SC2, The things that MUST change. Why not start a forum for SC2, Hubert?

[zappsweden]

This list has only brief explanations. I wanna keep it an easy reading.

1. Landing attack bonuses must be lower (preventing landings from becoming world-beater super attacks)

2. Unsupplied units must take greater casualties i.e casualty penalty. (avoiding cheap unsupplied landings flooding)

3. Killing HQ's from far range has to be harder.

4. Unit killing has to be less beneficial i.e closing the big gap between building new units compared to reinforcing them.

5. Air used to killing off units must be harder i.e army-army-air-air-air thing must change.

6. More research areas, for example researching infantry attack value versus tanks.

7. Rounded integer system must be avoided in some cases (for example: units taking rounded casualties means that some units gets 0 points and eventually become immortal veterans).

8. Building advanced units should take time. Air units 1 turn extra and navy units 2 turns extra

9. Supplies should cost especially transports staying in their boats for months should cost some MPP.

10. Winter effects needed.

11. Each nation should be able to toggle interception on/off (no more forced interceptions).

12. Conquering minors should be less beneficial.

[ October 28, 2003, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Hubert Cater]

Great points here Zapp, I would say that most of this is covered although some of it in a different way than you would expect (not all)... but more on that when the time comes as nothing is still 100% final just yet

For the SC2 forum, I would say that it is still a little early for that and my guess would be that when we are in final Beta then you could expect to see it up and running similar to the process used for the CM series.

Hubert

[J P Wagner]

And just to add, do away with these various time length turns and have them be consistant weekly or, at most, bi-weekly. This would tie in with #10 weather effects.......................

[Edwin P.]

AI Items to be Fixed

1. Allies take Spain before France Falls and Axis concentrate a large force around a one hex wide corridor leading to Spain, never attacking Vichy france to attack on broad front or concentrating air power on the blocking unit

2. Allies take Sicily and Axis mount a large force to attack a on a hex hex front without enough air support to blast through the blocking Allied unit.

3. Allied hold Brest with one corps continually rotating in a new corps after transporting out the old corps. AI should attack port with air units or concentrate air units on corps in Brest.

4. Axis AI will never launch a Sea Lion even if Entire Allied fleet is in the Med and only minimal allied units are in the UK.

5. Axis AI often never probes an ungarrisonned Egypt or Suez Canal. Allied AI never probes towards an unoccupied Libya or Italy or Spain.

6. Even if the Axis AI takes Gibraltor the Italian fleet will not leave the Med to interdict US transports.

Example

IF Axis takes Gibraltor

--- Allied Navy Weak and no allied ships in the Med (known from record of sunk Allied ships)

------If Yes does Italy build submarines and attempt to flood the Atlantic? (40%)

---------------And Does Germany also build subs in south western France? (60%)

------If No does Italy build submarines and attempt to enter the Atlantic with a large task force that moves in a group? (10%)

-------------And does Germany build subs in south western France to support the battle for the Atlantic? (20%)

If Allies Conquer Spain before France Falls

-------Does Axis attack Vichy France to open a path to Spain (Yes 80%)

-------Does Axis DOW Portugal

If Axis Minors are Neutral After Date XX/xxand Russia is Neutral

---Does Axis attack Hungary

---Does Axis Attack Romania

---Does Axis Attack Bulgaria

[ October 27, 2003, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Blashy]

I'll just say ONE thing.

Remove the "luck" factor from research and from anywhere else in this game, although research is the only one I see.

Make it a invest $$$ get research. Such as 500mpp= level 1, 600 = L2, 700 = L3, 800 = L4 and 1000 to get L5.

Or anything that will make it so there is no luck involved in this game.

Luck is the number one factor I now dispise Axis and Allies, Shogun or any of those dice games.

And now I'm no fan of playing SC games with research enabled.

[Edwin P.]

Give Italy a Guiding Strategy

1. Guard Europe Against an Allied Invasion (30%)

2. Support Invasion of Russia (30%)

3. Conquer the Mediterrean Countries (Greece, Egypt, Vichy, Iraq, Spain, Portugal)(25%)

4. Rule the Atlantic (10%) by taking Vichy then Gibraltor and building lots of subs.

5. Take the straits and sail transports through them to Attack Russia.(5%)

[ October 27, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[J P Wagner]

Like your ideas Edwin regarding Italy Strategy, but there also needs a balancing Allied Invasion of Italy Strategy to counter this.....all too often, you can leave Italy practically denuded of troops without any fears of Allied intervention.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Blashy:

I'll just say ONE thing.

