KDG
-
Posts
419 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by KDG
-
-
Anti-Aircraft Radar
It seems that people don't realize that this already increases the air defense for units. The only restriction is that the unit must be on a Strategic resource or city.
My suggested change would be to increase the area of effect of this. Instead of just the resource or city, also include the hexes around that resource or city. Thus the center hex plus the 6 around it gain the defense bonus, as well as units that are on those hexes.
Cashing in Chits on Advance
Definetely like this idea. One advance leads to reduction of a chit for that research. I'd also like to see all researchs available start with one chit, thus you may try a different strategy if you get lucky in one of them. Would only do this when combined witht he reduction idea.
I agree some research should be replaced by others(sonar, why chose this when you can get gun laying), and I do like the intellegence angle.
-
Just make the attacking equation result in at least a 50% chance of the attacker losing 1 point per attack.
-
Small bug - Transports show as ships - I know when an invasion is going to occur.
I watched in the reports as Italy went from 0 ships, 10 units, to 9 ships, 1 unit. Hmm, I wonder if those transports are going to invade.
This should be fixed in the reports to still show them as units. This way you won't know wether they are on land or at sea.
Some players may know this already, now everyone should.
-
Small bug - Transports show as ships - I know when an invasion is going to occur.
I watched in the reports as Italy went from 0 ships, 10 units, to 9 ships, 1 unit. Hmm, I wonder if those transports are going to invade.
This should be fixed in the reports to still show them as units. This way you won't know wether they are on land or at sea.
-
Thanks for the AAR, was appreciated. You are right, I PBEM, and by 1942 you can usually tell what direction the game is going. I keep hoping for a 1944 and beyond game to occur, and I think my game has finally improve enough to reach this point
-
I'd prefer not to have force pool limits, instead using an increasing cost per use of unit factor. If this isn't possible for SC, then make it for SC2.
I'd never use an editor, but I'd use some of the games made by you gents.
-
(The Russians can never mount a counterattack because they can't afford to replace the losses. In the present combat structure, a Russian 10-point army attacking a German 7-point army that has 3 Xp's and an HQ with an 8 rating and 2 combat bonus is going to suffer almost three times as much damage as it inflicts.)
If you add an HQ, plus if the Germans only had 1 Xp's(due to my exp. gain change) then the outcome is about even in an exchange. Throw in the fact that the Russians would always be attacking at higher supply than the Germans (defending as well) this would make counter attacks even more effective.
This is also a change that could be made with the existing system (Hubert has already modified this once) and could also be used in SC2 without programming modificiations.
Here is a question for all you WW2 historians:
How much better, pct. wise, was a experienced German unit?
In our game now, exp. 2 gives 35% more damage to a corps and receives 100% less damage. It is also too easy to have multiple exp. 2 units going into Russia.
I say tweak experience gain, and make a possible minor change to the damage received back equation from attacks(maybe have a min. dam received of .5 on any attack - with random you would then get either get 1 dam., or 0 dam).
-
Shaka, the allies can't get their aircraft carriers in place in one turn, it takes two. Thus the need for a German attack on turn two.
I agree though that you should use 3 planes, as I always do. Then 1 tank, 1 army, (these 5 linked by HQ) and then 2 Corps just in case provide backup. This is 90% effective.
The allies have no HQ backup, and don't have nearly enough to counter attack, and even if they do, the loss of one unit is about equal to the losses that the allies take in the counter attack.
Poland goes down in 3 turns, usually. I also strike directly at France afterwards, bypassing any other countries to get France before entrenchment and the spawning of corps.
-
First, great analysis. I checked the numbers in my excel spreadsheet and they are correct.
Now the rebuttle.
This is a turn based game. Each player has a chance to attack, thus causing damage to the other player. You can also move units to minimize damage. Usually only get two attacks at a unit using armies.
Thus anything that reduces damage to the defender is an effective defense. Thus having good supply, entrenchment, an HQ, etc, all make it more difficult for the attacker to remove that unit. If he isn't removed, he gets reinforced, and the attacker must start over.
Secondly, after defending, the player has a chance to attack himself if he choses, causing damage, or can move his men to better defensive positions to lessen the upcoming attack.
