Minotaur
-
Posts
98 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Minotaur
-
-
As far as I understand it:Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage:Maybe its me, since I am tired. But there are so many Amphib topics now, I can't make sense of what each one is trying to cover.
- This one is for general ideas on amphibious assault...
- an other one is for the creation of a special unit to do the amphibious assault (Marines, Special Boat, etc...)...
- the third is about a possible Amphibious Assault Research Technology...
Of course, I may be wrong...
[ March 05, 2003, 01:49 AM: Message edited by: Minotaur ]
-
Looks like you want a Panzer General...Originally posted by Liam:We should have artillery, highly mobile units, and more hexes on the map for flanking possiblities.
Don't forget the scale of the game... Having artillery and high mobile unit is far less 'Historical' than attempting to create an artillery unit via the rocket technology...
True... First time I played I was puzzled by the Low Countries, instead of having 3 separate countries... But at the scale the map is, both capitals (Netherland/Belgium) would have been next to each other... The map is simply too small to add a lot of other cities... That's a thing that could change in SC2...Originally posted by Liam:Many of the historical cities<major cities> are not represented on the Game map that should be there. Thus more space to cover for Advancing Armies.
Launched one by one, that's true...Originally posted by Liam:I would say that Rockets do not belong in the Game at all, for all they did ... amounted to killing mostly civilians not unlike Scuds in the Gulf War. Not Precise enough to matter.
But I like to think of Rockets, in the game, as a barrage of them... Like 20, 50 or 100 rockets launched at the same time in the same general area... A week to prepare them, then you press the button...
Beside, I do not wish to see the only 'artillery' in the game go away... Especially if Air Fleets attacks are scaled down...
-
One thing we haven't discuss yet is the high cost of amphibious assault vs the number of troops needed for the "D-Day"...
It just occurs to me that UK and US can pay for 1 or 2 amphibious per turn... They need far more than that to make a good "D-Day"... So they'll have to pay week after week new amphibious units, while protecting those already at sea...
And when they'll be ready to attack, some unit will be fresh, but some others will have spent weeks, if not a full month at sea... Supply will be long gone for them by then...
Not very 'historic'...
Any suggestion?...
-
I like it the way it is... Costly, slow and not too much punch... In other word a gadget...Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Rocket research is fine as it is; V-1 and V-2 were never much of a weapon and required a lot of research and expense. Instead of being dropped they should be redifined. According to the 1944 scenario V-2s are L=4 Rockets , making V-1s L=3.
But with enough researches it became the only free long-ranged hit-without-retal available...
Keep in mind that rockets are powerful, but not very useful as a battlefield weapon... Not enough precision... A Corps can't and shouldn't be destroyed by one rocket volley... But it can damage it and reduce it's entrenchement and readiness, because people will duck in cover when they see it!...Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Rockets should be augmented. V-1 = L2, V-2 = L3, L4 should be something much heavier than the V-2's one ton warhead, say a much larger rocket doing 50% more damage than the current L=4 and L-5 should be something very, very potent, let's say double the present L=5. At those increased levels rocket research and production would take on some importance.
Oh!... and BTW... Should we add a Nuke Research technology?... (everybody ready?... NOOOOOOO!...
)... -
Here what I said in the other Amphibious Topic, since it's more relevant here...
All your point are well explained and indeed may be improved... The question is: Can this be learn through research or only with live experience... Historically speaking...
And what the technology should improve?
- Longer supplies: Temporary Harbor last longer...
- Better supply: Starting at supply 5 up to 10 at full research...
- Lower initial MPPs cost...
- Better defense against attack (before and after landing)...
- Less landing casualties on a clear, non-defended beach...
-
Of course landing barges are not alone in an amphibious assault, but they are also the weak point... Not able to defend themselves and having the possibility of bringing chaos to the order (damaged, slowed ships not able to follow others, panicked crew that quit formation, etc...)...Originally posted by JerseyJohn:My reasoning for allowing it to have the defensive capability of a Battleship is the understanding that naval units represent more than one ship. Presumably an amphibious armarda would be comprised of numerous warships, many of them obsolete but mounting large naval guns for shore bombardment. So, as a quick guess I felt a BB would best describe the unit's defensive ability.
