SC2 - Europe, 12 Items I want to see

[Edwin P.]

Here are the 10 items that I would like to see in SC2, if it is focused on Europe

AI Improvements

1. Canned (and Moddable) strategic/tactical routines to support Fuzzy Logic

Example:

a. UK Conquers Ireland with 1 Corps, 2 Carriers, 1 Battleship

b. UK Fleet concentrates Forces in Med to Destroy Italian Navy

c. German Invasion behind Riga

2. AI uses different stratgies to achieve same objective

Example:

a. French Defense - Disbands naval units to buy corps - or evacuates France for UK or Builds a HQ to support defense of France

b. Russia Defense - Forward defense, or pull back to defensive lines defense (ie strategy Manual) or create bastions of defense around cities or UK takes Iraq to operate in Air and Land units from Egypt

3. AI that gets harder to beat at higher levels.

Example:

UK AI attacks Ireland (0% Novice, 20% Beginner, 60% Intermediate, 90% Expert) or Germany Attacks Denmark on Turn 1 (0%, 20%, 60%, 90%).

Improved FOW

Currently the FOW is all or nothing, realistically a plane flying over a sea hex didn't spot the naval or sub forces in the hex all the time and spotting chance was influenced by weather and enemy combat air patrols.

4. Range, Enemy Air Units, weather, terrain, and unit type in area affect spotting chance (Leopard suggestion)

Diplomacy(Night Suggestion)

Neutrals can receive aid from Major powers to increase the size of their armed forces. Ie UK can send Spain military equipment for 2 corps, thus, if attacked Spain starts with 2 extra Corps.

Friendly neutrals may grant Transit rights to operating air units or share intelligence about enemy forces along their borders.

---------------------------------------------

Diplomacy chits cost 50MPP to influence a friendly leaning country and 75MPP otherwise.

Each diplomacy chit assigned to a country increases the result of your diplomacy effect roll by 4%. You can make one diplomacy roll per country per turn where you have a positive number of diplomacy chits. The net effect of diplomacy is your countries investment less the investment of the opposing force. (Allied 2 Chits minus Axis 1 Chit = +1 Allied or +4%).

Each diplomacy effect roll uses up 1 or 2 diplomacy chits (90%/10%) assigned to that country. Thus if you make a roll when you have 3 chits assigned to a country, you might end up with 1 or 2 chits after the roll is made, regardless of whether your roll was effective. This reflects the use of political capital capital to affect the outcome.

Procedure:

Each turn a player can assign Diplomacy Chits to a neutral country(s) OR roll for a diplomacy effect(s). You can not assign a chit and roll for diplomacy effect in the same turn. Thus your opponent has a chance to counter any diplomacy investment that you make. You need at least a +1 chit balance to roll for a diplomacy effect.

German Leaning Countries – Turkey, Finland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania

Allied Leaning Countries – Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Norway

Neutrals – Iraq, Sweden, Switzerland

Diplomacy Effect Table:

01-40: No Effect

41-60: Cancel pre-existing diplomatic agreement with other powers. (see below)

61-70: Government shares intelligence on troop movements within 2 hexes of national border.

71-80: Will accept military assistance (i.e. you finance the building of neutral units in that country at half price – you provide the equipment, they provide the manpower)

81-90: Will serve as a source of supply for friendly troops within 4 hexes of national border (i.e. Turkey may supply German troops attacking Iraq without entering the war as a German ally)

91-99: Will allow prepositioning & repair of troops in their country and naval ships to transit their ports (ie Spain will allow UK to station 3 UK armies in their country to deter German invasion)

00+: Will ally with major power

------------------------------------------------

Weather

SC does a good job of reflecting weather effects with its reduced turns during winter months, so the changes here I propose are minor.

5. Snow effect (ie hexes are speckled with white)covers hexes in Russia, Finland, Norway, Sweden and north atlantic during winter months. Rivers are frozen over (units can cross, no movement penalty) and spotting chance of aircraft may be reduced and range of air units reduced in bad weather. (ie Winter - 20% Major Storm Grounds Planes, 40% Reduced Visibility and Range ,40% Clear Skies)

Units

a. Engineer Units to build fortresses or increase maximum entrenchment value of cities.

b. ASW Air units that are cheap to build to spot submarines, do not intercept, Strength 5, coupled with new SA (sub attack) bonus and no AA (air attack) bonus.

c. Parachute Corps (expensive, limited to 1 per country, range 4 hexes, must be in supply and at full strength to airdrop)

d. Marines - Can attack land units from sea hex and advance if enemy unit is destroyed in combat.

