Yet Another SC2 Request Thread

[KDG]

I'd like to have random startups. Maybe every piece could start in one of three places, the program generates a random number, and the piece gets placed their. (Of course the capital would always have a unit).

I'd also like to see the effects of winter increased slightly. Either by reduced movement or supply, or increased partisons as provided by the existing software.

I'd also like to see a larger map, and Japan and the US involved more.

Just my two cents.

[Wolfe]

And a few more ideas. I just can't help myself.

* For supply and MPP output, any city that can't trace a line of land hexes back to the capital city (which includes the alternate capitals - e.g. Leningrad, Stalingrad, etc.) has its supply and MPP output cut to 70%. If the city cannot trace a line of hexes to any other friendly city, output is 30%. If a city is fully surrounded except for 1 hex, level is 10%. Totally surrounded, 0%. Gives a bit more variability to both sides. Defender's supply doesn't plummet to 50% just because he no longer has a land bridge to the capital. And he still has a bit of a gasp of supply if 5 of 6 hexes around a city are occupied. Attacker can get the defender down under 50% by trying a bit harder to isolate the city but doesn't have to capture every last hex around the city to do it.

* Port MPPs could drop according to the number of adjacent enemy vessels or number of adjacent enemy-occupied sea hexes.

* Restrict the building of battleships and carriers to home ports. The keels of the Graf Zeppelin and Bismarck probably shouldn't be able to be laid in French ports. Crusiers and subs could still be built in captured ports.

* Plunder amounts for conquered Minors could be lessened by tying them to the number of resources the country has. A country with only 3 resources would yield only 30% of the normal plunder.

- Chris

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by Wolfe:

And a few more ideas. I just can't help myself.

- Chris

Wolfe, Know what you mean, I used to be the same way with photos, couldn't help but post them all over the place. Hundreds of them, big, small, narrow, wide . . . anyway we aren't giving in to our weaknesses as much as we used to, so I guess we're getting better.

Anyhow, it's good to see this Forum resurface every once in a while.

Good suggestions and agree with all of them. According to dgaad in the old North Atlantic forum, there were plenty of half finished keels in the French ports and Germany was planning to use them after the war. But in general I agree with your comment. The Germans capture Athens and can suddenly build a battleship there!

I also agree with the blockade ideas and the effect upon MPP production.

[ February 23, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

[QB]Good suggestions and agree with all of them. According to dgaad in the old North Atlantic forum, there were plenty of half finished keels in the French ports and Germany was planning to use them after the war. But in general I agree with your comment. The Germans capture Athens and can suddenly build a battleship there!

Thanks, JJ. Glad you like 'em. But that does raise an interesting question: does anyone know if there was any battleship (or even large cruiser) or carrier (even a hull conversion to escort carrier) built outside a "home" port by any nation during the war? Just curious.

- Chris

[JerseyJohn]

Wolfe

Held off answering in the hope that someone would provide an answer to your very interesting parting question, but it hasn't happened.

I don't believe Germany did finish any of the French vessels. They don't seem to have destroyed them either as several that were begun prior to the war were completed by the French after the war.

Along the same lines and in the spirit of trust and peace, the first post war projects France embarked upon when it became clear Germany was not going to be reduced to a medeival wasteland, was the repair of the Maginot Line. And who could blame them? It was partially rebuilt and not taken out of service till (I think it was)1964.

I believe the Russians completed a few German ships. They towed the nearly functional carrier Graf Zeppelin to Lenningrad and used it to store cat litter or something.

Graf Zeppelin after Launching, 1936

As always you've created a fine thread.

[ February 24, 2003, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Wolfe]

Interesting stuff. Thanks for the info, JJ!

- Chris

[JerseyJohn]

My pleasure, Chris.

[Wolfe]

Just adding a few more wacky ideas.

* Allow strategic bombers to bomb any hex (whether it can see an enemy unit in it or not) to allow for 'carpet bombing'. Spotted enemy units would take a hit to their readiness (no loss in strength, though) and any unspotted enemy units would endure half the normal readiness drop when attacked. Bombers (and their escorts) still lose both readiness and strength when attacked by any defending enemy aircraft, however, along with a drop in readiness (and maybe strength too from any AA) from the bombing itself. But the land unit only loses readiness.

