What i do NOT want to see in SC2.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Minotaur

We had a discussion, quite a lively one matter of fact, that discussed weather. I think the best suggestion that came out of that, was that for the first winter campaign a nation was in, they would be penalized (not prepared for winter weather). Certain nations (ie Finland, Norway and Sweden) would be exempt from this. From then on, that penalty would not occur.

And there would also be a reduction in the supply levels because of the weather. The reduction in supply would cause the reduced or no movement and penalities in combat.

[KDG]

EXPERIENCE

Here is the experience loss equation. As you can see, the higher your experience, the more you will lose as you reinforce.

Experience point losses = (reinforcement amount * Experience)/10

TRANSPORTS

As I mentioned earlier, having a transport lose 1 point of supply for each turn in the water will cut down on the gamey play of moving and waiting with transports.

I'd also make it that two hits on a transport kills it.

SUBS

You can take 5 MPP's per city in the Med and Atlantic. I'd increase Sub diving by 5% and see how that is

CARRIERS

They are weaker than planes, why change them.

Carriers attack tanks, infantry & planes at 1.

Planes attack tanks, infantry & carriers at 2, twice the fire power.

No one in their right mind would attack with a carrier below 5 anyways, too much risk to lose that bad mutha.

Units below 5 (carriers and planes) don't intercept, by the way.

WEATHER

I'd like to see a bit more effect in Russia

MAP

Increase by two spaces on all sides. Iraq to Russia with only one space over mountains, please.

[JerseyJohn]

Minotaur

Good idea about that research field -- petro-chemical products, etc., but it needs to be defined a bit.

I like the distinction regarding severe weather hanicap, exempting Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia from it's effects as it's a normal part of life for them.

There should be different types of weather with different types of effects on units depending upon the season.

I originally posted my ideas here but upon further consideration I see they're off-topic. I've copied them to other areas and would like to direct interested readers to the pair of new Forums: Weather in SC 2 and Suggested Denmark-Norway Option.

[Weather in SC 2 Forum]

[Denmark-Norway Option]

[ March 01, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[xwormwood]

Shaka of Carthage: You asked for the total number of german subs in the atlantic. Here we go:

between 19. - 23.08.39 the total number of 16 (in words: sixteen!) german subs entered their positions in the atlantic.

In September 1939 the Kriegsmarine owned 57 U-Boote, but only 26 had the capability to do duty in the atlantic, the other subs were only able to sail in the north sea or the baltic sea.

That's all. So each sub (there are 2 atlantic subs in SC 1939 scenario) represents eight subs. Great, really. Conclusion: In a 1941 scenario the german play should have at least 10 (!!!) subs in the atlantic, some in the baltic sea and some more in ports (norway, france, germany).

[88mm]

wormwood: Nice try

You forget however that the 3 subs you're having in 1939 are symbols, they represents a sub-battlegroup not a single sub each or so. If that's what you're after how about the 20+ battleships of brittain and the 50+ cruisers ?

The trouble with the subs lies in the fact that they can meet cruisers/battleships (comb. fleets!-where are the detroyers ?) on even terms. Totally off-balance. There were two mayor hits with subs as i recall, the battleship HOOD and a carrier early in the war. After that the subkilling was primairy left to transports and convoys.

So my solution would be a sub that can attact battle-ships, but only with a element of surpise they should be have a change to succeed. A little cance however, because these are battle-groups not single units. It's silly to see a wolfpack wipe-out a naval-fleet with ecorts ins't it

The supply-lines should be presented with some supply ships, which travel back and forth between the ports. These should be the objective for the wolfpacks.

Anyway, these ideas look all fine and it's great to see we discuss it. This doesn't say however that the game will get that "historicle" feeling. In my mind this won't occur simply due to the fact the game-engine have to may flaws and the greatest sittback; it's too compressed

[Panzer39]

A single U-boat managed to sink the Royal Oak, given it was at anchor but still.... What if Germany choose to go after the escorts and not the transports?

In a similar vein, SC2 needs to expand the role of surface ships. German Capital ships need to be able to commerce raid.

The Map also needs to be expanded a hex or two to the North to allow for breakouts by the Kriegsmarine. As it is now the only way to get them anywhere is through the Channel. This includes subs which is totally stupid.

If not a map expansion, maybe add some arrows by Norway that would transport a ship to the North Atlantic similar to the Suez route. Allow for random damage to simulate possible interception. Also allow German ships to come back.

[ April 29, 2003, 08:41 PM: Message edited by: Panzer39 ]

[JerseyJohn]

Panzer

[...] add some arrows by Norway that would transport a ship to the North Atlantic similar to the Suez route. Allow for random damage to simulate possible interception. Also allow German ships to come back.

Good Luck, a few of us have been pushing for that for a long time now and it hasn't gotten anywhere. I have no idea why it gets such negative responses as it would reflect the way things were done during the actual Battle of the Atlantic. The current Atlantic setup lacks any semblance of realism.

There were some convoy attacks where the U-boats did go after the escorts. In one they sank the original escort carrier along with some of the destroyers but suffered heavy losses themselves.

[ April 30, 2003, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[santabear]

didn't have time to reread the whole chapter, but as I recall it argued that Germany gained much more from France and the Low Countries than they ever did from Russia.

I haven't read this book, but most of what I've read recently also argues that Russia was not much help to Germany economically--the west was far more useful.

================================

I agree with JerseyJohn on the weather (now a separate thread), and the Mediterranian. It is possible to walk a corps all the way across Africa with no supply. And the supply rules occasionally seem to defy logic.

