Shaka of Carthage

Kurt88 Girfriend patch? Are you sure you want to be that close to SC? Kurt88 and/or JerseyJohn If the DP's are based on a model like the Tech R&D, if Germany puts X amount of DP's for Turkey, and UK puts X amount ( X = X ), would they cancel each other out? Hence, neither side gets a diplomacy benefit?

Kurt88 Girfriend patch? Are you sure you want to be that close to SC? Kurt88 and/or JerseyJohn If the DP's are based on a model like the Tech R&D, if Germany puts X amount of DP's for Turkey, and UK puts X amount ( X = X ), would they cancel each other out? Hence, neither side gets a diplomacy benefit?

TCPilot Since this is SCII, I assume I don't have the same map limitations I did in SC. If that is the case, I wouldn't want a smaller hex, I would want more hexes (same 50 miles) representing a larger area. Using the current map as a guide, North Africa would only need about three (3) or four (4) more rows of hexes. The real thing though would be the representation of the North Atlantic. If that is at a 50mile hex scale, it would make alot of us happy, though we would have to do alot more scrolling. Trying to represent North Atlantic at a 25mile hex would be way too much. Non-resource hexes worth 1 or 2 MPP. Interesting. It would be more realistic, though I don't think it would make much of a difference to us as players. I don't think you should be able to draw supply from those hexes. While you could have gotten food, artillery ammunition, aircraft munitions, etc, would not be in those hexes. Allowing Corps to combine. Each Army now represents two (2) Corps. If I understand what you want, you are asking for the ability to merge (combine) low strength units into a larger unit. So you are not asking for stacking. Would you also want the ability to take an Army and split it into two (2) Corps?

zappsweden Handicap system does not prove anything, other than because of the impression people have that the Axis has the advantage, they are willing to "pay" MPP's to play it.

Bill Macon Are you sure? Do you have to have a HQ for the effect to take place? The manual makes a distinction between a stationary attack and a blitzkrieg attack, but I had no idea that it handled the difference by supply efficiency. Very subtle of Hubert.

SC already handles what you are talking about since your stockpile and SC supplies are the same. The enhancement you are talking about is making a Mobile Supply unit, that would increase the readiness % of a unit, beyond 100%. And if I understand correctly, you are asking for a unit that has a readiness that exceeds normal (ie 100%) to be able to gain additional action points. Your system implies that there is not sufficient transport to supply all units... so all units (in SC terms) have a lowered readiness (so they cannot perform much offensive action) that if you want them to conduct offensive actions, you have to take this supply unit and distribute additonal supplies to them (allowing them to obtain a readiness of 100%). What we have approximates real logistics. You are basically asking for the ability to pump a units readiness beyond 100%. At the Grand Strategy scale we are at, Army and Theater commanders, while concerned about logistics, are not concerned about the level of minutia you are asking for. What you are asking for is more of an Operational concern.

JerseyJohn I'm not saying work within the parameters of SCII. We don't know what SCII will be. What I am saying, is instead of saying "give me this" or "give me that"... How about working out the details? Someone mentioned once that the Russians don't have enough units, so I want more Russian units or more MPP's to be able to buy them. Instead of asking for that, support the claim by figuring out how many units the Russians had, translate them into our generic unit equivalents, then draw the conclusion if we have too many or too little Russian units. The results may surprise you. Like with the statement that the game favors the Axis. Made mainly because no one was winning as the Allies. But in reality the game favors the Allies, once Russia enters the game. This is where I disagree with you. We do have weather, its the variable turn length. We just don't have the effects that weather would have on combat. Different seasons slow your rate of advance. Weather effects movement. Variable length turns, uses time instead of length to reflect that. But the effect on readiness, equipment, supply, etc (ie combat effects) is not represented.

I believe the Germans had plans to invade Switzerland, but I don't know how serious they were about it. Interesting bit about Italy... I didn't know they considered it.

I believe the Germans had plans to invade Switzerland, but I don't know how serious they were about it. Interesting bit about Italy... I didn't know they considered it.

Whats wrong with the loss of the units on the border? Russia has more than enough MPP's to buy replacement Corps. Isn't that kinda the point? Even if you line units up one on top of another, all the Germans have to do is pick a unit to hit with air, eliminate that unit, then pour panzers/corps thru to encircle the other units.

