Yet Another SC2 Request Thread

[Wolfe]

Now that 1.06 is out, I thought I'd post some more ideas on what I'd like to see in SC2. While most of these suggestions are aimed at a more complicated game (smaller hex size, involving the entire world), many of them would likely fit fine in SC as it stands now. These ideas follow-up (and in some cases amend) my previous requests in the Advanced Strategic Command thread. Hope Hubert finds them useful.

A few humble suggestions for a great game.

* Weaker HQs and air units. They seem a bit too rugged when attacked to me. Maybe double the damage done from a ground attack?

* If the entire world is represented, allow some countries to be made non-combatants and may not be attacked at all. But this should be changeable in the Editor. And the US's MPPs would likely need to be able to be halved (or so) in some unique way if it's a Europe-only campaign and SE Asia (essentially Japan) is not part of the war. And vice-versa. Maybe allow individual cities/resources to be considered 'non-combatants' (as if there were no resource there) to allow campaign authors to customize a campaign.

* Unit graphics to show all levels of tech upgrades for infantry, rockets, and naval units.

* Toggleable labels for HQ units. Like city labels, they identify the HQ units by name. City names could be displayed at the bottom of the hex; HQ names at the top.

* Ability to set different unit cost levels to "encourage" the purchasing of certain units. So in the editor I could create a campaign where strategic bombers cost -say- 10% less for the USA to try to push the US player to buy bombers. Or have ocean-going troop transports be 20% more expensive for Germany, etc.

* When trying to get a transport ashore, if there is an enemy unit on the hex, allow the attacking unit to try to push the enemy unit out, representing an attempt at a landing.

* Landing on unoccupied fortifications can cause more casualties than a normal landing. So a minor fortification that isn't occupied can still cause some damage, representing a small contingent of enemy troops stationed there. This would encourage the building of the Atlantic wall by the German player.

* Some hex types that can't be landed on from the sea.

* Change the embark-then-move in the same turn for transports to Embark on one turn, then move and disembark on the next. I've never really cared for that sequence in the game. It will also encourage a defender to build minor fortifications and keep some defending units around rather than waiting to spot landing craft off the shore then Op-move units back to defend. Besides, nearby air units (and the automatic coastal defenses) will impart a small readiness hit on all landing craft that it spots.

* Also, remove the landing supply bonus. A unit with supply level 5 that lands on shore should not automatically be puffed up to supply level 10 simply because he landed.

* Partisan units should be capped at size 5 or so (so you can't reinforce them any higher). And I'd prefer they get an entrenchment bonus, not an experience bonus. They also shouldn't be able to leave the hex boundaries of their home country.

* Any troops raised in conquered territory would have a max size of -say- '8' and would be a slightly different color. No more mustering fully capable German armies in Russia. Unlike existing minor units, however, they can come under command of HQs. And only infantry units can be created in captured cities; no armored, mechanized, air, or naval units should be able to be raised there. And any tech upgrades would not be available to these less well-armed troops.

* Separate sea trade routes from lend-lease routes. Subs that patrol trade routes would impart an MPP hit like now on every turn, but those that patrol lend-lease routes can get a big hit on MPPs, but it wouldn't necessarily happen every single turn.

* Show lend-lease/trade routes on the map with different color hexes.

* Ability to surrender or ask for a ceasefire. Some games it becomes a forgone conclusion and you'd just like to see the final score.

* Remove FOW on enemy tech development after the games ends so you can see what they aimed for and how far they got.

* When you click on a unit it would be nice to see which HQ (if any) it is attached to. Highlighting them the way units are highlighted when an HQ is selected would be helpful.

* Maybe, maybe not: Engine recalculates supply levels of unmoved units every time you click on them. If supply level is higher than when the unit started the turn (e.g. an HQ moved closer to it), allow the unit to have this higher supply level before it moves/attacks/reinforces. This would represent delivering needed supplies within the turn and in some cases can help you save a cut-off unit. So if you have an army trapped behind enemy lines and a friendly unit manages to reach it, the trapped unit could be resupplied within that turn so it could actually move or reinforce in that turn rather than sitting there with supply 0 unable to do anything at all.

* Don't reveal the launch position of rockets/airplanes when attacking if these units are out of enemy LOS. An enemy wouldn't necessarily know where the attackers are based.

* Rename Rocket to Rocket Artillery so it seems to include rail guns and such.

* Rockets only act as strategic terror weapons; reducing city/port/resource population and/or industrial capacity. Attacks on units should not be allowed.

