Suggestions for Patch 1.07

[GroupNorth]

SC:ET is a great game, and I was glad to see that the developer is really devoted to making it better.

I'm new so forgive any suggestions you guys already posted.

GENERAL SUGGESTIONS:

1. Air Fleets and Strat Bombers should inflict and receive slightly less damage. Not cool to see an entire Bomber unit (strength 10) die in 1 mission.

2. Air Fleets, Strategic Bombers, and HQs should be very slightly reduced in price. 10% or 15% reduction?

3. Airpower units should never totally destroy an enemy land unit, and should leave a damaged unit with a minimum of 1 strength.

4. Special rules for subs. All units should inflict less damage to them, and subs in turn should do less damage to other naval units. That way there can be an actual Battle of the Atlantic, and the Germans would be tempted to throw money at sub production with some confidence.

5. Subs should dive more often.

6. With increased sub research, a player can reinforce his subs at sea by a maximum of 1 per turn, due to innovative 'supply' subs.

7. Research points should cost 175 each. Spending 250 on research can often be suicidal.

8. The south edge of the map should be extended by one hex down, right across, to allow for a real battle of the Sahara.

9. All naval units IN PORT should automatically regenerate by 1 point per turn, since in reality crews and local tradesmen could work wonders without serious national input. Also, ships are such huge investments. It's not fun to see them all nearly destroyed by endgame.

10. Subs should inflict more damage to an enemy's maritime economy. +50% more at least?

11. Capitol cities may be fortified at a cost of 375 points.

12. Should normal airfleets be 'forbidden' from attacking naval units? When it comes to airpower, how about only bombers and ACCs can get at ships? Or maybe breakthroughs in Longrange aircraft can eventually allow for land-based longrange divebombers.

Specific changes especially for the 1940 scenario (the one I love):

GERMANY

* Gains one Strategic bomber around Essen.

* Gains 2 HQs away in Germany, but their strength is 1 or 2 each.

* Various German units should get a tad more experience.

* They start with better sub research.

* Place the Bismarck at Kiel with a strength of 4 (not ready to sail, in abstract).

* Graf Spee in South Atlantic, strength 7 (not quite a heavy battleship).

* German Luftwaffe in Norway, strength 5.

* Germany has slightly better AT research to reflect the excellent improvisation of the 88mm. (Sure, Rommel discovered it after 1940, but who cares?)

AMERICA

* Tad more research, especially in bombers, air, production.

* One HQ already in place, but strength 3. Bradley, Eisenhower or Patton?

* Gains 1 Strat Bomber, strength 5.

* Somehow give America more money income. They should in fact be receiving around 1100, but nonetheless at least a bit more is good.

* UK should receive more money income from Canada ($50 more?) to represent the enormous amount of lend-lease material flowing from the USA and Canada, through Halifax, to the UK.

FRANCE

* Gains 1 HQ, strength 5.

* Gains 2 Corps, strength 6, around Marseilles.

* Gains 1 Armour, around Paris.

UK

*With the changes to Airpower and subs, Britain should thankfully get more ships to balance things out and become more historical. Add 4 ships, place one of them (Cruiser) outside Halifax.

* 1st Canadian Army is in the UK by mid 1940.

* UK gains two HQs, 1 in England (strength 2) and 1 in Egypt (strength 5). Was the Egypt one Wavell first or Alexander?

* UK gains 1 armour in Egypt.

* Dutch forces should be weaker in strength values.

ITALY

* Two HQs should already be in place, 1 in Torino and 1 in Tripotanio. Both with strength 3.

* Add 1 Corps to Africa (strength 5).

* Add 1 Airfleet to Italy (strength 3).

SOVIET UNION

* Add 2 HQs, one near the front. Both are Strength 4 to reflect their disrupted state and the bad orders they received. Zhukov is not one of them.

* Add 2 Airfleets, placed somewhat near the front. Both are strength 4 (unprepared).

* Add 1 Corps and 1 Armour, not too far from Moscow and Smolensk.

* Already possess an extra point or two in certain research areas.

THANKS. Please, keep patching SC:ET. It's worth it!