Technology

7.

a. Intel,

b. Counter Intel,

c. Partisan Support,

d. Infantry Tactics to improve readiness of infantry units,

e. Mining/SynFuels to increase max production of resource hexes from 10 to 11 to 12 etc.,

f. Armor Tactics to improve readiness of Armor units,

g. A-Bomb tech Option (I know many people don't think its realistic, but heck, have it as a game option you can turn on or off, you can only build it when you reach level Tech Level 5, it only affects 1 hex, and you can only build 2 bombs every year),

h. Winter Preparation (gives units extra AP & improved readiness during Winter turns in Russia, Finland, Norway, Sweden).

Unit Commanders

8. Option to purchase unit commanders that give a penaly/bonus to the single unit they are assigned to.

Example: Patton commands 1 Armor Unit = +10% readiness, +1 AP

Events

9. Random, but rare events such as: Capturing Ultra code machine, General dies in car accident, German u-boat sinks US ship in Atlantic (does Germany 1) Apoligize but continue attacking shipping (US Readiness +10%) or 2) Stops all attacks on Convoy routes for 6 months (US Readiness +0%)

Map Changes

10. Larger Map at same scale or Northern transit that allows German subs to reach north Atlantic and Allied reinforcements to reach northern Russia, and hex for Greenland/Icelandic Airbase.

Improved Naval Warfare

11. Selectable convoy routes, Sub Attack combat rating, reduced chance of spotting subs

Random Starting Locations

12. Less Predicatability in Starting Locations of Units

Example: Italin Bari Fleet could start in Adriatic (20%), German subs could start in south Atlantic (10%), Egyptian Fleet might be reinforced with a Cruiser from the North Atlantic (10%).

Partisans can appear in City, Swamp, Forest, and Mountain hexes.

[ June 17, 2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[disorder]

i fully agree with most, and on the others simply differ in "semantics" of how it is expressed. good post and great collection of ideas! :cool:

[disorder]

odd... a double post!

[ June 16, 2003, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: disorder ]

[KDG]

AI Improvements

I’ll take any improvement on the AI, with additional strategies.

Improved FOW

I completely agree with this suggestion. I’d also add an option that gives the AI complete view of the map while the human has FOW on.

Diplomacy(Night Suggestion)

More Diplomacy is a good thing.

From being able to influence when a country joins you(if at all);

to providing aid(which would be non refundable, of course, thus if the country isn’t invaded, they don’t get their units back.

Weather

I’d go with equal turn lengths throughout the year, with reduced movement, supply, transports, and visibility in Winter.

Units

I wouldn’t add the units you have mentioned except maybe a parachute unit. Bombers already spot subs just fine, and I would just have an option that allows fortresses to be built, along with increasing entrenchment values of cities. I wouldn’t mind a third ground unit though. Not sure what it would be.

Technology

Definetly like these ideas. I’d have the A-bomb effect 3 hexes (1 main hex, plus two random adjacent hexes. Max 1 bomb a year. Resource improvement is a nice feature. If winter rules changed, then winter preparedness is good.

Unit Commanders

Don’t like unit commanders, but I would like to see HQ’s range from 1 to 9 at varying costs (300-500)

Events

9. Random

I love random.

Map Changes

Agree. More map on the edges, more distance from U.S. to Europe. Two hexes into Iraq. More Africa. I might change scale to 40 miles instead of 50 to allow a bit more fighting, units, movement, etc.

Improved Naval Warfare

I actually like the existing system.

Random Starting Locations

Yes, yes, yes. Just make every unit be able to start from one of 3 spots with equal chances of happening.

[Edwin P.]

KDG

I agree with you on the Naval Warfare system in SC. I like it.

The only thing open to improvement is that you always know where the convoy routes are and that air fleets always spot naval units in range (no allowance for cloud cover, bad weather, etc). I was thinking that selectable convoy routes would make things more interesting, especially if the air units could only spot subs 80% of the time (instead of the the 100% spotting chance now).

I was also thinking that perhaps cruisers should have a Sub Attack Bonus to reflect their advantage in subhunting as opposed to the battle ships. Thus cruisers a greater advantage against subs vs Battleships. But I agree, this change is probably not needed.

Other than that I like the naval system, especially with FOW turned on.

[pzgndr]

I’d go with equal turn lengths throughout the year, with reduced movement, supply, transports, and visibility in Winter.

I'm not convinced this would be a good change. Early on I was inclined to agree with a 2-week system. Intuitively it makes more sense. But Hubert points out in his own comments that the current system recreates the "feel" for higher activity during the summer months that we would not get with 2-week turns. After many many games, I tend to agree with this philosophy. Some weather effects should be added, especially for the spring/fall mud season ("rasputisa") on the Russian Front, but the turn length issue doesn't bother me anymore.

