Colin I
-
Posts
839 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Colin I
-
-
Dave/others:
For land units why not give them simply a fixed (better than normal) move (Action Points) for OP move, increased for each level of infrastructure and if they start in or adjacent to a supply source (railhead effect) and/or finish in this environment. They cannot use it to enter enemy held territory and it won't work if enemy unit is adjacent (don't like tactical use of OP move).
This is basically a solution similar to that used in classical wargaming for non-combat/strategic movement - can't see why it won't work here too. It uses the normal game mechanics (normal movement rules with an effect like air units for not entering enemy territory), doesn't it so should program OK.
-
VEED - not sure how well you could tell. If you have incoming air attacks your pilots often have to interecept as best they can - in a messy series of dogfights - they often won't be aware of the final destination. I suppose you could use Radar tech for this but its really rather detailed for a strategic game.
-
Ultra should be factored into intelligence which - as many have said - should have rather different effects than it does now.
-
Capt. Andrews,
As with other threads I'd argue just because Malta wasn't developed as an airbase doesn't mean it couldn't have been - as with other non-historical events don't ban them if they didn't happen, ban them if they couldn't happen.
-
Rambo - I suggest a minimal move of one area should be possible unless completely out of supply. Currently, and its really bad with the Finns and others - units get stuck when they should be slowed.
For specialist games (e.g. the Winter War variant that was posted a while back) you can imagine tech types to suit conditions. These simulate very well advantages certain national groups had. Winter Tech negates winter effects (Soviet Winter, general movement and combat penalties, maybe even air grounding and spotting), jungle tech similarly helps Japanese (and later in war Allied) forces. Its a great way to simulate the early success of the Japanese given their really quite limited assets. But this is too fine detail for SC2.
-
I agree, tech sharing was certainly possible even if it didn't always happen. Also, not allowing it creates some strange game balance issues - the Russians certainly picked on undequipped Axis minors but it goes too far - lots of "saving minors for later" when the majors already have a huge edge.
-
OK - then I won't send the turn. Thanks.
-
I have a possible bug, in a PBEM game vs Jollyguy with the weather in mud I spotted a German paratroop move in France that was completely out of range of anything I had that could possibly see it. I might have been a paradrop or some other redeployment and only appeared briefly in the replay then vanished.
This could have had serious consequences, I already suspected Sealion was coming but this reinforced the view.
Jollyguy suggested send the turn to Hubert with my password. Hubert, what's your email (mine colin.ingham@wur.nl if you don't want to post it publically)?
-
Interested in participtating at a low level by PBEM. I'm Europe and a bit time limited so high volume TCP play not likely.
Vote full scenario.
-
The airstrike thing always bothered me. Apart from what Terif says, I think an airstrike is a particularly poor tool for hunting Partisans who tend to blend in with the civilian population. Half spotting range for aircraft vs Partisans, perhaps?
-
Jersey John,
I agree that Axis were not good at diplomacy (nor in WWI) but feel game already covers this - in the sense that you can choose a strategy, as the Axis did, where you spend almost no MPP on diplomacy. You can also choose to play the diplomatic game as the Axis more strongly. But you can chose to invade Spain - not historical but possible. In other words SC2 is about options that include the historical route but more besides. I can see no reason why, if German leadership was different, a diplomatic route wasn't possible. An in SC2 surely the player is the leader and if he can make different military decisions than Hitler (e.g. retreat in Russia which many players will do) why different political decisions aren't also OK.
Additionally, Axis will always have problems with diplomacy because there are three major nations against two, so ultimately they can always be frustrated.
Dilomacy system does need some tweaking but I'm not sure this (Edwin's ideas) is the right route.
-
I guess it depends what else you have going but I've done Barbarossa on that too. Its true you'll need a compesating advantage, numbers, economy, air, whatever but for me automatic IW3 or don't bother kills the interest in the game.
-
High quality troops cost more. If you ignore discounts (production technologies, rebuys) then most things that increase troop quality (strength, unit type, technology, elite reinforcements) then you could demand both a minimum number of units AND a minimum investment.
-
Arado - the Italian campaign against Greece was a disaster, I don't think this is so unfair in the context of a general build up by Italy.
-
I agree with Liam/Edwin too - wish some other aspects of the game (eg diplomacy as Edwin mentioned, which I think is more variable than technology as its more likely to be affected by a single friendship or personality clash) or minor set up was more unpredictable.