* A unit that is entrenched loses 1 readiness point for every level of entrenchment when it begins moving. So you get a hit for disorganization on units that have been sitting comfortably on their butts for too long.

* Lose a whole supply point if enemy air units have range to your land unit and you have no corresponding air cover (gives planes the ability to interdict supply). If you have a corresponding number of friendly air units that is equal to or greater than the number of enemy air units covering that hex, don't impart a supply hit; the interdiction is counter-acted.

* As a unit moves over land where an enemy air unit has range, it loses 1 readiness point for each hex travelled. Again, interdiction effects. And as above, if you have enough friendly air units with range to the hexes being travelled over, the interdiction is cancelled out.

This interdiction role is automatic (and effectively free) and does not impart any strength hit or loss of readiness on the air units themselves.

* Allow player to order aircraft to stand down so they do not participate in interdiction, auto-defense, escorting, or coordinated attacks with grounds units (described in previous posts). It's probably a better solution than requiring the player to move the unit out of the fray, reinforce, and then move them back.

Also, FOW described before still applies; wherever opposing air units have overlapping LOS, average the two so they can't see into each other's territory, enhancing FOW.

- Chris

[ March 08, 2003, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[Wolfe]

Even More suggestions!

* Expanding a bit on a previous idea. Units that more reflect their historical strength. So German Corps based on the old division format would be size 10. Pattern 44 would be size 8. SS Old Corps would be 11 to reflect that the SS divisions were generally better equipped. Italian divisions were notoriously small, so maybe they would be size 6. Prices, of course, would be proportional their unit size. You would be able to buy more weaker Italian Corps than German Corps with the same money. Though for the smaller Corps, there may have to be some fiddling with cost so too many can't be built preventing any movement through a wall of uncountable Corps (so a size 6 Corps may actually have to cost something like a size 7 one). Corps would be available only beginning at certain dates. Pattern 44 German Corps would not be available until sometime in 1944.

Ger Old Pattern - 10

Ger SS Old Patt - 11

Ger Pattern 44 - 8

Ger SS Patt 44 - 9

Jap Rifle - 8

Ita Rifle - 6

Rus Rifle Jul41 - 7

Rus Guards 41 - 8

Rus Rifle Dec42 - 6

Rus Guards 42 - 7

Chinese - 6 - Nationalists

Chinese Peoples - 4 - Communists

* Carriers and Battleships could also better represent their natural sizes. But, like the Infantry Corps, prices may have to be adjusted depending on size (smaller a bit more expensive, larger a bit less expensive). Carriers and Battleships would only become available for purchase at their completion dates (some leeway may be needed for ships that were never actually finished).

UK Hermes: 8, Courageous: 10, Ark Royal: 12.

US Lexington: 13, Hornet: 14, Franklin: 17.

Jap Akagi: 12, Shokaku: 13, Shinano: 7.

Ger Graf Zep: 10, Peter Strasser: 10.

Generic Escort Carrier (all navies): 7.

UK Hood: 12, Rodney: 11.

US Pennsylvania: 11, Iowa: 14.

Jap Kirishima: 11, Yamato: 15.

Ger Bismarck: 13, Pocket Battleships: 8.

* For any unit that is at full strength, draw a line under the strength number on the unit chit so it's easier to tell which units can be reinforced.

* Here's some Borg-style assimilation of other people's ideas into my own! If HQs can (or must) be used as Mulberrys to allow landings and provide supply, set default HQ Mulberry supply level at 3. As Operational Tech increases, increase HQ mulberry supply level. Max would be 8. If the HQ then lands, it's supply level returns to its normal 5 until a friendly port can be seized. The HQ as mulberry would be very vulnerable to attack, and so must be protected by friendly ships in the same hex. If turning HQs into mulberries is *required* to allow units to land, this will make landings more concentrated on only a couple of hexes, which I think would be more realistic. A Mulberry HQ next to a normal HQ on land would allow supply chaining as is currently in SC.

* For evacuating units via Mulberry, move land unit next to off-shore HQ and choose embark. This type of movement should cost much more MPP than embarking at a port and should almost completely destroy the embarking unit's readiness to discourage over-use and add a bit of realism to a Dunkirk-style retreat.

- Chris

[ May 14, 2003, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[JerseyJohn]

Wolfe

I'll have to let your new suggestions incubate a while before venturing opinions. Interesting ideas as always.

[ May 14, 2003, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

Wolfe

I really like your idea to have air units stand down status.

Perhaps air units that are in status stand down could have a slightly different tint so that you could tell their status at a glance.

As for evacuating via a Mulberry, I would have the evacuating unit take a substantial amount of damage if an opposing unit is adjacent to it, reflecting the fact that in evacuating under fire it would have to leave a large part of its combat equipment behind. Also, Armor units should take more damage than infantry units during such an evacuation.

[ May 14, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Wolfe

I really like your idea to have air units stand down status.

Perhaps air units that are in status stand down could have a slightly different tint so that you could tell their status at a glance.

Thanks! But it's been mentioned before by some other folks, I believe. I kinda like it better than having to move air units away in order to protect them from their own responsiveness. I think it might even be useful in the game now.

Another way I thought of to differentiate a unit that is standing down but forgot to mention is to have the little blinky thing at the bottom of the chit blink a different color (say, red for standing down) instead of white. Just a thought.

- Chris

[Edwin P.]

Wolfe

I forgot to mention I also like your FOW rule:

Also, FOW described before still applies; wherever opposing air units have overlapping LOS, average the two so they can't see into each other's territory, enhancing FOW.

The only change I would make is to say that only air fleets and carrier fleets can limit LOS, opposing bomber fleets can't.

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

I forgot to mention I also like your FOW rule:

The only change I would make is to say that only air fleets and carrier fleets can limit LOS, opposing bomber fleets can't.

A good point about the bomber fleets. But carriers also shouldn't limit the enemy's FOW because it will give away their general position. In the Pacific the Japanese player would place air units all around his extended empire as an early warning system. American carriers whose LOS extends out far beyond the ship itself would limit the Japanese plane's FOW, giving away his own position. The main thing I wanted to do is limit the cross-channel uber-view that the Brit and German Air units have.

- Chris

[Edwin P.]

[ May 15, 2003, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

After reading the posts here are the changes I like the most which could be added to SC so they could be playtested prior to being incorporated into SC2 .

1. "If England surrenders, a good amount of its navy can continue to fight (it ostensibly transfers to Canada)." - Free Brits (aka Free French rules for UK and USSR Navy Ships)

2. Random starting location of 2 Axis Subs in the 1939 Scenario North Atlantic so that they could appear in the MidAtlantic or the SouthAtlantic

4. Add post surrender partisans to Russia / Spain / Turkey / UK (aka Yugoslavia) and allow them to appear in Mountain, Swamp, Forest, and City hexes. [ Due to Size of Russia - 2 chances per turn for partisans? ]

5. "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"

6."Transfer of Siberian Army should fall under FOW."

8. "Never show size [ie Strength] 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."

9. Have a chance (about 3%) for a mass uprising if most (51%) of Russia's surrendered cities are not garrisoned. [A partisan unit would appear in every ungarrisoned city. If one of the three Russian capital cities was liberated then Russia would be activated and a random number of reinforcements would arrive from Siberia again along the border hexes closest to the liberated capital city.]

11. Even though its not in this thread, Allow the UK to build units in Canada (usually only infantry to stop an early axis invasion)

[ May 25, 2003, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Wolfe]

Don't think they do currently, so maybe Partisans could get a supply bonus of 2 or 3 above what they would normally have? This would simulate their ability to live off the land and receive help from friendly civilians. Would also be nice to have different size Partisan units (maybe start at size 2-4, somewhat randomized) for some flavor.