[J Wagner]

I'm afraid that there will be no further patches for SC ET....Hubert mentioned that he will soon stert work on SC2 so no more patches for SC will be released....

[Genghis]

Great suggestions and yes I'm thankful for the patches as they helped resolve a number of difficulties....but here are a few suggestions that could really improve the game. Sorry if some duplicates are listed

General comments:

1)Expand the game map a little to include Borders of South America and more of Africa (especially north africa) and increase size of Russia. There isn't a whole lot of room to manuever in Russia or in North Africa.

2)Decrease costs of buying HQ and unit reinforcements. HQ costs are way too high I think.

3)I didn't see any different nationality modifiers for combat, naval and air. (Italian armies should be rated differently than German or American armies)

4)restrictions on where minor allied countries can deploy troops (i.e. I saw Axis Bulgarian armies garrisoning Paris by the AI for example.)

I don't think Axis Bulgarian armies ever left Bulgaria except maybe to garrison conquered Greece.

5)Create Airborne units for certain countries. Airborne units can land within a certain range and be supplied for one turn until relieved.

6)Create air transport units to allow resupply of cut off armies.

Germany 1939 Campaign

1)Add Cruiser (Graf Spee which was really a fast armored cruiser) type in the South Atlantic

2)Add 1 or 2 more subs

USA

1)Add carrier group to North Atlantic when US enters war. The US had a Carrier group in 1941 (USS Ranger and another I believe etc)

2)Add an HQ to the initial US pool.

3)Increase money pool or at least lower costs of building units drastically. 180 MMP is way to low for the US. That's only like 60 more than what Italy gets.

Britain

1)Add more ports in UK. I think UK suffers a lack of ports (I don't remember seeing Liverpool or that major port on the western tip of Wales).

2)UK MMP collection should reduced due to Uboat commerce effects. Money should be deducted every turn due to Uboat raids on convoys unless UK develops better sonar and/or ASW tactics.

USSR

1)Add one or two HQ's to starting force pool

Anyway, just my 2 cents worth

[ December 29, 2002, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Genghis ]

[John DiFool]

"Decrease the cost for fighters/bombers?"

Absolutely not. They are underpriced as it is,

tho the new devalued industrial tech doesn't make

them the bargain they were before 1.06 (if you

got IT cranked up to level 5).

It could be argued that _reinforcement_ of air

units should be upped (even beyond what it is now,

based on original cost of the unit + any IT

modifiers): planes were very expensive to maintain,

and pilots even more so (to train-and many soldiers

simply didn't have the ability to pilot a high-

performance aircraft).

Ultimately I'd like to see oil figure into the

building/operation/reinforcement of air units (as

well as other "heavy" units-basically anything

other than non-motorized infantry).

John DiFool

[SeaWolf_48]

Group North (Canada?)

Very good suggestions, you've put alot of time into your forum note. Many of us have implied the same items, but your list is the best itemized list I've seen, are you an Engineer?

They may not have another patch, but I wish that we could customize the campaign senario's with a better tool than the one supplied in the game now.

I really like No's 3,4,5,and 10. plus Paratroops

You may be a newbie with the game and this forum, but you certainly have been playing wargames for a while! Some persons here don't know the difference.

[ December 29, 2002, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ]

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by GroupNorth:

12. Should normal airfleets be 'forbidden' from attacking naval units? When it comes to airpower, how about only bombers and ACCs can get at ships? Or maybe breakthroughs in Longrange aircraft can eventually allow for land-based longrange divebombers.

I would strongly agree. Some have "abstractly" supposed Air Fleets to also consist of naval bombers. I guess that could be the case, and indeed, must be -- given the generic composition of the Air units.

However, for SC2, I would like to see the Air separated into fighters/interceptors, tactical bombers and naval bombers. Perhaps even long-range fighters and bombers, available through research successes.

In fact, you might implement a tech-tree that is more thorough, so that EACH kind of Air unit could be researched, but only if the player feels it is important to long term goals.

You could keep the automatic interception (... though, there are good arguments why the player should have a choice of when to attack/defend) and have more, and greatly varied air-combat.

You could also include the option to buy lesser sized units, and allow the player to purchase older models if desired. Just because you have advanced to L3 or L4 Air shouldn't restrict building choices... you may surely have some use for a size-5 ME 109, say, to be placed in an out-of-the-way theatre such as Norway.

