Edwin P.
-
Posts
2,956 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Edwin P.
-
-
WWI as major powers it had:
Allies: UK, France, USA, Italy, Russia
Axis: Germany, Austrian-Hungarian Empire, Turkey
8 Major Powers, HC would only need to add 2 more.
-
Yep, the AI can be fooled into diverting units from Russia by landing a UK unit in Brest or Sicily. I would like to see the AI in this case, divert only enough units to deal with the threat - i.e. max of 3 for Brest or Sicily - and/or send in enough air power to quickly eliminate the threat.Originally posted by Youri:I managed to delay the invasion by letting a UK unit in Brest (kept part of german army in France). I believe the IA still lacks concentration of firepower while attacking
-
I like the Sword of Rome concept.
Major players could be Rome, Greece, Carthage, Egypt, Persia with each side acting independently or in alliance with other nations
Key is changing alliances!
Without any air spotting, FOW would be almost 100% except for Intel gathered information.
-
Agreed, at tech level 3 or 4 they are awesome against already damaged units, and if you could reduce their cost and production time via research more players would try them out.
As it is, I rarely encounter them in HvH play.
[ February 27, 2007, 11:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]
-
Agreed, I would like to see techs forOriginally posted by Moonslayer:Perhaps a new technology which reduces build time of ships and/or planes and/or tanks by one month per level down to a minimum of 50% of the original build time.
Submarine Mass Production
Bomber Mass Production
Rocket Mass Production
For game balance reasons, I would not apply it to air Fleets. And for historical reasons I would not apply it to carriers, battleships, armies or corps.
[ February 27, 2007, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]
-
For historical reasons I would prefer seperate techs for different unit types. Why?Originally posted by Exel:We have two production related techs already, they could simply be made to reduce production times as well.
For though mass production techniques could be applied to sub they could not be applied to the much larger battleships. Also, some nations focused their efforts on mass producing submarines (Germany) while others focused their efforts on mass producing bombers (USA).
Seperate techs also force players to make a choice as to where they want to focus their production resources.
Imagine this:
Submarine Production Tech - reduces production time and cost
Bomber Production Tech - reduces production time and cost
Now the German player has to make a choice. He can only invest in one as he needs MPPs to also purchase units. Which strategy does he follow? The sub strategy or the bomber strategy? The decision he makes in 1940 will affect his war making capability in later years.
Seperate production techs means that the choice you make early in the war affects you later in the war. In my view, a more historical option than simply reducing the production time of all units.
[ February 27, 2007, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]
-
Excellent point, Jersey John.
This also gives the German player a way to rapidly build up the size of their navay if they wish to launch a battle for the Atlantic.
I would also like to see a player able to buid submarine pens (fortified bunkers) in ports. During WWII submarines in these bunkers were practically invulnerable to allied bombing raids.
Moreover, I was reading that the Germans by the end of the war had reduced the average production time of submarines from 27 weeks to 8 weeks thru the application of mass production techniques to submarine building. The subs would be constructed in sections and the sections welded together to complete the submarine.
There should be a way in SC2 to recreate this as it would definitely make for a more viable battle for the Atlantic if you could produce subs in just 2 months, instead of 6 months.
-
-
Rambo, I agree, a Civil War Game would be totally different.
And as I recall, the game you featured you drew chits from a cup to see how many HQs you could activate and then rolled a die for the other units.
What made it great, was that you could never move all of your units, and in many cases units you wish you could move couldn't, because they failed there initaitive check.
It made for a most interesting game of strategy and calculated risks.
-
Agreed the American Civil War would be a great followup.
Imagine,
HQ commanders with initiative checks based on their historical proclivity to move their men forward or not.
A war without air units to spot the massing of enemy forces.
A war with limited advances in technology.
A war where the battlefield reaches from Virginia to Texas.
It would be most interesting.
-
To balance the game, the USA remains neutral.
The UK does not gain the benefit of American troops or naval units.
Thus you have choice 1: USA can send UK more MPPs via Merchant Ships now AND choice 2: USA enters the war later.
Ideally the Allied player would get more victory points if they can win without the USA entering the war.
-
In a future SC2 patch I would like to see the game engine account for the effect of the War with Japan on the USA war effort;
1. After Japan surrenders USA production should double, along with its build limits.
2. If USA decides to remain neutral, and not embargo Japan thus not triggering an attack on Pearl Harbor, then American war production should double. This would allow it to send more MPPs to the UK. Possibly allowing the Alleis to secure victory without the America having to enter the war.
This would be implemented by:
August 1941 - A Decision Popup asks if the USA wishes to embargo Japan.
--If No Then USA remains Neutral and its production doubles. This allows it to send more MPPs to the UK.
--If Yes then USA enters the war in Europe at a later date, as per the standard game.
-
From my point of view,
If the USA had decided not to embargo Japan it would have had two effects on the war;
1st. Japan could have focused its all of its forces against China and Russia.
2nd. The USA war production would have greatly increased as it would not be fighting a two front war.
Thus;
USA does not Embargo Japan = NO Siberian Transfer + Greater USA Production & the USA can send more MPPS the UK via merchant ships.
A balanced option from my point of view.
-
I would like to see the USA have the Option to Embargo or Not Japan.
If USA Embargo's Japan
--- 80% Japan DOW USA
--- 20% Japan Submits to USA demands and USA War Readiness reduced by 100% to 0
If USA Decides Not to Embargo Japan
--- Early Siberian Transfer, USA War Readiness Reduced by 50%
-
I would like to see your Intel Advantage (not your Intel Disadvantage) added to the strength of your AA improvement. This would reflect the fact that AA units are prepared for the enemy attack, and give players another reason to research intel.
Example:
AA Rating of 1 + Intel Advantage of 1 = AA Rating of 2.
AA Rating of 1 + Intel Advantage of 2 = AA Rating of 2 , as the Intel Bonus can't exceed a city's/resource's AA improvement level.
AA Rating of 2 + Intel Advantage of 2 = AA Rating of 4.
Futhermore, I would like to see a sub's experience rating increase its dive percentage. This would better reflect the combat bonus of experienced submarine commanders.
Example: 1 Medal = +5% Dive Bonus, 2 Medals = +10% Dive Bonus
-
Or perhaps the payoff for Norway and Greece could be - "Partisan Unit Script Activation"
-
Its possible, as long as the Royal Navy does not stand in the way.
-
Excellent idea.
01. Naval units should be able to pass through naval units of neutral nations.
02. I would also base the pass through on weather. In stormy weather you have a chance to pass through tiles occupied by active enemy units. This increases based on the fleet admirals experience advantage.
Example: Rough Seas chance to pass through enemy unit is 25%. This increases by 25% for every experience advantage you have over the enemy fleet.
Battleship with 2 bars of experience vs Enemy Cruiser with 0 bar of experience has 75% to pass through tile with enemy cruiser in rough seas.
-
Example:
Perhaps give each side a series of preware decisions to make.
Germany would have 3 decisions;
01 - Naval Strategy
02 - Axis Diplomatic Strategy (Does Germany ally with Italy, Spain or Turkey)
03 - Industrial Focus (None, Army, Air, or Naval)
01. Naval Strategy - Subs, Surface, Combined or None
If Germany selects a sub strategy then it starts the war with +3 subs in production and no battleships in production.
If Germany selects a surface strategy it starts the war with 2 more battleships in production and 2 less subs.
If Germany selects a combined naval strategy then it pursues the historical forces structure as shown in SC2.
If Germany selects a non naval strategy it starts the war with no ships in the production que and receives an extra 600MPP.
France would also have 3 Strategies to select from:
01. Defense of France
01.01 Extend Maginot Line to the English Channel-lose 1 army and gain 2 corps.
01.02 Historical Defense of France
02. Fall of France
02.1 Vichy France
02.2 Fight from Algiers
-
Agreed, SeaMonkey - Great Idea. Fantastic.
I would also consider semi-annual turns to speed thins up - ie. 4 years in 8 turns.
Now, lets hear some practical ways to implement this using quarterly or semi-annual turns or some other turn period.
-
Re: Diplomacy,
I would like to see major nations able to use the ports of friendly nations (i.e. leaning 50% or more towards you) for supply, repair and sanctuary against enemy attack.
-
Jersey John, thanks once more for the most informative history lesson. Excellent summary.
Question: Would you consider the Molotov Pact a German Diplomatic success?
Though it will likely not be added to SC2, how about:
von Neurath - 175MPP
--- Advises Player on Diplomacy Movements
--- No penalties
Ribbentrop - 75MPP
--- Advises Player on Diplomacy Movements
--- Penalty against Influencing 2 Randomly Selected Nations (USA, Russia, Spain, Turkey or Sweden)
Wilhelm Canaris - 125MPP
--- Advises Player on Diplomacy Movements - 100%
--- Penalty Against Influencing 1 Randomly Selected Nation (USA, Russia, Spain, Turkey or Sweden)
I made the actual penalty random so that players would not know what their Foreign Minister's weaknesses are.
-
1. Yes for railroads. That really adds more strategy to the game if operating can only be done along rail lines and a city can only be supplied via rail lines. Seize a rail hub and you prevent your unit from operating units and cut off cities from supply.
2. As for the Foreign minister unit, it would count as one of your HQs - if you don't want to check the diplomacy screen yourself purchase a Foreign Minister HQ (100MPP), but know that it will reduce the number of combat HQs you can put into the field.
[ January 20, 2007, 07:15 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]
-
In Sc2 I am often surprised by diplomatic developments as I tend not to check the diplomatic screen often.
I would like to have the option to purchase a Foreign Minister who would advise me via popups of any change in a countries readiness each turn.
The Foreign Minister would also hinder the diplomatic efforts of your opponent (reduce their chance for diplomacy success).
Comments on AI invasion of Spain
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
In 1.06 the AI will sometimes attack neutral Spain or invade Axis Spain.
What is your experience with this AI strategy?