Sapare
-
Posts
213 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Sapare
-
-
I know this is work to do and it doesnt HAVE to be done, but considering the general supportivness of the makers I wanted to see if I could ask if this could be done.
Porting the campaigns from the base game over to the expansion to update them on the new rules.(Many if the minor ones might not work too well with this, but at least Tripple Alliance should be simple as the work was already done in Call to Arms. Fate of Nations should be easy too? Storm over Europe would be nice too)
-
I do not at all work for the guys who made the game, but let me answer most o those questions.
1. Those are indeed the latest versions of the game.
2. They are not really so much intergrated as Breakthrough being its own game(much alike the original, but with some gameplay additions and rule changes) which uses some of the data from the original WW1 game.(Well, I admitetly don't know exactly how they build it up, but they both really function as standalone games, which is why their own executables)
3. The only campaign which is present in both games(unless I am mistaking) is Call to arms. Which is the basic "grand" campaign for SC1 WW1 and only really updated rule whise for Breakthrough.(if there are any mayor changes to it, I didn't notice them) There are still overall 22 campaigns(notice that there is a 2nd page of campaign to choose from), though admitetly some are smaller versions(and terribly balanced)(France's Struggle, Russia's War) of the grand campaign. That would lower it to 19 if you wish to argue that way, really up to everyone themself if they consider it a ripoff.
4. In normal SC1 the big campaigns name font is slightly brighter in color, kinda difficult to see to be honest, but in Breakthrough the smaller ones tend to be gray rather than in the bright white fon, much easier to see.(though there are only two "really" big ones in Breakthrough, Call to Arms and Russian Civil War. The other ones are more middleground campaigns.
And in SC1 WW1 the big campaigns are Call to Arms and Storm over Europe. Tripple Alliance can be some fun if you are getting too good agaist the AI.(It is Call to Arms with a little Alternate history)
-
The reds lost this game 10 times over already... but don't tell anyone, they'll lynch me, ;p
-
There is a turnbased Starcraft (a board game):
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/22827/starcraft-the-board-game
Look at the gallery. Some units look awsome
.I am impressed, I bow to thy my lord... for your knowledge of the abstract outshines me by a tenfold.
Also, we could make this topic into a game of "Sc3 is the game where...."
(got the idea from the guy who did the hexes post)
Sc3 is the game where the Ottoman empire wins a war...(Hey hey, no racism, Ottoman isnt a race..)
-
Personally I think one should maybe consider adding some sort of system which mentions if the script selection was altered from what is the basic norm for every campaign. There are so many scripts and I never cared to learn which ones should be on or off, so I wouldnt even know what to check for if someone altered them.
-
I personally think that just making them Entente nations works well enough. I had assumed they became inependents for balance rather than historical(I just assume that considering the state of everything they wouldnt put up a fight against Entente movments) reasons.
And as for balance, I doubt it really disbalances anything, currently the reward for breaking the Austria seems rather slim. Currently it just causes Germany to lose a mostly defensive ally and let him be replaced by minors which for at least 4 or 5 turns can do the same thing, stall the enemy.
While I am at it, unrelated but not worth a new topic. I just had a game where Austria surrendered(capital loss surrender, not falling apart) and Bulgeria withdrew from the war. I found that a rather neat touch. But on re-entry(invading them) their units seemed to have been reset to what they started the war with, not what they ended it with.(Such a minor thing that I dont consider it even need fixing, but just wanted to inqurie if that is indeed so?)
-
I feel the way they spawn should be reconsidered at any rate, but overall this topic is a bug report.
When those nations get attacked by any nation they spawn with units which seem to be locked to their WW2 counterparts. Due to that they are impossible to upgrade(I can also see such units as paratroopers in their arsenal of buildable units.(but all avaible units are set to 0, so you cant really build them)
I also feel that there maybe should be some form of events that fire when either CP or Entente invade one of these nations to make the other ones swing against the attacker.(fearing to be forced back into the Austria allience, or fearing to be taken over by Russia)
Lastly, much like how it was with Ottoman and not having an option to continue the war, I find it rather silly that these nations can make themself independent and just kick out a 10 corps russian army without Russia ever being given the option to ignore their independence and continue the war.
