wish list for 1.05 patch and future patches

[zappsweden]

This is a very good game that is already playable since very few bugs or flaws are in the game. The AI is now good. The game can still be improved though. When posting a proposal make sure that you pick an unused number for it and mark the proposal with number so that we get a list of the type 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, ...

The Wish List for future patches (and sequels!):

1. More interesting Africa wars (more map hexes, different and faster UK-Egypt transport system, ...)

2. More interesting and balanced atlantic sub wars (less casualties, more sub hiding options)

3. Semi-random option for techology advances (to avoid several quick advances that spoil the game)

[ October 09, 2002, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[J Wagner]

You will find all three of your desires mentioned, in quite some detail, throughout these boards. Always hopeful that an SCII will have some of the many suggestions that are offered here. Cough...weekly turns...cough...variable regional weather conditions..cough...cough...

[zappsweden]

I know they are mentioned in detail somewhere in the forum. This is the place where we post a summary of all the ideas in one place, so add to the list.

4. Enable bombing a garrisoned resource or city:

When a city/mine/oil is garrisoned there should be some way of bombing the resource instead of the defending unit. If resources are protected with just cheap corps then bombing wars become too unefficient (especially against human players who know this defence method). If 4 air fleets attack a corps in a city at least some of them should be able to attack the resource.

[ October 03, 2002, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[arby]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

4) When a city/mine/oil is garrisoned there should be some way of bombing the resource instead of the defending unit. If resources are protected with just chep corps then bombing wars become too unefficient (especially against human players who know this defence method).

And human players know how to defeat it. Somebody sticks a corps on a city, that's fine by me: I blow up the corps. Might take me a couple or three turns, but when I'm done, he's got to replace a corps, which is going to cost him more than it would have cost to leave the hex undefended.

[BobWarlock]

I have some ideas for changing the handling of post-40 France, some of which have been mentioned by others elsewhere:

5) When France is liberated, the Free French forces should return to French (rather than British) control & support. This just makes sense plus it would improve the game by giving the Allied player something to do with those new French MPPs (usually the game's almost over so it takes too long to gather enough to build a worthwhile unit). This should be the easiest change to implement (easy for me to say).

6) I strongly support an earlier suggestion that France should have a chance of partisans after Vichy falls. This would make whether to demolish Vichy a tricky question for the Axis (as it should be) without making it instantly disastrous, and would give the french resistance a role while keeping it less important than the Yugoslav & Russian partisans.

7) Back on the subject of liberation, I think that if France is liberated all remaining Vichy territory should also be liberated. The Vichy leadership certainly didn't like the allies or the Free French, but once Paris was liberated I think there would have been an instant and overwhelming popular demand for the reunification of the republic. One question would be whether Vichy armies would switch to French; I could go either way on this but suppose that they should just dissolve (to simulate some troops joining the allies, some joining the germans, and most just hiding and pretending they never served Vichy).

[ September 13, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: BobWarlock ]

[zappsweden]

.

[ September 14, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

8. Interception rules (passive air fleet option THE MOST IMPORTANT FLAW TO FIX!) :

Every air fleet or carrier should be able to

change to passive mode i.e they don't intercept!

Right click on an air fleet or a hot key for it would be smooth. I am tired of being blown to pieces (as allied) just because the axis is bombing some resource or city. Axis just keep attacking my harbour on malta to slaughter my air fleet on the island!

9. Winter effects:

In winter conditions, the distance system for determining how much supply the command centers get must be toughend up. Far away (from cities) command centers should have less supply than now. This would be more historical since it is more expensive to wage a war far away and will give Russia a historical chance to regain strength and perhaps do some counter-offensive actions during winter.

Only some countries can have winter. Hexes currently affected by winter should be marked with some kind of easy to recognize pattern (snow dots?) so that this knowledge doesn't need extra mouse clicks to get.

[ November 07, 2002, 08:40 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Panzer39]

While on Vichy, I think it should be the option of the Axis player if it is created at all. Why do I have to create a Vichy if I plan on attacking it the next turn anyway??