And so, should you place a specific NAVAL AIR unit in Bergen, or Tobruk? And if so, then there probably should be some fighters to defend them when they venture into the Med to attack naval vessels or convoys.

What this would do would ENLARGE the scope of the game, WITHOUT unduly complicating it. After all, it doesn't really require all that much effort to push the buttons on a few extra air units, true?

The idea being, the computer is capable of handling all kinds of calculation & scut-work, freeing the player to execute grand strategy. A complicated rule-set is no problem as long as the internal coding is sound. How many times have we all given up on a daunting game like WiF simply because the round-by-round calculations have become too tedious and time consuming? :eek:

I am very much in favor of adding detail, as with this split of the Air into 3 or 4 categories... for SC2, why not shoot for the moon?

Since most are agreed that SC is an elegant and straight-forward design concept, the addition of a few more elaborate combat routines for SC2 wouldn't be deleterious to the game... instead, would make a good game that much better. :cool:

[SpitfireMarkX]

During World War Two, Canada had the 3rd largest navy in the world. IN this game it seems, Vichy France and the Soviet Union have naval units, yet Canada does not. By 1945, Canada had the 4th largest air force, 3rd Navy, and 4th armed forces, they were producing 1000 armoured veichles, 400 tanks, 80 aircraft, and I believe 20 ships per month.

Also in this game the only city Canada has besides the capital, is St. Johns which is about Canada's 10th-12th largest City at the time, if you can move Ottawa to the east, why not another city, (Toronto).

Just a suggestion, although I don't think there will be 1.07, I can hardly wait for an update on SC2.

[GroupNorth]

"Decrease the cost for fighters/bombers?"

Absolutely not. They are underpriced as it is,

tho the new devalued industrial tech doesn't make

them the bargain they were before 1.06 (if you

got IT cranked up to level 5).

Yes, I say decrease AND follow through with my other suggestions regarding the weakening of their power to reflect the new cost efficiency. I noted that clashes of airpower drain far too many planes and drain far too much money when you reinforce them.

In 1940, how can Germany organize a Barbarossa invasion force when they have to pay huge sums to reinforce their airpower after a Battle of Britain? In fact, after buying a Strat Bomber and sending air fleets to Britain and her navy, Germany essentially is throwing her production away, given the current game values and numbers.

[GroupNorth]

Group North (Canada?)

Very good suggestions, you've put alot of time into your forum note. Many of us have implied the same items, but your list is the best itemized list I've seen, are you an Engineer?

Thank you very much. Nice to see so many good threads and posts on this site. Yes, I'm Canadian. Wish I was an engineer. I'm just a History BA. Like many of you, I love testing games and offering constructive feedback for games that are already good (Who cares about the bad games?).

PS... Airborne ala 'Clash of Steel' would be cool beans. But that sounds like SC2 time.

[GroupNorth]

Dear Brad,

You are correct. Canada's forces, by war's end, were very large, even enormous if judged through a per capita basis. We were perhaps the most militarized Western nation in the world, per capita by 1945.

However, through 1939 to 1942, Canada's committment was not yet so substantial as seen in 1944 and 1945. PM King opted for a minimal war effort at first. In 1940, our commitment was to help guard and feed Britain, assume control of warships on lend, and begin plans for buying/making a modern navy/airforce. Many Canadian servicemen were integrated, initially, into the UK structure. Only by 1943 we were really standing out as an individual power to be reckoned with, sinking Uboats, slugging hard in Italy, and bombing Germany.

All the same, I still think in SC, Halifax should produce even more income, perhaps on a rising compound basis.

[JerseyJohn]

GroupNorth

Great thread. By the time I saw it it was already too expanded upon for further constructive comment on the issues. Still, I have to say one thing, at the present airfleet cost there are players who manage to build 10 or more of them. My friends Zeres cites 16 as the record and General Billote says he's built 19 in one game, which I think is a bit excessive by anyone's standards!

