xwormwood

Why does Russia enter the war in early 1944 if neither India, China or Australia have surrendered? And why is it that an early Russian war entry does not damage the western Allies, as they have now more difficulties to fight war against Germany (with less russian on the european theater)? Why is bad allied warfare be rewarded with free troops and / or a new allies (russia)? As far as i know Stalin would have laughed if the Japanese had kicked the UK / US forces, he surely wouldn't have rushed to the rescue as long as Germany was alive. He would have taken more bits from europe, and after digesting it, he would have turned slowly east, with full strength. Not before Germany fell. He had absolutly no reason to do so. This early russian war entry sucks, if anyone is interested in my opinion. If russia joins early / before mid 1945 the pacific war, than the US and / or the UK should suffer for it, as they would have to do more fighting on the european theater (= less money and units for the pacific theater). Bill101, do you have had good historic reasons to make the russians this much war hungry in the pacific? What do you think about a punishement for bad play? If the UK gets free units in india while the Japanese advance there, shouldn't the USA lose the same amount of money / troops as a direct result? After all the USA would have to close the gaps on the european theater for the UK forces now fighting in India. Would be nice to hear some of your reason and thoughts.

Thanks for your replies, gentlemen. 2.) HQs could easily get the ability to attack, or to move a bit faster. There is no REAL reason why they are denied this option. It is a game designer descision to do so. In the end you can explain everything (yes or no HQ attack). 4) Europe is full of ports, there are many more than those on the map. So we can assume that a Dunkirk kind of evacuation could at least be organized without a major port at hand. I would prefer a "bad solution" over the current "no solution" (= island prison camps, you can land but never leave), which make quite a bit of the maps useles in play terms. 6) the port tiles are crutches (no offence! ), in PT Pearl Harbor needs alone FOUR tiles with ports just to give the japanese player the abilitiy to attack the american pacific fleet in harbor. 4 Tiles of land could be New York, Washington, and two more major cities next to each other. Here we see three tiles wasted and reducing the mapsize. The american pacific fleet would have been in ONE tile, if the game concept had a better solution than the crutch it now uses (again: no offence!). Think about the way Civilization uses tiles and stacking, than you get an idea of a better solution, than you undestand that "port tiles" are nothing but a waste to keep a not perfect naval game system alive (again: please, no offence, i DO like SC2). 8) I would really like to read some insights now and then from Hubert, some of his thoughts, ideas, his maybe not realised, fruitless concepts or what he tried and couldn'r realized or what he is planing to do etc. I agree that discussion is important, of course it is, and i do like to discuss ideas. Let me put it another way: does anybody remember what happend with the ideas of the "StratCom Design Challenge"? Does anybody remember which ideas there were in it? Does anybody know which ideas were used or will be used, or what part of the ideas will be used or won't be used? Would it be so hard to give some more infos (after all the ideas were not even allowed to be commented while the contest lasted).? :confused:

Just some question i asked myself: aren't the HQ units too expensive? And / or shouldn't they be able to attack as well? Maybe armies should be able to get an HQ tech / supply tech improvement, enabling them to receive better supply and / or disembark without a port symbol? The AI suffers mostly from the actual HQ concepts / prices, because she often misuses or waste her HQs in suicidal invasions. A lonely AI HQ stays insane long alive because it can and will resupply itself some turns before YOU can draw enough units to kill it in one turns attacks. But this very single HQ is absolutly worthless because it can't attack. The pure logic of this concept is awesome. Troops fall down from heaven to reinforce a HQ, but the very same troops are not able to fight their way through enemy resistance, even though they sit on pure supply and are led by the best military leaders available. I can understand the logic that HQ move slow, but not why they are not able to fight (btw.: certain HQs should be allowed to move faster than others, Patton and Rommel p.e.). On the other hand: An ARMY with purchased HQ TECH could receive better supply or morale or anything else nice. This HQ TECH, or should we better call it SUPPLY TECH, could decrease every one or two turns for one point until it reaches zero or even minus zero point(s). With SUPPLY / HQ tech i could invade bare islands with no towns or cities, it could attack in desolate areas if nescessary. The SUPPLY / HQ tech could enable players to disembark shorelines without a harbor as well. Today we have places where you can lose your unit for good, if you unload it on an island without a port. And that is a flaw, i think we all can agree on this, can't we? If i posses the technologie to disembark without a port, than i do (of course) know a way to embark these men again. In PT the special units (marines) come with the ability to disembark without a harbor. So they already have this tech. But if you place any other unit (planes as well) on an empty island without port, you can lose this unit there, it can't be ever used again, imprisoned there for life. Without the Clash of Steel Mulberry unit in the game of SC2 there should at last be a discussion if there shouldn't be a supply naval unit or a supply value / tech for naval unist like BBs, CVs, CAs or DDs, enabliing them to provide supply for land units on the beach. Mabye even the whole port concept is not the best way for a game like SC2. It would probably be better to use them (if at all) purely as dockyard / wharf symbol, and allow players to embark / disembark wherever they want (for a price, of course. mountains and woods without a nearby city or town would be insane expensive while cities and dockyards would be cheap compared to woods and mountains). This would deliver us from ports which can only be entered from one side of a tile as well AND it would enlarge the map a bit because the tiles wouldn't be wasted anymore from the dreadful port symbols. The port would be better an inland tile, but not a sea tile as well. Wouldn't it be best to allow the stacking of units? It is not the best way to design a game where two or more naval units can't stay in the same hex or seazones. This might be correct in a river or channel, but not for oceans. I would bet that the entire navies of all the WW2 countries together would have had room enough in one or two SC2 naval tiles. And in the first years of WW2 some of them wouldn't even have known that enemies were nearby. Okay, i scribbled quite a lot here, and i lost my initial point a bit. 1) HQs, do they really have to be so expensive? And if yes: doesn't this reduces the gameplay too much 2) Shouldn't HQ be able to attack as well? Wouldn't this help the AI to improve its D-Day / amphib operations? 3) wouldn't it be better if all units could by a HQ tech? 4) wouldn't it be better if all units could disembark from everywhere, if the price is right & paid? 5) shouldn't naval units be able to provide supply to units on the beaches? 6) do we really need port tiles / hexes, or wouldn't the introduction of stacking units be the in any possibly way far superior solution? 7) Shouldn't naval units witout naval tech have to face the chance that they miss their attack target? 8) Last but not least: would it hurt so much if the game / scenario designer would here or there explain their game concepts a bit more often or in detail to the audience? This would help to avoid needles discussions, knowing that the game engine can't to something or that a concept was already tested and scraped because of reason xyz? No offence! Cheers, Claus

SeaMonkey, that is a brilliant idea as well. My appraoch was more like the well known victory points from board games like Victory in the Pacific (Avalon Hill). quote wikipedia: "...The board divides the Pacific Ocean into 13 sea zones. Each turn players commit their ships, air and marine units to particular zones, and then (if there are opposing forces in the same area) a battle is fought in each zone, until one player retreats or is eliminated. Points of control (POC) are earned based on how many zones a player controls in that turn. Certain areas are worth more to one or both players than others. For example, the Japanese (IJN) player receives 3 POC for controlling Indonesia or the Japanese Islands, but only 1 for controlling the North Pacific. The Allied (USN) player receives only 1 POC for Indonesia, but 3 for the Hawaiian Islands...."

That is a valid point. Maybe the game is right no lacking political points to conquer? This would make empty landscapes, islands or minor countries worth a fight. Something like "remember the alamo". Maybe it would be better that you have to earn your political points instead of buying them. Conquer a country, you get some. Free a country, you get some as well. Spend them to influence neutrals.

Thats the tide of war, borsook. Think about the Ark Royal (CV) and the Barham (BB), which were sunk from german subs in the mediterranean sea, actions we never see in any strategic WW2 game made in the USA or UK (same goes for the sinking of the Royal Oak at Scapa Flow (U 47). If one german sub unit manage to enter the med sea, well, thats life. At least in war times. Or think about it another way: if the Royal navy hunts a german sub unit of several ship near Gibraltar, than most probably there are many ships from the Rock chasing these subs as well, leaving bigger gaps than usualy in the defence shield of the Gibraltar street, so that a sneaky try of the german subs MIGHT succeed.