* Change rocket graphic and sound to reflect multiple rocket attacks over the turn. Add a little variety.

* Ability to transport rockets overseas.

* FOW for enemy unit landing casualties. Currently, even with FOW on, I know when enemy units landing on the beaches suffer casualties. If I can't see the LZ, I shouldn't have this info.

* A more refined idea for subs: Surface ships begin with a 25% chance of detecting a sub at default values. As sub tech advances, this drops enemy spotting liklihood by 5% for each tech upgrade. This can be counter-acted by sonar research which increases sub detection by 5%. Air units can spot subs 50% of the time, but this will also drop 5% per sub tech increase, but increase for each level of Long Range Aircraft achieved.

* Remove 'sonar research' and replace it with ASW tech. ASW would apply not just to surface vessel's defense against subs, but also increases spotting for both surface ships and air units.

* Remove surprise attacks for subs. Subs can attack when directed, but not automatically due to chance encounters.

* Naval units who lose half or more of their size will not engage in combat, preferring to flee (they need to be refit before they will engage in combat again). While they cannot be ordered to attack, still have chance they can be engaged and destroyed by enemy units.

* Other annexation fights: USSR annexes Moldova.

* For annexation fights, only the two parties involved may fight and third-party units may not trespass on the territory being fought over (so the German player can't send troops to Finland or the Balkans to "assist". The German player can only provide MPPs/IPPs to reinforce existing minor units.). And third party naval units cannot trespass on any water hex next to the territory in question (e.g. US ships can't 'block' Japan from reinforcing Sakhalin by placing their ships next to the Island until the US and Japan are both involved in the wider war).

* I'm changing my mind. 2-week turn length as standard, but drops down to 1-week for summer months. That way you get a more even production throughout the year but don't have to have 52 turns per year, which I think could get cumbersome. Winter months would be shown by changing weather in individual hexes, which would affect movement (and supply) and would be more apparent to the player than month-long turns. Onset/break of summer/winter would be variable so you won't exactly know when to start/end offensives. And each side gets to move during the same week instead of alternating as they do now. That would provide from 29 to 35 turns per year for each side. [23 2-week turns and 6 1-week if Summer is very short (mid-July to late August)] or [17 2-week and 18 1-week if summer is very long (early June to late September)]. And anywhere in-between, depending on if summer starts or ends early/late.

* Announce any early or late arrival of the seasons (e.g. "The long, hot summer begins early this year.").

* Land units that stack up to 2 per hex. So you can have an Infantry and Tank corps in one hex doing a coordinated attack. The coordinated attack would have extra benefits over just attacking with each unit. You could also have a Corps and HQ unit with the Corps doing most of the defending, protecting the HQ. Same for Air fleets. Much higher stacking (4 or more units per land hex) may make defending a front almost impossible, IMO. But allow HQs to stack on any land hex even if there are already 2 units there (IOW HQs don't count against the stacking limit).

* When attacking with stacked units, default (left-click) is to attack with all units in that hex against the enemy hex as a coordinated attack. If you only want to attack with one unit, right click and select attack with only this unit.

* But I'd rather not have coordinated attacks from multiple hexes simultaneously. It's realistic, but adds a bit too much complication in picking which hexes join the attack and which don't. As well as which units attack hardest and which only probe. A unit that attacks vigorously would also naturally use up more supply, complicating that aspect of the game. This would go a bit too far down the road of excessive detail, IMHO.

* Another possible 'spy' report: "Radio intercepts have pin-pointed enemy submarines in hex 55N by 22W." You can then click on that particular text line and it will center the screen on that hex.

* Smaller interface buttons. They really don't need to be that big, do they?

* Ability to answer Yes/No questions by using keyboard. Alt-S for save, Alt-Q for quit campaign, and Alt-X for quick exit.

* The possibility of a country-wide revolt for certain nations. If you've conquered a particularly pesky country (e.g. Axis takes Yugoslavia) but have only garrisoned a unit or so in the capital, allow the possibility of a full-scale revolt where partisan units appear at every possible location (including all the cities) all at once. Wheee! Fun! Would be useful for France to help keep more German units in garrison, especially if both France and Vichy France were to revolt simultaneously. If Vichy France joins the revolt (from neutral status) and is crushed, the Axis player gets no conquering booty from Vichy (to discourage the Axis player from not garrisoning France in hopes of causing a revolt so he can then conquer both France and Vichy without incurring a DoW penalty).

