new patch or Expansion pack. Include this.

[zappsweden]

I would like SC players to post their opinion of this list.

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO POST LIKE THIS:

Post ONLY the numbers that you would NOT like to see in a patch. That is to see how much ppl differ in their opinion. Give a brief motivation why you did NOT want that change.

example:

I did not like:

8) Since I think then that tanks would dominate too much.

THE LIST:

Flaws/Bugs

1. Fixing the "Carrier vs Air interception flaw" i.e the carriers and Air STILL count their starting location as a defence bonus.

2. Fixing the bug that turned a french mainland port (Brest or Bordeaux) to axis control when axis conquers france just because BOTH an allied navy units was in the port AND an allied unit was in its city.

The 1939 Scenario:

3. Fixing the Russian initial Setup.

3.1 An Army or Tank in Riga to prevent landing and capture in turn 1.

3.2 More corps and less armies near the Polish border.

3.3 The front line slighly pulled back to prevent disaster.

4. Higher initial entrenment in Finland Capital.

5) Convert the starting corps in Egypt to an army (to make Egypt wars more historical and enable Allies to hold it). It should be placed "further east" to prevent it from interfer with the outcome in France.

Gameplay

6. Changing the Sea-Lion definition to be ANY England/Scotland hexes occupied instead of just the adjacent to cities ones.

7. Giving HQ air defence=1.

8) halve the anti-tank bonus i.e L1 anti-tank means 0.5 extra soft defence, L2 means 1.0 points extra soft defence.

9) halve the anti-aircraft bonus the same way.

10) Air units cannot destroy GROUND forces i.e the ground force stays at strength=1 (very good for preventing strange far-away destruction of units and prevent the air from getting such a huge experience).

11) Make the suez canal transfer being both ways.

12) Reducing the base price for Bombers to 450 to make them usable and cost-worthy.

13) Increasing the base price for Air fleets to 450 to prevent them from becoming to dominant in the game.

14) Tone down transport by making them cost more.

15) Tone down transport by reducing their landing attack power (readyness).

16) Disable the "transports cruising around the map without any destination, just looking for holes" by making transports impossible to resupply by ports!!!

17) Eliminate the catch-up bonus for research (higher than 5% per chit if behind), it is enough with a 5->4->3->2->1 slowdown.

[ April 11, 2003, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[Iron Ranger]

Zapp, I'm with you on some of these. But maybe the only way to see another patch is to start a public population drive. Hopefully if enough names get put under this (NOT ideas, just names, let the designers sort out the details or they can contact people who've played alot) the company will feel justified in davoting the resource's to get v1.07.

[JerseyJohn]

Iron Ranger, that's a great idea! If the game designers don't have enough suggestions now they never will.

[ March 31, 2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[H.J. von Arnim]

zapp, ranger, jj....i agree

[zappsweden]

I have just added to my list of improvement, stubborn as I am. I just wanna point it out, there are 2 flaws/bugs left in the game. The other proposals are EASY to make, I mean most of them is just changing a single value of a unit or changing initial setup for the 1939 scenario.

[zappsweden]

Whether Hubert makes an expansion pack or just a patch we will see. Anyway, if he does it in a patch he may gain from it. Not very much on sales of SC, but very well when SC2 comes out.

I SURE WOULD NOT HESITATE TO BUY A SEEMINGLY GOOD GAME WHEN IF I KNEW THERE WOULD BE MUCH SUPPORT FOR BUGS AND BALANCING.

[zappsweden]

I would like all SC players to post their opinion of this list (gained from hard gaming experience and reading the forum about historical issues etc).

I WOULD LIKE YOU TO POST LIKE THIS:

Post ONLY the numbers that you would NOT like to see in a patch. That is to see how much ppl differ in their opinion. Give a brief motivation why you did NOT want that change.

example:

I did not like:

8) Since I think then that tanks would dominate too much.

[ April 07, 2003, 09:20 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ]

[JerseyJohn]

Zapp'

Agreed with all your items in every category.

[arby]

Okay, here goes.

Originally posted by zappsweden:

The 1939 Scenario:

3. Fixing the Russian initial Setup.

3.1 An Army or Tank in Riga to prevent landing and capture in turn 1.

3.2 More corps and less armies near the Polish border.

3.3 The front line slighly pulled back to prevent disaster.

I thought there was a corps in Riga; at least, there invariably is by the time I start Barbarossa. The other two I disagree with. Barbarossa was a disaster for the Russians. The problem for the Russians is not how the war starts out; that's fairly historical. It's what happens after that. A better way of balancing things out, I believe, is to give Russian IT advances a 10% benefit, and to reduce the costs of Russian units: a corps costs 100, an army costs 175, a tank unit costs 300. (No reason that everything has to cost the same for each country.) That way, if the Germans don't take out Russia by within two years at most, they get overwhelmed. Would also modify Russian surrender: capture of Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad does it.

