SMG42
-
Posts
60 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by SMG42
-
-
I'm interested by any scenarios that increase the OOB, map or realism. Can you post a link to your scen Honch?
I really long to a bigger campaign '39 scenario. What is the maximum map size? I tried in the editor and it seems you can make a europe map with at least 4x the surface of the standard one, and this is great!
-
I believe the subs can be spotted as any other naval units. If so, I would propose the contrary
-
... is that its based on the current strength of the unit (less than 10 = no recovery possible, less than 8 = degradation even at supply 10 level). This means that units at half strength can't recuperate and even degrade in morale and readiness.
The problem is that some units at 5 strength does not represents battered units, but smaller one. Like the australian corps or the Western Air Force. If you leave them like that, you will soon see that they become unusable.
Anyway, even for units who took some losses, I find the rule rather hard. You basically have two choices: leave the unit as it is, and it is worthless within a few turns, or put it back to 10 strengths.
To each his own opinion anyway... But for mine, it was not needed to make the things worse for weaker units. They are sufficiently weakened by the fact that they attack and defense less.
-
something at the corps level can be attempted, just take World in Flames counters for example. You still have far more units than in vanilla SC2, but its not totally monstrous...
-
1. email game yes.
-
do the industrial tech give benefits to the MPP received by events? (Industrial tech for the englis, is it worth it? If only the base is used, I say no)
-
1. my human opponent dropped the German FS on Paris, occupied by the French HQ. He got moved to an adjacent tile, gaining 1 strength point in the process, instead of loosing one (bug)
2. What to do with the Canadian bomber in St John? They can't be moved, operated or put into crates (transported by sea) to England, so whats gives? Are they stuck for the whole war in the area? (question)
-
Blashy, not everything is fine and ok in the world you know?Originally posted by Blashy:1- Aussy, NZ, India, SA units are basically UK units so they share tech.
2- Canada does not need to share tech, their contribution in the scale that is SC2 is good enough. And I'm proud of my Canadian heritage in WW1/2.
3- IMHO, it all works out just fine.
Ok my point... why would I build Canadian units with my UK MPP in SC2? I would not, as they don't have techs.
Now if you look at the units that the Canadians send in WW2 (armored divisions for example), then I would say that, for now, SC2 is not totally modelling the reality. Despite being an excellent game that is...
-
interesting, how would you prevent amphibs from unloading mister the British?
They have a darn good range if I recall well.No, I think you would really need to have this ZOC rule if you want me to not land on your soil. Now perhaps I'm boasting, who knows, this war was also about propaganda!
-
Canada don't share UK/US tech? They should if not...
-
how do you spot that the memory is not freed by the card? Can be of interest to me, I have a user, err friend who tells me that a particular game use 800 mb of memory where everybody else has the normal usage of 300.
but I'm perhaps hacking the thread...
-
pathfinding issues perhaps?
-
why tiles over hexes by the way? Was it easier to make a map, from a graphical point of view (and I can understand that!), or do they have advantages I don't see? I have one gripe against them: you can move faster diagonally.
-
oh speaking of 88' (well I will speak of field artillery in fact...), I would really like to have arties units in the campaigns, not just the scenarios.
I know its ahistorical on the other hand (corps sized artilleries units, oh my!) but this would be terribly fun. I always liked World at war artilleries and anti air units , not because it make sense, but because it added new strategies.
@Blashy: I can understand your point about the inability of a combat surface unit to spot transports in an adjacent hex (oops, tile!) but I think it would be better from a gameplay point of view, just to enforce a bit more the fact that the German really need to sunk - at least partially - the RN to conduct Sealion.
-
ok, now a trickier one... How about sharing the technology between USA and UK. Don't tell me it would be unrealistic
-
a coherent game need these numbers Rambo. Its the distance from the supply source toward the unit which count, not the reverse. So in the example given by Fantomas, one army is 3 MP from the city, the other is only 2 MP... This lead to 10-3 = 7 supplies for one, and 10-2 = 8 for the other.
Not a math class, just simple arithmetic.
-
I would dare say that no amphibious landing can be made if you are adjacent to an enemy naval unit (a combat one, not a transport) to start with.
As to the rest, it seems an amphibious tech is in the air, but it has to be confirmed. I would like it
-
Each minor country has his own pool of units, national flag and such, which is a very good thing that I really like (and give flavors to the game).
