bloodstar

To me, Retreats are critical for any game to help prevent a World War I style of combat with static lines... A well coordinated attack can help push open lines and enable the armor to slide between and force the lines apart... which is exactly what we need. Of course, I think there should be a couple of global controls: first: let the user have some basic control of the conditions of retreat. In an ideal world, I'd love to see 3 levels, normal losses before retreat, heavy losses before retreat, and no retreat. Second, give the option of control by terrain type, Clear, Forest, rough/mountain, swamp, Cities, resource, Fortification. Third, never retreat from the capital. (Unless the country will not fall with the loss of the capital). Personally I think that a country shouldn't fall unless all the resources and cities are captured (or in a game like this, several conditions, all resources captured, or a certain percentage captured and the army has been destroyed) but that's another topic for another day

of course, you can toss into that idea, the idea that every once in a great while italy will join the allies. Or germany will attack italy after taking france (that's one pet peeve with SC1, I should be able to do something so whacky as attack italy if I really want to, I mean, it's not like it'd be that easily taken over, but it'd certainly be a change of pace. Of course, deep down, what I wish to see, but I don't think will happen, is for attacks to cost money for the country ordering the attack. so the player would have to plan ahead to determine how many offensives he or she would buy. So, for example, say germany plans to make oh... 20 attacks next turn, if each cost 3points, that'd be 60 the player would spend, which would represent logistics, supply, planning and coordination. of course, if you want to be really out there, particularly in a game where offensives can only bought seasonally (winter, spring, summer etc), make it so whoever buys the most offensives gets to go first for that season (then alternate). It could make for some interesting bidding wars if someone had made an amphibious assault at the end of the last season. and if you run out, well you can buy 'impromptu attacks' but they'll cost more, and not apply towards the initative. just some thoughts to compliment the above topic, which I think would be a fun addition for the 'WTF just happened' value -Mark

In otherwords, will I be forced to use a windows box or emulation to run the sucker, or will I be able to get a linux/mac build? -Mark

LOL nah, but it is goodbye for the weekend

Just wanted to say that I've been playing SC since the end of 2002, and have enjoyed it immensely, While I seem to be trying to pick at SC2, I really feel the game will be an amazing one. (though, I've only got a P450, so it'll be right on the edge of not being able to run it *tear*) I wanted to Thank everyone for the interesting debates and discussions on here. In particular thanks to Mr. Cater and the entire development team for their time and effort. SC has been the first Computerized wargame I've really enjoyed besides Clash of Steel and the Panzer General series (heck I even liked Fantasy General...). Anyway, I suppose I'm just wanting to say 'good job' and here's to more successful gaming! -Mark

Yes... but... will it be the default scenario? -Mark

Agreed, in SC1, the strategic bombing is not cost effective in any way shape or form, and if you have the resources to spend on burning mmp's to bomb resources, then you've probably won the game already. Say a bomber bombs a resource and knocks it down by 2 points, but takes a point of damage in return. (which is often the case, and doesn't count any sort of interceptor combat) for a typical resource this means the bombing player has to pay 25 MMP's (or so) to repair that strength point, whereas the bombee target simply loses 2MMPS off the top and an additional 1 (as the repair function occurs at the beginning of the players turn...) the next turn, so a 25:3 cost:benefit... not very efficient. I guess I really like the idea that if a resource is devoting itself to repairing itself and rebuilding, then it's not going to have much material to send back to the war effort. -Mark

*grins* I've bought into the idea of plundering. But I do agree with you. I disagree that any sort of instant gain should be a part of Conquest of a country. How does that work? :cool: -Mark

A couple of things being implemented that will help the game take a more historical prospective would be a force pool limit. Either a Hard limit (you can never have more than 20 armys and 40 corps as germany) or a semi-hard limit (everything built over 20 armies will have a cost that's 50%higher than the previous army cost. 250 then 375 then 562 then 843. Ok maybe 50% is steep but the point would be that germany would never be able to have so many units that other countries couldn't make headway. Add on production time... and you have an entirely different game. Also, Units should have to be built in their home country. Particularly if there is any sort of production time involved in the unit. This helps the defender in so many ways I won't even list them here. -Mark

Plunder is fine, but how much of that plunder was used to create infantry and armor and bombers? RE: using captured equipment. With the Czech tanks. It wasn't so much the captured tanks as the captured tank *industry* that supplied the armor to the Germans. (also factor in that the takeover of Czechslovakia was a very peaceful one. so there wasn't the damage to infrastructure. a very... unusual (Potentially unique) situation. Counterpoint: how many polish designed/built tank divisions did the germans field, or French. I'm sure they would have loved to used the soviet tanks, but how many T-38's did the germans have in the field in world war 2? - Mark

Good point on placing a unit on top of a resource... give the player the option to attack the unit or the resource... would that be difficult to implement? Also, I dislike intensely the auto rebuild function. up to a certain point there is a resilliency to infrastructure, but to operate at peek efficiency (which I picked as above a value of '5') there should be active expenditure on the part of the player. Notice, because you can reach 5, you can simply ignore the situation if you know someone will bomb it into oblivion if you do repair it, but still have functional places to build units (ships in harbors, in particular) and there will always be some sort of base economy, but can you imagine how much you can blast germany if you could actually knock their base economy to 1/2 over time? -Mark

Make the cost to repair any industry/port/resource above 5 cost money. if they don't auto repair, you can start taking a serious bite out of the opponants economy, and suddenly, bombers and strategic bombing runs will matter. How difficult would this be to implement? -Mark

The more I think about it, the more I feel that Germany's home country is slightly underpowered MMP wise. but more importantly, I think the Soviets and the US are overpowered early on, and vastly underpowered production wise in the later stages of the conflict. I think about the MMP ratios at various stages of the conflict and realize that once germany has reached near equal MMP status, it's pretty much impossible for the allies to win. I'm bringing this up in the SC2 forum to see if ideas have been thrown out about escalating production for various countries. a few things I'd like to see in SC2: MMP gifts to UK and Soviets and Germany to Italy (which I believe will be implemented) US production increased dramaticly, with escalating production over time. USSR production with a decent share of production 'off map' I would also love to see escalating production for the soviets. and have them active from the start - But weaken their starting forces - and let them buy with say, 1/4 their normal mmp production In the paper game I played Production was set as follows: UK: 75 (which included egypt and other territories) France: 45 Germany: 100 Italy: 30 USA: 60, increasing by 30 every year USSR: 40 until invaded, then jumps to 85 increasing by 20 every year after the invasion. the price for a full infantry was 8. (except for the soviets who got a price break on infantry (only)) (I can't remember the other prices off hand I'd have to look it up) anyway, I know it's late in the game for adjustments to production, but who knows, just food for thought Mark

Actually I still don't buy into the concept that plunder, above and beyond what you get for the steady resource income of the conqured country, should exist. But if it were parcelled out, I thing it would become a little less 'gamey' than the current concept. I wouldn't like it, but I would dislike that answer less than getting 200 - 1000 MMP shot in the arms...

Heh, at the risk of sounding Dumb... Could someone summarize what that article just said and how it relates to Plunder as an initial benefit of conquest and Plunder as an ongoing flow of equipment and resources to the victorious country? Mark

To me, I consider the taking over of a countries resources to be the benefit of conquest. You get MMP's for their cities, their resources and ports. To get additional benefit at the time of conquest seems counter intuitive. The only possible rationale for plunder that I can see is to take the current income of the country and use that as the basis for plunder (logic: you can't take more than what's available). For minor countries, that's going to be a very small number (and probably not worth including at 20 - 50MMPs). For a major country, simply use whatever mmp's they had left at the time of conquest as the basis for determining how much money is gained. Part of the issue I have with plunder in SC1 is MMP's are being created ex nihlo. the idea of using the current MMP income means all MMP's are accounted for but no additional MMP's are mysteriously created. On a related note: the options for being nice to a conquring country, or being evil b******s to the poor oppressed citizens is a great idea. However, it should be a relection of how much money you get from the resources per turn (and the chance of partisans, or other negative effects also effected). So the greed factor is there, getting additional income from the resources is vital for the long term effort. I just feel the on the spot, shot in the arm concept of plunder is unneccesary. -Mark [ December 09, 2004, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: bloodstar ]

Personally, I think the concept of Plunder is an unbalancing one. Because it encourages countries to invade, (in particular it creates incentives for the allies to invade countries simply to gain more money). I'd much rather see the entire concept removed From the game. -Mark

gah, my apologies... now it makes sense... just didn't understand how the parens were working and I forgot my basic order of operations.... sigh, and I call myself a programmer?

Hey People, Possible Error in FAQ. Readiness is listed as: Readiness = ((Strength + HQ Rating) / 2 + Morale) / 2 Shouldn't that be: ((Strength + HQ Rating) / 2 - Morale) / 2 ?? And the morale Calculation looks confusing at first glance, but one presumes that strength has a maximum of 1.00. But otherwise the information is really informative! Mark

Perhaps Total war for germany shouldn't happen until 6 months after all major allied parties have joined the conflict. You find a way to keep the US out of the war? well, no total war production for you. As for the US and USSR. They both should have increases in their production. In fact, would it be viable to have a yearly modifer that modifies how much production a hex gives. (that can be edited of course.) So for the us, the value could be 1.5 for our purposes we'll consider it to only modify production in the home county. (don't get extra goodies from controlled hexes or minor allies) so the US starts at... say 150. The next year, it's 150*1.5 = 225 etc (perhaps 1.5 would be too high, but that's the point, you can modify the increase per year. so by 1944 the US warmachine was in full swing and able to match the Germans, even if germany had conqured the USSR and a ton of minor allies. perhaps it would be a little to complex to declare what territories were home production or not. but in that case simply make it a static bonus. where the US gets a plus 50 or plus 100 production every January 1st. Same thing for USSR or any country that you want to edit and set up like that. the second way is a little more artificial but is simpler to implement. the first way represents getting more out of a resource. but may be difficult to implement. As far as total war production goes... you could have germany having a mild increase in production each year as well... to represent their increased production... just food for thought. Thanks, and sorry about combining several different ideas into the same post. Wasn't really in the mood to seperate them out today Mea Culpa! Mark

Actually what I'd love to see is a unit limit to the number of units a port can supply. perhaps it's economic value in units can be maintained in supply by a port. (but if you do that, go ahead and set max supply by sea to 10.) Then set cairo as a supply source for the allies (I believe the game is already being designed for secondary supply and industrial sources). At least that way, I think you could have a more interesting battle for africa. (you could even set Mosul as a supply point as well) Just food for thought.

The whole point of Lapland and other things like that would be the *option* to try unusual strategies. In particular if the idea of strategic transfer is modified, it might be possible to get units up into unusual places and suprise your enemy. Just as in chess, sometimes the suprise value of an opening, or a move, can be just as important (White playing b2-b4 comes to mind, I believe Kasperov lost a game when white opened with that move...) as a 'sound' start to the game. Keep that in mind if you want to call this the 'chess' of strategy wargames!

actually if we're going to have a wish list, hopefully we can have thing set up so there is no sound and we can play our CD's or MP3's and make our own soundtrack.

Actually I think the solution could simply be the addition of harbors that have low or no MMP value. you would get supply and you'd be able to move on and off the island(s) but there would be little or not economic value... simply any strategic value you might receieve from having control of the island.

Here's another thought/idea/question rolled into one happy bundle: Would it be possible to create supply points that have no MMP value? In otherwords, a Port that gives no economic benefit but does permit supply to be traced through it. The reason I mention this is because then you could move units onto and off of the little islands that exist out there, instead of having them trapped forever. in addition, it would mean that planes based there would have some supply reaching them intead of simply being useless. As a further thought, will the SC2 editor be able to edit the max values of ports and citys MMPS? if so, then that answers the above question anyways Thanks!