Kuniworth Posted March 19, 2012 Share Posted March 19, 2012 Anything new? Hello??? Give us something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Work has officially begun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesopo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Kewl!!!! Great news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Work has officially begun Excelent news! Maybe it would be a good idea to release some newsletters about the progress of the work and invite more beta-testers before it gets released I know that we have to wait a long time before the first beta version will be completed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Great suggestion and as everyone knows these things take time but as soon as we have something more concrete we'll definitely start posting whatever information/screenshots that we might have as we go along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Make sure you're using your skin thickening cream and pass some over to Bill too. Have ya'll decided on a third yet? If ya'll think your armor is strong enough you may want to throw out some design decisions that have been particularly controversial for forum input and then head for the fox holes!:eek: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesopo Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I heard hexes are back in which is great. Hubert heard an earful from us regarding requests. I am going to take a shot in the dark on this. Eifel engine I guess is still going to be used for this and for it to take advantage of multithreading is problematic. Improved graphics especially with counters/terrain please, realistic defense (units with adjacents units are a harder nut to crack), combined attacks, armor/mech exploitation, realistic naval warfare, manpower limits in conjunction with attrition/replacements (soft builds were never realistic). Iron/metal, coal, oil and other resources and how they played a major role in the war - no oil (either through control or trades) reduced movement for all units - unless you have made reasearch breakthroughs in coal conversion techs, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kommandant Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Or maybe a beeter evolutiuon of the basic game, with an upgraded supply system, which is much, much needed, better grafics, of couse, hexes, if possible and maybe manpower. All the other are just an add of complexity to the game, the game is simple, and that is what make it fun to be played. I would not dislike a more complex game, but I think simplicity is the main thing in huberts mind, but one can only speculate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 I wouldn't go for overcomplexity either. What I'm counting for, is a good looking, functional and playable game with some improved mechanics of the old system ( supply, multiple attack, limited stacking ). But I still want it to be Strategic Command, not a completely different game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted March 22, 2012 Share Posted March 22, 2012 Being able to "deselect" and then "reselect" a unit as long as APs exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesopo Posted March 23, 2012 Share Posted March 23, 2012 reworking the engine from the ground up is very expensive and time consuming - but we have seen incremental improvements from one SC series to another over the years. I do sincerely wish that it is not another rehash with some improvements and be called SC3. Time for a change please in my humble opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted March 23, 2012 Author Share Posted March 23, 2012 As I've said before, I'm willing to contribute. Playtesting, scenariomaking, research of commanders and historical facts etc. Just PM me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 I think that one of the features lacking in the current system is stacking and a possibility of dividing bigger units into a smaller ones. So I would propose that in the new SC 3, a bigger unit could be stacked on one tile/hex with a specialized unit ( AT, AA, Art ). It would be an army if we talk about WWII games, while it would be a corps + support unit in the WWI system. That kind of stacking would for example resolve the problem of "useless" anti-tank units. If AT could be stacked with other, bigger units, then they could greatly contribute as a support units, instead of being always a "weak" link of the defensive line. I would be also great if the army size units ( corps in the WWI games ), could be divided into let's say three corps. Of course currently three corps are in general stronger than one army, so that would require some unit rebalancing. Or maybe an army fighting with all three corps, could get a +1 attack and defence bonus. In this way an army would be always stronger than for example two corps stacked on one tile/hex. Anyway, there are countless ways to resolve this. Please consider those features for the future SC3, because those features are severely missed and having them in the game, would open a completely new possibilities of conducting offensive and defensive gameplay on the tactical level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 How about something a little more innovative than just "stacking"? Like my original thread, DoD, "density of deployment" each hex/tile has a limit of forces that can reside there, kind of like a bucket. The dod is set by the designer, each hex modifiable, globally set for terrain types. Depending on the types of units accumulated there the hex displays certain characteristics of defense and attack along with the terrain bonuses. A much more realistic approach than "stacking". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted March 24, 2012 Author Share Posted March 24, 2012 Stacking sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 How about something a little more innovative than just "stacking"? Like my original thread, DoD, "density of deployment" each hex/tile has a limit of forces that can reside there, kind of like a bucket. The dod is set by the designer, each hex modifiable, globally set for terrain types. Depending on the types of units accumulated there the hex displays certain characteristics of defense and attack along with the terrain bonuses. A much more realistic approach than "stacking". Density of deployment or stacking - one name for the same thing. Basically an ability to place more than one unit on one hex/tile. But I think that regardless the name, the rules of it should be simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Templer Posted March 24, 2012 Share Posted March 24, 2012 Work has officially begun Work on the SC 3 has officially begun? So there will be SC 3 - great news! But I hope you still care about Strategic Command WWI The Great War so it will not be neglected or even completely forgotten! I am one of those who where excited to this WWI scenario with the SC engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlape3 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Time also to reconsider multi-core support. Multi-threaded operating systems have been with us for at least 10 years now. Most gamers have at least 2 cores in their processors and SC3 would fly if they could be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xwormwood Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Work on the SC 3 has officially begun? So there will be SC 3 - great news! But I hope you still care about Strategic Command WWI The Great War so it will not be neglected or even completely forgotten! I am one of those who where excited to this WWI scenario with the SC engine. Me too. In my eyes SC WW1 is the best SC game ever released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lhughes41 Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Hearts of Iron Iiii does the density thing with "frontage" based on terrain. So it can be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aesopo Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Depends on the limits of the engine if it would allow it- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welk Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 If the game return to hex (no more squares), without doubt I will buy SC3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I think that one of the features lacking in the current system is stacking and a possibility of dividing bigger units into a smaller ones. I'd like to see stacking but I also understand the programming difficulties involved. In lieu of stacking, the corps/army relationship kinda works OK in SC, where armies are essentially stacked corps. That's fine, but it's only for infantry and should also be extended for tanks too. If Hubert could work out a mechanism for splitting/merging units, then that would be great. If not, then providing some mix of corps and armies in the force pools would allow players to tailor their forces and deploy armies where mass is needed and corps where economy of force is needed. It's doable. How about something a little more innovative than just "stacking"? Certainly some more units could have ranged attacks to allow combat from other than adjacent positions. More innovation with how unit APs are used could help too; ie, allow players to come back to units with unused AP to continue move/attack until APs are exhausted. In lieu of stacking, players would then have more opportunity to "shuffle" units in and out of key terrain for maneuver and combat. Also, the whole idea of Zones of Control (ZOC) could be reconsidered to better handle the gaps between units. IMHO, the editor could allow units to exert an editable movement penalty on adjacent positions, either for movement into a ZOC or out of a ZOC or possibly both. Additionally, the editor could designate which unit types have ZOC; ie, only tanks, or only certain unit-types, or all units. This would be consistent with most traditional boardgame rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ivanov Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I'd like to see stacking but I also understand the programming difficulties involved. In lieu of stacking, the corps/army relationship kinda works OK in SC, where armies are essentially stacked corps. That's fine, but it's only for infantry and should also be extended for tanks too. I don't think that developing a stacking mechanism would be too difficult from the technical point of view. It has been done in many other games with a considerable success. The main benefit of it, would be a possibility of stacking the smaller, support units like the AT, with other corps or armies. In this way, they would offer a real support instead of being merely a useless cannon fodder: Stacking would be also beneficial for creating more logical defensive lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kommandant Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I don't think that developing a stacking mechanism would be too difficult from the technical point of view. It has been done in many other games with a considerable success. The main benefit of it, would be a possibility of stacking the smaller, support units like the AT, with other corps or armies. In this way, they would offer a real support instead of being merely a useless cannon fodder: Stacking would be also beneficial for creating more logical defensive lines. Ivanov, never tell a programer that something is simple, it's never simple... Stacking units give enormous considerations to balance the game to make thing work out. It's not simple, but if it's on huberts mind, he will make it, with the perfection he has done so far, at least I thrust him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts