Jump to content

For Huber Cater (Suggestions)


Recommended Posts

Hi ppl!

In this post I would make few constructional critics on SC,but only in my intention that my advices could help for SC to be even a greater game than it is already.SC is a really great and wonderful game that took me long long hours of playing and I am enjoying it every time more and more.I would like to address this post on SC creator,Huber Cater in my hope that he will read this and that he 'll be able to do something about it and make some changes in further updates and patches in SC.First I would start with editor.Editor by itself is easy and friendly to most of users but it also has lack of some features.There is a large lack of freedom in editor.When I bought a game I expected much stronger and powerfull editor where I will be able to change cities,woods,mountains,even terrain and add some new things on a map.It really has lack of features and additional possibilities and overall,it's really weak.

Hubert,why havent you put ability in editor where we could build a new cities,new mines or fortifications,you know,to put a icon of city and name it how we want and put it somewhere on a map(I would like to see my city struggling against allied forces :-P).Second,why it doesn't have ability that we can create more national armies of,for example,when I want to create one additional army of Hungary,why I can't create it?I just can create new armies of SSSR,USA,England,France,Italy and Germany.This really sucks.I have few friends that also play Strategic Command and they all had agreed in one biggest error...why there are no cannon guns units(artillery) and we all know that artillery participated very much in WWII besides tanks,ships,infantry and airplanes...it's really bad that they are not represented in the game.This mainly applies on campaign Overlord,we all know how important the cannons were at landings on Normandy '44,then in the Abbey,at Monte Casino,they really highly marked the whole war era of WWII.Heh,one friend of mine said:”Hey,do they really think to win a war without artillery??!”hehehe :).Could they be available trough upcoming updates and patches?By me,the most stupid thing in the game is that game is limited till 12th May 1946.This is really bad move since it takes us enjoyment of conquering additional countries.For example,I beat SSSR,france,Spain,Portugal and so on,and then I focus on England.I build many upgraded airplanes and launch air raids on Britain.Like always,I don't have any luck so my siege of Britain lasts for a long long time.In the meantime,there comes 12th may 1946 and it says:"War is over.All sides entered peace negotiations” and I was just getting into the game.Can you remove this limitation?Or at least,make time runs slower?I don’t like when I see that this turn is “March” and next turn its already “May” and so on…"It really sucks and makes game kinda time limited.Especially if you r playing whole day marathons…I was forced many time to move dates of some campaing to 1939 just so that I can play it as long as possible.So what If war ends in 1947 or 1951!??Personally this time limitation irritates me so much that I thought for a second that there is no difference between demo and full release since they are both time limited.Why I can’t enjoy the game after 1946?Really pissed me off.Please,I would like you to consider these critics as sign of good faith between us,gamers, and you,gamers and developers and beyond all,as fair advices.Overall,SC is,I repeat,very great game with quality I haven't seen for a long time in wwII turn-based strategies genre.Great thanks to Fury and Battlefront on job well done but with those mistakes eliminated or at least partially fixed,this game could be much much better,not to mention improvement on longetivity of playing.Thanks for your time,hope you read it carefully and see you around,gotta kick some Allied arses!!!:-P

Link to post
Share on other sites
First I would start with editor.Editor by itself is easy and friendly to most of users but it also has lack of some features.There is a large lack of freedom in editor.When I bought a game I expected much stronger and powerfull editor where I will be able to change cities,woods,mountains,even terrain and add some new things on a map.It really has lack of features and additional possibilities and overall,it's really weak.
It's a 'Campaign Editor' as advertised and not a game engine builder.

Hubert,why havent you put ability in editor where we could build a new cities,new mines or fortifications,you know,to put a icon of city and name it how we want and put it somewhere on a map(I would like to see my city struggling against allied forces :-P).
Can you imagine the support problems if I did? ;)

Second,why it doesn't have ability that we can create more national armies of,for example,when I want to create one additional army of Hungary,why I can't create it?I just can create new armies of SSSR,USA,England,France,Italy and Germany.This really sucks.
These are preset as a design decision.

For the rest I'll allow others to comment in the main SC forum as it may be more appropriate and of greater interest there... so moving it there or here (depending on how you look at it I guess ;) ).