You mentioned that supply didn't have much effect. You were only half correct. Supply doesn't affect the defender to any great lengths, but it greatly affects the attacker. In the same example you had given, reducing the attackers supply to 0 drops damage from 2.4 to 1.33. This is a huge drop.
HQ's have more effect then you mentioned also, since they also give supply besides command, thus a twofold effect.
Strength points are more correlated to a units life.
Experience is where the greatest problems begin to arise. A unit that has 2 experience is almost twice as good as a the same unit with no experience.
This differential, in my opinion, is too great, which leads to the axis advantage. This formula has been modified once(kill exp dropped from .5 to .3, thus Hubert knows this was a problem), and may need an additional modification.
You start to see tactics to increase the experience of units, such as ships with Malta, planes attacking every turn vs low level resource just to gain more experience. It becomes the experience game.
Here is how I would modify the game. Very simple, and would affect all aspects of the game.
Reduce exp gain by .1 for all attacks, either kill or non-kills, and make it that planes and ships can't get kills.
This will slow the push into Russia since the armies won't be as strong, as well as reduce the effectiveness of planes in the attack; this would allow Russia to try a counter attack since all it's resources won't be lost so quickly. It will also increase the damage that players take from attacks, which will require more reinforcement, thus reducing the total units a side could muster.
Everything solved by a minor tweek (don't I wish that was the case)
Thats it for now.
[ March 06, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]
-
I like the increasing cost method.
1st Corps costs 125, 10th costs 145, 20th costs 165, (increments of 2)
1st plane is 400, 5th plane would be 500, 10th plane 600 (increments of 20)
The actual numbers could be determined later.
Would lead to more combined arms tactics.
I could also deal with limited numbers of each type, but if someone wants that 10th plane at 600, let them have it.
-
Shaka, not quite sure I understand. You state that:
"Most of the WWII fighters worked within a 400 mile range (8 hexes) Gave them about 200 miles worth of fuel for combat. SC is well within that."
Does this mean they could go 200 miles in any direction, giving them a 400 mile range, or they could go 400 miles out one direction, then 400 miles back, giving 800 miles as the total distance traveled.
Was this in 1939 or 1944 that these distances applied?
Thanks.
-
Since there is a limited number of HQ's, programming wise it would be possible to have a limited number of units(I don't think we need a tank, corps, or army limit, we are really only talking about Jets).
Each air unit could have a name. Germany might get 8 total to use or buy, with none being replaceable, much like the HQ's. Loss of one, gone forever.
-
First, great ideas and good discussion. From a programming perspective, working with the existing software and interface, this is what I would do to keep the change very simple.
Here are some other simple solutions, in no particular order:
1) Range reduction by 1 for jets.
or
2) Drop Jets to 1 attack vs. ground units, bombers up to 2. Thus Jets will escort more often, while bombers will bomb.
or
3) Don't let planes (or ships) kill a unit. Requires combined arms to take hexes. The death of a unit also scores extra experience for planes, this is then reduced.
or
4) Make anti-aircraft radar good for cities, resources, and also the hexes around them. This would be a good counter research for jets then.
or
5) Bump the cost of Jets by 10-15%. Increases the buying cost, as well as the reinforcement costs.
Some easy to implement ideas. They can be combined. By the way, I thought that a plane below 5 won't intercept?
-
I'd go with the loss of one supply per turn at sea for transports. Easy solution to do and program.
-
SUPPLY VALUES
Unit Location Unit's Supply Value
<= 10 Action Points to HQ....HQ Supply - Shortest Distance
<= 10 Action Points to Friendly/Occupied City....City Strength - Shortest Distance
The supply values for those cities that you were in are 5, thus the HQ max would be 5. The best possible supply then for your units is 4, and that is if they are right next to a city or to your HQ, otherwise they may have been at 1 or 2 supply.
Mountains and Marsh further reduce supply. Movement the previous turn also reduces supply.
[ February 28, 2003, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]
-
EXPERIENCE
Here is the experience loss equation. As you can see, the higher your experience, the more you will lose as you reinforce.
Experience point losses = (reinforcement amount * Experience)/10
TRANSPORTS
As I mentioned earlier, having a transport lose 1 point of supply for each turn in the water will cut down on the gamey play of moving and waiting with transports.
I'd also make it that two hits on a transport kills it.
