Minotaur Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Only playing for a few weeks and already wishing some changes in the game... Here what I hope to see... - [in Game] Bombers & Subs as a Strategic weapon are useless... Replacing 1-3 bombers cost far more than the 1-3 MPP points they destroy... As for the subs, if you're master of the seas, only then they can do their strategic work without fear of being annihilated the next turn!... - [in Game] When France, UK and USSR are conquered by the Axis, it should be Game Over... Axis Win... Having to invade USA make no sense... - [Editor or in game] Giving the Axis the choice of making Vichy France or not... Idem for Eastern Poland (German/Soviet pact On/Off?)... - [Editor] Being able to make every minor countries Axis or Allies... In other words, having the full choice when you Update a country (Side with Axis/Allies, Surrender to Axis/Allies, etc...) - [Editor] Change value of Cities/Ports... - [Editor] Add/Remove Cities/Ports... I think this would make a very good game even better... Feel free to add your ideas to this list... [ February 12, 2003, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: Minotaur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Glad to hear you are enjoying the game and have already come up with a wishlist. While this is not specifically a tech support issue all ideas are welcome and I will move it to the SC General Discussion Forum so that others can add/comment to your list. Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Minotaur. I have recently found out that the reason why subs are ineffective might not be unit values but rather the map size. In SC, the Atlantic ocean is much smaller than in real world so it is easy to cover as well. A larger Atlantic ocean would make it more costly for Allies to divide fleet there to do the job. About bombing: 1) Bombing give your hq experience. 2) Mines can be bombed WITHOUT any losses since they hav air defence 0. 3) Researching bombers can knock down a resource from 10->3 on a single blow and the cost for the resource is not just immediate but also every turn it rebuilds. Having a city at level 3 will give 3 MPP i.e 7 MPP less than a level 10 city every turn. 4) The problem as I see it, is not the bombing efficiency but rather the Anti-Aircraft radar efficiency. The Integer values in this game makes Anti-Aircraft and Anti-Tank research do swift things and suddenly switch "worth to attack" becomes "not worth to attack". A smoother transition would be nicer. [ February 12, 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Minotaur This is the first wish list I'm in total agreement with on every single item. Most of these have been brought up in other forums but you've got the best previous stated ideas here along with one or two that are original and also very good. The subs and bombers issue has been kicked around from the start with many different suggestions as to how they should be improved. A thumbs up on all of them. Unfortunately, coming from me that's also the Kiss of Death! -- just joking, I hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Zappsweden has it right about the bombers. They are very deadly, especially at the higher tech levels. Just have to be careful in your choice of targets. Don't assume though that they can be used without fighter escorts. They need the fighter escorts to protect them, otherwise, it could become more expensive to replace the losses. And while its true that the size of the Atlantic is an issue, subs can be used effectively. Don't attack with them, let the enemy ship "surprise" itself. Of course, the higher the tech the subs have, the better. And yes, if he has more ships around, they will try and eliminate the sub, but its a very cost effective way of tying up his naval forces. Invasion of USA is not realistic, agree. I don't think the AI will argue with you if you decide that you have won a total victory once the USSR and UK have fallen. Interesting about allowing a choice of Vichy or not. Since France has fallen, what are you suggesting if Vichy is not formed? That France moves it capital to one of the colonies, instead of thier being Free French? I don't think there are enough resources in Algeria and Syria to make them a viable nation. No Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact? I don't think we can do justice to this unless we had a more comprehensive Diplomatic system. But you could get the same effect of there being no agreement, by invading the Baltic States. The ability of the Editor to modify more than it can now ... while it would be nice, and would allow us to "tinker" with the system, I think it would cause problems for the AI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 12, 2003 Share Posted February 12, 2003 Shaka The need for expanded Diplomacy in the game is the main reason I second the Vichy and Ribbentrop/Molotov Pact options . They would help create the issue. Agreed with you that without the expanded Diplomacy doing things like having Germany invade the Baltic States would be nearly senseless unless the Axis player wanted to accelerate Russia's entry into the war while still fighting the Allies. Please see my Suggestion for SC II in a new Forum. [ February 12, 2003, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Originally posted by Shaka of Carthage: Interesting about allowing a choice of Vichy or not. Since France has fallen, what are you suggesting if Vichy is not formed? That France moves it capital to