bloodstar
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by bloodstar
-
-
Hey everyone, Long long time player here.
I've started trying to build a rather large (480x240) world map. I don't think the mapgen.exe
can handle something like that, and the idea of building it tile by tile strikes me as...
tedious.
So I had a few questions:
1) has someone already built a large world map?
2) what other tricks (if any) are available to not be forced into clicking on one tile at a time?
thanks!
bloodstar
-
The main reason you won't see germany using engineer units is simple:
Once Germany is on the defensive, everyone assumes the game is over and the Germans will lose.
Why buy a defensive unit then?
Change the victory conditions so the axis gets a victory for surviving to a certain date. then maybe people will start playing the game to the end.
-
Said it before, said it again, If the Axis isn't on the defensive by 43, and the Soviets Britain and US are up and running, then something is seriously wrong with the game. In fact The Allies outproduced the Axis at every point in the conflict.
That should be reflected, game balance be damned.
-
I'll third it...
reduce the effects of an increase in tech. there should be an advantage to an increase in tech...
but it should be an example where the Germans
(for example, can have advanced technologies
to compensate for their reduced force pool)
and the Soviets can use cheap massive forces
to overwhelm the Advanced tactics and equipment
(remember technology can also represent advanced
in tactics in addition to better weapons.)
no unit should wipe the floor with another one
-
Play balance? If the allies are still active in 1944, Germany should be massively out produced no matter how much of the rest of Europe is controlled by It.
The US had so much equipment and manufacturing capacity they could have supplied Any country fighting Germany with equipment:
Tanks Produced during World War II:
# Soviet Union = 105,251 (92,595)
# United States = 88,410 (71,067)
# Germany = 46,857 (37,794)
# United Kingdom = 27,896
# Canada = 5,678
# Japan = 2,515
# Italy = 2,473
(number in paren is tanks with 75mm or larger
main weapons)
Artillery:
1. Soviet Union = 516,648
2. United States = 257,390
3. Germany = 159,147
4. United Kingdom = 124,877
5. Japan = 13,350
6. Canada = 10,552
7. Italy = 7,200
8. Other Commonwealth = 5,215
9. Hungary = 447
Fighters:
1. United States = 99,950
2. Soviet Union = 63,087
3. Germany = 55,727
4. United Kingdom = 49,422
5. Japan = 30,447
6. Italy = 4,510
Aircraft Carriers:
1. United States = 141
2. Japan = 16
3. United Kingdom = 14
4. Germany = 2
Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II
I don't care about balance in the sense that
once 1944 rolls around, the Axis should be
fighting on the defensive no matter how well
they've done, unless they've managed to
score early knockout blows against the other
countries.
Here's a list of Lend Lease Deliveries to
The Soviet Union:
Aircraft.............................14,795
Tanks.................................7,056
Jeeps................................51,503
Trucks..............................375,883
Motorcycles..........................35,170
Tractors..............................8,071
Guns..................................8,218
Machine guns........................131,633
Explosives..........................345,735 tons
Building equipment valued.......$10,910,000
Railroad freight cars................11,155
Locomotives...........................1,981
just some food for thought.
-
Keep in mind, none of the debate still changes the fac that Spain entering the war should have negative effects as well as positive. How about this, as an alternative reaction. Vichy France stays neutral, however the African colonies go allied with a corps in each port... as commonwealth troops.
Experience is still borken. maybe reduce the effects of experience by 50%?
Experience combined with tech is insane.
-
To take a couple of points jon_j_rambo mentioned: Experience is broken. How experience is handled needs to be fixed and re-examined. Hopefully in a future patch.
Also, to help counter the spain gambit, Vichy france should go allied when/if Spain joins the axis due to diplomacy (considering Franco's demands for Vichy Territory, it wouldn't be unreasonable for that to happen as a side effect).
(and have it happen at the beginning of the *next* allied turn, to cut down any gamey effects).
just random thoughts and ideas
-
1) whoops, I meant to say that the units should be on map and mobile for all major countries. Wasn't very clear on that one...Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:1/ so the USA shouldn't be on the Map?
2/ France surrendered when only Paris & Brest were taken on the SC2 map - Brest on 19 June, the formal surrender was on 25th.
3/ teh Sov union can replace corps dirt cheap if they've done their research properly - IIRC 55 or 60 MPP's for Corps destroyed in supply with no tech, so that's 6/turn at 360 MPP's per turn.