Remove the "luck" factor from research and from anywhere else in this game, although research is the only one I see.

Different players deifferent views. Luck is for me an integral part of any strategy game. Conditions in war a higly dependent on luck leading to the doctrine of using excessive power (just in case you need it) or gamble and using the minimum . Working in the R&D department of a company I assure you that sientific breakthroughs are not working acording to plans and forecasts. Again you are gambling if you invest on research. I personlly like very much the system implemented in SC.

Where I would like to see an improvement is in the behavior of the minor nations/mayor when they are invaded. The distribution of the forces which are availbe should be dependent of the direction of the attack. For example in an attack on Spain or Italy/Greece the distribution of the avaible troops should be around the key cities ot make an succesful (seaborne) invasion as hard as possible. Attacks on minor countries (the german juggernaut conquering all the minors) should lead to an increased war readiness of the USA/rusia and of other minors. Spain should feel threatened after already four other minors have been conquered and additional corps should be avaible in case of war.

[ October 28, 2003, 06:28 AM: Message edited by: Sombra ]

[imported_Rannug]

I dislike that Germany can so easyly attack Vichy France who was a "friendly" nation to Germany. Offcoure Germany should be able to do that but I think that would worry another even more friendly nation; Spain. They should better prepare their defences if Vichy was attacked by the Axis. More units and having a HQ. This would force the Axis to be more careful before they attack "friendly" minors.

[kurt88]

If these nations are friendly to Germany than Axis must benefit from these countries,receive mpp's.

As it is now there's no benefit,so Axis player must attack,he needs the plunder for Barbarossa.

[Dragonheart]

Good points so far...

i would like to see more penalties if you do some ahistorical things....

[Sombra]

Nice way to prevent the surprise seaborne invasions would be the rule that ending a ships move in a seasquare next to a habour, capital, or other towns is like a declaration of war or better needs a declaration of war. You could move through the sea squares but standing with an invasion fleet next to Rome for example would be impossible.

[pzgndr]

Remove the "luck" factor from research and from anywhere else in this game

Every game ever made has elements of luck and uncertainty. That's what makes games replayable and fun. After playing this game for 15 months now, I can still look forward to playing it again because it will still contain some surprises, some strange twists of fate, something to keep me interested.

I recall one game where the Axis AI attacked Russia in 1941 with Level 5 tanks! No kidding. Play enough and you're bound to see something new, and that's because of Lady Luck - for both good and bad.

[Blashy]

Well make it an option to have a "luck" research system or to have a non luck research system.

I prefer a game that functions like chess instead of poker, a question of taste. Having a feature to have both is the best way to add variety to your game and make it more appealin for the masses.

BTW, you can't give bigger penalties to a player because he is doing anti historical actions, that's the whole point of these types of games, to try different things.

[J P Wagner]

I wonder if the potential competition from Matrix's World in Flames game will prompt Hubert to rethink some of the game design for SC2? Map size, unit type, research, improved AI ect...while they will be two different type games, and I see myself eventually playing both, it doesn't hurt to have a potential rival in the strategic WWII game market to up the bar a bit.....

[John DiFool]

I think a distinction must be made between making

a technical breakthrough and IMPLEMENTING that

technical breakthrough.

For example, the technology for both improved subs

and jet engines was on the boards for Germany in

1939. Despite that, said tech wasn't implemented

until 1944-45.

Yes the breakthroughs can come very quickly and

unexpectedly, but in most cases you are extrapol-

ating from known methods, which takes a certain

amount of time. And then you have to get the

technology into front-line units, where there will

be further bug hunting until the tech is optimized.

In other words, the "inspiration" can occur at

any time, but that's just 1% of the battle: the

"perspiration" (all the hard work to make the

thing function as desired) is the other 99%, and

is much more predictable.

Hence I think a less random tech system is more

reasonable than what we have now. I doubt for

example that Germany could go from level 2 tanks

to level 5 in less than 2 years (in the real war

it probably took about that time to get Tigers

working well in reasonable numbers, once the need

for heavier tanks was made known), but in SC it

often can happen in a flash.

John DiFool

[Blashy]

Well if research only has one option and it still involves luck I do hope one thing gets fixed... current units do NOT get upgraded.