5) Convert the starting corps in Egypt to an army (to make Egypt wars more historical and enable Allies to hold it).

Med works just fine as is. If the British player makes a major effort to hold it, it's almost impossible to take for the German player. But that opens up the risk of a Sea Lion.

I've made some suggestions on techs and air power over on the Countertechs thread, so I'll refer further comment on your suggestions over there.

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by arby:

A better way of balancing things out, I believe, is to give Russian IT advances a 10% benefit

Occam's Razor ... nicely applied! Same benefit should go to USA.

***In fact, I would like to see VARIABLE rates for each country... PERHAPS... even depending on the date.

For example: Russia would start out at 7% in 1941, and max out at 10% by 1944. Italy would begin at 4% and go up to a top rate of 6% by the end of the war. Each country would have a certain rate that... :cool: ... would even be different... DEPENDING on our new random EVENTS.

These "variable rates" would have to be rigorously play-tested, sure, but of course... yet, these would go a long, long way toward balancing the game WITHOUT making so very many intricate alterations, yes?

As for the rest... I favor WAITING, patiently, for SC2... personally, I don't wish to spend another $20 bucks or so for a partial patch or update.

I would rather spend the $30-40 (????) for the new and improved version. :cool:

[JerseyJohn]

Immer

The Patches have been FREE downloads! That's why we've been pushing for one. We want to have the original SC's problems corrected with a downloadable patch before going on to SC 2. Aside from which we don't even know what SC2 covers at this point.

SC is a good -- though flawed -- product that should be corrected before going on to the next stage of development. Which is why I don't understand why so many people are saying be patient and wait for SC2 etc.. If this version of SC isn't first corrected with a patch I'd be extremely hesitant to pay more money for SC 2. I'm not paying more to get the product I thught I was buying in the first place.

The suggestions for SC 2 are fine. I don't mind paying extra for the next tier of a concept, but before doing that the first tier, the one people have already purchased, needs to be sound on it's own level. At the moment SC isn't.

There's nothing wrong with the work in progress idea, as long that product is actually delivered in full.

[ April 07, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

These are the one's I believe should NOT be in a patch.

3) Russia should lose the forces along the border, unless Axis screws up and lets them get away. Current deployment and Axis DoW allows recreation of the historical strategic surprise.

4) If Finns are entrenched, so should all the other neutrals.

5) Initial Egypt setup is more or less correct. Real problem is that the additional forces (that represent the buildup into the 8th Army) did not come from England, they came from the Commonwealth. Fixing that requires different changes.

6) Don't believe the "effect" of Sealion should occur unless the cities are threatened. Simply landing on the British Isles is not good enough.

7) All units need the representation of anti-air defenses, not just the HQ's.

8 and 9) Problem is the initial and relative values that a Corp and Army has.

10) Doesn't solve the problem of Air being the "golden bullet".

12) Doesn't solve the problem with Strategic Bombers.

13) Doesn't solve the problem with Air units.

[KDG]

I like Zapp's list except for the following:

4. Higher initial entrenchment in Finland Capital.

6. Changing the Sea-Lion definition to be ANY England/Scotland hexes occupied instead of just the adjacent to cities ones.

(leave definItion as is, but also add a total units on England/Scotland into the definition)

8) halve the anti-tank bonus i.e L1 anti-tank means 0.5 extra soft defence, L2 means 1.0 points extra soft defence.

(Problems not with this, but with the tank bonus itself)

9) halve the anti-aircraft bonus the same way.

(problems not with this, but with bombers)

[santabear]

I do like the concept of this thread.

I don't like:

3.2 & 3.3: I agree that the deployment is dumb, but then Russia's preparations for war were about as dumb as they could have been. The current deployment also is a great test of skill for the Axis player. The Axis can score a knockout, but it takes some skill to do so.

8. & 9. The problems should be addressed in other ways (discussed in other threads).

10. In a WWII game, the air should rule. If your ground units are getting killed by the other guy's air, you gotta buy some airplanes. I think the "jet thing" needs to be tamed a bit, but not the role of air power in general. Selective interception would be nice, though.

[zappsweden]

I added 14,15,16 to the list. Particulary I would love 16) since the transports cruising around the map is just not realistic and I hate those fake landings that only serve the purpose of disrupting the enemy defence positions.

[SeaMonkey]

I'll buy in when the expansion/editor pack includes a fully modable SC (current version) and I'm talking about right down to the combat algorithms, all the way baby! This is the only way SC will evolve to the aspirations of this forum, but don't expect a consensus, ever. I won't be doing any editing (perhaps) but I sure will enjoy playing all the great scenarios you guys come up with. You can only count on opinions and money from me, a player not a modder.