vveedd

I have told Hubert long time ago: too much luck factor – crappy game. There are many problems related to luck and main is reloading. As “NO RESEARCH AT ALL” supporter I will say once again: SC2 will be much better game with research concept like Panzer general games have. At certain historical date you get automatically new equipment to buy (or in this case new tech to upgrade units) and that it. OR if you must have research then it will be better tech concept from Civilization I,II,II,IV games. Hubert as much I respect your work you didn’t learn much from SC1 experience. SC1 was a great game with some great problems and these was research and luck factor. I tried to play a few times SC1 without research and must say it was much better game (with, of course, house rule for air fleets). [ June 17, 2006, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

male, 33, Croatia

I get popped by Italian and German navy and that's what worries me. My point exactly.Group of submarines have same combat abilities, Bismarck group have one battleship, one cruiser and a few support vessel. It is not the same isn’t it?

And all this escort vessels have big guns for shore bombardment?

I thought this also but then I saw Bismarck ship (for example). This unit represent group of ships with same name? :cool: As much as I like improvisation and abstract view this is too abstract for me. I had very negative example in one of my first PBEM game. Opponent player managed to reach UK shores with Italian and German navy and then he bombed to hell every available corps unit. Because of map scale and lots of shore tiles it looked like that he bombed 90% of UK territory and this is not what you can call shore bombardment. [ June 06, 2006, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

I absolutely agree. Today, maybe, shore bombardment can destroy whole units but in WWII I don’t think so. Also we are talking about corps and army size units in SC2. How can you destroy whole army with shore bombardment? Impossible.

Is it only me or you guys think the same? It is ok to naval units make shore bombardment but to destroy unit completely? I strongly recommended for future patch that shore bombardment can weak unit but never destroy it.

Did I miss it? Can’t see anything in patch about neutral naval units sniffing and blocking problem?

I know about this but this project take too long already and to my opinion we will not see the end. Latest news was that they still looking for engine. Give me a break. :mad: Hubert, on the other hand, is much serious game developer. :cool:

…remaking Advanced Third Reich game. You should buy rights and finally making some serious game. :cool:

I am in for PBEM games mostly. One question and one suggestion. Q: Why you did not put ICQ list on web site or I missed it? S: Reloading in PBEM games is major problem in SC1 as well in SC2 and this is hard fact. We can’t do anything about that except some small things like this: Maybe you should implement some victory point’s concept for different game type? For example TCP/IP victory should have bigger value then PBEM victory. Sorry if you have something similar already. I took only a quick pick on ladder web site.

Question related to A/A. Does Anti-aircraft tech have effect against Air Fleets when they attacking unit in city with A/A ?

Question related to A/A. Does Anti-aircraft tech have effect against Air Fleets when they attacking unit in city with A/A ?

I am not against luck in games, I am against reloading. In TCP/IP game this is not an issue but in PBEM it is. To my opinion, tech system similar like Civilization games has will be very good in SC2

Does Russian winter weather effects have effect on Finland units?

I agree. I always saying this and nobody listen – in any grand strategy game (especially with PBEM option) luck factor must be at minimum because there is still no effective solution for reloading issue. To my opinion, except tech system, diplomacy system also must have much less luck factor involved.

Ok, now we have 252 posts here. Did anyone try to play multiplayer game with 3 or 4 range so far? We don't have to wait Hubert test players.

You are right.My mistake.Anyway, I don't think that Vichy will surrvive as independent state after liberation of Paris with or without this small invasion.

This undo stuff is old trick from SC1. That's why we had in SC1 and 2 disable undo button ;-P Reloading is another old story (issue) from SC1. No clever solution(s) so far.

Just remark about Vichy. Not that significant as Amphibious transports issue but anyway . In real history after Allies liberate Paris, Vichy France has collapsed. So, if we want historically correct events in SC2 game, Vichy France after Allied liberation of Paris should be automatically deactivated or should join Allies as minor ally.

No, of course. But write in scripts put them always in 3 or 4 same tiles is also ridiculous. I am not a programmer but I am sure that scripts can be changed in that way that AI can put partisans in every tiles unoccupied from Axis units and under Axis control.

Good point about invasion on US Hellraiser. I totally forgot this stupidity. All this time when we discuss about amphibious assaults one question is always on my mind – when we are talking about amphibious transports what kind of vessels we mean? Classical invasion vessels like Allies used in D-day or cruisers, battleships, merchandise ships? You can load units on lots of navy units. Amphibious transports unit look presumes classical vessels and this vessel were very light and small. Crossing Atlantic with them is quite impossible. BUT, in game this will be possible even with reduced range and in that case only good solution (to my opinion) for this issue is useless. :confused: Damn!

This is the most stupid thing I ever heard. This “solution” has nothing with gameplay. Unfortunately, this is not only case. Lots of players memorized scripts before playing. This like you know the future. We are all Nostradamus . I know that this “issue” cannot be avoided but it should be minimized. And that’s why I suggested purchase and manual deploy options for partisans. In that way players will never know where partisans will be placed. Of course, these options must follow some restrictions like – soft limit for partisan units and partisans cannot go across its national borders

This is not the point or solution. To make Sea Lion impossible thru diplomacy effects and government movement to God knows where is stupid. Blashy mentioned this before and to my opinion this is completely wrong logic for any WWII game. The point will be to make Sea lion profitable but hard to do it. After reading all post so far MAYBE the best solutions will be: 1.)Reduced movement for amphibious transports, no move for unloaded units AND no possibility to load tanks group and armies. This IS, as Sea Monkey said, totally unrealistic. or 2.)Limits for amphibious transports. This solution will represent national capability for sea transport. As someone said before Germany had problem (besides RN and RAF problems) with quantity of transport boats and ships.

Well, I started this post so it will be polite to say something more isn’t it? So what solutions we suggested so far: 1.Decrease amphibious transports range and no movement for unloaded units 2.Amphibious assault concept from SC1 3.Auto Attack with artillery or/and rockets on Amphibious Transports that unload in range 4.Air units to automatically attack/intercept amphibious transports that stop next to a coastal tile 5.Implementing beach tile that allows amphibious transports of landing 6.Soft Limit for Amphibious Units, Hard Limit for other units. 7.If you don't want men landing from boats on your land, put troops their Did I miss something? Major reasons against it: 1.Still no influence on amphibious transports with Navy and air force 2.As much I don’t like this Jon_J_Rambo dude he is right – troops have to wait whole week (turn) in transports? Ridiculous. 3.We don’t have artillery units and at this scale it is better that we don’t have it, rockets as defense units? Ridiculous. 4.Good idea but naval units should be enabling to do the same. Too many changes in code for Hubert, I think. 5.Good idea but we have again stupid defense tactic for SC1 to put troops on it and too many changes in code for Hubert, I think. 6.To my opinion, the best idea so far but still no influence on amphibious transports with Navy and air force. 7.Yeah, right. So what is the best solution? Honestly, I don’t know. My suggestion was the first one but now I am not sure anymore. Following suggestion number six, one new idea came to my mind – adding Marine units into game. Marine units will be only units enabling to make amphibious assaults; the rest can be moved across the sea only in normal transports. With build limits this could be good solution but, of course, this especially needs major changes in code. Hubert have difficult task here.