-
I've been thinking some more about this one today, and it would make sense for balance in a multiplayer game to disable the scripts whereby the USA gets annoyed with the British for imposing the blockade on Germany.
Although this wouldn't be historical, I think this would be fair as that way the UK will get more aid from the USA even if the latter doesn't enter the war, and those extra MPPs can be used to assist either France or Russia in their struggles.
For AI games, keep the scripts in there as that way the Entente get a tough and challenging fight!
Maybe also consider an decision script for brittian/France to pay money to help mobelize US army and make them join quicker.(just an idea.)
-
The scripts still lead to a relatively slow entry of USA(even more so if Entente does blockade. With recent editsto blockade rules USA might not join at all?)
This scenario was played in the tournament and my opponent agreed that it heavily favored the CP. I consider it more a "surrive as long as you can" scenario for the entente. I wouldnt personally want to see it changed, but it cetainly isnt balanced.(maybe have Ottoman join Entente if Itally joins CP.(Idk how historic it is, but Ittally just recently stole Ottoman colony, right?)
-
Stratigic Command 3?(Or Starcraft 3, but I assume we are not talking bout that... though it would be fun to see peoples face's when suddenly Starcraft turned into turnbased strat)
-
Nobody thinks this is a problem? There is a reason this game doesnt spawn fleets till the nation enters the war, so the fleet should also be removed once it leaves the war.
-
Honestly? I knew of this "glitch" but I assumed no one would ever abuse it, guess I was wrong.
So, after the Ottoman empire withdraws from the war the CP player can use them to scout, this HAS to be adressed as it is the most irksome(and cheap) thing I have ever seen. My opponent used it to scout out my Destroyers and Battleships, then get in his level 4 subs to sink the my ships.
Personally I would have assumed the brits would convescate the Ottoman ships and use them as their own for the lengh of the war, but at very least make them stuck in the little Ottoman sea they got.(while at it, after Ottoman withdraw from war Entente should have free reign to move through to the Russian Sea.(idk the names, but you know what I am refering to) It is stupid as heck to have CP players hide the Austrian fleet in ther to be untouchable(unless that is some historic acurate thing, which I doubt)
-
Not gamey in my opinion, and as an afterthought every game I have played of CtoA where the German player goes hard at France in 1914 has resulted in ultimate German defeat. Food for thought. All opponents of a decent level of course, and not beginners (myself included. :-) )
I would almost agree. Nearly all cases of France first does not work well. But I am playing a match against the guy who got 2nd place in tournament atm(I want my self respect back!) and we are now in 1917 and I did a (terribly wasteful) full on german offensive against France. I probably got somewhat lucky but considering how wastefull it was I could also have done it better. Point is, I captured all the way up to 1 field away from french arms factory in the first year of war and now in 1917 it really shows the difference on French strengh, their income and moral drained while the German moral is spiking on french territory.
Point is, even against good players it isnt always a certain defeat, it is just a very daring thing with little chance to save yourself if it goes badly.
-
... but in the recent tournament I was beaten as Entente by a player who set about wiping out my Royal Navy and in the process effectively destroyed the UK as a combatant. German NM soared to a massive 130 as the population celebrated the ending of the blockade and the sinking of the Entente fleet almost to its last ship. A totally different strategy - and all done while initially Entente land forces were comfortable. I admired the courage of such a strategy and cursed myself for lacking the flexibility in my planning to deal with it. Wonderful stuff.
I wonder who that was, ;p But it only works once it seems, I lost more games to trying that then won.