- Chris

[JerseyJohn]

These are all good points. The Siberian transfer is particularly annoying because the Soviet Leader doesn't directly control it. I think that ought to be changed. If I'm Stalin I know when and where they're arriving, how many units they'll be and I'm telling them when they're leaving Siberia. This put a tooth uner your pillow approach is wrong. As the Russians I've had several PBEM games where the reserves don't arrive at all till the Germans are actually in the URALS! I don't know what the triggering factors are and don't care -- the transfer ought to be up the Soviet Leader and that's all there is to it.

Regarding FOW, of course the Germans should have no idea as to their arrival or whereabouts.

Regarding locations of attacking aircraft and rockets. I think it should depend upon the level of the defender's radar development.

[ May 18, 2003, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

Wolfe

What you are really asking for is a new unit called Partisans. If you are going to go down that route, then we might as well do the partisan thing all over, since there really should be no "partisan unit".

All partisans did at this level was cut supply lines and cause some MPP damage.

[DSEDS]

folks, one of the greatest advantages of SC was that it is very simply. You can play it without reading a 300 page Rulebook. Adjustments are okay, but changing simply rules to complex ones is not making SC better. It destroys the original game and some suggestions seems to me as a try to make SC to a total different game.

Some people here should think about SC is really the game they looked for.

KEEP IT SIMPLE

PS: All i want is a entire World Theater SC2

[ May 23, 2003, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: DSEDS ]

[CorsairBlue]

Greetings all.

Personally, I would like to see random events. This could possibly lead to a beginning game time of 1936 and no nation's at war. This would allow for continued military build ups, etc. till a random event caused a nation(s) to go to war or a player nation attacked another. JUst off the wall; dont mind me.

I would like to see the end game time increased perhaps. An aggressive AI with more built in options of attacking. Remember guys, not all of us play against human opponent's. Example: when the US gets involved, it always heads for Great Britain either to reinforce GB or to set up for France invasion. Why dont it head to Africa? The US was involved there also. I would really like to see a 'better', single player AI if that were possible but probably ain't a feasiable thing..dunno.

I'm not as knowledgeable nor am I versed in 'technical' game data as many here are, but I do love the game. Been playing Jersey's mod and with a few tweaks have made it quite a pleasing and challenging game for me against the AI.

Sorry for my misguided opinion's but this great game has the potential to be a seriously awesome game!

[JerseyJohn]

CorsairBlue

It is my impartial opinion that anyone who plays one of my scenarios cannot possibly have a misguided opinion!

Glad you added some tweaks, I've done so several times. When I finally feel I have those two campaigns set properly I'll ask Otto to replace the existing ones with final versions. Till then I don't want to bother him with upgrades, he's a great guy which is all the more reason not to abuse his patience.

Enjoyed your posting and hope you make many, many more.

[ May 24, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Edwin P.]

CorsairBlue

I second your motion for a more aggresive and less predictable AI as I am another one of those fellows who plays the AI more often than a human.

In addition to the US attacking North Africa/Sicily I would like to see:

1. Brits take Iraq and Ireland

2. Germans DOW Denmark on Turn 1 and Take Norway/Sweden

3. German Sealion invasion of the United Kingdom

4. Axis campaign against Egypt/Iraq

An AI that knows when to retreat. I just surrounded a pocket of 8 german units in Russia. They had an exit path 2 hexes wide they could have used to operate out of the pocket. They did not and quickly lost all 8 units.

[ May 25, 2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Titan]

Some idea idea's wolfe i would like to see some of them,Destroyers,fighterbombers AA units would be nice to.But a world map would be great

[Wolfe]

And again!

* From the discussion Two More Things: Limit number of units plus MPP/IPP with number of open land hexes that are owned. So 1 land hex could supply 2 manpower points. Currently Germany starts with 66 open hexes and collects 120 MPP. The number of owned hexes would limit MPP production (military would always get all the manpower points first) and encourage the building of fewer units since you would have to support a large army at the cost of available MPPs. This would encourage the Axis player in particular to expand (especially with Japan's extremely limited number of Hexes and large navy to support).

