88mm
-
Posts
158 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by 88mm
-
-
[ May 04, 2003, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
Great ideas. There's alot to say in favor of it.
Only one thing is missing , japan
Would love to take a shot at russia from 2 sides, that would be a nice twist. Opens up a whole new box of ideas...
-
True, very true. and that's exactly where the game fails. The diplomatic response to such "rare" events is the greatest problem.Originally posted by disorder:88MM---
who knows these other plans might have worked? probably would have been worse than using england as an "aircraft carrier" though,but still realistic AND a historical possibility imho
-
This is true. But this goes for all "enhancements". As soon you reach a higher lvl. , the material is immediatly upgraded. That's a part of the game-engine. So when you change it the way you propose, you should also look at armor, subs and the rest. Let's face, you don't transform a PzII in a Tiger.Originally posted by JerseyJohn:The problem with SC is all your airfleets become stocked with jet aircraft the moment you've developed that level of research. Naturally this is unreasonable.
So instead of going the hard way, which have much for it but then again also against it the best way to tackle this problem is to adjust the parameters for the unit and/or MPP. Maybe fiddling with some MPP of other types could help.
-
Thks Shaka for your comments. However, i am not concerned to begin with. I only see lot of suggestions to make the game more "realistic". Realictic is for me almost the same as historicle correct. How "realistic" is it when Germany conquers sweden and the suez-canal without a declaration of War from the USA, or the USSR for example. What i on the other hand do see is that Italy joins the Axis as soon as france seems to fall. And then there's the game-/unit concept itself, and more...
Bottomline is; don't try to make something what it isn't intended too. It's a game, not a godsim.
So if you want to make enhancements, fine. Want to make it more random and fun to play, fine. Only forget the words realistic or 'historicle" then . . .
thats all
ps: that's exactly i liked in Panzer General, you could go through the whole campaign, without strange twist or turns. you even could opererate sealion. The plans were there. Have you ever seen German plans to invade sweden, Iraq or Spain and Portugal. Or from the Allied perpective, Allied plans to invade Low countries, Ireland or whatever ?
[ May 03, 2003, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
you're pulling my leg, aren't ya ?
-
Nice thread, read most of it. Then the question comes to my mind, what are you thinking ?
Do you want to play a "historicle" and as close as it can towards "realistic" game or do you want to re-write history ?
Actualy, noe that i think about it. Why are there 2 types of Airfleets? Why not 1 ?
It's a Airfleet, right? With all different kind of planes, including bombers. Why 2 ,3 types of naval fleets. Why cruiser, Battleship and Carriers ? Why not destroyers? Afterall the detroyer was/is enemy number 1 of a sub, any sub. So the Cruisers/Battleships must i see as fleets with supporting destroyers etc...
It's a strange setup, 2 air-type (some would like 3), 4 naval types, and just one infantry(well 1 and 1/2, given the 1/2 sized corps) and one Panzer unit. Where's the recon, police-units (to control occupied arrea), Pioniertroops, Armored Infantry, Motorised infantry, Anti-tank bataljons, Ligth Tanks, Heavy Tanks, etc.etc.etc.
That's why i don't understand the need for JET-fleets, while the hole game is simplified to the max. (except a few strange choice, see my comment on naval vessels).
Also this kind of changes involves re-writing the game-engine, instead of adjusting gamebalance.
That's why i cannot go along with such ideas. It sounds great, but when implemented you still don't have a complete, realistic game. That is atleast what i think about it.
-
Shaka: as you state in your sig; What have realism with jets in common :confused:
Germany builded around 20.000 FW190's in WWII, how many of the "legendary" ME262 were build you think ? Not to mention the numbers of ME109's production. Who else beside Germany builded jets ?
England; and only few to arive very late in the war. Too late actualy to make a contribution.
So i can understand that it's a game-issue, but don't talk about "making it more realistic" in one line with "jets".
futhermore, what i also dislike in the game is the turn-table. spring/summer= weeks and winter is over in 4 turn due to the month per turn.
However since it's there, we cannot avoid it.
that said it's exactly why i think 90% chance of grounded planes is too much. That means that rouglt once in a 2 year period your airfleet/bombers get airborn in winter. that is, as the winter takes 4/5 months. When it's 3 months, it gets airborn once in a 3 year period; on average.
So i would lower it to 50 a 70% but no more.