But on seriousness, great speach and I agree with it pretty much compleetly.(though i have captured Petersburg before, back then it didnt even cause NM damage to Russia(idk if it was changed, it did cause NM rise for Germans, which was interesting)
Though I have seen a Germany win AFTER Ottoman, Bulgeria and Austria surrendered/withdrew. Which is why I am saying this game is a set victory for CP, unless CP decides to do something really stupid.(like lose Ottoman Capital city) Admitetly, I would like to know how much moral damage each does. 20% for each mayor and 10% for Bulgeria?(Also, I don't know the historyic factor, though I do know Bulgeria was beaten and it caused a mayor colaps in the frontlines, but the 10% moral when Bulgaria is totally irrelevant seems a bit harsh when considering that Eentente can lose any minor nation they want and lose nothing)
-
Not to burst the buble of this rather interseting game, but I must say that for whoever played many Call to Arms games before it is really easy to see that Germany has won this match without question.(Even if the Ottoman surrender this very turn it would do little at this point, their withdraw from the war is really just a setup to make Austria fall apart, and it is obviou that will never happen. And the Ottomans actully hold on for quite a long time because all those towns you capture are worth 0 NM(only the events do hits)) Still, abukede, keep fighting and go down with pride!
-
I still think the system works well. And you guys do know that fleet battles represented here are not single shots, each turn is like half a month to a month. I feel it is fair for a ship to do 4 damage on another ship.(I have never seen instant distruction of a 10 hp battleship.)
-
For a mayor victory I might agree to the 0% thing(but really, it is just kinda problematic because germany is supposed to be attacking. Anyone could abuse the victory conditions by just playing on a stalmate/defensively the moment they see that their german offenses kinda failed.)
I would say at least a minor victory for not losing verdun and that 1 fortress. It is already nearly impossible to do.(It just isnt a stalmate if the attacker failed to capture his target....)
Also, to the Balkan thing. Ottomanis OP? I might have to replay with Ottoman but I got minor victory against AI as Ottoman on try 1, and then I got mayor victory by Ottoman moral reaching 0(I was infront of Constantinople with all nations troops combined) on try 1 with balkans.
-
About the Verdun thing, am I the only one who finds it weird/stupid that the victory condition for french is to have German moral drop to 0%?
I played against the AI and unless I played it wrong(which I might, I am admitetly worst at devensive gameplay) the french are way weaker.(they have less corps, their guns are better and I believe their shell production is a level higher(or at least felt that way)
I did manage to have time run out with all of Verdun and Douamont in my possesion, but break german moral?
-
Naval combat is compleetly different from land combat in this game. Your ships are probably getting destroyed because they are being "ambushed" if you drive into a ship you were not able to see you take about 2x damage.(I dont know the numbers, but I think that is a fair guess)
I do agree that it never is worth to build a battleship, but keep in mind that you opponent has to place the same ammount of MPP points into the ships. It is very expansive to keep your navy runing but given the chance investing jus enough can change the tide of a battle.
Point is, battle ships die quickly, but both players have to deal with it.(they are like glass cannons, and last I checked there were a number of hisoric cases of gian battleships dying by a hit.
-
I do agree that the armored trains are really really difficult to kill. I am not sure if they are meant to be.(there stats are officaly 1/1) I played as whites against AI and even with an armored train cut off and at 0 supply I could only do 1 damage with 7 supply, charge boon, leveled up once horse units.(10 strengh) The only way I was ever able to efficently kill one was by cutting it off, surrounding it with armies and shooting at it with heavy guns/attacking two turns in a row.(if they are in 0 supply you can o 1 damage per well strenghed/supplied army, but against a normal unit this would be like 6 or 7 damage.
-
I am sure whoever wins doesnt want to play me and offer his just newly won copy of Breakthrough as a price? (I yest ofcourse(though I wouldnt say no), I will buy Breakthrough probably the moment I can. That idea just seemed funny to me atm)
Also, thankyou Komandant, I know you being harsh on yourself for not everything having gone quite as planned, but while the last tournament game irksome the ones before it(and even that one ) were the most intense games I ever played. It might just be my competetive spirit(as even in non tournament games I feel drawn to competition) but when I was invested I was drawn to do every turn the moment I had free moment, and till the end held my breath to see each moves result. Point being, it was an exhilarating experience.
So yea, don't be so down, in the end you made at very least one(and I am sure more) person happy.
-
The Basra problem was highlighted in bug reports on the beta forum a good while ago. I thought it had been listed for solving already.
I do not agree that Basra is a minor problem. If it doesnt fire then the British are denied the opportunity of an overload on the number of arty units (and that can by very significant indeed...), and the mpps over a couple of years from the oil must be quantitively significant. In addition it allows at least 1 otto HQ and up to 3 or 4 units to deploy elsewhere, something they cant do if they are concerned with the fall of Baghdad.