Consider how long it takes right now to play an enjoyable game with 14-15 player turns per year. If we go to 2-week turns, that means 26 player turns per year. At the current scale and action points, everything would essentially have to be halved to maintain the same level of activity, which seems OK in SC right now. This may require division and corps size units on smaller hexes rather than what we have now, or else we're looking at a rather slow-paced game with Tank Groups moving 3 instead of 6. So, we're talking about doubling the number of game turns and probably doubling the amount of activity per game turn. Do we really want a new game that would take four times longer to play? How many hours per week do you have to play?

A new game with a completely different scale and scope would require additional complexity to address all the additional detail. And the AI programming which accounts for about 50% of the game development would require considerable effort. This may be fine for a long term future project (and I'm not arguing against that!), but totally unrealistic for an SC2 if we expect to see it sometime within the next year. A larger map, improved game mechanics, improved economic and political models, and improved AI based on the current game scale and scope should be achievable in months rather than years. :cool:

[KDG]

Actually its the same amount of turns. Each player would have 13 turns, for a total of 26 turns in a year(2 week system). This is the same as we have now(13 turns per player) based on the 1 week summer, 2 weeks spring/fall, 4 weeks winter set of rules(26 turns per year).

I would only change the turns to 2 week cycles if we add weather. Thus during winter weather, everything that can be done is reduced(movement, attacks, etc.) This would last for a total of 6.5 turns per player.

If we keep the same turn sequence, then we should make sure that weather has some affect in the fall as well as in the Winter.

[pzgndr]

I misunderstood. But how would longer summer turns and shorter winter turns make the game "feel" better? Poland would take a couple of months, France about 4 months at least, and the Barbarossa invasion after 4 months would barely be past Minsk and Kiev. Historically, these timelines would all be wrong.

To achieve semi-historical results, movement and combat would have to be MUCH more powerful during clear weather turns and less so during bad weather. OK, with various parameter adjustments and new weather modifiers this could work. Plus if the action point system gets adjusted to allow any combination of move(M) or attack(A) (ie, M-M, M-A, A-M, or A-A) then this may open up some interesting maneuver possibilities. So going with "2-week" turns (or just standard monthly turns for each player) could work. I won't disagree here.

This would still be within the current scale and scope of the game, rather than actual 2-week turns and 26 player turns per year. Maybe Hubert will consider experimenting with some of these ideas for SC2. Or perhaps he's already tried once before with SC development over the past couple of years and could offer some insights about the problems/concerns he had? After all, this issue about turn length is fundamental to whatever game scale and scope he decides upon for SC2.

[KDG]

You have touched on one of the big things most of us overlook. We all would like winter effects. I think we agree this would slow Germany down in Russia during these months.

The key question then is how do we speed up Germany in the non winter months to make up for the delay in the winter months.

The two options for turns are:

1) Keep existing turn scale.

If we keep the existing turn scale, and have winter effects only hit in the Winter, this only affects 3-4 total turns. This would be a minor inconvenience and probably wouldn't require any great rewriting of the game engine.

2) Switch to 2 week turn scale.

This gives us more turns in the winter(6-7), thus a greater effect of winter effects. We would then need to balance this out by improving the Axis in the non winter months. Since this would be a total of 19.5 turns, the change would just have to be minor, but would still require a change to the game engine.

[ June 19, 2003, 02:20 PM: Message edited by: KDG ]

[Edwin P.]

KDG

Excellent points. Now what winter game changes would you use if the time scale stayed at 1 turn = 1 month for winter months?

I would probably allow for a winter tech that would give each unit an extra Action Point per tech level during winter months and start the Fins and Russians at Winter Tech Level 1.

Thus Russian and Finish units could move 1 extra hex during winter months. German units would move slower, reflecting their historical lack of preparation, unless their high command devoted resources to Winter Tech.

[ June 19, 2003, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[CorsairBlue]

I can concur with the above stated idea's/suggestion's. What I would like to see changed would be an aspect of tech as applied to units.

As it currently stands, when a tech is advanced, the already existing unit(s) recieves the advantages of said tech advancement. Example: One has a tech level 1 and it upgrades/advances to tech level 2...The unit is then given the 'increases', etc. for receiving said tech advancement.

