John DiFool the 2nd
-
Posts
808 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by John DiFool the 2nd
-
-
I have hoped for a long time that we could get the ability to have large multiplayer games where you could have 4 to 5 human players playing. This would really add some of the true feeling of the war in the affect if the mutual allies can work for a common goal or self interests.
That's already possible, via a workaround involving loading PBEM files in regular multiplayer mode. I don't think anyone has tried it yet however.
-
You're welcome, by the way (Hubert basically used an original idea of mine from years ago).
So yeah, toot toot.
-
"Fatal error - attempt to access unpublished file by non-admin user"
Wha?
-
It is possible to swap between players in PBEM by using a sort of workaround. When the Axis side (for ex.) finishes its turn and sends it to the Allies, the first Allied player loads it as a hotseat game, and once he is done he can save it (in hotseat) and send it to one of his Allies, who does the same. The last player for the Allies then loads it as a PBEM game; once he is ready to wrap the turn, he hits the end turn button, it is saved as PBEM, and he can send it back to the Axis. I believe the original passwords are still locked into the code, even if you have saved it as hotseat. I got this to work when I tested it (2 or so iterations ago), so anybody can confirm that it still works with the WWI engine if they wish. I've always wanted to do a 6-8 player mega-game using one of the monster WWII campaigns.
Edit: found the old thread: note the exact instructions given (since you need to be aware of what folder it is in apparently).
-
Of course the tradeoff is that manuever during naval battles becomes...strange. Ships will "pop out of warp" and suddenly appear in the middle of a scrum, and you get none of the cat and mouse aspect of a real naval battle. Increasing the number of turns (and thus making naval movement more to scale) would probably be a good idea-I've already mentioned elsewhere that your speed of advance in Russia is ultimately limited by how quickly you can build up your supply levels, which is always going to be +1/turn no matter how many action points you give your units. My advances into Russia in the WWI engine have always gone slower than historical for this reason. That makes for 2 good reasons to increase the number of turns per year.
-
There was something to be said for some of the wild-ass research results that used to occur. For every disappointment there was some other surprise. I still vividly recall one SC1 game where the German AI invaded Russia in 1941 with L5 tanks. :eek:
That just proves the point-in that game the Axis will win easily.
Setbacks are most often due to "political meddling" and/or outright sabotage or deiberate dissemination of misinformation. The latter is already accounted for with your opportunity to invest in "intel." In a typical game I will mostly insure that I have at least 2, or sometimes even more research achievements in intelligence. The former is more in the "what if" category and hardly deserves much attention.In that new U-boat wargame Steel Wolves, the main determinator of research progress isn't from the efforts of your dispassionate scientists in their ivory towers, but instead is mainly driven by political factors (read: you rarely get what you want). FWIW. I do agree (and have argued in the past) that the historical record shows that the various powers tended to get the advances they wanted once they truly committed to them, tho in some cases it took too long (c.f. the XXI U-boats which in SC terms represented a jump of 4 tech levels).
The problem with the "breakthrough" subroutine is that it means you're going to get advances at a quicker pace overall, unless this has been compensated by lowered average gains per turn (I'm not sure it has). In the games I've run my side invariably has maxed out several categories by 1944. I'd scratch those sudden jumps of 75 points and make them more like triple/quadruple the base chance (5% base means a 15%-20% gain), which still means you'll get it 2-4 turns quicker.
-
Both Nupremal and Big Al have been silent lately on porting their magnum opuses to WWI-damned shame given the extra major country slots and new tech rules.
-
Yeah, I'd dump all army-sized units and go with all-corps.
-
Curious too-seems like a lot of the new features would be manna from heaven for a global mod.
-
I've played 'til Sept. '42 in my current game against the AI-one thing which was immediately noticeable soon after I invaded Russia was that, yes, your units can move a fair distance, and yes you get lots of MPPs as Germany (haven't nearly come close to buying everything out yet tho), but your time is much more limited to make substantial gains on anything approximating the historical timeline. There are like 3x as many towns, each of which requires a fairly substantial force to take. As a result I am way behind the German historical advance, only just now knocking on the door of Moscow and Leningrad, with Stalingrad a fair distance away still. I guess you can bypass some minor towns, leaving a minor unit behind to guard it, but many you need to maintain your supply push as they are crucial rail junctions. I think the time scale needs to be tweaked upwards significantly, giving you more turns (at reduced unit movement).
