KDG

You mean there is more to France than Paris?

Just noticed that Paris is now behind a river. Thats going to make taking the city that much more difficult. [ April 20, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

"Enhanced diplomatic model that will not only be driven by game events and player pressuring but will allow opposing sides to engage in active counter diplomacy" Thats from the battlefront news board on SC2.

What I meant was that the game was over, the allies were beat once Russia was done in. It was a comment made in jest. Thinking about it though, if you had to keep 10-15 units in Russia, then its possible the Allies might continue to push there way into Germany.

Easily my favorite one. I know I'm in trouble since you have beeswhacked me.... Oh, and I'd say the female body is the superior shape. :cool: That brings in the value of your tanks, as they rush around two breakthroughs, cutting off you opponents supply, allowing the ground troops to mop up. Additionally, if the other side has enough reserves to attack from 6 directions after a breakthrough, then more power to him. They may, but this was an issue in SC1. Everyone wanted a larger map. Hubert mentioned size limitations. Right now, I can't fault Hubert for anything, he's made my favorite game, and is working on my new favorite game. Since you gave me that, I'm taking it. Click a unit, it shows where it can move, works either way with tile/hexes. Diagonal is your friend. Pythagoras is your friend. 2 AP to move horizontal/vertical, 3 AP to move Diagonal. Since terrain changes constantly, it, and not the diagonal, is what makes you think about action points. Additionally multiplied action points are good, since we may now have greater variation of movement for units. Zone of control is a staple of wargames. Hexes/tiles should have them anyways. SC1 had ZOC as will SC2. There you go, bringing in looks again. I said no looks, but you had to bring it up , ok, fine here goes. A hex doesn't know if its a circle or a square, it has no identity. The poor hexagon can't even get made as a house, but squares sure do. Front lines look the same to me either way, and now I can have front lines go 8 different directions, which looks good to me. Now don't get me wrong, the hexagon is my friend, and enjoy playing with him, but Mr. Tile is at least the hexagons equal. A seperate topic should be started regarding the looks, not mentioning tiles/hexes, but mentioning either top down or isometric view. I think this seems to be the actual issue. [ April 20, 2004, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

The new amphibious system allows you to invade on the same turn that you transport, but it won't allow you to land on squares that have units on them; which in this case means a ground unit can't land in Malta as long as a Jet(or any other unit) is stationed there since Malta is only 1 square.

Maybe vs. the computer. Usually the human player has some units on the coast, which limits which areas are actually available.

Please expand, you didn't list a single one in your whole discussion. Lets not include looks, since looks are subjective. Some people like a board like appearance for the game, while others want 3D, lets only talk game mechanics/design. Let me show you what I mean with an example. Advantages of tiles 1) Movement - 8 directions, beats 6 directions. 2) Attack - 8 directions, plus 3 ground attacks can be brought against a single unit. Once again beats 6 directions of attack, and only 2 ground attacks. 3) Size of map - Hubert was limited by the programming language that he used for SC1 and hexes. You can search past threads and find this. Tiles eliminates this by giving us 250 x 250 4) Map design. It is easier to design a map using squares than it is using hexes. Take a look at the picture with all the diffent map pieces available in the editor. This wouldn't work the same with hexes. Tiles will speed up the process for anyone making custom maps.

We now have control over how long it takes a unit to be built. Thus you can delay how quickly units can be replaced.

Its about 230 miles from the tip of Greece to North Africa. The map in the screen shot shows three ships easily fitting in between, which is about 215 miles. Add about 7.5 miles of coast for each, and you get your 230 miles, so I'd say Greece to North Africa is correct. Malta is about 66 miles away from Sicili, thus there should be approx 3/4 of a square on the diagonal between it and Malta. Pretty close. Moving it down another square would make it too far away. Oh and the Med should be 46 squares long(2300 miles long). The screen shot shows Malta to Greece, about 12 squares(600 miles), thus I'd say they have the width pretty correct as well. Nice job so far guys.

Me thinks that "Post-Surrender partisans" for Russia means you can kiss that game goodbye. :eek:

bump

Beware the topic police.