About the infantry. Do i understand you right? first move this turn, and then next turn attack. Doesn't this screw up the balance of the game? There aren't so much turns anyway.
A better approach would be to allow the infantry to move/attack when it moves one hex, and not when moving 2 or 3 hexes. Adjustments is fine, but watch out that you don't overdue it.
Too be honest, the game misses so much that it is impossible to make it like we want it. There's always something missing, how much we try. That's the price for simplicity.
-
Comrade, i suggest you email Maximillian214 once more, and ask him to respond within 2 weeks notice. Send me a copy too. If Maximillian214 does not respond to you within given time i shall act accordingly and give you a win, and him a loss and a fair penalty; just like "no games this month" a 10 places down penalty.Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:REPOSTING COMPLAINT
Maximillian214 has refused to finish our game or concede. I have left him 3 e-mails (1st: 4-12-03 2nd: 4-14-03 3rd: 4-15-03) asking him to set a date to continue our game, I also left a post on Opponent Finder Forum yet I get no reply.
I understand that people have busy schedules and cannot always finish games the same week they are started, but all I am asking for is for him to set a date to finish or at least reply to my e-mails. I am still willing to finish the game but in order to do that he must give me a reply.
Comrade Trapp
That is a fair and unfortunatly a nessecary offer to straighten things out. If your have any comments or questions you can email me...
-
Comrade, i suggest you email Maximillian214 once more, and ask him to respond within 2 weeks notice. Send me a copy too. If Maximillian214 does not respond to you within given time i shall act accordingly and give you a win, and him a loss and a fair penalty; just like "no games this month" a 10 places down penalty.Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:REPOSTING COMPLAINT
Maximillian214 has refused to finish our game or concede. I have left him 3 e-mails (1st: 4-12-03 2nd: 4-14-03 3rd: 4-15-03) asking him to set a date to continue our game, I also left a post on Opponent Finder Forum yet I get no reply.
I understand that people have busy schedules and cannot always finish games the same week they are started, but all I am asking for is for him to set a date to finish or at least reply to my e-mails. I am still willing to finish the game but in order to do that he must give me a reply.
Comrade Trapp
That is a fair and unfortunatly a nessecary offer to straighten things out. If your have any comments or questions you can email me...
-
Rambo made a tactic victory and a very important win. We all know who the "king" of SC is but the king have fallen from his throne
*afcource this is a joke
[ May 02, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
Rambo made a tactic victory and a very important win. We all know who the "king" of SC is but the king have fallen from his throne
*afcource this is a joke
[ May 02, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
Ow well. If everybody is happy with the current ladder, who am i to speak otherwise :cool:
And why shouldn't ZAPP explain some things, afterall i am totaly new at this and want to do it right.
About your invitation; make my day!
I have to warn you do, never played againts humans before, atleast with SC.
ps: About the avoiding issue. When the rules say (for example) that any top 10 player cannot refuse an invitation from Terif, you sure get your share. and when you also say that terif can't challenge you again the next 4 games he plays, you're not always the loot. Anyway there are more ways to rome....if you catch my drift
[ May 02, 2003, 01:27 AM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
Oh my godd.... armed LVM's :eek:
See it happening, six to the teeth armed LVM's knocking out a sub
Or landing-craft A boards landingcraft B (Pirates ?) and fight head tot head
Movement increase, oke. But let the LVM's be what they were, landing=craft with absolutely no assault-abilities.
[ May 01, 2003, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
Well, i see your point. Still it's funny to see all those wins (from terif
) and at the same time you have to take into mind, that most of his scores don't count.Personally, i would like to see some division(s). premier, 2de divison or something like it.That is also a great stopper for easy win seekers. Afterall, you play ladder-games to be count, right?
Oke, i changed the stats. Reset all to "no game this month" exept the few that posted. Do i need to penalize some people ? That means, all that were in-active last month ?
-
See. The battle could go on and on. There never will be a winnerOriginally posted by JerseyJohn:88mm
Everything you've said we've been saying for months.....
Don't expect from a new member to read ALL that is said in the past
One of them involves stacking, which I feel this game needs badly, along with retreat and advance after combat among other things.
It ain't gonna happen in SC 1 is it :confused:
You'll see that others have said exactly the same things about the naval aspect and air fleets -- the whole thing....
Good to see i am not alone on this
That's the basic battle among the people who post here: those who want the game to be more complex and more realistic, and those who want to keep things simple even if it means not having realism. Well the battle is lost already. SC 1 will never reach a serious realistic lvl. Maybe SC 2 will...