* Diminishing returns for Industrial Tech. First level reduces costs by 10%, but goes down by 2% each successive level (i.e. Cost reduction levels 1-5: 10%, 18%, 24%, 28%, 30%).

* Neutral nations that contribute MPPs to active nations (e.g. Vichy France and Sweden to Axis, Switzerland to both sides). This would discourage invasion as you would lose the 'free' MPPs.

* If England is conquered, Canada (and other allied minors like Australia, India, etc.) will give it MPPs to the US (if active) or USSR or France, in that order. If China is only other active ally at the time, Canadian MPPs are lost until UK/US/USSR/France enters (re-enters) the war. If England surrenders, a good amount of its navy can continue to fight (it ostensibly transfers to Canada). Partisans in England would be nice, too.

* Game can begin as early as spring 1937 (before Japanese invasion of China in July). The Japanese annexation of Manchuria (1931) would probably make for too long a game and warfare would likely start much too early in the game.

* Certain terrain types always provide a partial defensive bonus (mountains, fortifications, cities, and capitals). So you automatically start out with a defensive bonus of -say- 2 for mountain hexes even if you just moved onto it. And enemy forces can't take your entrenchment value down below the minimum.

* Maybe allow HQ units to project its max supply bonus ~1 to 2 hexes into the sea. This would allow for resupply of naval vessels, hopefully encouraging island hopping in the Pacific.

* Change shore bombardment so it only reduces entrenchment value; no attacking land units from sea. Units landing ashore would do the real fighting. Or maybe if a naval unit is within 'X' hexes of a landing unit it can automatically provide support for that unit, similar to air fleets (see below).

* And tone down damage done to land units from carrier attacks (except for attacks against air units or rockets).

* Allow units to transport if a troop carrier is nearby even if there is no port (so units can get off islands without ports; particularly in the Pacific). This form of transport could cost more to discourage using it elsewhere. Or maybe it can only be used on land areas that have no ports.

* A unit that sits on a hex for a period of time beyond what it takes to get max entrenchment will permanently get that entrenchment value up to half the max hex entrenchment. So if a unit sits on a city for 6 (or more) turns, it gets the max 4 entrenchment bonuses, but if attacked repeatedly it will always retain atleast level 2 entrenchment. Once it moves, of course, it loses the entrenchment and has to start all over. If it sits on the city hex for 5 consecutive turns instead, it will retain 1 permanent entrenchment level until destroyed (or it moves). This can help prevent naval units from being used solely to take the entrenchment value down to 0 before ground units attack the defender directly. The defender gets a bonus for essentially "permanently" entrenching.

- Chris

[Wolfe]

... continued

* An idea for Air Fleets that may or may not work. Air units that always act in a support role for each ground attack. It will coordinate its attack with attacking land units to give a greater offensive punch. Using air power with each attack will definitely grind it down, particularly if your opponent is using his air power to defend against your air. The computer would start with the strongest air unit and work down, cycling back through once it runs out of supporting air units. Air units could still attack directly, but give them a large hit on their readiness if they do (to simulate the amount of wear and tear large directed bombing campaigns induce). This would remove the never ending soften-them-up with air strikes before attacking with ground units tactic. To refresh your Air Fleets, you'll have to move them back away from the fighting, let them rest (and/or reinforce), and then move them back into the fray. If an Air Fleet is under the same HQ as the attacking ground unit, maybe it could get an extra offensive bonus for better coordination. Strategic bombers would not participate in this sort of support, but would instead be used to attack resource hexes or enemy ships/subs only.

* Amending a previous idea: Reduce spotting abilities for fighters, bombers, and carriers (max spotting: 3 hexes). They can currently see too far into enemy territory, IMO. But give carriers the ability to do two reconnaissance sorties every turn to scout for enemy units. Long Range Air tech should not increase spotting distance either.

* But for sea hexes, leave the air spotting at the plane's maximum range so it can still act in an ASW detector. A plane's maximum spotting ability would need to be shown somehow.

* When an enemy ship or sub moves through a plane's FOV, it should have the possibility (but not necessarily certainty) of being spotted. If it is spotted, instead of always letting the plane know exactly where the ship is, have the game randomly pick a hex along its previously travelled path and mark this as a 'Last Sighted' hex. That way the player can know that a ship or sub group was sighted but not be given exact knowledge of its location. If the player then goes to check out the sub sighting with his navy, the game would then delete the Last Known marker when it comes into the ship's spotting range. And if the ship or sub is really sitting on that exact hex, the searching ship would get a spotting bonus (-say, double- because it's actively looking in that area), but would still be able to miss the ship or sub pack if it fails a LOS check. So the enemy ship/sub can still remain hidden despite the best efforts of the combined units. Would be a nice FOW touch.

