My official Comment on SC

[coe]

Having now played it many times, I like it.

Job well done - it fills an empty gap in

the wargame field.

So my constructive comments to make the game or

the new version even better (I'm sure some of them

have been said many times before).

A bit bigger map North and South and East:

so the Axis can do the ol' Bismarck run and there can be supply

convoys to murmansk and another place. In the south

so the whole outflanking maneuver in the desert

characteristic to that war can be done also it'd be

cool if rommel romps in egypt he might have to worry

about british troops in the upper nile - perhaps the

whole Ethiopia campaign might be too much. East

for a bit of the drive to the Caspian!

Weather - rather than turns a longer time apart in

the winter, perhaps have stuff like mud and snow

and of course crippling frost!

Keep the partisans, they're great.

Enable land units to hit back at naval bombardment units

and naval air groups...especially carrier air wings.

Maybe make it such that if the carrier gets down to 1

strenght it can't strike anymore thus as long as

the carrier has one hex of water between it and the

land unit, if it strikes with strenght 3 the land

unit can only reduce it to strength 1 (of course

if the carrier goes right next to the land it

is fair game to be sunk).

Armoured units, love to see a breakthrough and

exploitation type thingy...perhaps in the current

SC, the armoured units are thus a little too

vulnerable to counterattack (as Manstein said,

the safety of the Armoured unit depends on its mobility).

Perhaps allow double stacking? I know this would make

things very complicated so maybe allow this only

in cities and or such that one land unit and an air

unit can be in the same hex max and such that if the

hex is attacked by land, the land unit is only figured in

however if it is attacked by air, the air unit is only

figured in (i.e. until they get eliminated).

Allow entrenchment on rivers.

And the two carry overs from Clash of steel -

the Engineer unit and the paratroop unit...

those were fun!

If a unit relieves another, the entrenchment should

not be all lost (maybe like half).

Surface attacks against ships in port should be harder.

Well without these suggested modifications, SC is

still a nice game.

Happy Holidays

Conan

[JayJay_H]

You didnt mention building of fortifications. Should be enabled, but suck up tons of mpps.

[coe]

Ahh yes, fortifications...that was

done by the Engineer unit in Clash of Steel

yeah that would actually be cool to devote

some MPP to it (or at least take a few turns

to build).

[BriantheWise]

blah.

This has been said,, You didn't read. It's all good, and it's all bad.

this is not smack talk, but ser.

The game has flaws. It is excellent. Learn it. Then criticize. The flaws are few.

WE all want SC2, only because SC1 is done so well.

[JerseyJohn]

coe

Agreed with BriantheWise, you make many good points but they've all been made already -- no fault of yours, the earlier entries are scattered among hundreds of forums and thousands of entries in the previous pages.

Aside from that, I like your suggestions, of course.

I have further comments I originally wrote here but, as they more properly involve suggestions in general and not anyone person's specifically, I'm moving them to a new forum. Hopefully there will be a lot of feedback with relatively few aliens and lampoon entries -- I'll abstain from doing so, which takes care of half the problem in itself!

[ December 22, 2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Hubert Cater]

Coe,

Welcome to the forums and very glad to hear you are enjoying the game! Don't let some of these guys scare you off, I think they have just been reading many similar posts for a little too long now as they await the official word on SC2. Unfortunately the wait continues....

Hubert

[SeaWolf_48]

Good comments COE

Agree with your suggestions, like the crusty old farts have told you most of them have been mentioned before. I hope that they invent a FAQ file, and catagorize them (and add a spell check).

Engineers, paratroops, SS Div., and Spies; which would mean that you would have to have counter intel to find them (like MI-5, and Geheime Staatspolizei = Gestapo) and use up scant MPP's to find them.

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

I dont think spies or engineer units fit the game. There should be a special unit called an 'occupational corps' which is used to fight partisans, and build fortifications. Airborne infantry in this type of game would really be hit or miss. I have a feeling that every turn another Russian line will be broken due to 10 German Airborne corps dropping behind them and cutting them off from the nearest city.

CvM

[Hueristic]

If u read the 1.06 appendium i believe the Tech chance has been modified to increase the chance of discovering a level if the enemy already has that level. And that is to be considered "Spy" input. Unless i was hallucinating at the time

[JerseyJohn]

Hueristic

"the Tech chance has been modified to increase the chance of discovering a level if the enemy already has that level. And that is to be considered "Spy" input. Unless i was hallucinating at the time"

If so, then I was hallucinating as well.

[ December 25, 2002, 11:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Hueristic

"the Tech chance has been modified to increase the chance of discovering a level if the enemy already has that level. And that is to be considered "Spy" input. Unless i was hallucinating at the time"

If so, then I was hallucinating as well.