4/ is a good idea, but hen troops shuold probably gain more morale jsut for winning
2) something like that, take Pairs and either Marseille, Bordeaux, or Brest to invoke Vichy France.
3) What I'd like to see is the ability to buy any corps destroyed between turns. so at the end of your turn you can buy a corp that helps plug a vulnerable city, etc. (and give a discount for buying it like that? Only placeable in country, which would give the defenders and advantage).
4) Personally I'd be interested in seeing a game play with no Experience at all. it certainly would change the dynamics of the game.
-
a few thoughts:
1) it is insane that any neutral major country is not active and on map at the start of the game.
2) no major country should surrender until every resource point is taken. period. (except france, who should fall after paris and at least 2 other cities fall, and italy *after* 1943) that'll prevent any gamey issues with italy being DOW'd cheesed.
3)the Soviet Union is at a terrible disadvantage because there is no meatgrinder effect. they should be able to toss out crappy units left and right. But that isn't a simple solution because
4) experience means too much. if you're not going to reduce the amazing value of experience, at least reduce the amount of experience units gain against green troops, perhaps, 1/2 for each level of experience better than the other units, so a level 3 experience unit against a level 1 experience unit should get 1/4 experience. conversely, let the lower level unit gain experience *more* from being schooled by a high experience unit.
meh.
just my thoughts
-
Best solution to a DOW by the axis on Turkey would be the following trigger script:
1) Russian Activation goes to 99 percent (if not already at war).
2) Russian transfers siberian reinforcements the next turn.
3) good chance (50% likely) Greece, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary should all take a fairly massive swing towards the Allies.
3a) Small chance (10%) that Bulgaria, Hungry, Romania, Greece and/or Yugoslavia will go neutral if formerly an axis partner.
4) Fair chance (33%) that Bulgaria, Hungry, Romania, Greece and/or Yugoslavia will DOW on Axis if not still an axis minor ally. (and to prevent gamey issues, the readiness of the US should still go up). so yes, it's theoreticly possible for a country like Romania if an axis minor partner to go neutral and then DOW on the Germans.
5) Turkey should be DAMN hard to take, it's horrible terrain for the attacker and supply should be absolutely wretched. Any attacks coming from Greece Bulgaria should have a horrible time crossing into the mainland.
6) Turkey should get more forces. at least another Army. or another pair of corps on the start.
Sure you can invade Turkey, but it should be risky and hard to do.
If you think all of these together are too much, you can always pick and choose which ones make sense to you.
-
if there were retreats set up in game, you could simply create the idea there is a phantom unit on the coastal tile being assaulted. failure to retreat or eliminate that phantom unit would result in the assaulting units destruction (destroyed on the beaches)
-
Actually the best way to view it is that an army is a concentrated punch of power, a corps on it's own is not going to be anywhere near as effective. if nothing else, think of the C^3 effect on the Army. if a corps unattached had a relative attack value of 3, an army should have a force multiplier on it and be around a 9 or 10 (at least, maybe as high as 15?). Their defenses should be about the same. 2 armies of equal power should chew each other up, an army against a corps should have a chewed up corps and a scratched army. 2 corps hitting each other should have 2 scratched corps.
In an ideal world, I'd say that if every 3 points of attack should yield about 1 point of damage to the opponant then a corp should do one point of damage and an army would respond back with 3 2 corps should do 1 to each other. and 2 armies should do 3 to each other.
Obviously there are much more complex factors involved, but that's assuming everything else equal.
because there aren't coordinated attacks (combine all your units together a la Clash of Steel), you have to find a way to emulate that effect, which is where morale comes into play I suppose. pound a spot until it breaks then send the armor through to exploit the hole. If you had coordinated attacks al a COS methodology, you could better emulate the concept of superior odds in attacking.
-
Personally, I'd rather not see a Nazi flag in this game. I wouldn't raise a huge fuss about it, if it were there. but I certainly would aspire to revile it everytime I saw it; to use it to remember the atrocities performed under its auspices. Remember the evil, lest we forget the guises it may come to us in.
The following is offtopic, and not an attempt to troll.... really. just my own personal soapbox.
(which is what makes the pendulum swing in the US so worrying. In particular the unitary executive concept seems to be gaining significant headway; particularly with Alito's Comfirmation. No, I'm not a Democrat, I'm Libertarian to the core so I hate both the major parties, I just have bigger beefs with the Current Administration.)