So it is a bug that needs fixing.
On the subject of Italy an invasion seems very valid to me, but wise? Not sure... does it dilute the CP attack on Serbia and Russia at a time when the CP needs every unit it can muster to make sure it gets ahead? I look foward to play testing the idea or maybe have my opponent try it...
Finally I suspect there are players out there who would replay the first turn several times in the expectation of getting that 10% diplo hit. 10% is actually a fairly high probability for a factor that certainly helps the ottomans substantially. The only way to guarantee that people wouldnt even contemplate it in big matches is to ensure that the Basra bug is fixed. That way there is no incentive worth the trouble to spend 90mins at a computer to guarantee that hit.
Good man, glad to see we agree on things, and that someone agrees on the Basra thing in general. (and Thankyou Bill, the fixes should do the job and solve the problems I had with Ottoman entry)
-
Those changes sound a lot better to me already. Though I personally still think that for the record, MAYOR % chance events should probably be kept out of the first turn.(fighting calculations and such can't be helped, but diplo and such) I just feel like it might be abused(without really being "cheating") by running the scenario over and over again.
Admitetly, I am a bit unsure about the validity of this point. Mostly because it is a bit useless to fix, you can fix the easy abuse but we all know about a very easy way to get around it.(doing the 2nd turn over and over again till you get a diplo hit..)
I just wanted to bring the whole first turn/% stuff thing up, do what you wish with the info.
Edit: I want to play whoever wins this game between you two, AND I want to play you again Dragon. Reply to my email if you interested.
-
I am sorry to say it so harshly, but if you guys consider Basra a minor point of the war you don't know how to play Basra correctly. The point of Basra is not a 10% impact and 15 mpp loss, the p
In a game this big with this many playing factors there is not 1 winning factor, as such to say that something is not important because you did not consider it to be the swinging point of the war is silly.
And yes, I have lost games with my Entente before(though, rarley, but I was playing on my low) and Italy was the swinging factor of my game, but I do recall your Ottoman had about 20 to 30% moral left and I had maybe 8 UK units(with hq and all) at the Suez front which SHOULD have been devided into a 4 and 4 army with Basra and your Ottomans were weak.
Would it have won the war or anything? PROBABLY not, but that shouldnt mean the Basra thing should be ignored, because it could have.
My point is, fix the Basra thing, AND change the diplomacy so there can't be first turn diplo hit. (I think the whole Ottoman early entry should be taken out, I like a small factor of luck.. but this is mayor impact, at least with Basra. We are talking 10% moral, 15 mpp(that is nearly a mine) and 12 or so moral points for britian every turn.)
If there isnt first turn diplo hit the game can't be "tricked" by constant repeating first turn.(I know you said it would be too tediouce to do. But honestly? I did the first CP turn a number of times, not for some diplo hit(because I would have to END the turn for that, which goes a bit far) but to have some luck on the first west front move. Though I only did it for that game) You can call that cheap if you want to, I considered it fair game as honestly, I could have been doing practice runs to see which works best. Point is, people are not beyond doing the tedious and as such you shouldnt go about thinking something wont be abused because it is tedious.
.
Upgrading minor nation units before joining the war
in Strategic Command - World War 1: The Great War 1914-1918
Posted
I can't really say if this is a good or bad idea because I can make up an argument for either direction, but I assume it doesnt hurt to discuss it.
Having the ability to upgrade a minor nations units before they join the war on either side?(Might be difficult, or impossible to do. In which case I guess this is a discussion for SC3)
I am asking because I have seen(and done) it often to invade Romania sometime shortly before they join Russia so I could instant rush into contact turn 1 and have their units all locked down at level 1.
To some extent I get the idea of surprise attack and catching a nation when their forces are not yet prepared, but considering they were debating entering the war for half a year and had a giant army of Germans massing at their border I kinda feel that is a funny argument.
This also comes in(Even more so) with small nations such as Netherlands, it is very easy to steamroll them in 1 or 2 turns once your troops are leveled up twice.