[TommyT]

10. I think the US production should modified. The 180 is ok for the entry turn, but after that the production should increase each turn by perhaps 5-10 MPPs.

11. Also the destroyed russian factories should "regenerate" in the Urals 6 months after destruction.

[ September 24, 2002, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: TommyT ]

[zappsweden]

Put in a number for your proposals (number 1-9 already occupied) so that we get a list that we can refer to.

[Bruce70]

Originally posted by Panzer39:

While on Vichy, I think it should be the option of the Axis player if it is created at all. Why do I have to create a Vichy if I plan on attacking it the next turn anyway??

To get more plunder!

[pzgndr]

1) More interesting Africa wars (more map hexes, different and faster UK-Egypt transport system, ...)

2) More interesting and balanced atlantic sub wars (less casualties, more sub hiding options)

3) Semi-random option for techology advances (to avoid several quick advances that spoil the game)

These three are important and I believe are already on the to-do list for possible inclusion with the TCP/IP patch or shortly thereafter.

#1 Giving Alexandria a special status like an occupied city rather than a home city and allowing Britain to build a single ground unit per turn would help the Med situation. We probably will not see any map changes in this version of SC, but more maneuver room would certainly be nice in some future version.

#2 Another tweak is definitely in order for the Battle of the Atlantic. Make spotting of subs 10% harder, make sub-surface and surface-sub combat damage 10% less, make sub dive chane 10% higher, stuff like that. Also might consider increasing max convoy losses from 40 to 50 MPPs.

#3 The proposed 5-4-3-2-1 idea for decreasing chances per point as you go to advanced tech levels will definitely help slow things down and produce more realistic results. The proposed penalty for switching points around is also a good idea. Related to this should be consideration of adding some AA tech advances bonus to all units rather than only those in strategic targets, to help counter the apparent air advantage.

Hubert's other comments about fixing USSR's supply and production rules for when Moscow is surrounded/occupied will help on the east front. All of these adjustments would improve the game.

[sogard]

I agree Bill. The would all be an improvement.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

#3 The proposed 5-4-3-2-1 idea for decreasing chances per point as you go to advanced tech levels will definitely help slow things down and produce more realistic results. The proposed penalty for switching points around is also a good idea. Related to this should be consideration of adding some AA tech advances bonus to all units rather than only those in strategic targets, to help counter the apparent air advantage.

I prefer 6-5-4-3-2 myself...

11. Improved editor functionality. Be able to

tweak forces of neutrals (including minors), set

France and/or Britain as neutrals, perhaps (even!)

allow ahistorical alliances.

JD

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by zappsweden:

2) More interesting and balanced atlantic sub wars (less casualties, more sub hiding options)

Of all the proposed tweaks, this seems to me to be THE most important.

Even if the Russian ability to add reinforcements and keep more late-game MPPs is solved by adding capitals, it is STILL imperative that the Allies are able to launch an effective invasion of the Continent.

They will be hard pressed to do this if the German player is alert enough to hone the spikes in the Fortress, to include 4-6 subs, a Strat Bomber or two, 2-3 experienced Air Fleets (these stationed far enough south to avoid Brit interdiction) backed by a HQ, and a plethora of sacrificial corps. The Air can immediately be operated in as necessary.

Many are the games when I have completely foiled -- not the one (... premature?) invasion, but the second as well. This is partly due to AI's tendency to rapidly deploy the RN & USA navies just west of French coast in order to sink the threatening subs.

Problem is, I am then able to so decimate them with combined Air and Sea forces, that 2nd invasion transports are mostly sitting ducks. :eek:

Solution? As many have asked -- make the damage for each encounter less, so that repairs might be made and 2 or 3 or 4 rounds of tense, nail-biting naval encounters are then possible. This may have to include tweaking the Air Fleet's strength against naval vessels.

And, increasing the dive % by 10 for each tech level is important too. And in counter-measure, the Allied player needs to seriously consider whether to invest in the antidote -- sonar, early enough to actually achieve it before invasion of Continent (and so should AI invest in this... in general, AI does not do much in tech investment, which puts it behind the 8-ball in the long run).

