vveedd

Just finished my first game. This MOD is awesome! I can’t thank you enough for this. When SC2 was in early development stage I thought that it will look like that. It should have been like this MOD. Just a few question: 1.Can’t understand what are representing tiles across US border called Republic of Spain? 2.I was in June and had snow. Is it house rule to play this MOD with weather options on OFF? It looks like that weather in game does not follows date in game. And one suggestion which is not in spirit of A3R game so ignore it if you don’t like: I suppose that duty of Strategic bombers is to simulate strategic warfare in A3R but these units are off the map in original game. This is, of course, not possible in SC2 so maybe you should have made different air concept in your MOD. My suggestion is that you made air fleets more like fighters and strategic bombers more like tactical and strategic bombers. In this case we will use bombers for purposes for which they are made – bombing units (ground support) and resources (strategic warfare) and air fleets primary for dog fights, escort and some light bombing. I know that this concept have nothing similar (not even close) with air combat in A3R but it will be much better usage of Strategic bomber units and more realistic.Thx. [ March 09, 2007, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

I agree, without me and current supply rule in which they have movement points = 0.

Desert Dave In all my posts you have quoted I was right and only said my opinion. If you are offended with words stupid or unrealistic I am sorry but this is my opinion. Quote about supply rule problem: I was, maybe, wrong about number of soldiers in Corps or Army but my opinion is still that this is stupid situation. Imagine - 30,000 enemy soldier lives at top of mountain on enemy soil for 3-4 years WITHOUT any supply and do nothing. Even if this is possible, after all this time they will be hardly ready for fight. You can hardly call them soldiers after that. Quote about bad amphibious concept in SC2: I will not say anything more about bad amphibious assault concept in SC2 again. You all know how this concept was bad in v.1.0 Quote about bad movement in SC2: My opinion – if you accidentally clicked somewhere when your unit was moved you can’t undo move (with undo option on OFF, of course) or attack. 3R game is very, very old, it is working in DOS and don’t have this. Panzer General 2 game also. This is, clearly, step back in this feature. Same goes for no swapping option. Maybe, stupid is too strong word but how you will call feature where you must have free 3 tiles (hexes,) at least, and you need 2 turns to do the simple swap move? At the end I must mentioned that English is not my primary language so, maybe, I use wrong words for something from time to time but I will repeat once again: I have done that and still doing this only because I love this game and because I want to make this game better. pzgndr – you are right. There are 4 edition of 3R but, to me, even first one was absolutely great and thank you again for making A3R mod. P.S. I will not say name of other game because I respect and appreciate Hubert’s job in SC1 and SC2 game. Sorry guys.

I just downloaded scenarios. Didn't try it yet but still - THANK YOU FOR THIS!!!! I am loving 3R and A3R games and I will enjoy for sure. THANK YOU AGAIN.

Thanks for advice Desert Dave but no, I will not quit. I love this game like you and participating in making from beginning of SC1. I will continue make suggestions until Hubert says “I am done with this game”. Even then I will try to give some suggestions in case that Hubert decides to start make Strategic Command 3. All my posts were and are with one goal – to make this game better and better. I will not accept statement “This game is good as it can be” because this is not true. We could have said that when SC2 was in 1.0 version but we haven't. Because of that now we have SC2 v.1.6 which is much better game than v.1.0. All my suggestions were with good reason and with very well arguments because I have very good world history knowledge and I am playing strategy games all my life (and this is long time, believe me ). As for comparing SC2 with other games (or should I say game?) why not? I know about what game you are talking about and I am only trying with REAL examples to help this guys that they avoid some mistakes from SC2 at start. Comparing this game with SC2 is logical choice because it looks very similar to it. Traitorous? Your paranoid logic “If you are not with us, you are against us” is just what I said – paranoid or you are, maybe, just too emotional. We are on same side. Actually, I am comparing all these games with one game - Third Reich. This game is not perfect but very close to perfection.

Moonslayer,Stalin's Organist I am not talking about situation when you take protected or unprotected city. As I know in SC2 when unit is cut off, supply is reduced in phases and when suplly is >0 it is ok that unit can move or attack. I am talking when you unload unit and can't take nothing and supply reaches level 0. That unit can't move and shouldn't stay there and do nothing for unlimited period of time. It is unrealistic situation.

:confused: :confused: 250.000 people are living with locals? Come on, this sounds even more stupid then magical disappearing. Partisan unit can live with locals because they are locals but 250.000 men? Even more - 250,000 enemy men? I am talking about corps or army at enemy soil. You are saying that German soldiers will live with British locals after unsuccessful Sea Lion? Be serious, please. I agree. They should be automatically destroyed after a few months, maybe 6-9?.Or some attrition option like Liam suggested. [ March 07, 2007, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

I appreciate your help but I already knew that. My mentioned situation is when nobody does anything extra for a certain time period and what then should happen with this unit. Liam’s situation is the same and he explained this better than me.

I have played v.1.6 game and AI attempted to make invasion of Norway with two corps and without HQ . It hasn’t succeeded, of course, so it withdraws corps in to mountain tiles. I pay no attention to them and because of lack supply (supply was at 0) these two corps stay there almost whole game. This situation, of course, is totally unrealistic. Any ideas how to solve this, let’s say, funny situation? To my opinion, if unit has supply at 0 for some time should be destroyed automatically.