* For water hexes where the spotting arcs of enemy planes would overlap, split (average) the viewable hexes between the fighters. This way German fighters in northern France and British planes in southern England would still be allowed to cover the channel but would not automatically be given the ability to spot enemy troop build-ups next to land hexes. This could encourage players to keep planes in certain areas to keep prying enemy eyes away from an invasion force.

* Changing an idea I wrote above. Instead of limiting a carrier's spotting ability, simply don't allow it to spot overland (similar to the limit on planes), but allow full spotting over water. The player shouldn't have to make the carrier do sorties to do spotting; too much micromanagement. But don't allow carriers to restrict enemy air spotting range like air units (mentioned immediately above) as this would give away the carrier's position. So spotting on land would be restricted to only a couple hexes, but spotting over the ocean would not be.

* An air unit that moves (normal or Op-move) cannot spot during the same turn.

* Once the Germans have conquered Poland give Axis player a choice to cede some territory in the Eastern half to the Soviets. If the German player does this, lower Russian war readiness by a bit. This allows the game to get to an historical border, but also allows the Axis player to choose to keep all of Poland.

* Operational movement that is stymied by the change in rail gauges between Russia and the rest of Europe (so you would have to Op-move twice to get from Kiev to Paris). But allow the rail gauge to change at a rate of 1 hex per turn (or maybe every other turn) as territory is taken.

* Click on an HQ unit and it not only shows you which units it currently controls, but also which open hexes would be under its control if you moved a unit there.

* A cumulative loss of readiness for units. Units lose readiness as they move and, especially, fight. If a unit fights continuously, it's readiness can drop to near zero over time. It can recover readiness by resting. And having an HQ nearby allows faster recovery. For movement, readiness points are lost corresponding to double the movement cost of the ground you move over. So if you move onto a mountain hex, you lose 4 readiness percentage points. Move over 2 open hexes, lose 4 points. Attack a hex and lose 6x movement cost of that hex. Units naturally recover 4 points per turn. If a unit does nothing but rest in a turn, its readiness increases by -say- 16 points (4 times normal recovery rate). All this can help simulate troop exhaustion and wear and tear on equipment. Note that the math in this example may or may not work, depending on the hex size for the game, but I think it will add an interesting wrinkle to impede the almost continuous attacking and movement in the game. Units will still have a maximum readiness rating (determined by their distance from friendly supply), but don't get an automatic maxing of their readiness value simply because an HQ moves nearby.

* Defenders engaged in combat lose readiness at twice the movement cost of the ground they sit on (half that of attackers).

* In addition, reinforcements bring readiness levels back up by the same percentage as strength. So reinforcing a strength 5 unit up to its max of 10 also reduces readiness gap by 50% (e.g. A unit with current readiness of 37% and max readiness of 81% (difference of 44) would result in a readiness of 59% (37+22) when reinforced. Reinforcing from strength 9 up to 11 would increase readiness by 18% (2/11) to 45% (37+8)).

* If a unit's supply drops below its readiness value, have readiness drop by half the difference between supply and readiness each turn. So if readiness is at 80% one turn, but the unit is nearly cut-off and its supply drops to 20%, readiness will drop to 50% (80-((80-20)/2)) the next turn, and then to 35%, etc. Until the unit's supply is equal to or greater than readiness.

* Embarking on a train (op-move) reduces readiness by 25%.

* A unit sitting on a severe winter or rainy (SE Asia monsoon) hex loses 10% of its readiness per turn.

* A unit sitting on a severe winter hex with supply level less than -say- 3 loses 1 strength point each turn.

* Any land unit that cannot trace a line of hexes back to a friendly HQ or home city may not reinforce, regardless of its supply level. The idea is to prevent units isolated on islands from reinforcing when they would not be able to, but not necessarily destroy its supply.

* Transfer of Siberian Army should fall under FOW.

* Tech upgrades that are not automatic. Right-click to upgrade a unit.

* Lend-lease for Russia and England begins only after war with Axis starts (naturally) and it builds up over time.

* Show lend-lease MPPs separate from MPP income so you can see how much you're getting and how much is lost each turn.

* MPPs levels and spending during turn should not be shown to opponent; have it covered by FOW.