Hubert

Link to post
Share on other sites

What kind of support problems Hubert? If it would be simply dropping down a city or mine tile I think it would be fairly easy. For one I think the personal customization would allow the player to add the changes he wants to the map without petitioning you (example a port in Belfast or Suez City) and upsetting other players who do not want to see them added. I understand if this cannot be done for SC because of design decisions etc, maybe for SC 2 or a future project? I also understand that SC only promises a Campaign Editor, but a campain editor can mean a lot of different things to different people. One could see it as a list of options to check like in the SC option screen, or as similar to the one in SC, or even as something that lets you paint your own map. I for one am not asking to be able to make my own map, that would in fact be closer to a game engine builder, but modify the map you have made by placing/removing mines etc. You have made a great game that appeals to many people, it would be nice to be able to modify the map to appeal to our own individual challenges and tastes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gen K, I disagree with you on the need for artillery as a seperate unit. It is an integral part of the corps and armies and in no way should it be an individual unit. Each ground unit consists of all types of different units, like engineers, medics, artillery etc.

As for not being able to add minor armies I agree with you. I would like more leeway on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What kind of support problems Hubert?
The game is setup and balanced for the original design, if too much editing is allowed then it introduces a lot of potential problems. Incompatibility between versions for multi-player games, the "I added 20 extra cities and removed 10 ports and now the AI seems a little confused, please fix it!" etc, etc.

I know that there are ways around the incompatibility issues for multi-player but it was never the original intention and perhaps for a future version. Long story short,

the game plays well as is and I will continue to spot and introduce improvements, but only those that I can thoroughly test under Fury Software control. Not everyone can get what they want unfortunatly, and if they did when would it ever end ;)

You are correct that the the Campaign Editor can have many different meanings, but it does allow you to build campaigns for the game and is the same one I used for building campaigns for the game. It may not have all the features everyone wants but I am always listening and those that can be safely introduced as a potential change I will most certainly do.

Hope that helps,

Hubert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hubert,

You have a winner here without a doubt!

Sc is one of the best strategic games I've played for several years? Easy to get into yet deceptively simple.

A more "advanced" editor would be very much appreciated, but again you're right in saying that

you shouldn't be able to unbalance the play.

Often heard is the lack of Hq's for the minor allies. If ALL of the minors had at least one it would IMHO only add flexibility.Correct?

Being able to add one or two units to the minors would greatly enhance the game.Again imho Finland needs an airforce.There weren't all that many Finnish planes but they did really well against the Sovjets as far as I can tell. Now there's probably dozens of people who think that I'm wrong here so adding this feature to an editor seems ideal. You can take it or leave as you will and best of all, deal with the consequences.

Controling the probability of the minors joining the Axis or Allied camp is another feature much demanded. Whilst this could seriously unbalance things it is would also give the gave immensely more depth.

Worth considering Hubert?

Fitzroy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since the devs are looking at this thread, I feel that research needs looking at. It appears to be tied to conquests, and that gives Germany a huge advantage in the early games.

In a current PBEM game my opponent, playing Germany, is invading my Russia with level 5 (!) tanks. I am sorry, but even if they did have the designs for King Tigers or Mauses perfected by 1941, they wouldn't be able to re-equip every panzer division with them in under a year.

Perhaps there should be a limit to how much one can advance in any one field in a years time. Say one or two levels. Actually, I think that would be a big improvement, almost manditory. :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Rouge:

Some people here are focusing on the mistakes made by Hubert, not the good things. The good things far outweigh the minor mistakes because if they didnt we wouldnt waste our time on this site.

I don't think people focus on mistakes, especially not in a malicious manner. We all know what a great game it is but, saying that, we all tend to look at what's next in the SC line. There is no harm in bringing up suggestions which may prove to be for the betterment of future versions of the game.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Rediroc:

Since the devs are looking at this thread, I feel that research needs looking at. It appears to be tied to conquests, and that gives Germany a huge advantage in the early games.

In a current PBEM game my opponent, playing Germany, is invading my Russia with level 5 (!) tanks. I am sorry, but even if they did have the designs for King Tigers or Mauses perfected by 1941, they wouldn't be able to re-equip every panzer division with them in under a year.

Perhaps there should be a limit to how much one can advance in any one field in a years time. Say one or two levels. Actually, I think that would be a big improvement, almost manditory. :cool:

The down side to Tigers in '41 (if there is one

of course :D ) is that it will cost the German

player bukku MPPs to repair them, if he also

hasn't invested in Industrial Tech as well. IOW

I doubt you will see panzer units at strength 15

after the first turn of Barbarossa. Which

reminds me: is a level 5 tank at strength 10

a significantly better unit than a level 1 tank

at strength 10? Always wondered about that... :confused:

But overall yes I would like to see luck play

>slightly< less of a role in tech gains. Some

games I get level 5 in something very quickly,

other games I get virtually nothing for my

investment-even over a three year period... :rolleyes:

John DiFool

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Rediroc:

In a current PBEM game my opponent, playing Germany, is invading my Russia with level 5 (!) tanks. I am sorry, but even if they did have the designs for King Tigers or Mauses perfected by 1941, they wouldn't be able to re-equip every panzer division with them in under a year.

