Jump to content

KDG

Members
  • Posts

    419
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Posts posted by KDG

  1. The axis has a slight advantage, so they have at least a 50% chance to win the war. If you are playing the demo, set the AI to intermediate, and it will give you a good game. If you want, you can declare war on Russia the very first turn and try your hand at invading Russia.

  2. To think, I was thinking it was time to get back onto topic, but really enjoyed your comments JerseyJohn, thanks.

    Do you think a key to the aftermath of this war is the finding of "Weapons of mass destruction", since this was the main reason given for attacking?

  3. Shaka,

    Currently, 4 planes plus two armies can destroy a unit. First hit with each army doing 2-3 damage, then with each plane doing 1-2 damage, unit destroyed. Planes don't take any real damage, but gain kill exp. for final hit.

    My proposition says that the planes can't make the final kill. Thus hit with one Army, hit with planes, then hit with second army. The planes will take more damage since they attack sooner in the cycle, and they won't make as much experience.

    Additionally, ground units in back line can no longer be destroyed (HQ's for one).

    You suggest that planes disrupt a unit. Thus I would attack with my 4 planes, reducing effectiveness, then attack with each army, doing at 5-6 damage on each attack. This would require the whole battle system to be reconfigured. A new game engine would be required.

    Currently these are what figure into the battle equation. From this a readiness value is calculated. Planes currently hurt strength and defend bonus. You would like them to only affect supply(I actually believe you want them to affect more than that, but what you want isn't anywhere in the game).

    SUPPLY

    STRENGTH

    COMMAND

    EXPERIENCE

    DEFEND VALUE

    DEFEND BONUS

    Even if the planes reduced the supply of the unit to 0, this still only yields the armies inflicting 3 damage per attack. The ground unit could not be destroyed.

    I believe my solution(planes can only reduce units to 1) is very simple to implement, reduces the plane effect, solves the HQ destruction effect, and makes for a more enjoyable game.

  4. Many great ideas guys.

    I'd just like to add:

    1) Planes can't eliminate ground units(can knock down to 1, no further).

    2) Random starting positions when entering the war (majors and minors)

    3) Full editor(allow units, research, mpp values, etc to be modified)

    4) Random events

    5) Planes don't see subs as well

    6) Eliminate a couple researches and replace with better ones(or improve least used ones)

    7) Weather effects

  5. Edwin P.,

    You are correct, this only applies to ground units. Air to Air and Air to ship are different matters indeed.

    Everyone pretty much agrees Air is king.

    Changing the rule for planes to not allow them the ability to eliminate a unit would help defang them slightly.

    Also solves HQ elimination problems, reduces experience gains for planes(no more kills vs ground units) as well as bringing in to play the other units on the board(they will be more important as planes are slightly less important).

  6. Just a couple comments:

    First, because only 4 or 5 researches are actually used, you see an equalization of research. If all 8 were worthwhile, you would see vast differences in tech levels as people would invest in many different areas.

    Second, you can solve the air problem by only allowing air attacked units to be reduced to 1. It would then be a waste to target HQ's, because they can't be eliminated. Air would then be used in combination with other units to break enemy lines.

    Third, I agree that experience gain should be slowed down, maybe by 10-15%.

    On the Med, does the limited spaces in the region hurt Axis or Allies more?

    Agree on supply. Reduce readiness by additional 15%

    [ March 27, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

  7. I don't really like the surrender idea associated with the a-bomb. Makes it too much of a game ender(no other research does this) as opposed to a viable research strategy.

    I would be flexible on the number of hexes, maybe tech 4 is 1-2 hexes, while tech 5 is 3-4 hexes, completely random except for the targeted hex. Cost and frequency can be fine tuned if this option was chosen.

  8. I agree that one bomb would only damage 1 hex, but based on the scale of the game, we must be talking about multiple bombers carrying multiple atomic bombs. Once research is accomplished, the country spends a whole year developing multiple bombs, attacks an area, and destroys 150 miles across.

    A devastating weapon, yes, but very very expensive. Another year is spent, more bombs developed, etc.

    I'm not sure if one hex of damage is worth the trouble. Lets say you could make the game engine keep the supply at 0. Thus we have a city that normally produces 10 MPP's producing nothing. This equates to 130 MPP's per year. Or a mine at 260 per year, or oil at 390 per year. Not worth the time or expense, and not really a devastating weapon.

  9. Research:

    Atomic Energy:

    Requirements: Level 5 tech, 1000 MPP's, one bomber. All countries can research.

    Limitations: One bomb per year.

    Damage: Removes all units from one hex, plus all surrounding hexes, reduces supply to 0 for that city, port, & or resources.