A question though, they don't seems to benefits from the tech of their big brother, is it the truth? This is rather realistic for some minors (well most!) like Romanians and Bulgarian armies, but perhaps some exceptions can be made? Hungarians and Finnish received some equipments from Germany for example, and anyway you have to pay for upgrades, so its not like its really a free gift to the minor
Just wanted your opinion on that, I can live without the option.
-
the combat matrix can be a problem on the other hand, no? Or this can be edited too?
-
The amphi mechanism is definitively not fine: unrealistic, whats more the AI is not able to counter in anyway Sealion as the Brits. This is problematic, as 90%+ of the players will always play solo.Originally posted by Blashy:How amphibious functions is fine, it has never been an issue, any "exploit" is not an exploit but a simple strategy that your opponent can adapt too.
Play the game for a week, then play a pbem vs. myself with you as Axis, and PLEASE go for the Sealion
. Don't use the fact that in pbem this is less feasible. People don't want to hears that the AI is bad but that the problem doesn't exists in multiplayer. They want to hear that (given some patches) the amphi mechanism will be more realistic (how dare you say that 6 german armies landing in 1940 is historical?) and that the AI will be improved to deal with Sealion.
[ April 09, 2006, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: SMG42 ]
-
from a pure historical standpoint, I find too easy to set an amphib invasion, with nations who had not this capacity. If you read some texts or books on sealion, you understand that even with the RN sunk and the sky cleared of the RAF, the German could only have pulled a landing by fair weather, with only mild opposition on the beach. Just remember that it tooks much trial and efforts from the allies (and many men killed) to understand an manage the complex logistic of a big scale sea invasion.
Now SC2 is before all a game, so one can just reply to me that my argument is irrevelant. Still something like a tech level in amphibious invasion could alleviate the problem. Not something costly, just a 50 MPP/level, with level 1 for all major powers, would be sufficient to prevent 6 german armies landing in the same turn. The effect of the tech level could be (for example) that you can have 2x tech level amphibs at a given time.
-
What's wrong with GGWAW graphics?
I'm not searching to corner you, I just want to hear your opinion, this is of interest to me, for various reasons.
HOI is the perfect example of "More can means less". More units, less pleasure. More micromanagement, less pleasure, and such...
-
Perhaps, but 90% of the silent crowd of players will only play a game solo.
And this would be a pity if Hubert gave up on AI improvement, possibilities exists.
-
Being one of the lucky fews which have the full game (press privilege, but I'm not from the wargamer), I must say that SC2 is a darn addictive game, with a lot more of options compared to SC1. I can also say that I never experimented a CTD, which speak about the game excellent stability. Just reinstall your HOI or HOI2 copy (1.00), and all the sudden you put things in perspective.
There is some minor annoying things, but frankly for a 1.00 game I'm impressed. The graphics are perhaps not top notch (the map, as the 3D icons are nice), but frankly I don't care at all. How many strategic games on WW2 do we have out?
HoI2: a monster with a bad AI
WaW: a good one, but 3 months a turn and 3 regions for Germany is a bit too high a level for me.
WitP: A monstrous monster game, where you need several months to finish a game.
Ok, what's next? SC2. Perhaps not the game that will "end all games" on WW2, but as of now, this is my prefered.
[ April 06, 2006, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: SMG42 ]
Playing Russian Roulette
in Strategic Command 2 Blitzkrieg and Weapons and Warfare
Posted
I'm in a PBEM with my opponent being German.
Its early 41, and so far my investments in infantry and AT techs never gave anything. I feel I will loose the war just because of that.
My point is: too much randomness is such criticals areas is not desirable, unless you think SC2 should play like Risk or Axis&Allies that is (boardgames with a loose relationship with history).
I would suggest this:
Guaranteed gain of a certain tech level, for a given country, at a given time, if at least one tech chit has been invested in the tech area (and the chit is expended).
For Russia, as an example, I suggest a script that would give Infantry tech level 1 in July 1941. Russian player would need to have invested the chit, and the chit is expended, so no gamey technique. This would trigger only if at 0.
Some others scripts could be set like this one, just to ensure a minimum historicity and game balance. See that as safeguards against stroke of bad luck, that don't imbalance anything anyway. (and can prevent the total screwing of a game).