The angle I am coming at is that just because one has the tech level to build say, a King Tiger, would that necessarily carry to my CURRENT tank units, prior to the ability or tech level to build said King Tiger? I don't think so. If one has gained the ability to build a better tank unit (ie: King Tigers), should it also not mean that to be able to fully gain the tech level advantages that one would need to build a tank unit under that current tech level, instead of it applying 'across the board' so to speak? I think it would make the game more realistic.

Germany had the tech level to build a King Tiger, but because of internal material reason's and feasiability and costs, they built few units. COuld not this apply to SC? Instead of ALL units being given the advancements of said increase in a tech, would it not be more realistic to not have that happen and have one/player/nation have to build new unit(s) to gain said benefits? This would change play style's, some strates that rely on one gaining tech advancements in particular areas, etc.

I think this should apply to TANKS and AIRCRAFT. SImply 'upgrading' the unit would aply to ships, troops, etc. but in the case of tanks and airplanes...no. If one disagree's, remember, history speaks for itself. Again, Germany had the tech level to build King Tigers, but did this effect ALL current German tanks that existed prior to said ability? Did the German's simply upgrade those existing tanks and aircraft to current tech levels? Or did they actually have to build new units incorporating said increase in that particular tech level and area?

So, what you all think? I am a simple gamer, not a 'professional' as many here are. :eek:

regards

CorsairBlue

[KDG]

Edwin P.

OK, if we are only talking 3 turns, this is what effects I'd like to see.

1) No amphibious assualts

2) Supply reduced by 50%, which should take care of #3

3) Movement reduced by one point for all units.

4) Jets reduced in attacks by 50%(or grounded completely)

5) No operation of units

6) Reduced FOW sight

This is pretty dramatic, but then again it is only for 3 turns total (1.5 per player).

CorsairBlue

I like the idea that new tech advancements should only affect new units purchased. Thus a player might have the following at any one time:

4 ea level 0 jets

2 ea level 1 jets

2 ea level 2 jets

1 ea level 3 jet

1 ea level 4 jet

Another option is to allow the unit to reinforce to its max, at which time it moves up to the current tech level. If we wanted, we could require that this be done in a city(or even a capitol), which would take a unit out of commission for a couple turns while its being upgraded. This would also reduce a units experience when the upgrade is made.

Why should a level 1 jet with 8 strength & 3 exp. become a level 3 jet with 3 exp. just because tech has advances. The player would now be forced upgrade the unit, which would require it moving back to a city, waiting until the next turn to upgrade, then move back towards the front lines on the third turn. Additionally that 8 st. 3 exp. level 1 unit is now a 13 st., but with 1 exp. point, level 3 unit.

This would mean that tech advances are nice, but you need the time and MPP's to make that unit advance as well.

[Edwin P.]

KDG

I like your ideas for winter effects, especially if this only applied to units in a winter operational zone - ie Russia, Finland, North Europe, North Atlantic and not Spain, Italy, Greece, Egypt etc.

CorsairBlue

or you could give the player a choice of purchasing, at Armor Level 3;

Tanks - Str 10

Tanks - Str 11

Tanks - Str 12

Tanks - Str 13

Thus a player would have a choice of buying more cheaper tanks or fewer more powerful tanks.

[Leopard]

I don't think having mixed tech level units is all that difficult-especially since it isn't me up until 4 AM writing the code 8p.

What you could have are seperate unit types based upon tech level (Tank Lev0, Tank Lev1) instead of having a modifying the attributes of a single unit type based upon tech level. It would seem the easiest way to program it, instead of having a single type (generic Tank) which requires tracking each individual tanks level, just have the unit types reflect the differences based on pre-assigned unit types.

The lowest levels could also be used to reflect antiquated/substandard equipment such as the Polish airfleet in 1939 or the Amrican torpedos in 1942. More "modern"nations could start at tech level 1 or 2 to account for the differences present at the outbreak of war.

As far as upgrades because of an advance such as sonar, I believe for the tech to take effect the affected unit should be required to return to a port or city (ground units) for a refit. This was a common practice in WWII, as corvettes and destroyers were refitted with the newest equipment as it became available-but in a port, not on the open sea.

I agree that Tanks and aircraft would rarely be "upgraded" in the field, and a tech advance would represent a new structural design which is not applicable to existing units.

[KDG]

Come on Edwin, haven't you seen the snow in Egypt, it swirls all around you, blocking your view, sometimes covering things completely(oh, wait, thats sand, sorry).

All kidding aside, yeah, we would only want to apply winter in certain countries like Finland, Sweden, Norway, Russia.

It would be interesting to buy certain levels of tech, the only problem being we might not know what level each unit was (unless of course we add 0, 1, 2, etc. to the unit itself - which isn't a bad idea in itself for our current game, if someone could have the levels show on the units). I'm also not sure what Hubert could do programming wise, but it would be a nice option.

