wish list for 1.05 patch and future patches

[veki]

I agree with arby for 15. and 16.

17. Landing casualty penalty should occur only if unit is unload to hex adjacent to hex where is enemy units. These casualties should be hard and by this we can also resolve problem about blitz attack from allies on the first turn when Italy enters the war mentioned above. It is stupid that you can have landing casualty with no enemy unit around as we have now in the game.

18. More players influence in diplomacy instead of this automatic and much more detailed Manual how to do this.

[ArmenianBoy]

Zappsweden has written:

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.

The problem with your arguement is that both conditions mimic the reality of that period.

-limited military actions were really the only avaialble options for the Allies(Britain) ealry in the war before Russia and the USA got involved. Remember that during WWII about 70-80% German war resources when into the east front meat grinder.

- and yes, if Britain decides to go heavy into France and suffers they will be set-back else where. Remember Dunkirk is what allowed a large Anglo-French commitment later in the war.

[Lah]

18. I would like to be able to transfer funds from one country to another, ie: from the USA to UK.

[ October 09, 2002, 01:32 PM: Message edited by: Lah ]

[Zeres]

1) I would love to see a port in Lebannon or the ability to cross the Suez canal if you control both sids.

1) I also think you should be able to build a limited amount of units in Alexandria if you control Gibraltor, Malta and both sides of the the Suez.( reflecting Indian and Australian troops coming through the canal) This would be historical and really add to game play. Gives the Germans a real reason to send a Headquarters down.

[Zeres]

I love some of the ideas that are being posted and hope that some of them are used. It seems like there really is a consensus bulding in the player community about changes that will help. The u-boat and Africa changes are a definate must. There needs to be more, strategically important fighting in the Med. It will help the Anemic mid-game so much...

[zappsweden]

19. Changed rule for Siberian transfer:

Only one of these rules needs to be forfilled to execute the transfer

1. If Axis get close to Moscow.

2. If a number of turns has passed since the Axis-Russia war started.

3. Axis get close to Stalingrad.

[ October 10, 2002, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

20. Carriers should not "navy attack" non-coastal ground units:

When a carrier attacks ground units that are not coastal then ground units should be able to inflict casualties on the carrier.

[TommyT]

21. MPPs should be split into 2 parts: MPPs and manpower. This makes it possible to create a total counter limit based on population.

22. When disbanding a unit it should only release manpower, not MPPs which will make the Allies "disband-a-lot strategy" (a strategy where the French disband their navy and airforce to get armies and an HQ, the british disband some part of the navy and the Strat. Bomber to get Air Fleets) obsolete.

23. Remove the research into Industrial Design which will force players to chose between quality and quantity.

24. I don't understand why HQ's are counter limited. It should be possible to have a "generic" HQ (off course with a low, but country dependant rating).

[Zeres]

With regards to #23....Shouldn't players be able to CHOOSE to build lower tech units when they have a higher rating? Tech gaines shouldn't force players to build expensive units if the players don't need to or want to. With high tech ratings players should have the option to make fewer high quality units or many lower quality units. That's realistic and historically relavent and adds more strategy and variety to the game.

[TommyT]

Zeres, I agree that the players should be able to choose between cheap low tech unit and high tech expensive units. By removing research in Industrial Design High Tech units becomes much more expensive which will make a low tech unit a real alternative and perhaps will make research a little less important because the high tech unit in many are to expensive to buy and replace.

[docd]

I want to point out that it is the "easy" playability without micromanagement, that fascinates me the most. As Hubert concentrated his game on the essence, everyone in this forum should do the same and keep it short and crystalclear.

Some thoughts about the game:

1. research section in PBEM is unbalanced, development should be guaranteed there

2. subs should be able to hide more until sonar is developped. Transports that transport MPP´s should be included, as the US helped UK and USSR from the early days on with thousands of tons.