* In conjunction with the variable city/port size (not everything is a '10') and separate population and resource ratings for cities, a limit on the number of units that can be built can be derived from the inherent city size (which is some multiple of MPP production). If German MPPs add up to -say- 120 and inherent population is considered -say- 2 times that, that would give you a total limit of 240 points which gives a maximum of 24 units at size 10 that can be built (HQs and partisans would not count against the force pool). As minor countries join the Axis, their pops can add -say- 25% of their max city/port population to the available force pool and -say- 10% for conquered countries. I don't know if this would add too much of a complicating factor or have other unintended effects, but it could temper excessively large builds and add some historically appropriate manpower limits to the game along with an added strategic consideration. BTW, industrial production of resources and cities should fall under FOW but city population should not.

* In addition to that: Have 2 sets of MPPs. One is based on population which gives overall limit to number of units (infantry, armor, air, and naval). And one based on industrial production in cities and resources. The Industrial Production Points would be less than the population-driven MPPs and would limit the number of tank/mechanized, air, rocket, and naval units (basically anything that uses oil or requires industrial capacity to construct) that can be created.

* Tie scientific research to industrial capacity (I don't have any specific suggestions here, just a general idea to limit tech research). Germany and the US would likely have the most IPPs available, and would naturally lead the tech research game. Followed by Russia and then Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy. Just an idea to try to limit tech research to the places it most naturally occured. Large, highly industrialized nations generally produce the most and best scientists. Just because a nation does well at collecting MPPs does not necessarily mean it would be a scientific research hub.

* Bombers sitting alone (not stacked with another unit) should take a lot of damage when attacked by enemy air units. But if an infantry corps or Air Fleet is sitting on the same hex it will provide protection for the bombers.

* Bombers should take damage from defending planes (those that rise to meet it); currently it seems as if friendly escorts take all the punishment from defenders and bombers are unhurt except for damage done by the city itself (though I may be wrong about that).

* Allow a bomber and fighter stacked on the same hex to do a coordinated attack against the target. The fighter serves as escorts. Otherwise, don't have fighter escorts at all.

* Mechanized units that can move like tank units.

* Armored infantry corps units (to represent the integrated (and dispersed) tanks in the early French and Soviet armies). These units can no longer be built after a certain date.

* Allow mechanized, armored, and air units to only be created near large cities (of size 'x' that have a minimum IPP level of 'y'). Simulates producing tanks in the factories in industrialized cities who then have to then be distributed to the areas for fighting.

* More unit variability when a minor country enters the war. So a minor might have a chance to get an extra corps or even a tank corps, further messing with the "perfect strategy" syndrome.

* Ability to specify varied starting locations for units within a neutral country (not yet at war). In the editor you would place a unit in its default hex, but can then click on the unit and choose to specify a number of alternate locations where the unit might be positioned when it enters the war. Would add some nice variation and spoil the 'perfect attack sequence' that is so often used when first assaulting a minor country.

* Never show size of a sub pack to the enemy. Player should not necessarily know the exact size of a sub he's dealing with. The info on subs is usually not perfectly known.

* When a surface ship attacks a sub unit, have it attack and then always move into the sub's hex, regardless of the damage done. This shows the sub trying to dive/evade the ship(s). The attacking vessel may or may not really know how much damage was done to the sub group. If the sub escapes, the enemy ship wouldn't necessarily know it and likewise if it were destroyed he wouldn't necessarily know that either. More FOW is always welcome.

* Shallow water hexes near ports and inlets allow subs and ships in them to be more easily spotted.

* Changing my mind about a previous suggestion again. Instead of having automatic air fleets and coastal defenses imparting a small damage hit on enemy units that stray into their territorial waters, have them hit the readiness factor of all units involved instead. This will allow the air fleet to be placed by the player to 'guard' certain areas but also risk some 'damage' in the form of loss of readiness when you use them this way (previously I suggested they so a small amount of damage for free). Likewise, ships moving near unfriendly territory (or along enemy shorelines in the case of coastal defense) will take a readiness hit if they're spotted and "attacked".

* In Russo-Finnish winter war allow Finland to cede territory in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. This "choice" happens automatically within the engine, it isn't something the player has any control over (either offering or accepting the peace deal).

* Likewise, allow Japanese and Russian sides to sign a non-aggression pact (so long as Germany is still a threat). Once Germany is defeated, Russia becomes more likely to declare war against Japan.

* Allow chance for US to sue for peace with Japan if its fleet is annihilated and its trade routes are being savaged. But if physically invaded, the US fights vigorously, including partisans. And can move capitals like the USSR/England.