I note that Terif has never lost despite large fluctuations in tech/diplomacy luck so there seems to be an option in any situation.
-
Anyone know if Axis DOW of sweden affects Spain?
-
Possibly to add that if SC2 Axis strategy isn't responsive to Allied strategy then it isn't a good game - and I think it is. A good game reflects the dynamic between the opponents.
Much of the game is based around the "turning point" when (or if) the initiative shifts from Axis to Allied. Where will this happen? Does it happen through a tech or industrial or military advantage? Does it happen in local theatres or more globally? This is a critical part of WWII and found in other games - Third Riech had the possibility of a double move for Allies for example which could really change things.
I think I would like the game better, though, if in the early stages the Allies had a bit more scope to try stuff without it being suicidal, and in the later stages of the war the Axis had more potential - without wanting to break the overall dynamic of the turning point.
To some extent I don't like tile-specific placement of units and knowledge of the scripts to be critical but more the overally strategic thinking. This bears most on the above discussion and whether there is a perfect Axis template - I'm very happy Terif thinks not.
Of course I could just be bitter my Swedish gambit just went wrong against Jollyguy
-
Would like to see it - WWI wasn't all static and might have gone differently. Think Tech is critical, would suggest:
Trench Warfare - Increases entrenchment potential and includes the defensive doctrines that made the Western frnt Hell.
Offensive Doctrine - covers Tanks, artillery and other means of breaking trench warfare. By end of war offensives were becoming more effective again.
Dreadnaughts
Air Warfare - mostly increases spotting range of land units rather than separate air units.
U-boats
Artillery
Think it could work. Guess units now include Cavalry Corps, maybe a bit more differentiation of infantry types.
Needs a good diplomacy model.
-
Sid Meyer's Waterloo was excellent. it had some real time aspects that made it hard to play the full battle but the smaller scenarios were great. It was intesnely satisfying if you could set up a heavy cavalry charge into the rear of another unit, there were all sort of shockwave effects so if you did it right the confusion and panic caused was widespread. And conversely depressing if the enemy made it into a square. Deaspite the real time aspects I think this was a real wargame that taught be a lot about the battle.
-
A modest proposition:
Motorization gives you move movement - fine. But it needs petrol. Yet, out of supply motorized units move faster than out of supply foot units.
Definately wrong - the more motorized a unit is the more vulnerable to low supply. If anything they are slower - what are you going to do, get out and push your tank?
This is easily fixable. Right now motorization is very useful in some difficult terrain types and at low supply.
Maybe reduce cost/level to implement?
-
Good idea - I often want to swap ships between ports too.
-
PS: Anyone managed to really support France as the UK in H vs H play? I've considered trying it, in one game UK got IW2 very fast and I considered a major deployment in France, HQ and all, but wussed out. There have been a few games where the French alone held out quite well, always wondered what 2 UK corps, 2 armies, HQ and air would have done in that situation. Probably not won, but I bet the Germans would have been knackered too.
-
I like taking Norway too. Additional to the above, its reasonably easy to reinforce UK or Norway from the other location. Compare this to a Middle East/Iraq strategy which has its virtues but try getting back to London in time to stop Sealion. I do like proactive UK in the early stages, as others have pointed out Germany is usually too distracted with France/Poland to intervene.
It is irritating to garrison, the Norwegians partisans don't take the intervention lying down.......
-
Think for Italy and Romania we can consider these as surrender results; there was some limited conflict with German or German allies after the switch but it wasn't very significant on the scale of SC2.
With Italy I still press for alternative surrender conditions - perhaps based on number Allied units in Italy and other progress rather than just the fall of Rome. Kind of think Italy should have a larger armed forces, more MPP but lower morale and be rather prone to throwing the towel in. Italy always seems to do better in SC2 than historically; usually I get a few levels of gun laying radar and the fleet is genuinely dangerous - rather than scared rigid of the British.
Your idea is tough on game balance, SC2 really is 2 majors vs 3 or 4 (depending how you think of France) with the Axis bulked up with a lot of minors and some initiative and leadership advantages.
Rise of The Roman Empire (teaser and 56K warning)
in Strategic Command 2 Scenario and Mods Forum
Posted
I would suggest an infrastructure tech (roman roads and communications) and a (very limited and only with good infrastructure) operational move. Romans did use their internal communications very well to deploy - depends on your time scale how good this would be.