I think they should be weaker, Transport-like, forcing you to use your real BB, Air Fleets, etc... to protect them...
Are 'Temporary Harbor' a separate unit (that can be attacked by enemy) or a Port-like thing that your ships can move over and protect?...Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Absolutly agreed on the supply item ...
In this sense the Temporary Harbor term isn't meant in the sense that Normandy had one, it's intended to denote numerous transports and supply ships temporarily anchored at the invasion point, facilitating supply and offloading for reinforcements.
I prefer the second option, even if it's more difficult to do...
That's why I didn't post an idea I have: Paratroopers... And also why I don't like too much the 'Marine' idea... The scale we're talking about is just too great... Never heard of a country having 40,000 to 60,000 (Corps sized...)Paratroopers or Marines... We should keep in mind (sometime it's tuff, I knowOriginally posted by JerseyJohn:In reality such a massive buildup (possibly three or four armies!) should not be possible in so short a time and I'm not crazy about the idea.
) that we're talking about Armies and Tank Groups...
I think specific hexes marked by a beach-line (Like in Third Reich) should do the trick... But only after these issues are solved:Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Agreed about landing terrain except in this scale it causes problems. At fifty miles across, how many coastal hexes have mountains up against the shoreline? ... So, untill a more accurate determination can be made I wanted to leave that issue a bit vague.
- Unlimited Manpool (so you cannot plug every beach you have with Corps)
After that, it's a question of 'clearing the beach' with Battleships, Carriers and Air Fleet if a unit did plug your chosen beach landing...
All your point are well explained and indeed may be improved... The question is: Can this be learn through research or only with live experience... Historically speaking...Originally posted by JerseyJohn:I think research ought to be a factor. At first it also seemed to me that there wasn't that much involved, but upon further examination it didn't seem as simple.
And what the technology should improve?
- Longer supplies: Temporary Harbor last longer...
- Better supply: Starting at supply 5 up to 10 at full research...
- Lower initial MPPs cost...
- Better defense against attack (before and after landing)...
- Less landing casualties on a clear, non-defended beach...
Indeed it is... I suggested Anti-Air Defense should be purchased and not researched, so you can focus on critical areas... You should be able to buy ground defenses:Originally posted by JerseyJohn:The topic of Festung Europa is an extremely important, interesting and highly debatable one. If you're knowledgable on the subject it would be great if you'd start it as a Forum. It's badly in need of examination.
- Ground Defense = Creating/repairing Fortifications... To increase entranchment of units in a hex...
- Ground Offense = Huge fixed Howitzer, etc... To help defend against an attack in a hex...
If the hex as no units in it, then the enemy unit is damaged before entering it...
If the hex as a unit in it, it boost that unit offense/defense statistics...
-
I'll get right to the point... Before this topic is moved to the General section because of too much Baseball things...
I think we were wondering if you were still improving SC or preparing SC2... But you answer us quite well...Originally posted by Hubert Cater:Thanks for your post, and I realize now that I HAVE been a little quiet lately as to what direction I will be taking with SC2.
Of course you are...Originally posted by Hubert Cater:Am I frustrated with the recent suggestion threads? Absolutely not, I think I'm a very lucky developer due in large part to the content of these forums.
That's why we do post suggestions... And placing bets on which idea will be there or not...Originally posted by Hubert Cater:Some may see the light of day in the next game, some in the future or some not at all, but either way I think the next game will be that much better because of them.
Hire some programmers to help you... You are rich now...Originally posted by Hubert Cater:To give you a better idea of where I currently am, believe it or not SC1 still occupies a good portion of my time, it sometimes is unbelievable the amount of work that goes into all sides of developing and supporting a game, something I am still learning but can probably be appreciated when you are a company of one person, and don't even get me started on the challenges involved on eliminating some of the technical limitations in the current game engine. (Hint, Hint)
Seriously, I understand that technical issues (like the DirectX 9 compatibility) is on the top of your list... Making sure that all peoples buying the game may actually play it is more important that adding new features...