* If US sues for peace, have a liklihood Australia will follow (lack of protective US fleet).

* Something completely off the wall: A Risk-like mode where all the inherent relationships between countries are turned off and the object of the game for every major nation is expand, expand, expand. Everyone is on his/her own and is trying to dominate the world. There is no 'Axis' or 'Allies'. You play only one country and can declare war on anyone (US declares on Canada, for example) and then fight until one or the other is conquered. Once conquered, the cities and resources commit their max MPP and IPP to the victor. Rinse, recycle, repeat until there is only one left standing. No Vichy France, no Finnish sueing for peace, no countdown for when the US enters the war. Just raw, unadulterated expansionism.

* Majors always join the war at the beginning of a turn to allow for immediate offensive/defensive operations (not sure if this doesn't happen already).

* Ability to resupply cut-off HQ units by "attacking" them with friendly air units. This "attack" would raise the HQ's supply level, but would hurt the air unit's readiness value as if it were attacking an enemy unit. And if enemy air units are in range to defend, the supplying air unit could take damage, but not inflict damage on the enemy air unit. How much supply is delivered depends on the size of the air unit. This can only be used for HQs who cannot trace a land hex back to the capital cities and is at supply level 5 or lower. HQs sitting on a severe winter hex cannot be re-supplied. And the more units attached to that HQ, the smaller the supply increase.

* AA tech that applies not only to cities, but also to all units (except subs).

* Large weather patterns that appear over defined regions. Fog that can ground aircraft (and limit bombing targets if the fog covers enemy units/cities) and makes naval units near impossible to spot. Rain that reduces movement for ground units and eliminates air movement. Snow that acts like rain but also reduces supply levels. And heavy snow/rain in certain regions only that prevents almost any movement, severely hurts supply (to the point where units trapped in the weather lose not just supply and readiness, but strength), and also traps naval units (e.g. an ice floe or monsoon that keeps ships in/near port).

* A minor nation who loses a unit in combat will reduce its total MPP and IPP contribution levels according to the size of that unit. And if the combined sizes of all the minor's units falls to 50% or below, each city and resource of that minor reduces its output by 1 MPP and/or IPP. For 40% or below, lose 2 MPPs/IPPs per resource. For 30% lose 3, etc. Minor nations generally aren't too keen on sacrificing their soldiers for "someone else's war". And this would hopefully discourage them from being used as pure cannon fodder by the major nation.

* FOW WRT newly encountered enemy units. Don't reveal the strength of an enemy unit until the next turn or until the enemy unit is attacked. You shouldn't automatically know his strength simply by moving next to him.

* Major nations that have unusually strong relationships with a minor nation should react strongly to an ally who invades the minor country (e.g. England would cut off lend-lease and/or trade with Russia if USSR attacks India, Persia, or Iraq). Outright war between historical allies over disputed territory outside the normal Axis-Allied fight might be fun, but may also be very difficult to program.

* Air units that sit alone can easily be overrun, but if another land unit (even an HQ, but not another air unit) shares the hex the air unit is allowed to flee during the attack.

Thanks to Hubert for a truly superb game and support for SC. While I've been preoccupied with CMBB of late, SC just has a magical way of drawing me back in.

- Chris

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Hmmm finally someone as long winded as me heheh

[JerseyJohn]

Wolfe --

I didn't think a posting could cause battle fatigue.

I was wrong.

Crazy about dozens of your ideas!

[ December 14, 2002, 05:24 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[jon_j_rambo]

Wolfe --- You stuttering fool, what the hell is this crap?

This is what you sound like:

* I wish they'd add a -1 when there's a possible of rain in a hex where rain is possible.

* There needs to be improved air space for landing aircraft at the actual numbers I want because I suck.

* Any attempts to beat Wolffe should be regarding as a +2 to my ego by in which that should be -4 to your ego.

LISTEN STUP...CLAM-UP!

I'll beat you with the Axis or Allies.

jon_j_rambo@yahoo.com

[ December 14, 2002, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: jon_j_rambo ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I suppose he would like ASL, he likely would like A3R too.

Which is ok, I like both those games as well.

I am not sure that SC will ever be able to be like either though, entirely. SC2 hmmm who knows. It took 6 editions to get A3R though, and ASL was three progressive major modules before they decided to rebuild it.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

I didn't think a posting could cause battle fatigue.

I was wrong.

I aim to please.

Les the Sarge 9-1b wrote:

I suppose he would like ASL, he likely would like A3R too.