* You could also take the running unit losses (already tracked in the current game) and subtract them from the available MPPs every turn to represent losses of men that cannot be replaced, further limiting recklessly large builds and discouraging excessive risk-taking with existing units.

* 3 levels of small fortresses: 1, 2, and 3. Each adds an extra defensive point to the unit in that hex. Each level would take time to build (more than one turn) and would cost MPPs to upgrade (though less than it originally cost to construct).

* For units to retreat their size must be less than 50% and supply and readiness levels must be low as well. Retreat is not automatic, however, have some variation in when units retreat. If a unit that is protecting an HQ retreats, the HQ will also retreat with that unit.

* For units sitting on Plains, Steppe, or Desert tiles, make retreating twice as likely as normal (less destruction, more maneuver).

* Desert and Open Desert tiles. Open Desert tiles are the same as Desert except they drain supply twice as fast. Will help keep the battle of North Africa closer to the coast.

* Wadi/Plateau tiles for Africa and Australia. Tile would behave like the Hill tile mentioned previously.

* Mountain Peaks tile type. Tank units would not be able to move onto these, and air units could not land. Supply is severely affected. Also railroads cannot run through these, so Italy may be cut off from Operational movement from the rest of the continent if Allied units occupy the right hexes in the northern Italian mountains.

* Escarpment/Depression tile type. Similar to Mountain Peak, movement is almost impossible. No RR, kills supply, and Aircraft and Tanks can't enter.

* Jungle tile type. Similar to Forest tile, but with less movement and better air defense.

* Mountain Jungle tile. Between Mountain Peak and Jungle, has less supply than Jungle but not as much defensive value as Mountain Peak.

* Minor River tile that slightly decreases movement and has smaller impact on supply (like a forest tile), but without the defensive bonus of the forest. This one is only if the game's hex size changes.

* Bombers are not allowed to land on mountain, swampy, jungle, or forested hexes.

* Movement out of a hex should count against the movement cost for that unit. So a unit sitting on a mountain hex and moving onto an open plains would suffer the initial cost of moving off the mountain, and not just movement through the easier Plains.

* For units sitting on Desert, Open Desert, Plains, or Steppe tile types, add one movement point (at beginning of movement for that turn only) to allow the unit to travel slightly further on this tile type.

* Italian annexation of Albania in 1939.

* Italian annexation of Abyssinia (Ethiopia) in Oct 1935 - May 1936 (if the game goes back that far).

* Allow tank units to attack up to 2 times per turn depending on movement left. Naval and air units may attack up to 3 times per turn. Infantry may only attack once.

* Purloined this idea from Shaka: When equally matched, defending units should have inherent advantage in fighting. Currently the attacker has a higher attack number. With the defender getting the higher number this would force the attacker to attack with numbers (stacked), with support (automatic coordinated attack with air (or naval) units), with better supply (nearby HQ), or with more experienced units (thus wearing these valuable units down more) to be able to achieve a break-through.

* When Spain joins the war (either side) its MPPs for all cities start out at zero. Spain was still recovering from its civil war and its infrastructure, particularly railroad, was devastated.

* During fall of France if BEF and French I Corps and any Allied HQs have a hex path to a friendly port (or a hex path to an HQ "mulberry" off-shore), let them automatically escape to England. If not, then they surrender. Also, after fall of France automatically create deGaulle HQ in Britain. Britain also gets any research chits (not necessarily the technology itself, however) that France had. More good ideas can be found here: Free French and Polish Forces.

* A special Partisan unit that is allowed to attack both sides could be used for Chinese Communists. These units only appear in parts of northern China when any 'enemy' unit encroaches and will not leave its northern area. This would allow the Allied player to play the Nationalists, but still keep the inherent animosity between the two as well as keep the Japanese out of parts of northern China (or atleast discourage their entering the northern provinces). Historically the Nationalists and Communists did fight together against the Japanese, but allowing this in the game might make the Chinese too strong (too many units for the Japanese to deal with). The special "Partisan" unit would add some flavor and could assist game balance, keeping both sides at bay.

- Chris

[ June 05, 2003, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]