Just great as it is

[Rayydar]

I think SC is great as it is! IMHO, if all those suggested changes were made, it would be different, but not significantly better. I have not encountered any severe technical problems, either.

But there is one crucial point: I'd like to pbem against my German mates I know from hundreds of Panzer General battles (I run a PG league). Many of them would also like to play SC - but their English is not good enough to understand the manual and some messages in the game.

---------------------------------------------------------

Are there plans to provide a German version?

---------------------------------------------------------

The manual and the FAQ - play guide could be translated by ourselves, but of course not the game itself.

All in all, not too much effort, but many new SC fans!

Additionally, I'll start a small, strictly non-commercial SC-Website. Hope nobody would mind me using some pics from the official battlefront site (with credits, of course).

[iolo]

That's an excellent idea really. Germans are understandably nuts about ww2 games.

But if you think we have a lot of complaints about underpowered uboots now...

[Rayydar]

Originally posted by iolo:

But if you think we have a lot of complaints about underpowered uboots now...[/QB]

No problem for me with some 'advanced subs' research :cool:

Rayydar's Raiders

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Rayydar:

I think SC is great as it is! IMHO, if all those suggested changes were made, it would be different, but not significantly better. I have not encountered any severe technical problems, either.

I disagree-tho I see where you are coming from.

Certainly some none-too-radical tweaks can be

introduced to turn a good game into a great one.

The majority of the suggestions that I have seen

here would likely work well without introducing

an unnecessary level of complexity.

Things which IMHO need to be addressed:

1. The sub war

2. The "Free French" problem

3. Production (really needs lag time before the

unit pops up)

4. Armor-needs some sort of additional functionality

5. Tech advances (too dependent on luck-vis a vis

an Allies game I played today-Americans were

HUGELY unlucky despite having tech maxed out

by the end of '42)

6. Supply needs to be tidied up-all too often I

see cut-off units able to partly or fully

resupply, when there is no viable way that they

could. Sea supply should also be implemented

somehow.

7. Bombing-actually I think this works well,

except for the gamey ability to "garrison"

resource hexes and make them safe

8. Map-can't do much with this version, but things

are indeed cramped.

9. Weather

Most of the above could probably be remedied

with a fairly simple solution, painlessly. :cool:

If anybody who ever came out with a good product

then failed to improve it, where would Western

Civilization be at right now? [ok don't answer

that...]

John DiFool

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by John DiFool:

remember that "reinforcemnts" does not necesarily mean lots moer men - it may be anythign that increases the effectiveness of a unit, such as erorganising, repairing, etc.

IMO the current reinforcement strength limitations based on supply level are a reasonable method of representing this.

And sea supply is implemented - you need a working port (ie strength 5 or more) to get full supply for a force that is separated from it's capital by sea.

[Willard]

Its best if there isnt any German manual.

We dont want them gettin any crazy ideas!!!

[Bruce70]

To the points made by John above

1. It might be possible to improve the sub model without adding complexity, depends what you have in mind.

2. Didn't know there was a problem.

3. Definatley adds complexity.

4. What, you mean it needs to fly or somefink?

5. I tend to agree up to a point. I think you should know you have made some progress each turn but not how long you have to go, and I think there should be a minimum time to achieve an advance. Certainly doesn't add complexity to the gameplay - but would require a lot of play testing.

6. I think supply is OK.

7. Agreed - AA defense for units not in a hex and damage to resources even when defended would be good ideas that don't add complexity.

8. Agree.

9. Don't think it would add much given the turn length.

[ August 26, 2002, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: Bruce70 ]

[arby]

My two cents:

1. The sub war. Probably abstracted, a la 3rd Reich.

2. The "Free French" problem. Not a big deal, IMHO. I had one player evacuate several French units, including an HQ. Hardly realistic; wound up with a French corps garrisoning Moscow. But it doesn't seem to drastically alter game play, and it provides an interesting "what if." If I wanted to redo WWII exactly, I'd read the book.

3. Production. Far too much complexity for the payoff.

4. Armor-needs some sort of additional functionality. I originally thought so, too, but after playing a number of games I've completely changed my mind. If anything, armor is too strong given the cost. I pay 33% more for a unit that moves 67% farther than armies? You betcha. I'd make armies and corps cheaper (225 and 100, respectively), and tanks more expensive (350).

5. Tech advances (too dependent on luck). Know what you mean; I've got one game as Axis where I've invested 6 points in research for almost two years and have 3 improvements to show for it, and another where the British player has level 3 jets and level 3 Ind Tech by June 1940. Still, that's a very fun part of the game, and I haven't seen a proposal which would make it better.

6. Supply needs to be tidied up Not sure what you mean here, and I don't think it's a problem.

7. Bombing Again, I was an early critic of this, but I've changed my mind; strategic bombing has about the same effect that it did in real life. As far as garrisoning units on resources, that doesn't necessarily defeat it. First, you've forced the other guy to spend 125 MPP's to protect the resource, and as you bomb it, the corps gets whittled down and eventually has to be reinforced, costing more MPP's.

8. Map - Agree completely. The Mediterranean theatre is basically non-existent.

9. Weather. - Maybe yes, maybe no. I don't think it would have a major effect on the game, so I'm not sure it's worth it as far as the added complexity.

Things I'd like to see include the AA ability for units, not just resources; giving the US more MPP's, but allowing for Lend Lease (adds more decision-making, without much complexity); giving the US more techs to start with (maybe 4), and balancing that by giving the starting German units +1 experience. The last would have to be heavily play-tested, though.