I haven't actually played either game, but from what I understand they are rather complicated, even more complicated than what I'd like to see in a future SC2. Personally I'd rather not see any player-directed diplomacy in SC2. I like the event engine very much, but would like a bit more flexibility (e.g. Italy may be ceded southern "Vichy" France when France falls if they capture a good deal of French territory before France concedes). This wouldn't happen all the time, of course; a bit of randomness is always welcome in my book.

I've not picked up HOI yet, but I don't think I want to see SC headed toward that level of detail and micromanagement. Setting up trade routes? No thanks. I'd rather not bother with that.

But I'd love to see more (smaller) hexes both on the Russian steppe and in the ocean.

- Chris

[JerseyJohn]

Wolfe --

You're a good sport who's posted a lot of good idieas in that tome!

[ December 14, 2002, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I liked the spirit of most of his ideas.

But remember I like A3R and ASL, maybe that is a given that I like a number of his ideas heheh.

But I will admit, Hubert will have to raise the price (he ain't going to make a game that complex for no 25 bucks).

[Madmatt]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Wolfe --- You stuttering fool, what the hell is this crap?

This is what you sound like:

* I wish they'd add a -1 when there's a possible of rain in a hex where rain is possible.

* There needs to be improved air space for landing aircraft at the actual numbers I want because I suck.

* Any attempts to beat Wolffe should be regarding as a +2 to my ego by in which that should be -4 to your ego.

LISTEN STUP...CLAM-UP!

I'll beat you with the Axis or Allies.

jon_j_rambo@yahoo.com

Yo, you had best put away that attitude right now or else you will be facing explusion from this forum, we clear there mate?

Insults and bad attitudes and immature posts are not permitted here. This is your first and last warning.

Madmatt

[Lance Runolfsson]

This is a really great game and I am looking for more like it. Shouldn't be too hard with the same engine to do WWI and Nato V Warsaw Pact versions. I am sure I am not the only guy that would buy them all even with SC 2 coming out my check is in the mail for the original full version.

Some Features I'd like to see

1] Turn number count down 1 of 20, 2 of 20 etc. I know it displays the date but I don't want to figure it out. I just want to know what turn it is and how many are left.

2] Since the game function bar is blank when a unit is selected why not display all the unit / hex info there allowing more map to be visible.

3] Make it possible in Human vs AI games to switch sides and or temporarily deactivate AI to player control during a turn. The advantage to this is that a player can intervene on the AI's behalf when it is doing something egregiously stupid. Also would be able to make war declarations to amuse ones self, etc. There are a few games that have this feature it is useful.

4] AI needs some sort of scripting to advance on unoccupied objectives. It is currently possible to leave important objectives undefended. If the only AI unit that can get there is it self defending an objective. Even if there are no Human units that can get to the objective that the AI must abandon before the human objective is occupied.

5] Sort of related to the above the AI needs to be better at creating threats. IE often if in the Demo scenario Paris is undefended it would be a disaster for the (Human) Allies if even a small AI unit would advance on Paris from Italy as it stands the AI is fixated on the Southern French Port City and retaking any Italian towns occupied by the Allies.Often the AI will not go for Paris once the line is breached and will screw around for a turn killing units it does not have to, Allowing the line to be restablished.

6] Maybe a player should have to commit to building big stuff like ships a turn or two in advance and pay in installments. Actualy it should take many months for Capitol ships.

7] Maybe there should be a chance that Nations currently Neutral should mobilize if too much potentially hostile stuff gets on their borders. Player not posing the threat controls the units but may not attack or move beyond borders.

8] Increase movement for all naval even a slow convoy zigzagging should be able to do 4NMPH that = something like 18 hexes a one week turn a battle ship doing 18 NMPH should be able to go any where on the map in a week.

9] The problem with the proximity of N. America to Europe could be fixed with a mid Atlantic line of hexes that cost extra movement.

10] I think it would be better if naval transports were actual units.

More later I am sure

[SeaMonkey]

Whew! Bare with me, tryin to catch my breath, great posts, agree with all except what may cause micromanagement. Do I remember "Optional Intercepts" by air units of the nonphasing player. How about free placement of starting units by owning players(in their controlled or sea hexes) before the the beginning of each scenario(optional of course). Was that already said? Hmmm might cause micromanagement, OK just forget it.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

At this moment in time, all I want for SC2 is maybe for it to arrive.

It might be enough to grab me.

SC is currently a bridesmaid game (I assume at least someone understands that ).

I need a bit more in my game.