But Remember, Jersey John has been drinking

CvM

[JerseyJohn]

Unless I was hallucinating at the time -- Hueristic

If so, then I was hallucinating as well.--JerseyJohn

But Remember, Jersey John has been drinking --- CvM

"That pink elephant still dancing with the blue antelope, Joe?"

"Sure is, Jersey. -- Another double?"

--- * ---

[ December 26, 2002, 03:44 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Compassion]

Since the rest of these bums seem to be still egg noggin' (I'm down to sipping a few Guinesses so I'm more or less ok... for now), I'll give yu a few straight comments.

Originally posted by coe:

A bit bigger map North and South and East:

so the Axis can do the ol' Bismarck run and there can be supply

convoys to murmansk and another place.

Everyone agrees and if you scan back to the early days of the forum, it's that becasue of the tools or the programming language that Hubert used or somesuch. THe map just couldn't get any bigger and it's kind of squashed already. Hopefully the next game (still unannounced, as Hubert says and then shamelessly hints at) will include up to the Arctic Circle.

In the south

so the whole outflanking maneuver in the desert

characteristic to that war can be done also it'd be

cool if rommel romps in egypt he might have to worry

about british troops in the upper nile - perhaps the

whole Ethiopia campaign might be too much. East

for a bit of the drive to the Caspian!

I would have agreed a few months ago, butafter thinking on the scale of the game, I'm not sure that this scale that these are realistic requests. The Ethiopia questions would be moot with an Army Group sitting in cairo. Though it would be interesting to be able to land on the Siani as the Brits if the GErmans were sitting in Egypt, though it should cost and arm and a leg in landing penalties.

Weather - rather than turns a longer time apart in

the winter, perhaps have stuff like mud and snow

and of course crippling frost!

I think that turns being longer in winter could be an elegent solution... Think that some kind of time pressures would help make that kind f urgency greater.

Keep the partisans, they're great.

I'd like to see them organicly supplied, but restricted to their home country.

Armoured units, love to see a breakthrough and

exploitation type thingy...perhaps in the current

SC, the armoured units are thus a little too

vulnerable to counterattack (as Manstein said,

the safety of the Armoured unit depends on its mobility).

mmm.... well, that depends. Here is what I said in the Armor Exploitation thread a few days ago:

NEVER (well... i guess maybe if someone plays without FOW on...) send your encircleing armor out to roll up a line wihout infantry. That's just inviting wasted mpp's. I usually like to send some corps out to make a new weak line (like one every other hex) in the vicinity of a breakthrough and hook armor back inside the newly created sailent to chew up the now encircled units. Keeps my tanks nice and happy (and hoefully supplied!).

What does this mean? It means that if you try to make your spearhead your exploitation units you are asking for trouble (like the Germans did time and again thinking that it was still 1941 and they wouldn't meet determined resitance)... I think that the Russians got it right in using seperate units for exploitation.

Perhaps allow double stacking? I know this would make

things very complicated so maybe allow this only

in cities and or such that one land unit and an air

unit can be in the same hex max and such that if the

hex is attacked by land, the land unit is only figured in

however if it is attacked by air, the air unit is only

figured in (i.e. until they get eliminated).

Not sure about that... though what about this (off the top of my head and ripping off Warlords II) what about being able to garrison a city or prod center with a corps that doesn't count against stacking... at all so that another unit can occupy the hex and exert a ZOC, but not the garritroopers. Might force a siege of a large town to re-create a Stalingrad type condition.

So there you go, what do you think?

[ December 26, 2002, 02:51 AM: Message edited by: Compassion ]

[zappsweden]

Compassion, i agree with u that something have to be done to make cities have better defences.

The problem with SC is that NO city can hold on against an air+ground unit combo attacking it.

It makes sense if a city is surrounded and eventually captured.

It does NOT make sense if a city is "blown up" by 4-5 air units and easily taken by 2-3 grond units. When the city falls, the forces around it are forced to withdraw to another closer supply source though they are not actually defeated.

[zappsweden]

When massing air against a single target, attack number 3, 4, 5 and following attacks should have decreasing attack strength to simulate that defenders cover up.

[Compassion]

Originally posted by zappsweden:

It does NOT make sense if a city is "blown up" by 4-5 air units and easily taken by 2-3 grond units. When the city falls, the forces around it are forced to withdraw to another closer supply source though they are not actually defeated.

Quite true. I dislike air units decreasing the defensive multiplier. When a city is reduced, it's strategic value may be lessened but it become a much more formidable defense the rat's warren of debris and rubble can consume entire divsions for the gain of a couple streets.

It would be much more likely that in game turns, the multiplier stays pat or even increases with heavy air action but the remaining ground units might have readinesss reduced.