Still having trouble with the "not hexes, oh no!" crowd. I've played hexes, tiles, areas, real time, etc. The design of the board/computer never made or broke a game. It always came down to depth of strategy, ease of play, AI, variations of the game, replayability, etc. People that want hexes seem to want it for two reasons, the look of hexes, and the movement/combat. Any other reasons? 1) The look - On one had I hear people say, don't improve the graphics, keep them 1 dimensional, make it look like basic cardboard squares, etc., giving me the impression that the look of the game doesn't mean much. Then they say, I don't like the look of tiles. Hmmmm... somethings funny there. 2) Movement/combat - Hexes 6 directions. Tiles 8 directions. So we have greater variation with Tiles, yes? Sounds like it to me. Besides it being what you are used to, why are hexes better than tiles? I've played great games on both type of game surfaces. Why we are going to tiles. We had a limited size map with hexes, and jets had to be powerful becuase you could only attack from two places on the ground. Now we have a huge map, up to 250 X 250, and you can now bring three ground attacks into play, thus allowing jets to be nerfed.

I'd like to offer a different approach. We know the problem is too many units being able to operate where they are needed at the time they are needed. Limit the number of operating moves a nation can perform. And tie that limit to the industrial production multiplier. I think I read that they are going to do this, with a tech to increase the number of operations per turn.

Since a square is 50 miles, how big would that iceberg be, the size of a period .

Those are good points. But clearly with only five increases over the war each one represents major (and probably cumulative) advances- doesn't matter what they actually are. This time we have an advantage, though. Here's why. 1) Advances aren't immediate. You need to upgrade each individual unit, at a cost, thus some delay even after an advancement. 2) We can control how many advancements there are. We can have from 0 to X(I'm not sure what the max is using the editor) for each technology. 3) More research options. We have twice as many technologies. If we believe a tech is too powerful(or not powerful enough) we can edit the tech. 4) The chance to change the cost for each research option. If everyone is using one tech, and its a game killer, we can double the cost to invest as well. Or if no one uses a tech, we just cut the cost to 100, everyone will invest 1 or 2 chits then. I agree with you that adding a min/max is beneficial(mostly to our sanity), but it sounds like this is a difficult thing for them to program.

Timers, replays, & spectator mode. Two out of three would be nice(timers & replays).

Any comments on the effect of weather? Yes, it was raining very hard here in Southern California, causeing an accident that blocked the 60 fwy for hours. In SC, (which is a high abstraction strategy game) I wouldn't like rules that belong to tactical games: there would very seldom be such weather that it would prevent all operations for one month or even for one week. I would imagine that a very bad winter could last a month, having some type of effect on operations, don't you?

I do know that you can use the editor to choose how long it takes to produce an individual unit. Thus you may buy your unit, then wait 1-3 turns before you get it(or whatever you choose).

Hmmm, hadn't thought of minimum time. If we do put some sort of maximum on how long research could take, then correspondingly we need to put a minimun amount of time.

My original thought was 100 x 50 to cover the U.S. Adding Canada and Mexico may change it to 100x100. Or we leave it at 50 miles and make it 50 x 50. Or both :eek:

From Hubert in another thread: Another operation rule I am toying with is to only allow units to operate that are within or adjacent a city, i.e. to simulate movement only from the railheads sort of thing and not from just anywhere in the field. This would be in conjunction to the existing minimum supply rule that also applies to operating units. I like this idea. For some units, this would mean taking two turns to operate. First move to a city or next to one(i.e. moving to get on the train) then operating the next turn(actually taking the train).

Another operation rule I am toying with is to only allow units to operate that are within or adjacent a city, i.e. to simulate movement only from the railheads sort of thing and not from just anywhere in the field. This would be in conjunction to the existing minimum supply rule that also applies to operating units. I like this idea alot. This would require some units to first move towards a city(going to catch the train), then operate(taking the train), making the effort two turns instead of one.

My idea for the U.S. with 25 miles was if we were only going to make a map of the U.S. This would allow for more rivers, cities, mountains, lakes, etc. This then gives more gameplay. Since we can now change the movement of units, MPP's, etc, we can add additional depth to parts of the world.