If I can give you an advice, when you're ready to improve SC: Work on the Campaign Editor first... Give us more option to modify the game... We are a capable bunch and you'll be surprized at how we can find solutions to problems...
For example, the first campaign I created... I modified only 2 things in the 1939 scenario:
- The Subs in the atlantic, unable to do anything and quickly unsupplied annoys me, so I moved them near Germany instead... Now they are useful as warships...
- I wished I could research what I wanted at the start of the game, instead of having the same researched thing time after time... So I removed all fixed research for all countries and put them in the Unassigned section... And I add 1 point to all countries to compensate for the fact that they don't have research already done... Even France and Italy had 1 point... Imagine my surprise when I first saw a level 1 French Air Fleet when fighting France
...My point is: Instead of complaining and hoping for a change in a future patch, I change the game myself... Most of the things people asks in the forum may be changed or simulated by us, if we have the tools to do it... That will leaves you with the thing that you have no choices but to program (like the weather, the new ampibious rules, etc...)...
-
As a matter of fact no... Always put it on bad supply... I'll take a better look in the future...Originally posted by Steve C:Anyone else find it amusing that your ships are consequently reduced to 1/2 speed in spring/fall and 1/4 speed in the winter ?
Another good way of seeing it...Originally posted by Immer Etwas:Rather than hex-borders though, I would rather see the entire hex shaded.
*** Not too much snow for me, but a -40 degree outside, taking wind into account
... -
Look like the next generation of the game SuperPower...
They finally seems to have dumped Dreamcatcher and find another, more worthy publisher...
-
As far as I saw since I played the game:
- Allies AI is more Aggressive when FoW is On... Especially with it's ships...
- True that putting USA/Russia neutral help Axis being more aggressive or less careful about it's attacks... Although it still didn't touch Norway or Greece...
- In the Barbarossa Scenario (playing Axis, FoW On) I saw 2 "D-Day"!... One in June 1942 and One in July 1943... Second caught me a bit by surprise... No suiciding one-by-one after the first "D-Day"!...
-
That's why I like the Scenario Editor, although I wish it can do more...
And that's why I like playing with the AI... No arguing about House Rules...
-
Always the simplicity of a chess game vs the historical of our old boardgames...
Since I'm not fond of 'special rules'... Always checking the manual for this or that special rule is no fun to me... I know they are sometime a necessary evil (like the Supply lines, that even today I still try to grasp all aspects), but too much and it will be collecting dust in the closet...
But the computers are here to the rescue!...
As long as these historical rules ar transparent (ie. the computer do most of the work) then fine...
I think most special or historical rules should be created to be as simple as possible to the common user... Weather, Amphibious Assault and +Range/-Readiness for Air Fleets are good examples of special rules that should be added to SC2 because they are historical, but not painful to the casual player... Only one more option in the right-click menu... A paragraph in the user manual and that's it... The rest is 'under the hood' in the computer...
Of course, if we have more special rules, perhaps we will have a beautiful paper User Manual shipping with SC2...
-
And another point coming right up...
Reinforcements...
1) I think you should not be able to totally reinforce your units in winter...
Lets says you can reinforce up to strength 5 only...
And lets say you can reinforce +1 points per level of 'Winter Preparation'...
For example, a Corps...
Anti-Tank Level 0 and Winter Preparation Level 0
Maximum Point = 5
Anti-Tank Level 5 and Winter Preparation Level 0
Maximum Point = 5
Anti-Tank Level 5 and Winter Preparation Level 5
Maximum Point = 10
Anti-Tank Level 0 and Winter Preparation Level 5
Maximum Point = 10
2) Reinforcements should cost more in winter than in any other season... Let's say twice the cost... And no level of 'Winter Preparation' can change that...
-
I think HQs should do the trick... The only way to supply your units after an amphibious assault should be a HQ... So you'll HAVE to use an HQ... Protect it or you're unsupplied... And since they're not cheap, you'll have to prepare yourself before doing it!...Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:We've already talked about supply counters or "3R beach-head counters".
This is not part of amphibious, but I think it's important!...
Some solutions:Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:1) Who controls the air wins (see Terif carriers)
- Add a Jet-Air Fleet unit that is only good against Air Units...
- Anti-Air Defense should be a thing you can buy with MPPs instead of researched... You choose to pay 'x' MPP to buy 1 point of air defense into that city or that port...
- Jet Fighter technology should not boost attack... only defense...
- Change Air Fleet so that they're not so good against land or sea units...
True... but if we give a small MPP value to each Hex you control, that would be less of a problem...Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:2) Destroying a unit per turn is more important than controlling land.
Plain = 1 MPP
Forest = 2 MPPs
Mountain/Swamp = 1/2 MPP
Cities/Ports are still the most important target with 5 to 10 MPP... And add to that Mines & Oil fields...
Alexandria/Madrid should be a supply point...Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:3) The Med. Front & Spain is a joke for the Allies, no supply.
And HQs should do the rest...
They should have unlimited supply... And move faster... Especially when you research Advanced Subs...Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:4) Submarines can't swim farther than 2-hexes from a friendly port because their supply sucks. (See aircraft rules)
See your point #1...Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:5) Experienced HQ's w/ experienced carrier/air are unstoppable.
Let's just hope we are not preaching in the desert...
[ March 02, 2003, 02:45 AM: Message edited by: Minotaur ]
-
We can also do like in Third Reich...
Some coastal hexes has a special 'Beach' draw that means that amphibious landing may happen there and only there...
Of course you shouldn't be able to make an amphibious landing on your own soil... Only on enemy land... Meaning you can only transport your units from port to port...
And yes... Amphibious landings should cost more MPPs than a simple port-to-port transport, simulating the need of special assault ships to carry them, the transport of the needed supply, etc...
I could see that on the right-click menu on a unit... You have 'Transport' and we should add 'Amphibious' in the list...
I don't know how much an Amphibious assault should cost, but I'll put it at 3 times a standard sea transport...
-
NonSuch -
Indeed... Put too many small, specific rules and SC lose its 'Beer & Pretzel' appeal...
But I must also say that I've never played a WW2 game (Boardgame or Computer) that never take into account weather... SC is perhaps the only one... Perhaps changing from week-turns to month-turn is a way to 'simulate' the change of season, but in the game it certainly doesn't stop an attack momentum!...
And since the computer will take care of everything... It will decide when and where rain/snow will be and showing it directly on the map... And since rain/fog should be random, that means not 2 games will be the same...
If weather is done well, I sincerely think it will be more fun than trouble...
-
And up to the top...
That's an possible thing, assuming SC2 have a bigger map... The Allies landing was at Narvik, where Germany lost all is ships in the area, if I'm not mistaken... It was far north than Bergen or Oslo...
But I'm not sure about it though... SC is a good game because there are few special rules (supply lines being the most complicated IMHO)... The more we add, the less it's enjoyable because you have to check how and when these specials rules applies...
But of course a more sophisticated wargame should include this...
[ March 01, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Minotaur ]
-
Good idea... This will simulate the dogfighting that used a lot of fuel (and the obligation of dropping your external fuel tank)... The more you are close to your maximum range, the less longer you can fight before running out of fuel... A big problem for Germany in the Battle of Britain...Originally posted by JerseyJohn:As an alternative, why not make range more of a factor?
I suggest the following:
1) Airfleets fight at full stregnyth within three [3] hexes of their starting location.
2) They fight at 70% effectiveness four and five [4 and 5] hexes distant.
3) They fight at 50% effectiveness at any range six [6] hexes or more from their starting location.
4) Heavy Bombers have no range penalties. They function at 100% effectiveness for their entire range.
5) Airfleets that are half-stregnth or lower cannot intercept air attacks more than three hexes from their base.