one of the colonies, instead of thier being Free French? I don't think there are enough resources in Algeria and Syria to make them a viable nation. I think the choice should be up to the player. So what if France cannot support itself on Algeria or Syria? Vichy is pretty easy to over run if you declare war on it right after the fall of France anyway. Maybe the French can pull some troops out the southern part and eventually threaten Italin North Africa (of course their will be an extra row of hexes down there ). However who gets to make the choice? The allies or the Axis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Panzer The problem with overrunning Vichy as the Axis is it affects and possibly prevents the normal Axis minors, such as Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria from joining Germany. The German doesn't want to overrun all these small fries and it's better to have them as allies than as conquered territories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 13, 2003 Author Share Posted February 13, 2003 Thanks all for your replies... Vichy France - To the Victorious the Choice When France surrender, the Axis player see a pop-up menu appear: "Create Vichy France? - YES or NO" If you choose Yes, then it's exactly what we see in the game... If you choose No, then all France is under Axis control... France is still gone as a major country... No changes on how to handle Free French units... But each French colonies has a (low) chance of becoming a minor Axis territory or a (high) chance of becoming a "Free-French territory" under UK... Why choose to refuse the creation of Vichy France? - You want Marseille right now... A good MPP + a good and secure port for the Italian ships... - A better frontline against Spain if you want Gibraltar the land way, fast... To allow Italian fleet out of the Mediterranean... - Quicker Italian reinforcement of France in case of an Allied "D-Day"... - Etc... Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact & automatic capture of the Baltic States by USSR - Should be an option before starting the game (like Free-French yes/no, Partisans yes/no, etc..) I wish it simply as a "what-if"... What if the front line was closer to Russia than it was in reality... If the USSR want the Baltic States then he has to declare war and invade like for every other countries (lowering the USSR & USA war % in the process)... As for changes in the Editor, I don't think any would be a problem for the AI, except perhaps for Adding/Removing Cities and Port... I understand that removing Berlin may be a problem... Perhaps Add/Remove only non-capital cities?... To zappsweden & Shaka: About bombers, I see your point... I didn't actually sit down and use my calculator to check if the ratio MPP-lost-by-the-enemy/MPP-to-reinforce-my-aircrafts is acceptable... No doubt it is, after you have some levels of technology in Jet Fighter and Heavy Bomber... To JerseyJohn: Thanks... And I also hope you were just kidding about the Death Kiss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted February 13, 2003 Share Posted February 13, 2003 Here's an idea from 3R: How about giving the Axis player (Germany), the option to let Italy DOW on the Allies? There would be a penalty (possible a big one for balance). Zapp --- It would be nice if you could set-up the units of invaded countries. (Russia, Italy, Sweden, whoever). It would get rid of the scripted moves & strategies. I guess that's what happens when you play the game 100+ times. Rambo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 19, 2003 Author Share Posted February 19, 2003 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Zapp --- It would be nice if you could set-up the units of invaded countries. (Russia, Italy, Sweden, whoever). It would get rid of the scripted moves & strategies. I guess that's what happens when you play the game 100+ times.I agree with that... but I don't know if it's possible in game when the country 'awaken'... But in the Editor, definitely... And there's two more... - [in Game] Being able to Give MPPs to another country (with a % penalty, for the transport)... - [Editor] Being able to set the Plunder of each countries... [ February 18, 2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Minotaur ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Minotaur Interesting take on Vichy & French colonies -- sort of combining the COS and HICOM approaches to the situation. If the German refuses Vichy I think all the French ships should become Free French as a bargaining chip. That pretty much sums up Hitler's reason for going that route, the colonies and neutralizing the French Navy. I too hope the Death Kiss remark was only a joke. The fact I've made 9,328 suggestions to date and none have ever gotten anywhere is probably just a coincidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 I agree with Germany being able to choose weather or not there would be a Vichy France, but I think that if Germany does not create a Vichy France the French should carry on the war as the French (not as the Vichy French or as the Free French but as a united French). If the Germans had rejected the creation of Vichy France when Paris fell, they would also have been rejecting the armistce that dropped France from the war (Vichy France was a condition the French made at the armistce). If Germany does not agree to create a Vichy France, I think the French goverment should move to England and all French units should remain under French control. This