used to use the Axis to take Norway and Sweden. If I do both, I get 60 MMP's. If I take Malta and those cities I mentioned, I get 80 MMPs, and take away 25 MMP's. So I do go for Malta, in head to head, as best as I can. Of course there are issues, in that I believe in it so much, that it's telegraphed. But still statistically, the Med is where you should go. But if the allies know about it too well, go Norway/Sweden and ignore it, but then you have to take Spain, and Gibralter... Ah, the nuances.....
  12. Bill, I totally agree. Once I spotted the glitch, I removed the British, so that the Axis (AI), could get on with it. But I had waited a few turns, and I think that the AI had determined that the time had passed to attack Vichy (and Spain and Portugal). An AI can only do so much. And as we have found, there are so many nuances to this game. It's difficult for Hubert to figure out all the impacts of the changes he has made. I was just point this one out, since it's a bit glaring. I could put a fleet next to Brest and the axis air would attack it, but not the ground unit. It's just one of those small errors that are fixable, I think (not sure). And yes, once it goes to Russia, it's challenging and fun. I love playing live, but sometimes, meeting the commitments of the follow on engagement is tough. (Still though, that's the best part, this live play). And you know what I mean, and so it goes....
  13. Who knows!? You and I could talk anyone into a coma. I've noticed that you aren't posting so many pics any more, but instead allowing readers to click on the site.... I don't know if this is good. Some of your pics were great. But, my opinion, some of your posts went very long. You are very knowledgable. I love all your posts. I would love to play you sometime. I think the game would go slow, because we would be talking too much about this move and that (There are a couple of players I have played live, that say nothing, but go, finish your turn, move, nice. I hate that!) Anyways, nuf sed. The sea people will learn from this. And you and I already know.
  14. Where is the ladder kept? So one can view the positions on the ladder, and see where one stands. By the way, I am curious about this ladder standing.... Say you have 3 players on the ladder. Player A: 0-0 Player B: 0-3 Player C: 0-4. How would this work out on the ladder? From my perspective, it should work out as C is above B is above A. As long as no one has even won. But similarly.... Player A: 7-1 Player B: 10-2 Player C: 1-0. How does this work out? Is this a matter of who you challenge? I am still puzzled by the ladder. Brian the clueless
  15. Jersey John, Actually, it's not that at all. The allied air will reinforce, regardless of the port strength. But the nuance of the game is that if you attack the allied air fleet while it is sitting inside the fortress, it will defend itself at a fortified value. But if you attack the port, the allied air fleet will intercept at an equal value, which, if you're Axis air has any of the experience (and HQ supply) it is supposed to have (use your most experienced air for the bombing of the port), is going to hurt the allied air badly. Then you bomb the air, even though it receives fort bonus. Bombing the port is just a way of making it intercept. Hurting the port is just an added bonus. Does that makes more sense? I may have mis explained previously.
  • Create New...