The early invasion still seems premature -- would it be better for AI to be instructed (... politely of course, as H.A.L. can be moody and even feisty at times, and then look out!... ) to WAIT until 1943 at least? which would make the one invasion -- even if RN and USA Navies are bruised & battered, a better chance to succeed.

And so, less damage each encounter, better dive % and adjusted Air power might well solve this specific area, thus, much of the entire game balance.

[RicKhan]

A few ideas,

MMP's for Liberation of nations.

Partisans for Spain, Turkey, Greece, Sweden, France, Switzerland.

Improved anti-air defense for Ground units.

Hidden Strenght of enemy unit at all times.

[zappsweden]

12. Fog of war should count for economy and troops to:

By seeing enemy troops and cash you get a warning when the enemy is loading transports, which should not be possible in fog of war.

[zappsweden]

.

[ October 03, 2002, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[J Wagner]

Since this thread is getting quite a bit of play, I feel compelled to include my earlier suggestion (14?) from old posts. Perhaps it's not for a patch but for SCII.

Weekly or bi-weekly turns with various regional weather conditions.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=18;t=000789

Sorry for really beating the hell out of that poor old dead horse!...

[Rouge]

Commonwealth troops especially in north africa and the med. Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African and Indian troops played a major part in the victory of Africa.

[zappsweden]

Wagner, put a number on your proposal and cut-paste it here instead of putting a link there.

All you others that have come up with proposals here, put a number in front i.e

15. blablabla

so that we get a list.

[ September 27, 2002, 05:00 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

13. Bigger research investment start for USA and Russia hence better catch up:

USA and Russia often cannot afford cathing up the research because they enter the war in a deciding point. Often the axis has more tendency to turn the tide in their favour than Russia. The bigger axis research investment just seem to bring them further and further ahead instead of the oppsoite. Russia should be catching up more.

Have you every seen a game when axis historically reaches all the way to Moscow, Stalingrad and Leningrad and then loses? Answer: No, because the Axis get more ahead of Russia for every turn instead of the opposite.

USA should have 1-3 chits and Russia 1-6 chits depending on when they enter the war. If they join in 1939 they only get 1 chit but if they join very late they get 3 chits (USA) and 6 chits (Russia).

Examples:

i) Axis declares war on Russia in 1 july 1940. Russia gets 2 chits and 100 more cash than usual.

ii) Axis declares war on Russia in 15 july 1940. Russia gets 2 chits and 150 more cash than usual.

iii) Axis declares war on Russia in 29 july 1940.

Russia gets 3 chits.

The reason why Russia got more cash than usual one turn before the next chit is to smooth things up so that ppl cannot take advantage of knowing the time scheme.

[ October 03, 2002, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

14. Italy starting positions should be better to avoid blitz attacks from allies on the first turn when Italy enters the war:

The Italian navy should be defensively placed further north hence in a narrower and more protected area.

The Italian Army should have more total ground units (more corps alternatively more corps and less armies) so that cities are initially defended and cannot be easily taken in one allied turn!

[ October 03, 2002, 07:36 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

15. Reduce plunder/pillage rates:

They have a tendency to create a domino-effect in favour of the germans, which make allied possibility of military actions very hard until Russia enters the war.

16. Consider changing the production system:

Reduce the production cost for all units but instead let them cost some maintenance. The problem now is that if UK have too high losses when defending France then it will take them more too long to rebuild a large military force.

[arby]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

15. Reduce plunder/pillage rates:

They have a tendency to create a domino-effect in favour of the germans, which make allied possibility of military actions very hard until Russia enters the war.

What "allied possibility of military actions" do you think should be available before Russia enters the war? Think Britain should be in a position to reinvade France?

16. Consider changing the production system:

Reduce the production cost for all units but instead let them cost some maintenance. The problem now is that if UK have too high losses when defending France then it will take them more too long to rebuild a large military force.

Well, yeah, but don't you think that's pretty much in line with what actually happened? You think if Britain had sent all its troops to France and lost them, they could have easily replaced them? Why do you think they made such a big deal out of Dunkirk?