This WAW arrow problem might be because the arrows are only working for the allied side, not for the axis player. Just a guess though.

Well, sounds as if you should defend your russian cities in asia. Stalin did. Japan did. In a world campaign there shouldn't be any "secure" areas. Written treatys in WW2 were mostly worthless, at least they were for Hitler AND Stalin, probably for every other major power as well. German fighters wouldn't have the range to reach Japan, but same goes for the american fighters (USA --> China). Operational movement needs some new ideas in a world game of SC.

first: Click on the right corner on the "battlefront.com" link or open Battlefront.com manualy. next: click on "downloads" (orange bar, on the right side, last entry). next: Choose "repository". next: Enjoy (or as Kuni said: master the download challenge). Don't forget to register at battlefront.com, or else you won't be able to download (you need to register at battlefront.com [store etc.], just regard my entry no. 260, which is on page 26 of this thread).

I'm not sure about the map size, but i can highly recommend PDE for its beautiful scenarios which add so much to the "standard" European War theater.

George40, you should definetly try the Pacific Game, many great new ideas in there. But do yourself a favour and get the Patton drives East Expansion as well, there are some truly beautiful scenarios in there, much fun to play.

Sounds great, Maestro! Thank you for this info!

Good points here, Kuni! It would be nice to hear something from Hubert, Bill or Moon.

I suggest you write an email to the forum admin, which would be Moon: http://www.battlefront.com/community/sendmessage.php?do=mailmember&u=1 And please avoid he 666 chip at all cost, eternal life suck massive after installment.

No need for thanks in my direction.

You need to register here: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_registration&task=register&Itemid=35 and here you can read why: http://www.battlefront.com/helpdesk/index.php?_m=knowledgebase&_a=viewarticle&kbarticleid=39 Enjoy!

"Malta" could work in both ways. Japan gets better supply in Australia / New Zealand (or wherever) if cartain islands are japanes controlled, the UK / the US could get better supply or certain other "good" things if they free and / or controll certain islands. Lets call the concept "island points". The more you collect, the merrier the warfare.

Gary Grigsby's Pacific War (Ms-Dos, about 1994) had a good solution to improve bases: place an engineer unit onto the base and let it sit there with good supply, and it will slowly enhance the base. In SC terms that could be something like "place an engineer onto a harbor, city, ressource or fortification. After x turns with supply level x this unit enhance the supply / strength level of this harbor, city, ressource or fortification x points. The result of an improved tile would be permantnly more supply out of it. Another solution could be this: give air units a second strenght level, just like carriers got two of them. If you move your unit, you start with a strenght of x air base points. Staying longer in one place could give the player the opportunity to build up these point up to 10, limited to 1 point / turn (just like elite reinforcements). The bigger the base, the stronger the air attacks could get. As for convoy lines, it would be good to give the player the opportunity to choose out of per example 10 - 20 convoy lines to use. Shorter line would create more income, longer distance would reduce the income. Just like in the bad weather / storm damage losses non-sub naval units and air units should get a little chance to damage my enemies convoys (as long a i ordered my units to raid convoy lines, just like the sub "silent" trigger). Australia and New Sealand could suffer from a "malta" factor once a specific amount of the outer islands rests in the palm of the Japanese Player, making them endangered to enemy invasions. Many solutions at hand, and most of them pretty simplle to introduce, i guess. But than i don't know nothing about programming or game modding.

You're ignorant as well as long as you can't take a punchline. Crying for banishment isn't that very much open minded. As for your last sentence: it sounds as if it will be you again trying to pull the next banishment of JJR, whom you just called "insane". Thats obviously your idea of forum behaviour: you can smack, but God protect us all if someone dares to gives you the same medicine. as that seems to be usualy the time where you start your very personal little witch hunt, crying for banishment and worse. Btw.: The outer Islands are worthless in this game, troops or no free troops. Why are they worthless: because the game has no convoy lines from the US to Australia, to New Zealand, to India (and vice versa). And the game is not able to calculate convoy line losses due to land based air attacks. So there is simply no reason to occupy the outer island, or better: to free them from japanese presence. Same goes for the not existing ability to enlarge a base (from 5 supply to 10, per example). But that was exactly what happend on the outer islands. Rabaul, Truk, Guadalcanal: it was always what the enemy could do with these bases if he could control and enlarge them. No sign at all of this in PTE These are known facts which neither of the programmer or game designer tried to fix until now.