For your point #5... I prefer to have the choice if my Air Fleet will intercept or not... Sometime you may let enemy goes because you want to keep your Air Fleet intact (reinforcing an bombed Corps is cheaper than a Air Fleet
)... -
Thanks for your good words...
That's why I suggest the 'Weather Research'... To help units survive on their own when bad weather arrives...Originally posted by JerseyJohn:Good point about attrition losses from extreme weather. I suggested increased casualties but you're right, units thousands of miles from their supply base suffered losses from sheer lack of essentials that never made it to them.
But I think it's important that the supply net, the communication and to some extend the readiness of units should be reduced because of the difficult weather (not seeing a thing in a snow storm, difficult to keep good communication between units and HQs, etc...)
Good point... If we have the Pacific in SC2...Originally posted by JerseyJohn:This was also a big problem in the Pacific.
Agreed, distance, especially in Russia, should include considerable non-combat casualties. This would also make it more difficult to dislodge a weakened Russian from it last ditch Ural defenses, making the game more challenging and realistic.
-
Well my difficult friend...Originally posted by kurt88:Great ideas here from everyone,especially the bordercolors for the hexes as Minotaur said.(What if one turns the hexgrid off?I'm just being difficult here
)Hexgrid On:
Clear weather = Black border...
Hexgrid Off:
Clear weather = no border...
That's it...Originally posted by kurt88:If I understand it right the (much bigger) map would be divided in weather zones,each with their types of weather wich on their turn would have effects on units,movement and supply,right?This would improve the game greatly.
Indeed... Attrition should be of 2 types:Originally posted by kurt88:One thing is missing IMO though: attrition.
- Because of bad weather...
- Because of 2 enemy units touching each others, simulating various levels of skirmishes between them... (but that's another topic...
) -
I think we could simplify the zones a bit...Originally posted by J Wagner:Weekly Turns and Weather Zones
I feel the monthly and bi weekly turns would be unnecessary if there were weather zones charted on the map.
Weather Zone 1 Russia
Weather Zone 2 Northern Europe
Weather Zone 3 Central Europe
Weather Zone 4 Western Europe
Weather Zone 5 UK and Ireland
Weather Zone 6 Southern Europe
Weather Zone 7 North Africa
Weather Zone 8 US and Canada
These zones could even be divided further for example, 2 or 3 zones in Russia.
Weather Zone 1 - Russia
Weather Zone 2 - Northern Europe: Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland (if the new map is big enough
)...Weather Zone 3 - Central Europe: Ireland, UK, France, Low Countries, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, Denmark, Poland, Baltic States...
Weather Zone 4 - Southern Europe: Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece, Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, All northern Africa...
Weather Zone 5 - US and Canada (Not sure if we should bother about these two, unless we want to simulate a more realist U-boot/convoy mechanic or a possible Axis invasion of these countries)...
Russia would be a special case, since almost all it's territory may have snow and we should still take into account the special mud effect...
Very good...Originally posted by J Wagner:The weather could potentially change in each zone every week based on three factors:
1 the weather from the previous week
2 the weather zone
3 the season
I completely forgot about fog...Originally posted by J Wagner:The weather available could be:
Clear
Rain
Snow
Fog
It could be random as rain, but will happen more often in certain area (like in and around UK, on the ocean, etc...)
But in a way, rain and fog will have the same effect on units... Air Fleets not able to fly... Ships not seeing a damn thing (Radar technology would be a tremendous advantage in this situation)...
So we may think about combining rain and fog...
Yes... Good effects list... And I will add two others:Originally posted by J Wagner:Weather effects would include:
Movement Restrictions
Operation Movement Restrictions
Combat effectiveness
Supply line reductions
Air attack limitations
Strategic Bombing limitations
Shore bombardment limitations
Amphibious transport limitations (not possible or at a much higher MPP costs)
And the 'Weather Research' could partially nullify the...
- Movement Restrictions
- Operation Movement Restrictions
- Combat effectiveness
... of all land units...