-
You guys using the new tech system, or the old one? I ask because this campaign started several weeks before the official release of the WW2 campaign, and perhaps Hubert hadn't put it in yet?
-
I just want to say that I am tickled pink that Hubert finally implemented my idea-it isn't exactly the same as what I came up with, and in fact owes more than a little to the diplomacy engine (which has operated on similar principles since the 1st SC2 game came out), but just want to express my thanks to him. <toast>
-
I've started playing my first PBEM game and have noticed something a little weird..
It's turn 3, all is dark and quiet, and I'm yet to spot the enemy.
It's the replay phase...
Suddenly my attention is drawn to my opponents zone by the sound of breaking wood. Lo and behold - I can see fences disappearing! This gives me a pretty good idea that my opponent has armour and also in which direction he is moving them.
It's a bit like watching an invisible man movie and seeing disembodied footprints appear in the snow.
The above reminded me of this old Jonny Quest ep., which scared the holy bejeezus out of me when I was a kid (hint for cartoon and movie makers: NEVER show what the monster looks like in such a case!):
The Invisible Monster
-
Some areas are more variable and uncertain-radar for example, as compared to heavy tanks say.
-
For the newer members this is a long-standing issue going back many years-Hubert is aware of it, but wholesale changes may not be possible in this engine.
-
Hmm not converting this to WWI, Nup?
-
I agree 100%. Although I love the game, losing Italy and France as major powers was a terrible choice in my opinion. France and italy should have there own research etc. I think I remember reading it was "limited by the game engine". Too bad the game engine wasn't tweaked.
It was-it's now called "SC: WWI".
-
This issue has been discussed time and time again. Here is my contribution:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91656&highlight=research
And mine: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=65151&highlight=tech It's been 5 years since I wrote that?
Hubert is well aware of the limitations; I was hoping it would make it into WWI, but apparently whole sections of code other than the tech module would have to be severely revamped, which is why we still have the original SC2 one (WAG).
-
Long term issue and suggestion that's been talked to death here. The designer has stuck to his gun on this, for good or bad.
-
As for Subs not being scary for cruisers and battle ships I really dont think they should be that scared.
Almost all Main battleships and cruisers was supported with destroyers flottillas.
And how often did sub sink Heavy war ships during WW 1 and WW2.
Sure it happened but then most of the time with a lucky strike at ammo depot or similiar or against a already crippled war ship near dead in the water.
If you look at the subs statstic of the war you should see there main
job was to attack convoys not other war ships something they tried to avoid fighting.
I honestly don't know where this meme came from that subs didn't sink all that many capital ships and that they tried to avoid them. Any sub captain worth his salt is going to salivate at the prospect of sinking a fleet CV or a battlewagon; just off the top of my head I have
Royal Oak
Ark Royal
Barham
Wasp
Taiho
Shokaku
Shinano
on my list of capital ships sunk primarily by subs.
The lack of sinkings in WWI almost certainly has to do with most dreadnoughts staying in port for most of the war as part of a fleet in being, and only rarely venturing out, while in WWII where most units had to sail long distances to their battlegrounds there were plenty more opportunities (esp. in the Pacific).
-
For some unknown reason he hasn't logged into the boards since 12-31.
-
If you mean that they operate planes right into an empty city to "defend" it, then yeah. I think you should have threeoptions to move air units around: they can rebase as they do now by flying from one location to another, they can be moved via rail to another directly connected location (like ground units are), or by putting them on an transport and shipping them to their destination if there's no direct connection. The "beam me over Scotty" thing has never made any sense to me.
-
No frickin' clue either.
-
I've never liked how Motorization has worked in this game series. Only the US and Great Britain were able to fully motorize/mechanize their ground forces-because the US had a huge industrial base allowing zillions of vehicles to be built. There's no way that Germany, Italy, or the USSR could have come anywhere close to pulling that off. But give the Germans a couple of points in it, and the timing of the Barbarossa campaign is distorted in their favor, when in reality it took awhile for the ground pounders to catch up to the tanks.
4 Players Version (Sugestion)
in Strategic Command - GLOBAL CONFLICT
Posted
You can already do that, if you don't mind swapping files around from one player to another. Long story short, the last player for a given side saves the game as a PBEM game, sends it to an opposing player who then loads it as a regular multiplayer game, runs his countries and saves it and sends it to his next ally. Last player again saves it as PBEM and sends it back to the opposition. I believe it will even remember the passwords during all that.