How many men of your unit died from jumps and how many men suffered major injuries like broken legs, broken ankles, broken bacs? About 10 - 40 percent per jump died? About 10 - 40 percent suffered heavy injuries? Were the injured able to defend themself if nescessary? Was your unit able to jump into enemy positions?

Sorry, but losses on Crete were a direct result of heavy fights, not of the mere landing process. There is only one reason why these high losses occur in SC2: because the Programmer weren't able or weren't willing to programm a way which would allow a unit to invade an occupied hex / tile. During such an invasion would óccur massive or high losses. Without hard fights there should be a readiness losses, and that should be all (as long as you don't jump into cities, fortifications, woods or jump in stormy weather conditions). SO why don't we get a feature which the grandfather of SC / SC2, Clash of Steel, already did offer 15 years ago? Unfortunatly Hubert neve explained why he did or did not offer / programmed a feature, such as per example retreats, mutliple attacks, no invasions of occupoed tiles, no phased movement, no mullberry, etc. All quiet on the programming front.

deleted / double posting

Not that i want to stop a debate, but (unfortunatly, and i might add: as usualy) there is no input or comment from the developers side. One year back, there was a StratCom design challenge. As far as i can tell, all those suggestions made there have been more or less without any coment (i don't count "thank you" and "great ideas" as relevant comments) been buried. Right now (as far as i can tell) there has been nothing substantial been added from the developers- like "IF" they plan to do an official global game at all. And no comment on what can't be programmed, even though heartfully wanted by them. And no comment as well on what can be programmed, but is not wanted by the developers. No comment on what is very likely one of the first improvements or additions in a future game. Instead: all quiet on the development front. I salute those who have still enough enthusiasm to discuss (even though they overlook that many suggestions are by now pretty nearly as old as SC1, and where still never introduced, discussed or denied by the developers). In my eyes it would be a very, very healthy descision if the developers would start to declare their goals with this game series, their ideas of an ideal game. And to show the audience their gaming roots, their inspirations, and to comments on these game and the game mechanics they decided NOT to use n SC / SC2 (because of ...). But what i know exactly, what often was explained, is their opion about forum discipline. Ok, the last sentence was a bitter one, and probably very unjustice as well. So sorry for that. But i think the reader will get my point. And sorry for shooting against the developer. But on the other hand: would it be truly so hard to comunicate or debate a bit more with the customers about everything concerning the game of SC? With this question i have said my piece, thanks for reading it, and may it do its part to bring some life back into everything concerning SC2.

The Solution is pretty simple and far away from tricky to implent. Just take a look at PTO Carriers, and adapt the different strength point-system to air-fleets. Kick away single bomber/fighter/dive-bomber units and create instead an airfleet with three different strength point categories: fighter, bomber, tacbomb. For each action determine how many points of each category you want to use. 3 fighter points stop 3 interceptors, each additional interceptor attacks bomber/tacbomber points. Done.

"Shamed be he who thinks evil of it". In Germany we have a saying: "Ich kann gar nicht so viel fressen wie ich kotzen möchte". (and this has nothing to do with celebrating 10 years Battlefront, absolutly nothing!). Anyway, not fitting into such a pathetic comunity with member like you three guys here, i greet those who might read this and might remember my useless scribblings and wish them well and all the best. Thank you Hubert for your work, and Bill101 for your great campaigns, and Moon, for my free copy of PTO after the Design Challenge. A comunity, where the opponents and accuser of two now banned members can so obvously celebrate their victory without any interference, has obviously no more room for members like me. Farewell, Gods Speed, and good luck to all of you.