3. player should be able to assign units to HQ´s

4. according to my data (Friesers studies), french had overall double size of units as germany, but a gamelin HQ with sub-zero rating. For example -10 would decrease the morale and readiness of french units to 5% (like it is written history). In the beginning of Fall french, only gamelin HQ should be available, but the army and french airfleet should have double size than germanys. 5% readiness should do the rest to let germany break through.

5. In the beginning of barbarossa, germany had the most modern army. Germany took hunderthousands of prisoners and slaughtered the enemy by millions (11-13 millions russians killed, but only about 3 million germans). Maybe Hubert can simulate that reality someday also, making it easy for germany to advance to moscow, but then the tide turns, because of winter, mud and mines etc.

At Stalingrad, german army was oldest. Russia had built up with transports from US and had well dressed (winter combat clothes) and well fed and fresh soldiers. German soldiers were hungry, thin men with horses instead of trucks (speaking in general). Russia then had also antitank weapons, that german tanks couldn´t compete with. German supplies were plundered then by russian partisans.

So Winters should reduce german strenghts 2 or 3 points. Russia should maybe start with armies at 7,8 or 9 and develop to 12 or so, until moscow or stalingrad is reached by germany. The campaign should develop those levels (as option) by itself, according to real history.

British and US bombers should develop the same without influence, like it is written history. The same with subs, sonars, radars etc.

6. Destroyers and battleships should protect personal and MPP convoys from being attacked by subs then, like airfleet protect citys etc. now do. Transports should be able to move much less hex´s than now.

7. larger maps (world maps) would be great.

8. Maybe the number of purchaseble units should be limited for each country according to historian facts. When you bought all germans for your armies (3-4 millions), then germany is empty. But russia has much more manpower to reinforce units.

Maybe also airfleets should be limited to purchase.

9. In a PBEM the enemy should see how many times the opponent has reloaded. I think reloading increases a lot the efficiency of s.o.`s turn.

Last but not least, I love a research section (but it needs to be balanced in the way, that luck is not needed here), HQ´s influence (which is perfect in my opinion), experience (perfect), entrenchment (but entrenchment level should be viewable BEFORE stepping on it!)

So please read my notes, Hubert, and be inspired by it. You know I love the game very much and am very happy that someone like you took the time to make it.

[Zeres]

Zappswaden- it's great that Hubert is reponsive to player issued but this list is becoming awfully long. Perhaps we there is a way to conduct a player community poll to prioritize some of these issues. That would be very useful to Hubert I imagine.

[zappsweden]

25. Tank versus Army balance:

Problem:

Armies and tanks both have "soft attack = 4". I see no point in researching and using tanks for breaking through the enemy line. They work well against poland and France but later in the war they become to vulnerable. Once, anti-tank weapons begin to evolve it is very hard to break through enemy lines with the help of tanks.

I often research anti-tank weapons, instead, because of the double gain;

1. I can resist enemy tanks

2. I get bigger armies and win more battles.

Solution:

1.Make tanks cost more but have "soft attack=5"

2.Tone down the anti-tank weapon bonus.

[ October 17, 2002, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[zappsweden]

26. Strengten Finland:

Finland is too weak in my opinion. Instead of supply level 5 their capital should have 6 or 7.

They should also start with better defence of their capital (entrenchment?, experience?) to prevent the Russia from defeating them in one turn (with air+amfibious landing near their capital).

[pzgndr]

Perhaps there is a way to conduct a player community poll to prioritize some of these issues. That would be very useful to Hubert I imagine.

It would be very useful for all of us. What we don't have right now is a clear understanding of what Hubert is willing/able to do with SC1, or any guidance regarding the scope of SC2. His priorities so far have been to fix obvious game bugs and significant play balance issues, and to complete the basic game with the promised tcp/ip patch. Beyond that, he has not indicated a burning desire to make major changes to the current game. Much of that will have to wait until SC2, and he hasn't made any decisions on that yet.