[Edwin P.]

Leopard

I like your idea for making more unit types available as tech and jets level increases.

Perhaps, the extra units would would be different. Not only strength but also other abilities - ie action points and other combat ratings.

Ie a King Tiger might have a higher soft defense bonus but also fewer Action Points. The icon of unit type would be different.

Perhaps when a new tech level is reached players could have the ability to customize their new units by sacrificing Action Points. Thus one german player might build fast moving tanks with a lower defense while others might build heavily armored tanks that move slower.

Your tech level would control the maximum adjustment allowed.

Example:

Tank at tech 1: -1 AP, +1 SA or +1AP, -1SD

Tank at tech 2: -2 AP, +2 SA or +2AP, -2SD or +1AP, -1SD

Tank at tech 5: -5 AP, +5 SA (lumbering slow moving killing machine)

[ June 19, 2003, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Edwin P.:

Leopard

I like your idea for making more unit types available as tech and jets level increases.

Perhaps, the extra units would would be different. Not only strength but also other abilities - ie action points and other combat ratings.

Ie a King Tiger might have a higher soft defense bonus but also fewer Action Points. The icon of unit type would be different.

Perhaps when a new tech level is reached players could have the ability to customize their new units by sacrificing Action Points. Thus one german player might build fast moving tanks with a lower defense while others might build heavily armored tanks that move slower.

While I like the idea in general (as a naval buff,

I'd have fun designing CVs and battlewagons), it

is probably a tad outside the scope of a grand

strategy game, and is probably more trouble than

it's worth. So my battleship has one more attack

point than yours, which is +1 in speed but -1 in

defense-all that probably won't really prove to

be significant in deciding who wins the war.

I toyed with the idea last week actually, and

after some thought came to the above conclusion-

Hubert has more important things to work on.

John DiFool, who does think that CVs should

be FASTER than BBs in SC2...

[Edwin P.]

John DiFool

Excellent Observation

Customizable units would probably be on the category of major programming effort for minimal effect on game play.

Whereas improved FOW, random starting locations, and more Techs would be simpler to program and have greater effect on gameplay vs Human and AI opponenets.

Improved AI strategies would effect gameplay vs AI but not against humans but would affect more players, as more people play against the AI than humans.

[ June 19, 2003, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Leopard]

Edwin P.

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant by having different unit types. My idea is that once you had reached say level 3, you would still have level 2, 1, an 0 tanks in the field and still available for production. But the individual units could not be modified, just more selections made as to which level to purchace. Some battlefronts (8p) do not need the latest weapons, and the designs of existing models are not lost.

Now your post did inspire me to think of something else though. Tech advances do not necessarily have to be linear or consistent in their effects. There could be an expanded tech advance system, where advancements occured randomly within each advancement.

In one game the first advance for an airfleet might be an increase in air attack only (say from better targeting), the second advance in ground (soft) attack due to larger caliber cannons, the third advance in air defense (improved armor), the fourth in naval attack (better ordinance), the fifth for a second advancement in air defense, the sixth once again in air defense, etc. In a new game, the first airfleet tech advancement might be in naval attack. Some advancements, such as jets, might improve air defense and attack, and perhaps in larger increments. It is concievable one advance would yield +1 to naval attack, and another advance (jets) improved air attack and air defense by +3 each.

Limits on quantity for new designs (the bomb, jets, Tigers come to mind) would be an obvious next step if the tech advancements are of such impact. If the steps for advancement are more incremental than in SC-1 then the costs or frequency of advancements would have to be adjusted also.

I have had Strategic Command 2 months exactly today-I kind of miss those 15+ hours per week I had free before SC.

[ June 19, 2003, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: Leopard ]

[Edwin P.]

Leopard

I like the option of having more units to select from. As you said, on some fronts you do not need the most modern weapons and some leaders might favor quantity over quality.

Your idea for a varying tech path also reflects the differences in weapons design that each nation followed.

[KDG]

I had mentioned this above:

I like the idea that new tech advancements should only affect new units purchased. Thus a player might have the following at any one time:

4 ea level 0 jets

2 ea level 1 jets

2 ea level 2 jets

1 ea level 3 jet

1 ea level 4 jet

I don't think that once level 2 jets are achieved, level 0 jets should still be available.

My intent would be that existing units don't get the upgrade, only new units purchased.

An alternative to this would be to allow existing units the chance to pay an upgrade cost back at the capitol(retrofitting of the unit, so to speak) to bring up to the current tech.