vveedd

One thing more which I forgot to mentioned in my previous post: Long time ago I had discussion with Hubert about oil fields. After fruitful discussion we agreed that oil fields should have more significant role in game instead of eye candy only. Of course, something like oil effects required too much changes in code so Hubert have said that oils fields will have much bigger MPP value. What happens to that?

As I said Blashy, strategic bombers are not without purpose. I have tried this tactic with Axis and it is solid but it is much profitable to buy 2 tanks group instead one strategic bombers. Only a few players will decide to use this strategy and because of that strategic bombers (and rockets) as SC2 units are not in use as they should be. [ April 29, 2006, 04:32 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

Ok, here are my thoughts about SC2 after playing it against AI and humans opponent. SC2 is much better game then SC1 there is no doubt but this game should and must be much better. I’ll not talk about some knowing issues (amphibious transports, DOW to majors, neutral units, plunder rule etc) because they are already addressed. I will talk about other things (issues) which SC2 brought from SC1. We still have useless units. When I say useless I don’t mean that this units don’t have purpose in game, I mean that this units are not used or very little used by players. Me and lots of other player suggested Hubert that tanks should have more significant role in SC2 and they have that but what about strategic bombers? To my opinion they are still “useless” like in SC1. Haven’t seen that players bought many bombers, especially Axis players. I suggested to Hubert long time ago different air units concept. Air fleets should have more fighter role like intercept, escort and make light damage to land units. Bombers should have two main roles – first, tactical and second, strategic. Tactical will be for ground support and air to naval fight or in other words for making damage to land and naval units and strategic will be for strategic bombardments. These roles, players will adjust for each bomber unit thru research and technology. For instance – tactical land bombardment technology, tactical naval bombardment technology, strategic bombardment technology etc. If player researched level 1 of tactical land bombardment technology and upgrade bomber, this unit will have capability to do more damage to land unit, if player upgrade bomber with tactical naval bombardment technology this unit will have capability to do more damage to naval units and so on. (Also in first case you can change unit look to Stuka for instance. ; -)) With that concept players will buy FOR SURE much more bombers (and fighters for bomber escorts). And I will add something more to that – when player decided to go with upgrades in tactical direction for one unit it can’t upgrade this unit with strategic technology anymore. In that way it is avoided to have bomber units with both capabilities because those kinds of units has not existed in real WWII history.Actually this is nothing new, we already have similar concept for naval units. Instead destroyer unit we have ASW technology for battleships and cruisers. Next “useless” unit is rockets. It can be used only on level 4 or 5. On fewer levels it makes little or no damage. This is very realistic and historically correct but at least range should be bigger at starting level just because of gameplay. Or maybe it will be better that instead or rockets we have something else more useable like cheap militia units or partisans. To me it is better idea that players can buy partisans instead this appearance from tin air. Diplomacy is new and it is good but, to my opinion, also need some changes. For example, when Germany and Italy invested all 5 chits in one minor country they have 25% and 15% chance for success in one turn. Too fast for time line in SC2 in my opinion. To existing diplomacy concept I will add 3 layers of diplomacy. First layer will be at 50%, second at 75% and third on 100%. So everything will work like it works now but when player reached first and after that second layer all invested diplomatic chits will be removed. At third layer chits will be also removed and minor will join major power so here is no difference from existing concept. Additional effect for first and second layer will be nice but not necessary. For example, at first layer major power could start receive MPP from that country, at second level major power units can enter into minor but there is still no minor units and at third will be like we have now. Actually this concept is like in real life – first you have diplomatic contacts on embassy level, then on ministers level and then on highest level. Triggers for US/USSR readiness should be re-done. I agree that they should be connected to world events and war situation but also it should be more independent triggers (like time triggers). In that way (maybe) we will avoid misuse from player who know all triggers and we will not have some stupid house rules like “must enter into Cairo” and so on. To be continued…

In that case my suggestion remains. Maybe diplomacy is too strong as some people say. Problem about charging can be easily solved with pop up window with question – do you wish charge to Germany? If not charge to Italy. Or diplomatic chits should be reduced to 3 per major.

Maybe you are right. Just one question – when Germany and Italy invested all available diplomatic chits into same country does Axis have 30% chance for pressure or 15%?

Hubert, I have one suggestion about diplomacy. A few people said that it is too strong, a few people said that it is too weak, I don’t know but my suggestion is: why don’t you combine diplomatic tables and chits in to one for each side (Axis side and Allied side)? What I am trying to say is this: while Italy is neutral it has its own diplomatic table and 3 chits and Germany its own but when it joined to Germany we should have one Axis diplomatic table and 6 chits and that’s it. No separate tables and chits for Germany and for Italy. I am sorry for my ignorance if current diplomacy works already in similiar way. [ April 26, 2006, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

There is no use to bombing Brest and other nearest ports as it should be because amphibious transports have too big range. As I suggested (Sombra said it too) transport range should be half from original range. Then Sea Lion will be more interesting, more realistic and much harder.

Thanks God. To my opinion US/USSR readiness triggers should be also connected to time line and real historical dates. For instance: USSR readiness should go up rapidly after 22. June 1941 no matter if it is at war or not with Axis. MPP plunder should be connected ONLY to time line and real historical dates. In that way Axis player will have time pressure on his back like Axis has had in real history. This less killed enemy situation is ridiculous.

Good AAR. Thanks. I am not in the game like you (yet) so my questions are: 1.Triggers for US/USSR readiness are always the same? 2.You plunder more MPP if you kill less enemy?

Hellraiser, as well-known SC player what do you think about my suggestions how to solve this issues? My suggestions are: Amphibious transports with half action points and no moving after they land and ADD TERRITORIAL SEA TILES. For DOW to friendly major I didn’t know that this is possible so far. To my opinion this is a BUG. Naval units from neutral major countries should not be enabling to move outside territorial sea tiles OR they can be moved only from friendly ports to ports. OR other units can go thru it or if you want to go exactly in occupied tiles with neutral units this units will move automatically for one or few tiles. I’ll appreciate your opinion. And Blashy, just wanted to say – editor should be for making new scenarios and maps not for correcting some wrong things like this in default scenarions.

And there is one more reason why I have started topic about amphibious transport issue. They should have half action points and this will not be a problem. True, you still can make mentioned DOW and surprise amphibious assaults but if minor are far you unit supply will be at minimum. For instance: sea invasion from Italy to Spain. Do you wish to try in that way?

One, maybe two turn per day. Sorry no time for more. You can choose side and settings. I want only soft build limits. Thanks.

A few people already have mentioned this, I already have mentioned this but after I finished my first game as Allies this amphibious raids require a single post. It looks to me that these raids are becoming a major issue in SC2 like too many air fleets was in SC1. With this rules players can make raids with no danger from enemy air or naval, can make raids practically from any ports on the map and after lending in the same turn they can walk thru half country and attack. I really don’t know why Eisenhower and Hitler wanted clear sky from enemy planes for D-day and Sea Lion, why Hitler admirals have said that the major obstacle for Sea Lion was British navy and so on. Amphibious raids are too much unrealistic! To be more realistic I strongly recommended for future patch this: decrease amphibious transports movement to half, at least. In that way players will make raids from closest ports (All sea invasions in WWII except US attack on north Africa was made from closest ports) and if they want to make invasions from distant ports they must take risk of decreasing supply and taking damage from enemy air and naval. Also when units landed they should not have any more action points. They need a little time for reorganization. This sounds much more realistic to me. Hubert?