I am playing PBEM only. No time for TCP/IP. Don't have ICQ. My e-mail: tinagraditeljstvo@yahoo.com

Sounds great! Looking forward to play this mod. Too bad that you can’t adjust supply rule. It is one of crucial and elemental part from 3R and A3R games. Without it, to my opinion, it is almost impossible to achieve some of great game stuffs - exploited movement, “brutal effects of having units cut off/surrounded“ (quoted Capt Andrew) and most important – force players to watch out for front lines and flanks. Maybe Hubert can help? [ February 28, 2007, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

FYI, I have an A3R mod almost ready for beta release, which I had hoped to do last weekend. I need to make a few more minor AI script tweaks and verify things work OK. It's close, with both the 1939 and 1941 scenarios. :cool: And I know Hubert's been busy with his own project on the back burner. Stay tuned. </font>

If you are mean to fix bugs, adjustment for PBEM and (maybe) improved interface I absolutely agree. Rest is no need to fix because 3R is a perfect game. Better game is only Advanced Third Reich. I agree. I haven’t slightest interest for American Civil war. It will be much better if next game is from Napoleon time period.

1.Option for swapping units: this game badly needs this option. I think that is no need additional explanation. My suggestion for solution of this is to have temporary force pool where player can put first unit until second is moved. 2.Aircraft defense in town should defend units in it too. 3.Option to select interception targets: we have discussed this in one of previous post. 4.Upgrade units while they are in production table: I see no harm to add this option. 5.Divide bombers to tactical and strategic: also discussed in one of previous post. 6.Speed up AI turn: “thinking” is too slow 7.Possibility to select and upgrade/reinforce/elite reinforce more then one unit by Ctrl + select units: it will be very handy option to my opinion. 8.Possibility to trade tech between allies: like to hear your opinion about this. It will sure effect on game balance but on the other hand it is a little bit stupid that Americans must research tech from level 1 for advanced aircrafts (for example) if British already has it.

I mastered simple things and move on to complicated (my suggestion is one of that kind). If you can't apprehend this your brain should stick with simple ones and stay out of this discussion. I agree. I didn’t mean that air fleets must know final destination, I just want that air fleets can cover smaller particular area (area that cover one tile). Maybe I used wrong term – instead unit as interception target should be tile as interception target. [ February 08, 2007, 04:57 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

Maybe you didn’t see my reply in one of previous post so I will quote you and myself just to be sure. I am really interested about your opinion about this. Thx Hubert. Maybe is now good moment to remind you for one more my suggestion suggested in that developer time – to select specific target for interceptions. I would like to see some kind of queue for air fleets in which I can put interception target. For example- I have only one air fleet and I want to intercept only air attacks on my unit at capitol, not air attacks on units around it. [/QB]</font>

I agree. I didn’t mean that unit should get immediately maximum entrenchment. It should get immediately level 1 in forest and level 2 on mountain for example. And this will represent covers made by Mother Nature (rocks, caves, trees on the ground etc.) which you can find much easily in forests and mountains then clear terrain. Following entrenchment levels will represent cover made by humans, of course. Thx Hubert. Maybe is now good moment to remind you for one more my suggestion suggested in that developer time – to select specific target for interceptions. I would like to see some kind of queue for air fleets in which I can put interception target. For example- I have only one air fleet and I want to intercept only air attacks on unit at capitol, not air attacks on units around it. Units in fortifications have the same defense bonus, as I know, and besides that they still have entrenchment.

I hate to tell you but I suggested this to you long time ago, when SC2 was in development. Still think that is very good idea but if you divide bombers to strategic and dive you must , of course, make air fleets as fighter fleets only and they should be just for dog fight, intercept and escort. And I have one question about entrenchment – I see that in 1.05 patch when you put unit in fortifications it has immediately entrenchment at level 3. Why units do not gain immediately higher entrenchment level when you put them in forest or on mountains? This will logical if you ask me – if unit is in forest it has immediately better position for fight against units on clear terrain. Same case is for mountain.

Your conclusion is pathetic. I am trying to make this game better by fighting against dishonest players and reloading cheat and you have concluded that I am dishonest player?? If I am dishonest player this game will be perfect for me and I will not say a word.

Blocking and sniffing with neutral naval units is a bug. No, it is even worse - it is game flaw.

This is not the point. Point is that you can (if you are dishonest player) reload your turn 10 times to get tech you wanted and after that you can say – hey, I am just lucky. And you can’t prove opposite because this luck factor concept in tech development. This concept is wrong, to my opinion.

In this patch are there any plans to prevent blocking and sniffing with neutral naval units?

Of course Bill. Our games were very good and you are good and honest player. I am playing one game now and because my time for play is very short can't play one more. I will, certainly, contact you when I will have time for one more game. Thx.

I agree with you about long term strategy but only if game has very little luck factor involved in gameplay mechanism. In SC2 I don't worry about combat results cheating (in this case you can win with good long term strategy), I am worried about diplomatic and tech results (especially about tech results). What you can do if your opponent has in 1940 year heavy tanks at level 4 or 5, for example? This cheating seriously is breaking game balance.

Maybe it is exagerated, but it is a serious problem. Dude, I did notice but please read my post again. I am talking about overwriting SAV file with copy from mailbox. You can do this as many time as you want and you will always have 0 reloads. Excellent idea. I have suggested this to Hubert long time ago but he had no concrete plans about it.