-
Interesting food for thought, what would happen if the Soviet Union were permitted to declare war on Germany pre-emptively, *but* would have their income cut in half. The idea being that there would be no morale boost (and for game purposes).
I think of the old tabletop wargame that had a similar rule with a very odd side effect (the old SPI World in Flames ETO). (which led to a very strange game, when Germany invaded Sweeden in 39 instead of Poland, leading to very little force around, using Poland as a buffer. which eventually was DOW'd by the Soviets as the French and british were holding out.
The game ended with Germany still holding out along the Rhine. Italy was down, but the Germans holding the mountain line around into Hungary and up to along the Oder River. Oh, and they still had Sweeden.
a very curious game.
Anyway enough of going totally off topic
-
I think I'm missing something here, Is france falling like a house of cards in PvP battles? That seems horribly wrong. Firstly, Germany pulled off a near perfect execution of the invasion of France, whilst the French managed to bungle things on a strategic level that defys logic. Secondly, since this isn't about repeating the historical outcome exactly, why in the world are the French forces basicly set up to die by April?
A good Allied player V a good Axis player should have the French Surrender in September. Why? Because the game should not assume that the French will be quite so horribly run on a strategic level. So a good axis player against a crappy allied player should be able to take France out by... July I'd say.
Another important factor is luck. if the French get a few lucky breaks, and is played by a good player, there should be no reason why France can't hold out till... *gasp* 1941. Yes, I know that the French Army, *as seen from a history* had no chance, but most of the reason for that was quite simply a lack of vision and comptance on the part of the Senior Leadership.
I also think that France holding out shouldn't be a death Knell for the Axis. Maybe I'm crazy, but I expect ebb and flow in a strategic game. It's a hard balance to find, but I wonder if there is too much importance placed on experience in a strategic level game like this. How easy is Experience to turn off in the editor?
-
Easiest solution: Simply make a minor country's tech x - 2 of whatever tech the major country has. (obviously, min level whatever their default tech is for the minor country) say Finland has Anti Tank level 1, and Germany has anti tank to level 4, then finland can upgrade to level 2.
for most minor countries, the major country has to research to at least level 3 before the tech... 'bleeds down' to them.
-
It's a shame to have to tell all the Puerto Ricans that they're not American Citizens because mr rambo says so.Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:Yeah, if you hang with illegal aliens you'll hear alot of Spanish...or do they speak Mexican? Pal, if you want to speak that lingo & not learn English, that's fine...you won't become CEO soon.
Far as "spreaken zee Englander" in PL, that one dude is me, giving those dudes the Gospel.
(for the unknowing, anyone born in Puerto Rico is a US citizen since 1917 and the official language of Puerto Rico is Spanish. doesn't that mean, by definition, that they speak American as well?)
-
perhaps the single best way to avoid gamey consequences is to make the risks somewhat outweigh the rewards. For example, Invading any country that is leaning your way should have a massively negative effect on any other countries leaning towards your side. I would say that it could be so severe as to cause once allied countries to pull out and go neutral, and other countries to simply stop sending MMPs if they were sending them. If a country is leaning to the other side, then it would have much less consequences, as the aligned powers would feel much less threatened by your actions. It could apply to both sides.Originally posted by vveedd:QUOTE]Absolutely agree.
That’s not what I have in mind. Troops near minor borders should increase or reduce join percentage so that major power may possibly invest much less MPP in diplomatic points for joining but joining one side without additional diplomatic pressure should be random and very rear. In that way players can combine military pressure with diplomatic one. To me this sounds very realistic.
Gamey? As Santabear have said “The point is--if it's "built into" the game, folks will figure it out and you'll have "gamey" things going on. “ What is gamey is hard to say, for instance – When Axis players attacks Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Ireland just for MPP’s after USA joined Allies? Too unbelievable – too gamey?
Perhaps the effect can also reflect the neutral countries former stance, for example, say spain is 75% pro axis, and germany invades. Romania, Bulgaria both switch over from being say 75% axis to 10% allied leaning. You invade Romania, but to reflect the idea that the country invaded was a former ally, the script views the negative effects on other countries, like Hungary, Bulgaria, Turkey, as though you were attacking a strongly pro axis country.
Invading Switzerland should activate every remaining neutral country against you. and for good measure, every country should get active partisans against you for the remainder of the game (toggle the evil bit on).