SeaWolf48 I think that SC in a way has a weather factor by having one turn in December and four turns in June. Eye candy is pleasant, but marching one hundred miles in one hex and thirty in the next is goofy. Maybe I don't understand properly. If so I apologize. We both agree that SC has a variable turn rate... so one turn is one (1) week, but in a different month, that turn is four (4) weeks. My understanding of your next statement is where I am confused. So here is what I was saying ... SC retains the variable turn rate. If the turn is one (1) week (summer), the hex would look one way. During the four (4) week turn, same hex would have snow on it. During the two (2) week turn, I want to see mud on the same hex. Marching sounds same as they are now for summer, but for the other seasons, I want to hear the mud sucking on the boots and wheels. Or the chatter of teeth during winter. Yes, this is "eye-candy", but in this case, its the sort of eye candy that can get SC exposed to different venues. More exposure, more sales. More sales, more profits. More profits, the more work we can beat out of Hubert, or his cast of thousands.

SeaWolf_48 I was trying not to make a long post... really, I was really trying very hard. But since you asked, I am more than happy to respond to your suggestions. 1) During Head to Head Play, let waiting player see his own units, and research charts, date, and purchase of units before turn starts. This would speed up play! If this doesnt suck up too many computer resources, sure, why not. But it is nice to have the time to just sit and think about what is going on. 2) When saving game default to last name used, and the real day and date shown Couldn't care one way or the other. 3) Change Quit box to small red button. A few times I have hit the quit instead of done button, and the game is gone (anyone else admit they did this). Never did it. Color doesn't matter, since one is on the top and one is on the bottome. But change of color wouldn't bother me. But if we were changing the buttons, how about making them smaller so I could see more of the map? If its too big for me and my old eyes, I'm sure you young fellas have it worse. 4) Show statistics of how many units have been purchased, how many points have gone toward ships, air, and land forces for each country. Not a pie chart but a spread sheet for each country. Allow this option in tool bar to hide or see enemy numbers Don't pay attention to the one we have now. So a new one I probably wouldn't look at either. 5) Show unit number on face of unit. Make it changable like now, but on the counter face. e.f. 1SS, 82AB, HG, etc. Number of characters allowed for us entering a name is way too large to try and display on the icon. Effort to do this wouldn't be worth it. I'd rather have more unit types, or national units instead of generic ones. 6) Allow to see enemy research levels (delayed), when troops saw new models of tanks or planes they would tell the Intel Officers, and the info would get to all concerned. Also Britain and the US exchanged inventions, e.f. radar, sonar, prox fuse, penicillin, high octane gasoline, Merlin engine, and Enigma to mention a few. Research points could be exchanged between US and England, Germany and Italy. Confused. We can already tell what tech level our enemy has by looking at his icon and his strength levels. While what you say is true, that the tech advances were exchanged, I also think the R&D chits represent investing in the infrastructure to be able to produce those new inventions. So while our "friends" may have the knowledge, they still couldn't produce the items. Besides, I can point out that there were just as many examples of tech advances NOT being exchanged among friends. Germany never allowed Italy to produce the latest tanks Germany had, only the obsolete ones. US/UK exchanged, but they sure didn't give everything they had to the Russians. Besides... again... it would give the Allies another advantage, which would swing the balance more in thier favor than it already is. 7) Map hex really 50 miles. Produce a map that will be a classic that will be spoken of by gamers for decades to come around Chat forums. Accurate, different mountain sizes, mountain passes, real names of rivers, seas, and Islands. Allow Islands to be occupied and evacuated e.f. Rhodes, Majorca, Greenland, Gotland, Aland, Lesbos. It isn't 50? The map and the map size as it exists today is a limitation of the software used. I don't mind what we have, and would rather have a larger area than the same area that was better looking. Island bit... yea, it would be nice, but at the scale we are, I don't know if its possible. 8) Because of radio traffic, Military Intel, code breaking, reccon planes, and spys some of the units (in a random way) during FOW should be visible to the opposite side. This could be increased by spending MPP's toward Military Intel research. Interesting point. I don't think we should be able to spend MPP's to have an effect, but I do like the idea of randomly removing the FOW from certain areas. 9) And all the other things we want, Murmansk convoy route, Airbonrne troops, units that retreat instead of stand and die, etc..... Convoy routes... quite a few topics address this one way or the other. Boils down to giving us a 50mile hex Atlantic ocean where we actually move units as we do currently OR abstract the ocean into sea zones where the computer determines the details. I wouldn't want to actually build and move merchant ships (assuming we get that 50mi hex Atlantic Ocean), rather use the current method of implied merchant lanes that can be interdicted. Paratroopers... 350 to 400 MPP's, "airdrop" range of 4 hexes, strength max of 5 points. Sure, bring it on. No other effects needed, since it acheives all its effects from being behind the unit or in its rear. So no "combat shock" bonus, no "remove defensive bonus", etc. Units that retreat... As us oldtimers would say, you want a bloodless CRT. Where what we have now is a bloody CRT. They have the ability to retreat when you move them now. To do what you ask, you now have to deal with "stacking" units... or would you not complain when your unit was eliminated because it had no hex to retreat into since friendlies are lined up behind it? Keep the bloody CRT and if you want them to retreat, move them. If you are about to mention "but we need to be able to clear coastal hex"... Amphib assault option... just like transport option, but expensive, only available for a Corp, and all other naval transports have to unload in a port.

RommelDAK There is a big difference between how the "boardgamer" type approachs a wargame, as opposed to the "computer" type who've grown up only with computer games. Us old boardgamer types are more forgiving if we have a playable game (determined by reading the rules first). And then we usually have a tendency to want to "tinker" with it... guess that comes from once we've "learned" (multiple readings and quite a few games) the rules, having to deal with the addedums and corrections that inevitably followed. New generation who have only seen the computer games, base thier impressions on what the game looks like (eye candy). If it doesn't pass that test, they usually won't play it anymore. They generally couldn't care less, since they figure if this one doesn't do it, there is one out there that will. And alot of them consider "turn based" some sort of extinct thing old people did. Whats going happen when all of us old grognards die out?

Fubarno Axis would have lowered readiness/supply, but not the Allies? Or just the Russians?

KDG There are currently three (3) variable turn rates. one week (summer) two weeks (autumn?) four weeks (winter) If you have the winter turns go to two (2) weeks, what would you do with the other turns? I think I understand what you are trying to do by increasing the possiblities of partisans occuring, but then you would have to address the fact that the "partisan" unit is just too large for it to be occuring so often. Axis player has to guard against the possibilites as it is now. Whats the point in giving him more partisans to kill?

Night Comparing what happend in real life to what happens in SC when it comes to East Front combat is misleading. The Russians don't have the same advantages and disadvantages (nor do the Germans) that occurred in real life. So expecting combat to flow as it did historically doesn't work. If the Axis follow a "historical" path, when Russia enters the war, the Axis are at a MPP disadvantage. Allies outproduce them. Axis have to kill the Allied units faster than they can replace them. At the same time, they cannot afford to lose alot of units, otherwise its a phyrric (?) victory. If this occurs AND the Axis is gaining territory (ie new MPPs), then the Allies have lost. If the Axis grab every neutral they can ("ahistorical"), depending on how they accomplish it, once Russia enters, they may be near parity, but never exceed the Allies (unless they've eliminated UK AND have not lost alot of units doing it). Then its back to the attrition war, seeing who can kill the most units AND increase MPP production faster than the other. Everything you've described, covers the above. Thats why its critical to keep Russia out of the conflict as long as possible, and bleed the Axis as much as possible before Russia comes in. My point is, that yes, you are correct, it is not an easy fight. But for different reasons than the historical ones.

I'll try and limit myself. Lots of people have asked for weather. But wait, we do have weather, since we have a variable movement rate. Ok.. problem with that is that the "weather" is the same for the entire map. And what most are really asking for, is for the effects weather had on combat to be included. So what we really want is the effect that weather had. This has been discussed enough in other topics, so no need to go into it. But let me take this in a different direction. Give us the beautiful map, real names for locations, rivers, etc. Assuming its not too big of a percentage of the budget, go for it. But what would make SC II stand out, is for the individual hex types to have a different look depending on the weather. You know... like mountain hexes with snow on them during winter? And give me sound effects for troops marching thru mud, along with a hex showing muddied (?) ground. Yes, its eye candy, but I only know of one other game that has tried this.

As usual, let me go at this a different way. While making general suggestions for SC II is nice, what we end up with is a list of things that we want, some of which contradict other items on the same list. If we were Hubert, wouldn't it be better to actually "help" by working out the design, discussing it (since we can't really playtest it), and then present the conclusions? For example, Battle of Atlantic, people were unhappy with. But in the course of that thread, a couple of workable solutions were presented, which Hubert could actually use (if he so chooses). Don't like the way the units look? Create new ones. Hubert and his "staff" (do you actually have one yet?) can't do everything. JerseyJohn, you mentioned that the items on the list were easy to implement. There are a couple of things on the list that would be extremly hard to do. While the ideas themselves have merit, a solution to a problem, that to the best of our abilities is balanced and doesn't create as many problems as it is trying to solve, may be more beneficial for the future of SC. Now, after saying all of that... let me make a new post with my own list of what I want!

Kurt88 Create another topic regarding your "multi-phase" turn. I'm curious what you think would be better.

Kurt88 Create another topic regarding your "multi-phase" turn. I'm curious what you think would be better.

Kurt88 Like the existing R&D. It doesn't take more than a minute or so to determine where to put that R&D chit. And while it may take a bit longer to decide if you should spend the MPP's to purchase that chit, its because of the current game situation you are in. I'm all for some sort of simplistic Diplomacy system that allows me to earn DP's, then spend them to influence the neutrals. But, like the others have pointed out, don't force me to manage it each and every turn. After all, as the Supreme Leader of these nations, after we make that decision, it is up to others to handle the details (until it comes to the combat... then we want to control each and every unit!).

Kurt88 Like the existing R&D. It doesn't take more than a minute or so to determine where to put that R&D chit. And while it may take a bit longer to decide if you should spend the MPP's to purchase that chit, its because of the current game situation you are in. I'm all for some sort of simplistic Diplomacy system that allows me to earn DP's, then spend them to influence the neutrals. But, like the others have pointed out, don't force me to manage it each and every turn. After all, as the Supreme Leader of these nations, after we make that decision, it is up to others to handle the details (until it comes to the combat... then we want to control each and every unit!).

As pointed out by Bill Macon, this is the key: Complexity of the method is not relevant, if we the players don't have to manage it.

As pointed out by Bill Macon, this is the key: Complexity of the method is not relevant, if we the players don't have to manage it.

Economic "enhancments" for SC (not SCII). Mines are assigned "mineral points" (MP). Oil wells are assigned "oil points" (OP). They are produced in direct proportion to the MPP value of the site (suggested values are listed below). Germany can convert one (1) MP into three (3) OP. (synthetic oil) Optional: MP and OP not consumed are available the next turn. Every six (6) MPP's require: 2 MP, 3 OP. Atlantic convoy supplies UK with MP and OP. Mediterrian convoy supplies UK with OP. German excess MP and OP will be provided to Italy, unless Italy has secured its own MP and OP sources. Shortage Effects: Oil... reduce your national supply level. Mineral... reduce available MPP's (max reduction of 50%) One of the Swedish mines should be owned by Germany. Persian mines should be owned by the UK. ================================================= None of the above require any actions by the players. It all happens automtically, based on the resources you have. Effects Enough damage to the UK convoys will "starve" the UK economy. Italian MPP is halfed, unless Germany helps out. Strategic bombing can cripple the Axis economy. German MPP growth is limited (about three times initial) unless Germany secures additional resources. German invasion of "non-historical" targets has drawbacks in the resource strain it puts on the economy. Allies have no resource problems other than ensuring UK stays supplied. Diplomacy model would have a method of dealing with obtaining resources from the neutrals. MP and OP Values Swedish mines: 80 each (there are two of them) German mine: 40 Romania oil: 55 each (there are two of them) Norway mine: 70 Spanish mine: 60 French mine: 70 Persian oil: 140 each (there are two of them) Canadian mine: 55 US mine: 800 each (there are two of them) US oil: 800 each (there are two of them) USSR mines: 25 each (there are seven of them) USSR oil: 125 each (there are four of them) USSR "lend-lease": would include around 70 oil points from US. [ February 06, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]