SUBS
You can take 5 MPP's per city in the Med and Atlantic. I'd increase Sub diving by 5% and see how that is
CARRIERS
They are weaker than planes, why change them.
Carriers attack tanks, infantry & planes at 1.
Planes attack tanks, infantry & carriers at 2, twice the fire power.
No one in their right mind would attack with a carrier below 5 anyways, too much risk to lose that bad mutha.
Units below 5 (carriers and planes) don't intercept, by the way.
WEATHER
I'd like to see a bit more effect in Russia
MAP
Increase by two spaces on all sides. Iraq to Russia with only one space over mountains, please.
-
Resources:
I like them the way they are, except each hex should be worth maybe 1/2 MPP (we are talking about 50 sq. miles, that area should be worth something).
Experience:
Too easy for planes to get unless you research radar.
City defences:
Who is gaining the experience when attacking cities? If you are talking about planes then researching radar solves this problem, as well as making sure a HQ is 5 spaces away from the cities in question.
Transports
They should be a little more expensive, as should operating units around the world. Other solutions is to have supply go down 1 for each turn they are out in the water. Another idea is to make them easier to kill by allowing land units the oppurtunity to attack them when they are on the coast.
Stand and fight:
Let it be as it is.
Defending the coast:
Solution is to have radar help strategic resources as well as the spaces directly around them. This would mean you could have a unit in the city, as well as around the city to protect from landings.
For SC2, I would like a bigger map with more countries involved. Extend the map at all borders, allowing a min. of two space attacks, at the same time allowing US and Canada capitals to be farther away from the ocean and the trip for transports to be longer.
-
Thanks, turns out the game is real time(and I have enough trouble on the computer with real time, let alone on a PDA), I'm looking for something turn based.
-
Need help - What is the best strategy game for my PDA?
Taking a long trip, and since SC isn't available for the PDA (why not, I'd like to know) I need something that can take its place (nothing can really take its place, but oh well)
Thanks guys.
-
Yeah, you can't sneak up on a city, but you can sneak into Pearl Harbor, you can sneak where D-Day lands, and many other ex. that the war historians would know. Sneaking happened all the time in WWII.
If someone doesn't defend a city at all, why shouldn't you be able to sneak into it. Why even play with FOW.
I believe one of the purposes of FOW is to allow sneaking. The other side doesn't know where or when the attack is coming (unless they look on the map and see the color changing).
-
I don't mind the trails, and I don't mind a country changing color, but the way it is now, there is no way to sneak up on a city, either in Africa,behind enemy lines, or anywhere. This means these cities can be unguarded until the color change is seen, then you just operate a unit to the city.
Your opponent can see the unit color trails before he even sees the unit. Why give units limitations to spotting when these are completely ignored by the color trails.
What I'm trying to say is that you know where a unit is going even before seeing that unit based on the color trail being left.
It is a giant beacon saying "here I am, I'm about to attack your undefended city".
[ February 21, 2003, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]
-
I wish that units that were amphib landing, or partisons, didn't change the color of the map, once they move across it. This takes away from landing in certain areas because the other player can see that units are in the area even when FOW is on.
The purpose of FOW is to not know where the other player is unless you scout, or use Jets and Bombers to see the area. Ships don't leave trails, why should units. If an army can't see the unit, then don't let them see the color trail.
-
Anyone know who Hubert has played in the past?
If they ever played, who wins. Throw down the bets now. Odds open at even money.
-
I prefer the third option of slightly moving the starting positions of units each time. Have the two tanks be in a different postition so they aren't the first thing the Germans go for (at least require a bomber in the from line to see them before attacking them) sometimes have a army blocking an area instead of a corps, and vis-a-versa.
I only want some minor variation in the starting positions, with the computer choosing the positions. This makes each game slightly different when playing the computer (and sometimes even a human).
Hey modders, here is a solution to overpowered air.
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
First, you guys do great work. Keep it up.
Here is a solution to overpowered air. Set up all countries with level two anti-aircraft(or maybe level one but with a chit already allocated to this). This will bump up all units air defense in cities and on strategic resources. Much less likely to see 10-15 jets as usefullness will be reduced.
This will also make it more difficult to take neutrals in one turn, thus slowing Germany down.