Ok, the last part is a bit much. but... you get the idea. Actions should have consequences.
-
Yeah, a million more troops and having a protected supply line to Africa (not to mention the ability to project force deeper into the Atlantic) would have been terrible for the Germans.Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:Who would want the Spanish on their side? Good grief.
-
*grins*
I'd buy more ram, but my systems are already maxxed out on RAM.
It's not the end of the world. I just accept that things will be... sluggish.
-Mark
-
Sigh... I suspect my Pentium 450 and Pentium 500 just won't quite cut it. though both have 256 megs of RAM and a 32 meg video cards. Maybe I'll be the guinea pig and let everyone know if it works.
-
why not simply have artillery levels give bonuses to attacking entrenched units. or reduce the strenth of an attacking or defending force by the difference in the levels. a L1 art research attacking against against an L2 defender, would find themselves effectively facing an L1 artillery barrage.
(and of course each level of research would have to be bought, as per any other level of research.
of course that would eliminate the rocket unit. but... heh
-
santabear:
1. What is the difference between this system and the current system in which you buy units to conduct the offensive? Even more, the possession of cities to get the units operated in becomes critical.
2. Is the notion that you have to buy the units PLUS pay for the offensive?
****
1) the system would mean that your units cannot attack without paying a cost. It would enable strategic bombing to play a significant role in disrupting C^3. Particularly if MMPs are lost during a bombing and someone has run out of offensives that were pre bought.
2) yes, you would need to pay for both. Units represent the men. the MMPs spent on the offensive represent the munitions, the gas, and the logistics of attacking.
From Edwin:
Too complex for me. To a certain extent prepostioning your HQ units prepares you for an offensive, and given their lack of mobility you generally have to operate HQ units to shift HQ support along a front.
Though I can see where something like this would make sense for a more tactical level game - kinda like the initiative chits used in wargames that control how many units you can move that turn.
***
Oddly I view it as more of a grand strategy concept than tactical. you have to look and think ahead for the next three months what you're going to do. If your enemy catches with your pants down, then really, your pants are down. it's expensive to recover when you haven't prepared. Logisticly any counter attacks when you're not prepared for an invasion should be expensive to cobble together.
from a game standpoint I think it adds as much complexicity as diplomacy chits and having to rebuy research. I suppose I'm spoiled, but I think it has a certain elegance to it from a game playing standpoint. It gives the players a chance to control 'who goes first' rather than blindly alternating turns.
-
A few thoughts on the idea of prebuying
offensives (or attacks) at the beginning of
a season (4 times a year, this phase happens)
- Attacks and offensives should cost MMPs
a - those offensives should be pre bought at the
beginning of a season (spring summer etc
b - attacks supported by a HQ unit should cost
less than unites attacking independantly
c - offensives bought 'on the fly' or impromptu
should cost more.
d - Everyone but the Soviets should pay double
to conduct offensives during the winter
season.
e - Minor countries get free offensives each
season equal to the total number of
resource hexes (capitols, oil fields, etc)
in their country
f - all unspent offensives are lost at the
end of the season
g - Inititive (who goes first each turn)
can be determined by which side has more
offensives bought up. (Soviets count as
allied for this purpose) (Minor country
offensives do not count for this purpose)
This forces a player to plan ahead and to
strategize how he or she is going to spend the
next 3 months. It also forces the player to
divert some resources (upwards of 10 percent)
of their income towards conducting war offensives
it also better helps simulate the Soviets
having an advantage during the winter months.
which could help offset the German steamroller
effect.
Minor countries would then have an additional
usefulness. their units would be able to operate
independantly of a major country and actually
do things without cost. if one wished to
limit the usefulness of the minor countries
only permit their free offensives to take place
within the confines of their borders.
Have a pecarious situation, and need to go
first to reinforce your position? then spend
the MMPs to make sure you're first to act.
sure, it could cost you a unit. But if it
means you save a defensive position, that
could be much more valuble down the line.
The start of a scenario could have preset
numbers of offensives etc. or even let that
be a phase zero of a new game.
Maybe it can make it into SC 3, but I really
think adding a simple item like this into the
game can add an entire dimension of strategy
and planning.
-Mark
[ January 23, 2006, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: bloodstar ]
Before i reinvent the wheel...
in Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
Posted
thanks for the heads up!
I will certainly check them out.