[ August 27, 2002, 12:05 PM: Message edited by: arby ]

[Canuck_para]

1. Subs: would like to see it as an off board strategic battle.

2. Free French: a rather gamey move. Maybe all units should be like the navy and get whittled down. ie the French Airforce in the UK becomes a 3 strength and the corps in Egypt goes to Str 4. Shows men and equipment escaping but not at full combat readiness. While on the French, why does Vichy not pack it in when France is liberated?

3. Production.. nothing to add.

4. Armour: I would like to see al units be able to attack and then move, but if only the armour then let it be so. Maybe allow then to breakthrough if they kill the unit they attack and use any movement left.

5. Tech: I like the luck really. Changes the game tactics each time.

6. Supply: seems to easy to resupply, but not a big deal.

7. Strat Bombers: like it. Would like the ability to tell the bomber to ignore ground unit and go after the resource. Maybe a popup window or a right click for the bomber.

8. Med: Needs more space. A boring front generally. My Italians spend why more time in Russia than the Med.

9. Weather: I would like to see this. Map changes with the season. Fewer move points in winter, lower morale for some units etc. Don't think it adds too much complexity at all. Right now I ignore seasons. They don't mean much.

[Desert Dave]

I will also use John DiFool's list, and try to keep within bounds of what is possible.

1) Sub War: Currently, there is little chance of U-boats doing any significant damage in the crucial year of 1940 (even, '41), and then Russia is looming in the gloom, so the tendency is to avoid the Atlantic battles altogether... so -- a) increase dive rates by 10% per boat per advance, and/or put a raider like the Graf Spree out there at beginning to help sub survival.

2) Free French: Reduce chance of naval & air to 10% -- max of ONE ground unit. Seems like if there is a chance that naval units can escape to Allies, there should also be a (smaller) chance that Axis could capture and convert.

3) Production: Favor "delayed" production in some easily apprehended way, but that will have to wait.

4) Armor APs: Favor attack/move on same turn, with 3 AP penalty -- 2 AP penalty if attacked unit is destroyed. Also will have to wait.

5 Tech Luck: I very much like this, since it makes each game unique (... and provides justifiable rationale for victory defeat -- of course! I won/lost, I got/didn't get lucky, etc) Could be toned down a little, ie 8 total, with max 3 or 4 in any one area (... can be a house rule).

6) Supply: Don't completely understand the calculus yet, so nothing to add.

7) Strat Bombing: I have begun to appreciate the possible tactical uses of this unit more and more; however, cost should be reduced to 450 MPP or so. If there were an additional MPP cost to repair cities/resources, it would make the actual bombing campaign more enticing to implement, but that MIGHT entail too much micro-managing (... could be a pop-up, with cities listed -- repair Y?N, with up/down arrows for how much)?

8) Map: One more hex-row from Tobruk to Palestine. Once I advocated taking a row from Turkey, well -- how about removing one row from the Black Sea? (... rarely comes into play) or a combination of both? Need Trondheim and more room above England, but that's also for later.

9) Weather: Somehow, I really miss the "first Russian Winter effects," I don't know why. Weather, fair or foul, is such a vital part of everyone's life I guess, and it surely affected strategical decisions, especially when to attack, or not. The idea of seasonal map-changes also has aesthetic appeal. Will likely have to wait.

10) Other: Please, please -- "Variant Counters" (... random pop-up boxes) to effect Diplomacy (entry %) and occasional tactical combat bonuses, such as massive artillery barrage for one turn, and other surprises, etc. This would greatly add to game replayability.

[Canuck_para]

Your list is similar to mine Immer. I like your idea of variants and random occurrence boxes. How hard would this be to code into the game at this stage? This would be great, particularly if the option could be toggled on and off for those that don't like it.

[pzgndr]

if all those suggested changes were made, it would be different, but not significantly better

All interesting ideas guys, but Rayydar's original comment simply prompted yet another round of dead horse beating. Going back to his original comment, SC has already changed for the better through 3 patches so far, and will likely continue to change for the better through several more patches in the near term and new versions in the future. We can all haggle about possible changes until we're blue in the face or Hubert tells us what he intends to do, whichever comes first.

What I fail to understand is why these posts keep popping up by various no-change-or-else advocates, and here on Battlefront where "historical accuracy" is displayed right there on the main screen. If SC or any wargame fails to accurately simulate historical results (never perfectly, but as close as possible at least), then it's just a fantasy game. Go play Command & Conquer or something. Why bother playing a WWII simulation game if it's not going to simulate WWII? Ego? What? :confused:

Before I get beat on or insulted as being a "Historical Freak" or something, let me say SC should not get more complex to the point of lengthening game play or requiring too much hard thinking during a game turn. Some enlargement of the map, some subtle seasonal effects, some tweaking of the game parameters, and some additions of optional game settings would go a long way toward providing a significantly better game for those looking for a little more realism without ruining the basic charm of the current system.

Change will happen. So, ride the horse in the direction that it's going and hang on.

[iolo]

"It is well that bickering over theoretical modifitcations to SC is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it."

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by Bill Macon:

Change will happen. So, ride the horse in the direction that it's going and hang on

But... I thought you said that we had beat that old ragged-eyed Nag to untimely, premature death, yes?

So here we are clinging! to an empty fist-full of ghost-mane -- on our skeletal ghost-horse, which is fortunate, if not neck-hackle raising, because then! when we arrive at the Coyote-haunted destination, we can participate in the traditional ghost dance, and while we're at it, send up a ghost of a prayer... for that ol' deceased nag's happy resolution -- in Ephemeral Heaven!