Definitely border hexes colors... More user-friendly and easy to check on-the-spot...Originally posted by J Wagner:You could click onto a weather map to see the current weather in each zone and as mentioned by others, the hex colors could change.
[ March 01, 2003, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: Minotaur ]
-
Too quiet... We would like to know more... Please... Hubert... are you dead?...Originally posted by J P Wagner:...it's been kinda quiet on the future development front...
And BTW... Don't forget to modify hexes to indicate which temperature it has...
- No change = good weather...
- Blue borderline = rain... (everywhere and can happen at anytime... except in winter, of course...
)- Brown borderline = rain/mud (specific to Russia)...
- White borderline = winter...
With that, you could see winter moving toward the south 1-2 hexes each week at the start of winter... and fall back when winter ends... A thing we can't see in boardgames...
Rain should also appear randomly around the map, to simulate hard rain... It can apper anywhere, in France, Yugoslavia, Russian 'Summer', etc... This rain should influence the fighting under it (no Air Fleet mission possible simulating an overcast, half Corps & Armies movement through or in it, etc...)...
-
Here what I suggested in "What I don't want to see in SC2..."...
--------------------
Very good point... I think all other 'WW2 Grand Strategy' games that I've played take weather into account...
It also reminds me an idea I had...
We should add a new reserch topic (another one ) : 'Winter preparation'...
With the winter factor suggested, the more you research this topic, the more you prepare your armies for the cold/mud... So, instead of boosting a unit, this research will remove some disadvantages that occurs in bad weather times:
Better movement in winter... Less casualties because of the cold... better winter supply net... Etc...
Think of it as a general 'How to prepare for cold/mud' topic... Perfecting anti-freeze... giving better clothing to your troops... Wide-track research... Efficient food-heating for your soldiers... A grease that can sustain cold weather... Training ski-troopers... Etc...
Keep in mind that this research wouldn't boost units in winter but instead partially negate the effect of the winter times... And this research will affect all your units equally...
---------------
I suggested it because at the start of the war, no one was prepared for a winter war (except Finland, Sweden, Norway and Russia)... And we are not Hitler or Stalin, we may indeed listen to advices we received
... And we know a war in Russia will last more that 8 weeks... So you may as well know bad weather will come and prepare for it by researching new ways of countering it...Of course, at the start of the game, Finland, Sweden and Norway should have level 2 and Russia should have Level 1...
And yes, you could still plug a hole in your Russian front by sending Italians or Romanians Armies, but you'll pay the price when winter will come
(assuming Italy didn't research this topic, of course...)...The point of this research is to help units in a winter conditions to survive... Giving them more movement, preparation and reducing casualties from bad weather... Supply Net & Reinforcements should still be difficult to have in hard weather...
[ February 28, 2003, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Minotaur ]
-
No... But you can go into 'Research' and select the unit type you want to check... You'll see it's statistics to the right... This list is updated as your research progress...Originally posted by ChuckK:1. Is there a hot-key that will display all of a unit's values (Spotting, Sritke Range, Soft Attack, Tank Attack, etc)?
Yes... 2 things can supply your units: A city you control and a HQ...Originally posted by ChuckK:2. How do I keep an invasion force 'in-supply.' When landing a large force in Norway as Germany my units quickly go out-of-supply. Do I send an HQ unit with them?
Check the Acrobat User Manual (page 48) for all supply distances...
...
)
Conquest of Sevastopol
in Strategic Command 1
Posted
1- Destroy the cruiser... Usually done by an Air Fleet when besieging Odessa...2- Carefully surround Sevastopol with units (like most cities)... Generally 2 Armies or Corps and a Tank...
3- Having a HQ near (the swamps next to Odessa is a good spot... Cover against Partisan pop-up + good supply)... And at least 1 Air Fleet...
4- Removing entranchement then the enemy unit itself...
PS: If you have a Rocket unit, it's an excellent spot to make it gains experience without risk of an enemy Air Fleet attack against it...