=================================

Amphibious operations need to be more than right-clicking 'transport' and then landing anywhere on a coast. I am a firm believer that Allied air and naval power were decisive in WWII, but SC is rather extreme in it's embrace of this idea. Landing craft were a big limiting factor in Allied operations, whereas in SC they're more abundant than air units.

[SeaWolf_48]

I don't want to see a game without: paratroops, amphibious units that need to be expanded by research, beach-head supply units, engineers that can build fortifications, cheap garrison troops, motorized infantry/grenidier troops as opposes to non-motorize infantry, research for intelligence that exposes FOW units, units that retreat after 25% damage, SS Corps and Guards Armies, Marmansk Convoy Supply route, and a partrige in a pear tree.

[BriantheWise]

My oh my,

So many wants and notwants, about what might become SCII. But, first of all, consider, all of what we do have in SC: A truly dynamic and balanced game, especially on TCP with the bidding system (thanks Zap, great idea, no doubt); fast paced, complex to get, easy, so easy, to play; relative realism.

Overall, just my opinion, but it's a break out game. (And it's his first one - he's on the right track). The flatform for this is simply outrageously excellent and versatile (I don't know about the code):

Therefore, I think, it some ways, some of these opionions/criticisms/wanna haves are somewhat limited. And in many cases, we have travelled this road before, but here's my two nickles worth, if I may, succinctly contribute (echoing some of all of your worthy ideas, and stealing from the games that have come before this):

1) Less Hard Coded: Make it easier to make variant scenarios. Like CVM's concept of WW1. Great concept, CVM, even if the players have to jump through hoops.

2) Of Course, it's got to be global, bigger map, with more hexes, etc. and all. It's got to be able to do WW2 et al, and handle all of wars, modded, that have happened or could happen.

3) Beach hexes: Have one hex islands have a box next to them for the landers and the landed. Based on the scale, it's fight to the death, based on this scale. But that eliminates the worry about landing on a vacant Malta that's been thrashed by just air and naval, etc, and of course, most of the islands in the Pacific. I'm sure you all follow.

4) A separate research screen, closer to CIV3, but not at all like HOI (no comments on that game!)

5) Random events (ala A3R). Added playability, some weird outcomes. It could be turned off of course, or toned down.

6) Political influence (ala COS). Same thing.

7) I wonder about auto air interception. I buy a british air today and before I can transport it, it's intercepted a German air, defending something, like, London, I don't care about. I have no answer to this.

8) An AI that can handle so much more, and still provide replayability. I do not like, honestly, that I know as the allies, Germany cannot/will not invade England. It's ok, I understand, I know it's the toughest part of coding (and it's been done very well), but still...

I could go on and on, and I will, but not tonight...

Conclusion: I want more of what we have, larger, better. Paratroops - smile. I find that silly.

And so on, I won't even go into all of that.

Issues ironed out, of course.

But over all, bottom line, I want another game Hubert that's like this, but more. And more and more.

(my, i'm not greedy at all, am I)

Be well, good people. What we got is a great game. What we want is more.

Brian the Wise

[Edwin P.]

BrianTheWise

You hit the nail on the head, you covered all the reasons why I like the game - well balanced (against humans), easy to get into, easy to play, and fun.

As long as the changes made improve on this balance with a less predicatable AI I will be very happy.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Experience:

I agree. The current algorithm is too linear, but could be more exponential. Make it easy to gain experience at low levels but harder to gain at higher levels; easy to lose experience at high levels but harder to lose at lower levels. Over time, this would tend to keep most units around the midpoint rather than at the extremes.

Particularly nice idea for coping with one of my complaints.

[KDG]

I agree, some units seem superhuman. Impossible to kill, dealing out inhuman amounts of damage. Maybe max out exp. at 3-4 instead of 5, which would lead to most units being in the 1 & 2 exp. catagory.

[Edwin P.]

In my mind experienced units and commanders are a lot smarter and more combat effective than green-horn draftees. They are also probably equipped with better equipment and more ammo than said green-horn units. If a unit can survive long enough to receive 5 experience medals, then they deserve it.

[KDG]

The problem is that a unit with 3 or higher exp. takes no damage during an attack, thus it makes it easier to get to level 4 or level 5 since no loss is taken. In world war two, would the most experienced unit, in open ground, be twice as effective as a unit with no experience fighting the same battle; as well as not take any damage?

If we keep level 4 or level 5 units, there should always be a decent chance that the unit could lose at least 1 strength.

[Edwin P.]

I do think that an experienced combat unit (be it air, army, or naval) would be more than twice as effective as a unit with no combat experience. In particular I am thinking about the performance of US units in the Vietnam war and more recently, US Army training exercies, where experienced OPFOR forces throughly trash in-experienced opposing forces.

I do agree that an experienced unit should have a chance to take at least 1 damage, especially when attacking another experienced unit.

[ May 01, 2003, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[JerseyJohn]

santabear

Welcome to the weather lobby.

Edwin

Oddly, because Hitler was so fond of creating new units, the newest equipment often went to green troops instead of veterans.

[Shaka of Carthage]

I would like all of you to take a look at the enhancement options that I am proposing. I hope to answer most, if not all of your requests and issues.

The easiest way to find it, is to go to that sticky thread on the top, the one for newbies, and link to my topic from there.

I'm very interested in seeing why it may not meet your need(s). I have tried to address the issues we all seem to be having.

[ May 02, 2003, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]