Many suggestions are dependent upon what the scope and scale of SC2 will be. If the scale changes at all (ie, hex size and/or turn length), practically everything will have to be reconsidered and adjusted. At this point, it's difficult to debate these open-ended issues.

Here's my recommendation. After the v105 tcp/ip patch is released, let's see if Hubert can share his thoughts about remaining changes to SC1. There are already several solid proposals on the table for v106 - research changes, British builds in ALexandria, etc. He should have a pretty good idea by now what's on his SC1 to-do list and what will have to wait until SC2.

Then, once Hubert decides on the scope of SC2, we should maintain a numbered list of suggestions somewhere and refer to that in our discussions. Fury Software and/or Otto's site could do that. I do think SC2 should provide more optional settings and game variants to implement as many of these ideas as possible. Eventually we'll have to decide which settings will constitute the default game so we can focus on play balance issues.

[cyclem]

Great post guys, here my 2 cents:

17) Transports: Currently, your transports cannot move if you want to unload them. This means that you move them to the area if you want unload and wait for your next turn. This leaves them vulnerable to air units attacks, naval attacks and most importantly, the defending player can move his units around to reinforce the area. This doesn't leave any room for surprise landing operations.

My proposal: Remove the moving restriction on transport the turn they unload. The units still can't load/unload in the same turn, except when moving from port to port. This would make D-day operation possible for the Allies, since the german player couldn't adjust his defense prior to the landing, he won't know where it is going to be.

One turn: you load units into transports, place a defensive screen of naval units around them along with a defensive screen of air units on the shore.

Next turn: move the naval units and do shore bombing, move the air units and do tactical bombing then move the transports and unload on the beach.

You just recreated D-Day!!!

18) Add paratrooper corps. The ability to air-drop corps units behind enemy line would be awesome. The unit cannot move prior to loading into air transport, and cannot move after air-drop but can attack. The unit should have similar stats to corps units, but a little more expensive, and loading into air transports would cost MPP. The strike range would be half the range of strategic bomber, adjusted by your tech level.

Comments on previous suggestions :

1) More room in Africa. Couldn't agree more

2) Enhance gameplay for subs. Ability for hidden movement if they don't attack would radically affect the usefullness of subs.

[[Wiking]]

Originally posted by veki:

[QB]

17. Landing casualty penalty should occur only if unit is unload to hex adjacent to hex where is enemy units. These casualties should be hard and by this we can also resolve problem about blitz attack from allies on the first turn when Italy enters the war mentioned above. It is stupid that you can have landing casualty with no enemy unit around as we have now in the game.

QB]

I do not agree with you. In reality, a coastline would still be guarded by some troops, would have air defences, there would probably be stubborn resistance by local police forces, anti-aircraft batteries, civilians, etc.

[Jordy]

Units also reflect readiness, supply, etc. So the loss cound be due to these factors.

[Cube]

Originally posted by docd:

Last but not least, I love a research section (but it needs to be balanced in the way, that luck is not needed here), HQ´s influence (which is perfect in my opinion), experience (perfect), entrenchment (but entrenchment level should be viewable BEFORE stepping on it!)

I think that research needs removing luck factor too. In practice this could look like this. One research point should give not 5% probability of advancing to next level but 5% cumulative progress towards it instead. And after 20 turns, when progress reaches 100% we get new level. Of course exact numbers may differ and we need some kind of progress meter but generally I think this system would be more realistic.

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Cube:

I think that research needs removing luck factor too. In practice this could look like this. One research point should give not 5% probability of advancing to next level but 5% cumulative progress towards it instead. And after 20 turns, when progress reaches 100% we get new level. Of course exact numbers may differ and we need some kind of progress meter but generally I think this system would be more realistic.

So that luck is not completely eliminated, some

here (moi` for example) have recommended that

the progress would go up, in your example say,

by 1-10 points (an average gain of ~5 per turn).

This would provide the tech system with a semblance of

memory and virtually guarantee you an advance

within a given amount of time (without that

annoying "waiting forever for an advance" syndrome)...

John DiFool