One other thing, you forgot weather. I've got a link to a thread on that over there as well. Where's the Russian Winter? Where are the trucks, supply-routes, destroyers, minesweepers, anti-tank bataljons, oil, steel and other resources....well you get my point.
So what we need is to co-op to balance things out and make the playable and enjoyable at the same time. In the end, it's a game. Not a serious historicle acurate replay of history. It's already hard to make a F1-sim realistic correct (with only 20 cars out) let alone a 5+ year conflict back 50 years ago. Where things constantly changing...
What i miss in SC is the "battle-feeling" that you are overloaded with in the CM-series for example. In CM however i miss the overal strategic picture. No campaigns, no control over the reserves etc.etc. you get it, or you don't. it's all layed out.
Best thing for me would be some sort of mixture between "Accros the Rhine"
-
RULES FOR THE SC WORLD CHAMPION LADDER
1) there are no rules
[ May 20, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
RULES FOR THE SC WORLD CHAMPION LADDER
1) there are no rules
[ May 20, 2003, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
Ghi, just looked at it seems i was missing something
Shall fix it right away!
-
Thks Zapp
You are welcome back any time, oke ?
PS: After a good look at the ladder i clearly see some strange things.
Players who only lose stand higher then some players who have won more then they lost. to me this seems unfair and a bit silly. This makes me wonder; are the rules flawed ?
Futhermore i see alot of players that haven't been active latest month. Is that just a month or are they several months in-active ? Not so much fun to me to bypass "in-active" players
So while the ladder is functional i believe there should made some changes. what do you think ?
[ May 01, 2003, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
disband the Jet-tech from the game....
-
It's easy. Bann the jets
No, seriously. Jets were hardly used in WW2 and then also just in the end-game. Where lonesome Me262 raged havok on the swarms of allied fighters/bombers :cool:
Jets did have a ZERO effect on the outcome of the war. Anyone can agree on this, right?
So just cut the jet-tech out or make it a rule of engagement. That will do
Afterall, i hear alot about making the game more "historicle". So why not start here and now.
-
Under construction.....
[ May 20, 2003, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
-
Under construction.....
[ May 20, 2003, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: 88mm ]
New Combat Mission game Announced. Combat Mission: Afrika Korps!!! Pt2
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
Originally posted by Erwin Rommel:
@ 88mm
a) The games engine cannot handle that sort of campaign.
too bad. Would be more attractive with a descent campaign. So , basicly it's not a new game, but a "scenario-disk"? Ow well, if the price is right.
couple of mouseclicks... how many? 2, 3,4, 8? 1 button (stick to road would make things alot easier).
c) This is because the AI does not calculate any action until the GO button is hit. Again all you need is a couple of mouse clicks to set the vehicles waypoints manually to get around objects you should know the unit cannot go through.Again no changes needed here.
Same respons as point b. Sure; it isn't nessacary. Why make things a little easier to work with, let them click,click,click....
d) What you are seeing is just an abstract view of the true battlefield the game uses for calculations. So what you see is not nessacarily what is truly going on.
who cares; a tank boarding another, or drive throug it sucks. They should collide, you should hear the metal bouncing. And it's possible, ever seen Panzer Commander ? What is this, a static 2D map converted to "3D" or a fullscreen 3D-Game ?
2)Pure eye candy and not really needed in my opinion
The explosions are eye-candy too, gues they fall also where you don't see them. And you disagree with yourself, troops sit/stand/ly walk/run and even turn their heads. But when a armored vehicle moves, we must be glad that atleast one part of the mechanics are working (tracks). Hee, the tracks are eye-candy too, why not rip them out of the game ?
Don't get me wrong here, i like the game. But when you model a game in 3D and i see a tank (or whatever) it's just stupid too see not all the mechanics are working. Only does who cannot left out, and the tracks as a bonus. however, we are spoiled. These days are totally different then a few years back. We have invested in great VGA-cards and other hardware. It's a shame too see how many games have poor implemented DirectX functions or 3D. But yet we are allowed to pay the full load of todays prices. Anyway, if you can let a infantry-men do all that eye-candy stuff, why not a simple wheel ? or a door of a vehicle ? I don't even mention buildings
So when i ask, gimmy moving wheels and trails where the tank has touchd the ground i don't think i ask too much. It's practicly standard these days...
And all afcource increases the "being there" feeling.