I agree. It should be considered much less range for amphibious transport and much more range for normal transports. Also German total research fond should be less. I had in 1942 tanks on level 5, air fleets on level 4, subs on level 3, motorization on max, infantry weapons on level 3 etc. Too unbelievable. [ April 15, 2006, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

-Is it possible to move down a little this city MPP values so it can be visible on the map when unit is in it? I know that you can see it in right bottom corner when you click on city but it will be one click less. It will be very helpful. Also it will be helpful that in production table is highlighted current month. Some people are playing in lower resolution so they must close all tables to see what month is it. -You should add ability to upgrade HQ. At least motorization upgrade. -On that huge map you should have Zone of control for tank groups and in this zone placement of new units should be forbidden. Also units shouldn’t be enable to operate and reinforce in the zone. Actually, reinforce should works at the same principal as upgrade except in towns. -You should decrease total research funding [ April 14, 2006, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

Just finished my first full version game as Axis. It is great game but (there is always some but ) I have lots of questions and few suggestions. Questions: 1. How can I get elite reinforcement? 2. Can I cancel unit production in production screen? 3. Port range for supply naval units? 4. November in Russia and still is a mud? Come on in Russia it’s snowing in October Suggestions: 1. In purchase menu I would like to see when units will be done before buying. 2. On main interface I would like to see weather forecast for next turn 3. I would like to see notice when I reach maximum in some research technology 4. Haven’t seen that Germany gets MPP from neutral USSR like Hubert said?

Hinder supplies for Axis forces in Africa to my opinion is not enough. In WWII history Hitler and Mussolini have had huge problem how to transport supplies for forces already in Africa and NEW FORCES to Africa. So my suggestion is simple: if Allies have air unit in Malta this unit should intercept all transports to Tripoli port. Interception can work the same as it works for enemy air fleets or bombers. Also you can have air escort for transports which will work on same principle like escort works for bombers.

It is a little bit confusing. When you click on HQ units marked green are attached units, blue units that you can attach and with no color units out of range, if I am correct. It will be helpful to see different color for units that you can attach but they are already attached to another HQ.

Ok. Here are my first impressions about the demo. Playing map and units are a little bit colored and confusing but ok, I will adjust, no problem. What I really would like to see is – When I open strategic map I would like with double click on some spot jump back to playing map on that spot (options like Panzer General 2 have if you are remember). It is a one little thing but it will help a lot to my humble opinion. Never the less, game will be great (I have been telling that all the time on this forum). And one question – How can I attack with ships unit in cities? Every time I hit MPP’s instead of units. [ April 05, 2006, 05:22 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

Ok, you are right, this is hard to translate into diplomatic effects and here is new idea – Troops near minor borders should increase or reduce unit’s readiness and strength. In which way readiness and strength will go should be random. For instance – if Germany has troops near Yugoslav border in one game readiness and unit’s strength could go up and this will represent that government in Yugoslavia believe much more Allied propaganda then Axis and because of that they started mobilization. In some other game readiness and unit’s strength can go down which will represent contra situation. This idea has no relation with diplomacy and it is less possible because (probably) require code changing but hey – I am in my creative mood. Actually, similar effect we already have for USSR if I understood correctly.

You are wrong here. Poland and USSR known that Germans gathering troops (maybe they didn’t know exact number) but they didn’t believe that Germany will attack. Even Austria and Czechoslovakia did know about German troops near border before they were annexed. Czechoslovakia started mobilization because of German troops near border.

Absolutely agree. That’s not what I have in mind. Troops near minor borders should increase or reduce join percentage so that major power may possibly invest much less MPP in diplomatic points for joining but joining one side without additional diplomatic pressure should be random and very rear. In that way players can combine military pressure with diplomatic one. To me this sounds very realistic. Gamey? As Santabear have said “The point is--if it's "built into" the game, folks will figure it out and you'll have "gamey" things going on. “ What is gamey is hard to say, for instance – When Axis players attacks Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Ireland just for MPP’s after USA joined Allies? Too unbelievable – too gamey?

Thanks for answer Hubert but why this effect is not in official scenarios? It is very logical and realistic effect. As I remember in SC1 we have similar effect on USSR war readiness with German units on border. No time to do that? Something like that but I think that in WW2 history second solution was much more often.

Does potential enemy major power units near neutral minor country borders have effects on diplomacy stand for that minor country? [ March 09, 2006, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

Good point on both themes. Time period is a big difference between SC/SC2 and 3R/A3R games. But problem with lonely units in the middle of nowhere still remain with existing supply rule. Maybe this rule needs more harshness?