This is something that annoys me. To get lvl 5 Pz until 1941, your opponent must have been extremely lucky or he just restarted the turn several times. It is annoying that this is possible to do.

I feel it is a waste of time starting a game just to find out that your opponent gets research levels out of the ordinary.

Hubert, Research should be calculated at the en of one's turn but the result should only show up at the beginning of the next turn. This way no one can cheat. And I'll promise the game will live longer because of this.

My 2 cents

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I play I get the impression that the expected bell curve of research results is not quite right. Things seem more random than they should be, with multi-year streaks of quick advances or streaks of no advances being the rule rather than the exception.

While these things can happen, they should be relatively rare. Say you have research points in 4 areas with 3 in a couple and two in the others - that translates into 4x13=52 dice rolls per year. One old statistical rule of thumb is that you should begin to expect the bell curve to assert itself after around 30 data points. My impression from my play and posts on this board is that games commonly are well above or below the expected results. This is, of course based on way too few games to be statistically significant, so your mileage may vary!

In an earlier version, there was a bug related to resetting the random number generator. I wonder if that bug is not quite dead yet?

Anyway, if the dice are working properly I think that the simplest solution to rationalizing research is to limit each area to 4 points instead of 5.

[ September 02, 2002, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: USGrant ]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

I actually thought about this, and the only drawback to this is that if a player knows he will receive a positive research calculation they may take advantage of this by playing the turn over and over again to gain a superior combat round knowing that the research will always be guaranteed.

Hubert

Well, I would think that this is not as big of a problem as it is when a person is redoing the turn 15 times in order to get an advance that shifts the balance.

I don't really see the benefit of replaying the turn based on obtained tech level. I could just as well use the same argument to replay my next turn several times.

Cheating in getting tech levels affects all subsequent turns and will eventually cause the game to become obsolete faster. People will only play with people they know and ladder games will be infected with, "you cheated this and that."

You have done a great job Hubert and I appreciate your design decisions. I am also a programmer and understand what you are going through. You have made wise decisions in avoiding feature creeps. :eek:

However, I think that this change is something worth looking into. Your game will last longer, trust me.

Hope this game gives you reward for all the work you put into it. I bought the game mainly to support you as a starting game developer, but I have to admit that it has hooked me in playing PBEM because it is so fast. However, when people cheat against me, I feel it is a waste of time to play...

Link to post
Share on other sites
When I play I get the impression that the expected bell curve of research results is not quite right. Things seem more random than they should be, with multi-year streaks of quick advances or streaks of no advances being the rule rather than the exception.
I understand that, but believe me I've double, no triple checked this thing and it is what it is, a random research model where you sometimes get the results you expect and where you sometimes don't. ;)

In an earlier version, there was a bug related to resetting the random number generator. I wonder if that bug is not quite dead yet?
Believe me it's dead!

Anyway, if the dice are working properly I think that the simplest solution to rationalizing research is to limit each area to 4 points instead of 5.
Investment points or research level possible for each area? If it's the latter that won't change as it's preset to allow each unit type to attain a final strength level of at least 15.

Hubert

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I would think that this is not as big of a problem as it is when a person is redoing the turn 15 times in order to get an advance that shifts the balance.

I don't really see the benefit of replaying the turn based on obtained tech level. I could just as well use the same argument to replay my next turn several times.

The way it is now there are two main random factors per turn (there may be more and that will only complicate this further), the research returned and the outcome of your up and coming battles. If one is locked and guaranteed then it allows to replay the other until the desired result is achieved, so the only course of action is to lock the other random factor as well. This might be doable, but would require a lot of work on my part where I think my time would be still better served in other areas for now.

Locked research may not seem like a big deal for the most part, but it just does not sit right with me to have one part locked and the other factors still open, i.e. it could occur where you will achieve a sweet research deal and be in a precarious position like the Battle of Britain, or a risky amphibious assault etc. where the combat results may dictate the outcome of the war as well.

That's all I will probably say for now and leave it open to other opinions in case we've missed something here ;)

You have done a great job Hubert and I appreciate your design decisions. I am also a programmer and understand what you are going through. You have made wise decisions in avoiding feature creeps. :eek:
Thanks!

Hubert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...