would not only be realistic but would make some very interesting games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 19, 2003 Share Posted February 19, 2003 Comrade Trapp Can't argue. Great clarification and suggestion. One of the last decisions the Third Republic made was to decline Winston Churchill's suggestion that England and France Combine . I've never quite understood what he meant by that but it's interesting in relation to this thread and the distinction you've just drawn. What if the French capital, instead of moving to London, goes first to Marsielles, then to Algiers, and finally to London? If London falls it goes to Manchester with the British Government. I wonder if it's possible in the game mechanics to house two governments in the same capital. I tend to doubt it would be. [ February 19, 2003, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 20, 2003 Author Share Posted February 20, 2003 Comrade Trapp & JerseyJohn - True France should continue the fight, from UK, if Vichy France is not accepted... New HQ DeGaulle?... Problem is: How many MPP goes to France?... A % of the UK goes to France?... Only MPP from French colonies?... France can barely construct a Corps in 1939... Imagine if it has to live only with Algeria & Syria... Perhaps in SC 2?... JerseyJohn - Now I understand what you means by 'the Kiss of Death'... Depend on how much they wish to improve their game (via patches) before beginning the next one... And just to improve on one suggestion: [Editor] Be able to place units of every countries BEFORE they 'awake' (when DoW is called)... Instead of being forced to activate (Update) the country to place units... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 The problem with placing units before they awake is knowing which side will invade a neutral, so who places the units. I don't want a turn to be interupted so that the other side can place the units after a DOW, but we can't do it before a DOW either. My solution is to randomize the starting locations. Unit can be in Hex 1, 2, or 3. Computer randomly places. As a country has more and more units, the greater probabilities of variance in starting location. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 Minotaur You certainly do understand the KoD syndrome! It's the recurring experience of watching your posts recede and disappear and after a while you figure, oh well! It becomes difficult to maintain any real incentive. By now many of the best ideas and suggestions from many, many people who rarely post these days (or have stopped posting altogether) are buried forty pages back on this thing. Oh well! KDG Random placement of both, active and inactive players would be a problem. As a rule, if all the reachable cities are covered by at least a corps it seems to be okay. To me the worst case is Greece. It has a strong army but most players simply plaster Athens and land in the city. Poof! those two armies vanish and it's all over. One of those armies in Athens instead of the corps might make this less likely to occur. In most cases, however, there isn't much to be done. Italy would be fine with corps in each of her four mainland cities -- an airfleet representing her large airforce wouldn't hurt. True, her aircraft were obsolescent but in 1939/40 they were no more so than France or Poland and they had a lot more of them. So where's the Italian air force? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 I'm mainly talking about Russia, plus the neutrals. No matter what the random placement was, I'd insure that all cities were covered. If a country had only 1 unit, I'd add a 2nd unit that would be placed randomly. I'd also limit where the random locations were. Each unit might have 2 or 3 locations that is could be at. This would throw off attackers just enough to eliminate the same type of attack each time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 20, 2003 Share Posted February 20, 2003 KDG Good clarifications. Limiting the locations and making them sensible hexes would keep things honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minotaur Posted February 21, 2003 Author Share Posted February 21, 2003 Originally posted by KDG: The problem with placing units before they awake is knowing which side will invade a neutral, so who places the units.Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're talking about placing units when playing a game... I was talking about placing units in the Campaign Editor... In the editor, you must 'Awake' a country (ie. make it active right at the start of the game) to be able to place/move units... That's what's annoys me... I wish to be able to place units of a country without 'Awakening' it at the start of a game... I don't think we will see units placement in game in SC... Place bets on SC2... But to answer your question 'Who places the units?'... Not the guy who made a DoW, for sure... The other one... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 21, 2003 Share Posted February 21, 2003 Minotaur I don't think the options you're talking about are possible on the present scenario editor. There have been many previous suggestions for an expanded campaign editor and even for a full game generator (including a rangom map generator and map creator) using an enhanced version of this game engine which many people have said they'd be willing to buy as a seperate item; including myself. No word yet on any of that. [ February 20, 2003, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts