KDG
-
Posts
419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by KDG
-
-
I hate spotting as it is now. I'm in the PBEM tournament, and two German bombers are able to spot every unit in the Med and know what they are. (is this feasable?)
Here's some options I'd like to see.
As mentioned above I'd like to see pct. chances for planes to see. The farther out, the less pct chance to see a unit. Thus 100% chance 3 hexes out, 80% 4 hexes, 60% 5 hexes out, 40% 6 hexes out, 20% 7 hexes out. Each tech increase would increase pct. chance up 10%, as well as the overall distance by 1(would start at 20%). Weather effects for Fall/Winter would also be nice(drop of 30%).
If programming for the game makes this impossible, then start all planes with 1 hex less in viewing range. Weather effects for fall/winter would also be nice, reducing range by 2 hexes.
Other ideas already mentioned are reducing the amount of info given for distances 4 hexes and farther, thus you don't know if its a tank, HQ, or Corps.
-
I hate spotting as it is now. I'm in the PBEM tournament, and two German bombers are able to spot every unit in the Med(is this feasable?).
Here's two options I'd like to see.
I'd like to see pct. chances for planes to see. The farther out, the less pct chance to see a unit. Thus 100% chance 3 hexes out, 80% 4 hexes, 60% 5 hexes out, 40% 6 hexes out, 20% 7 hexes out. Each tech increase would increase pct. chance up 10%, as well as the overall distance by 1(would start at 20%). Weather effects for Fall/Winter would also be nice(drop of 30%).
If programming for the game makes this impossible, then start all planes with 1 hex less in viewing range. Weather effects for fall/winter would also be nice, reducing range by 2 hexes.
[ June 10, 2003, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]
-
The only problem with having Italy already in the war is it takes away one of the Allies current decisions.
Do I move units in the Med or not?
It also allows an attack on the Low countries without affecting Italian readiness.
Just some thoughts.
-
Nice map. It might be too many hexes though for what this game is. Maybe 40 miles per hex instead of 50, but no more(your map was at 30 miles). I'd take the same theatre of war, but at 40 miles per hex, and expanded on all sides by about 120 miles(3 hexes). This would be great for me.
The question is do we have 40 square miles in Russia or Europe where a tank can't pass through(besides water)?
After being conquered I think I'd like all cities & resources to start at 0 and climb each turn thereafter(by 1 or 2) to simulate the changeover of possession.
Adding defense improvements might be a nice addition (at a decent cost with req. length of time).
Oh yeah, give me a full fledged editor that I can change unit stats, as well as change research.
[ June 05, 2003, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]
-
I like you spotting ideas, Edwin. The pcts. could be tinkered with, but it would be nice if spotting at long distances wasn't always 100%.
I'd like to know if the is historical or not. How good was spotting in the actual war, and at what distances.
-
I'm not sure what you mean. Currently Winter is a 1 month turn resulting in 3 Winter turns(Summer is 1 week turn which is the balance for this).
Switching to two week turns would give us 6.5 winter turns a year, thus we would have twice as many Winter turns, thus a greater chance for partisons during the winter(Yugo and Russia at 75% chance partisons in winter).
Remember that Partisons mess with supply, which affects the battle odds and movement. Thus more partisons in more countries, with a greater chance of occurance in more turns in winter means more of a winter effect, which is what everyone wants.
-
I'd also like to see the Winter turns increased from the existing 3-4 turns to a winter of 6-7 turns(this works with all turns being 2 weeks). Thus partisons would be in play more often in winter, adding to the winter effect.
-
Same discussion as always.
I'd add defense of 1 to HQ's and to Rockets.
Either increase cost for research to improve jets, increase reinforcement costs for jets, increase costs for jets, etc.
You could also reduce the effiency of jets vs ground units, or you could increase the damage that jets take during ground attacks.
I could live with the idea that jets could only damage units down to 1(or 2 if that was the agreed on number).
If jets are severly reduced in power, then we should bump up tanks to balance this out.
-
Thanks guys. Made for good reading(instead of work...I'll be working late tonight now).
How about a report on where and how many chits you guys had in research.
Is it better to give up the capitol in France & save one unit, but force MPP's to France instead of the U.S. and England?
What should you buy with France MPP's? Corps for guard duty?
Keep these AAR's coming, helps break up the tedium of work.
-
-
1) More randomness
2) Improve tanks/unimprove jets
3) Larger map
I believe everyone would like a full scale editor.
-
Sign me up. By the way, what Scenario are we playing?
-
KDG ... why so expensive on your level 1, 2 or 3 HQs? Unless you agree with notion that these NEW! generic HQs would still support 5 units?
Yes, they would support 5 units. This way the gaming engine doesn't need to be changed.
Instead of ranging from 300 to 500 in cost, we could make a level 1 HQ start at 200 up to a level 10 at 500, in increments of 30(200-230-260,etc).
I'd also have limits on the number of HQ's and the types available per nation. France & Italy may get 1 each of levels 1 to 5, while Germany has 1 each from 2-10.
-
I'd love to have a wider range of HQ's and HQ costs. Start at 300 MPP's, and go to 500.
300 gets level 1
325 - 2
350 - 3
375 - 4
400 - 5
425 - 6
450 - 7
475 - 8
500 - 9
Some countries may max at level 4, others at 6, etc. Allowing a few cheaper ones would be nice though.
-
It should not be forgotton though that Russia and the U.S. get 3 and 2 chits to start with.
I'm also an advocate for upping the initial IT levels for Russia (to 3) and for the U.S. (to 2)(this is where they were before patch 1.06 - Secondary affect of dropping from 10% to 5% hurt their initial levels).
This would give them a 15% and 10% discount on their production, which would help balance out the MPP differences.
Question for Terif? Are you able to get all the neutrals before invading Russia vs. a good player?
-
I don't mind concession in SC if both agree. PBEM could take another month real time to finish off the war as one side takes all the pieces, some times starting a new one is the way to go.
I will have to remember that some opponents want to go to the end no matter what.
I'm in a PBEM now where my opponent was going to concede, and I let him know that I thought he still had a great chance to win, well, we are very close now.
-
Give rockets and HQ's an AD of 1. This will help these units and reduce jets power slightly. All units should have some type of defense vs. air.
-
I had asked Hubert about initial starting for USA and USSR:
I believe USA should start with at least level 2(10% reduction) and USSR at least level 3(15% reduction) in Industry to restore the initial play balance that was trying to be achieved.
He answered:
Exactly, if you still feel it requires tweaking, this can easily be done from the Campaign Editor.
Hubert
I'm going to try some games with the above settings and see how it goes without any bidding. I encourage others to also do so.
-
Thanks for the info. I'd like to see HQ's and rockets have a 1 defense instead of the existing 0 defense.
-
Here might be why there is a slight edge for the Axis, involving the cost of units for Russia and U.S. in V1.05, then in V1.06 after the patch to reduce Industrial Tech.
Ind. Technology: In V1.05 this gave each advance a 10% reduction in cost. Both USA and USSR start with L1 and L2 respectivly. I assume that these levels were picked for play balance, giving 18 and 48 MPPs rebate in base MPPs. When v1.06 came out the tech changed to 5% reduction but the tech levels for USSR and USA did not go up to L4 and L2 to keep the value's the same.
I agree.
In version 1.05, USA's units were 10% cheaper, while USSR's units were 20%.
Currently USA's units are 5% cheaper, while USSR's units are 10%.
I believe Version 1.06 wanted to modify Ind. Technology because it was so powerful and everyone was investing in this tech (level 5 could give 50% cost savings). In what I believe was an unintended change was also the reduction for the initial setups for USA and USSR.
I believe USA should start with at least level 2(10% reduction) and USSR at least level 3(15% reduction) to restore the initial play balance that was trying to be achieved.
-
Not a bug with v1.07 but a thought on one change from v1.05 to v1.06.
Ind. Technology: In V1.05 this gave each advance a 10% reduction in cost. Both USA and USSR start with L1 and L2 respectivly. I assume that these levels were picked for play balance, giving 18 and 48 MPPs rebate in base MPPs. When v1.06 came out the tech changed to 5% reduction but the tech levels for USSR and USA did not go up to L4 and L2 to keep the value's the same.
I agree.
In version 1.05, USA's units were 10% cheaper, while USSR's units were 20%.
Currently USA's units are 5% cheaper, while USSR's units are 10%.
I believe Version 1.06 wanted to modify Ind. Technology because it was so powerful and everyone was investing in this tech (level 5 could give 50% cost savings). In what I believe was an unintended change was also the reduction for the initial setups for USA and USSR.
I believe USA should start with at least level 2(10% reduction) and USSR at least level 3(15% reduction) to restore the initial play balance that was trying to be achieved.
Comments from Hubert would be appreciated.
-
Don't forget to randomize Russia's starting positions as well. I'd also include Yugo in there, as well as Iraq (definetly add a 2nd unit).
Maybe even the lowlands, Turkey, etc.
Come up with a format where every country has a default starting position and number of starting units, then come up with 3 or 4 alternates, make each one an equal pct of occuring. Make sure at least one position is easier to take (say Greece or Yugo with only 2 units) and a couple starting positions that are harder (add 1 additional unit to a country, adjacent to the capital)etc.
-
In that thread I had suggested the following:
I'd like to see a HQ research. Ideas for this would be as follows:
1. Improve HQ defense(air and soft)
2. Increase number of units HQ can supply
3. Increase distance HQ can supply
4. Improve the supply of HQ's.
Any combination of the above would work for me.
I really like the first two, with some interest in number 3, but not too dramatic.
-
A .5 AD bonus inflicts about .33 damage more. Thus, when this is randomized, sometimes there won't be any damage, sometimes 1 point of the damage would be inflicted. This would correspond to your all or nothing scheme, but would fit in with the current war equations.
NEW PBEM TOURNAMENT!!
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
Any allies winning so far? I like the game so far, but I think the Axis has a distinct advantage. We are approaching 1941, France, Vichy, Norway/Sweden are gone. Spain has been attacked, Greece will soon fall. The only possitive is that German Navy and most of Italian navy are history.
Big problem in the Med. is that two German bombers can see almost the whole med, spotting all units. Any ship or unit that moves through will get destroyed by air. This is a FOW issue, I know, but I also think long range shouldn't be given to the Germans at the beginning.
Some changes to the scenario, in my opinion:
Long range shouldn't be given to the Germans at the beginning. I also think that the U.S. should have a greater MPP bonus when they come into the war, as well as possibly having the Allies start with the Low countries. Just my thoughts.
Very nice scenario.