Right now I am expecting 2003 to be the year I bought Combat Leader. I will be surprised if I have any money left for any game after that.

At which time, it will be immaterial if a game is any good (I won't have any money left).

[JerseyJohn]

And so it is that SeaMonkey's unrelenting war for the restoration of micromanagement continues!

[SeaMonkey]

Is that the top secret PP234 I see just below Godzilla's , Ooops, Shoo you damn fly, get!!

[JerseyJohn]

SeaMonkey

You know very well I can't tell you, it's a secret!

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:

Is that the top secret PP234 I see just below Godzilla's , Ooops, Shoo you damn fly, get!!

Could be the little known Doradoschmitt 12345 or is it the Focunkerkel 867-5309. Or the even more secret Coffee Stain 1.

-dave

[JerseyJohn]

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov

Okay, it's the even more secret Coffee Stain 1.

Now at least have the decency to reveal our security leak!

No, no I'll figure it out. Here, I'll send a top secret transmission . . . our main drag is out of Perrier, please refill the bottle. . . . that ought to break their code in a hurry.

[ December 20, 2002, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Konstatin V. Kotelnikov

At least have the decency to let me know where our security leak is!

Sure it's the shortish guy with the greasy dark hair and the square mustache right under his nose. Always wearing the browish shirt. I'd arrest him at once.

[JerseyJohn]

Done -- and he was obviously the one drinking all our Perrier!

[Konstantin V. Kotelnikov]

That's just too damn funny.

[JerseyJohn]

A combined effort of all our lunacies.

Hope you go to the new jet and prop forum just created. I see it as an extension of these topics but with a slight twist.

[ December 20, 2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[KoopaTroopa]

I think it could be good if you can change borders in campaign editor, like the game does when Poland surrenders to germany.

[JerseyJohn]

Koopa-Troopa

It would be great. I made a hypothetical history scenario on the premise that WW I ended with German pulling out of Belgium and France and the Allies accepting the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in the East. It isn't too far-fetched as in 1918 the Allies actually proposed that to Germany and it was the Kaiser who foolishly declined the offer!

The inability to alter borders made it awkward. Also I wanted to create the short lived nation of Ukrania which would have been a German protectorate, and had to do it as German territory with German units.

Despite all this the basic premise came out all right, but a few more attributes in the scenario editor would have helped.

Carl von Mannerheim had a similar experience when trying to incorporate the Spanish Civil War in his Gathering Storm scenario; so I guess it comes up fairly often.

What we're talking about then is adding the ability to change national boundaries and create new minor countries. I love the scenario editor but those two changes would really make it great.

Hey Wolfe --

Amazing how this creation of yours goes on and on like the Pink Bunny in those TV commercials. At first I thought your half-million suggestions would seal an early demise, but people keep coming here and adding to it, including myself. Also it's become a sort of theme park where guys like me and SeaMonkey can invite people to come and play and smudge the bricks with graffiti and not get in trouble.

It's the Forum version of China's Great Wall!

[ December 21, 2002, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Amazing how this creation of yours goes on and on like the Pink Bunny in those TV commercials.

It would seem your last post finally killed off this leviathon.

Not trying to revive this long-dead thread, just adding a couple more ideas I recently thought of.

* In mountains, give armored units an attack and defend penalty vs all types of land units. In plains, steppe, and desert give infantry an attack/defend penalty vs armor. In cities and fortifications give armor a penalty vs infantry.

* When a city is captured reduce its MPP level to 50% and IPP level to 25%. This is intended to simulate a lack of output by a recently conquered peoples. It can then starting climbing back up to 75%/50% until the whole country is taken. Once the whole country is conquered, MPP and IPP can begin to climb back up to their max allowable levels. Also, when a country is conquered, drop all cities (including the ones that haven't been attacked) to 50% MPP and 25% IPP due to the change in regime. Likewise when a city/country is liberated drop its MPP/IPP to 75%/50% if it isn't already at or below that level because of change of control and any sabotage done by the retreating side. Scorched Earth would still apply, of course. But it'll obviously take much longer to get them back to reasonable production levels.

* In conjunction with the readiness idea mentioned above, have new land units start out at readiness levels of 40%. While you can fight with them, they won't be very effective. Letting them rest a few turns before commiting them to battle will bring their readiness up to more reasonable levels. This can help simulate the time it takes to train new recruits, but still allow ad-hoc units to be assembled and thrown directly into the fray if a desperate situation warrants it. Armored units could start out at 25% levels due to the longer training times.

- Chris

[ February 07, 2003, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]