    Comments:

    I've discussed this with other players before.

    If you invest in 4 chits, you might see a bomb developed as early as 1944, but at a cost of 1000 MPP's in chits, plus 1000 for the bomb, you are looking at expenses of 2000 MPP's, plus a bomber (you could have 5 jets instead. Your offensive or defensive options would be severly limited, as well as your other research.

    More than likely you will see a two chit investment and hope to get lucky in 1945 or 46.

    I'd also allow for jets to defend against the attack, not sure of the exact mechanics.

    With great use of this, you might take out 5-6 units.

    You have to allow all countries to research, since that is the way the game engine is set up.

    I also doubt that the game engine would allow the permament removal of a city, port, resource, etc.

    [ March 24, 2003, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

  10. Partisons can happen any time of the year, just at a lower pct. in non-winter turns. If we increase the total areas that they could pop up in(instead of just the marsh ares), then they are bound to have the proper effect.

    I'm only saying that throught the use of partisons we can achieve a winter effect on the Germans. Like you, I'd prefer a more natural way(on a side note, does anyone actually attack Russia before they prepare for war, people might if start attacking in spring 1941 if winter was harsher), but the game engine as it stands could use the partisons for this purpose.

  11. Hey JerseyJohn,

    Just assume that the Germans are miserable in the Winter, and supply is more easily affected, thus the reason for greater chance of Partisons on the winter. Works for me.

    Everyone is pretty much agreed that they want winter effects. How to do that with the existing system or SC 2 is the key.

    Since supply affects combat results and movement, anything that affects supply makes for a good winter effect. Partisons affect supply, thus more partisons in Winter makes a good winter effect. Making winter longer in turns means more of a winter effect.

    [ March 14, 2003, 05:22 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

  12. The problems with both games is the AI and the length of turns.

    COS was a great game, but the computer wasn't any good. I don't know if there was too many variables to program in, or if the AI was programed at the last minute.

    Check out the HOI boards and you will see everyone hates the AI. They take minor countries and conquer the world. Plus way too much micromanaging.

    I can usually play one hour a day of SC. This means I can play about 1/4 of the war vs the computer, or finish 6-8 PBEM turns, both of which I greatly desire.

    Good luck doing that in HOI. Don't know how time consuming COS was(I was single when I played, and I'd go for 3-4 hours straight).

    What this means is any changes made by Hubert for SC2 should keep turn times as well as AI as main considerations.

  13. I've mentioned this before, but here goes again.

    Two ways to solve the problem in SC if Hubert were to do one more patch:

    1st - Change Jets tank and soft attack from 2 to 1, and Bombers from 1 to 2. This makes Jets better in air to air missions, and Bombers better in ground missions.

    or

    2nd -

    Change

    ANTI-AIRCRAFT RADAR RESEARCH

    Here is how it works now:

    Every new level of anti-aircraft radar research improves the air defence values for all

    Strategic Resources. As an added bonus defending units located on these resources will

    also receive the anti-aircraft radar bonus when defending against air attacks.

    I'd change it to include the hexes around the resources(cities, oil wells, mines, harbors) as well.

  14. Stacking, we don't need no stinking stacking.

    Interesting forum, and only Hubert knows if the game engine can handle all this.

    Two comments on all possible changes.

    I just want to be able to finish my turn in 3-5 minutes. That is the key to the game for me, and makes PBEM and playing the computer so possible.

    Secondly, make sure the AI can handle all this and still be a good opponent.

  15. JerseyJohn,

    I've been playing the AI pretty much as you presented, with Ireland, Iraq, and Portugal as Allies, and Sweden as Axis. I also added an HQ and a tank (hey, they have plus 1 Tanks)to France.

    I'm playing at +1 experience and 50% less booty. I also allowed Russia to declare war as opposed to declaring war on Russia(makes the Russian campaign more difficult).

    All in all, this has made for a good game so far.

    Sealion was out of the question. Took Vichy & Norway. Yugo took longer than I wanted since they declared just before their turn. Now advancing into Russia.

    I'm thinking of playing the computer as Allies, giving the computer Sweden, myself nothing, as well as not putting up a defense on the top 2 maginot hexes, then playing at +1 exp with a 50% booty bonus for the computer, what do you think?

  16. Tigleth touched on a good point about neutrals.

    When you attack a neutral, war readiness go up or down accordingly.

    After all sides are in, attacking neutrals should have some type of penalty, just not sure what. Maybe you remove the MPPS obtained after conquering. Maybe another neutral goes to the opposite side when it sees one of its brethran conquered.

×
×
  • Create New...