Also as mentioned, Hubert said there'll be no more patches, which is good because you can suggest even more sweeping changes for v 2.0, such as making it impossible for the Axis to travel across the Atlantic and physically conquer either Canada or North America. There are two existing forums on this, one called North America and the other Hubert -- the North Atlantic which are probably on page two or three by now; there are plenty of ideas in them and I think also a lot of good reading to base v2.0 suggestions on.

Great Work, hope we'll see a lot more.

[Genghis]

Ah ok I'll check out those forums. Nice to hear though about version 2 of the game. Will previous owners be able to receive an upgrade discount by chance?

[Jhon]

Saludos....

E leido todas las ideas que en este cuarto expresan. Son muy buenas, de verdad que si, espero que muchas de ellas sean tomadas en cuenta para la realizacion de SC 2 el cual muchos de nosotros esperamos ver dentro de poco tiempo. O por lo menos una actualizacion, aunque lei que ya no querian hacer mas PACHES.

Leyendo todas estas ideas, no vi una la cual se refiriera a la cracion de un grupo que sea de Boinas Verdes (Green Berets), me gustaria que existiera este grupo, pienso que podrian ser un grupo que tenga mucha fuerza de ataque contra ciudades, es decir que sean letales como unidades de asalto, por otro lado no deberian de tener mucha fuerza para defenderse sinedo asi el lado lebil de esta unidad. Los Green Berets fueron una clave muy importante en la historia de la Guerra (me imagino que todo eso losabes) pro eso agregar estas unidades al juego, seria un buen punto desde todos los puntos de vista.

Es todo, y aclaro que estoy deacuerdo con muchas de las ideas que en este cuarto se expresan, esperando que sean tomadas en cuenta para futuras actualizaciones.

[J P Wagner]

I used a translator for the above post...for better or worse here it is....

Greetings.... And leido all the ideas that in this quarter express. They are very good, really that if, I hope that many of them are taken into account for the accomplishment of SC 2 which many of us we hoped to see time soon. Or at least one update, although law that no longer querian to make but PACHES. Reading all these ideas, I did not saw one which talked about cracion of a group that is of Green Berets (Green Berets), gustaria me that east group existed, I think that they podrian to be a group that has much assault forces against cities, is to say that they are lethal like assault units, on the other hand do not deberian to have much force to defend sinedo asi the lebil side of this unit. The Green Berets was a key very important in the history of the War (I imagine that all that losabes) pro that for adding these units to the game, serious a good point from all the points of view. He is everything, and I clarify that I am deacuerdo with many of the ideas that in this quarter are expressed, hoping that they are taken into account for future updates.

[GroupNorth]

Maybe we can translate 'Green Beret' into the Commando, or Airborne, unit. Crack infantry, with special abilities. Every major nation had them.

[JerseyJohn]

Jhon -- Good post. Other forums buried on previous pages did discuss that subject and it was decided that elite units would be too small for this scale. The U. S. Rangers, for example --forerunners of the Green Berets, were organized into battalions. I believe the British and Canadian Commandos were organized along similar lines -- more accurately American rangers were organized after Commonwealth commandos.

Not sure how it was done in the Axis or USSR. I would say the Sovier Guard units would be classified as crack and not elite. The German SS, when not butchering civilians and prisoners, also performed well in battle, but collectively they would be considered crack troops instead of elite. Presumably the same holds for the paratroopers of both sides.

Thanks JP_Wagner for translating.

[ December 30, 2002, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Augustus]

Great list, and yes, I agree that Canada should have a much larger role (especially in SC 2, right!).

As a historic note to the game designers, don't forget the numerous tonnage that was sunk in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence, or the Axis weather stations set up in Newfoundland (Newfoundland did not join Canada till 1949). Not sure if you were aware of that bit of history... a weather station set up with stencilled markings "Do not remove, property of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police"...crafty little Kreigs-mariners!

Yep.I'm a Canadian...

Cheers, and keep up the good work everyone.

[JerseyJohn]

Augustus

Thanks for the info, knew about the St. Lawrence sinkings but the weather station in New Foundland is news. Also, while they credited U-Boat captains for sinking ship tonnages they reported, German Inteligence agents compiled the details by checking the NY Times and other major newspapers viewing insurance claims and other public notices regarding lost cargo. Ah, nothing like Democracy at War.