JerseyJohn Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 1) I'm wondering if Hubert will correct the Sweden and Spain problem so activating neutrals won't cancel the random entry of minor allies such as Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria or Finland. 2) A setting that allows the AI to see everything while the Human has FoW limitations. Also, Human should never be told of AIs research advances or Siberian Transfer if AI is allies. -- Original Tank Group issue withdrawn as Iron Ranger has convinced me it's unnecessary. 3) Carriers, so they would be effective at sea against naval units while not doubling as floating air fleets. Perhaps making them weak against air and ground units with maximum effectiveness against naval units; also making them much more vulnerable to air attack, which would discourage their being posted as interceptors and used in coastal attacks. 4) Reducing naval bombardment effectiveness against ground units along the coast. This would also bring them back into perspective as units used at sea and not as coastal raiders. 5) Adding weak HQs (2 points, even weaker than the 3 pt Gamelin) to Poland (southeast of Warsaw), Finland (x2hexes east of Helsinki), Greece (north of Athens), Sweden (northeast of Stockholm), Spain (northwest of Madrid), Romania (on either oil well) and Yugoslavia (northeast of Belgrade). These HQs are needed because several countries, such as Greece, Finland and Spain start off with key units already out of supplies! In addition to enhancing existing scenarios these additions provide new options for those of us who enjoy creating new ones. 6) Charging amphibious units MPPs for each turn they're at sea, eliminating the roaming vikings. 7) Allowing amphibious landings during summer months only -- except for the Mediteranean. 8) An option to the scenario editor, allowing the setting of unit limits by specific type for each major nation would also be great. 9 [added]) Adapting of Iron Ranger's suggestions concerning the Siberian Reserve Transfer being conducted earlier, i/e with point further west falling to the Axis. -- incorporating EdwinP's FoW application so the Axis player, even when playing against the AI, doesn't know about it. 10 [added from Iron Ranger's posting] A reduction in Long Range Air attack effectiveness, possibly as per an old thread of first third=100% effectiveness, middle third=50% with outer third=25% effectiveness. OR, as per Iron Ranger's Posting Below: "Changing the AP/spoting/AR numbers would be easier to code then your above idea. But I think this is what your looking for Ground attack values are only 2 for air fleets what you would need to see is 1-3 hexs SA & HA = 2, if 4-6 hexs SA & HA = 1 (50%), if over 6 hexs SA & HA = 0 (but removes one level of entrenchment and has the +\- 1 random damage value and experence value of 0-4 added in)." It seems either idea would do the job. I don't believe any of these improvements involve a major overhaul, only minor adjusting. If some of them are too code intensive, such as the amphibious ideas, I withdraw them, but surely the others don't involve more than slight changes in game settings. Numerous people, Shaka, Rambo, Kurt, Edwin, Bill, Immer, Liam, Kuniworth and nearly everyone else who posts regularly (sorry for the very many not listed specifically), have also either supported or initiated these ideas, this posting is only a restatement of our collective observations and suggestions. I hope at least some of them will be incorporated into a pre-SC2 upgrade. [ August 22, 2003, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Sympathetic to all your points, JJ........but, yes ....but... I think SC2 will incorporate many of these requests and undoubtly more so I'm sure there's a sense of redundancy in HC's mind. On the band wagon with you.... so HEY! HC how about a GAME EDITOR ....... ok just for SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konstantin V. Kotelnikov Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 Good ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
disorder Posted August 22, 2003 Share Posted August 22, 2003 get real jerseyjohn. is this all there is really? just these few items would make you the most contented SC player known to the real world(and sweden). you ask so very little. i grant you blessings on your long dusty journey to "patch # 1.07J", and the patch initial stands for jerseyjohn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 SeaMonkey and Konstantin Thanks for the support, I'm pretty sure we'd all like these things. disorder, sorry, uh, Your Holiness! Thanks for the blessing, I've long suspected you were really the Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kurt88 Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Good points JerseyJohn ,but I'm afraid Hubert won't bring anymore patches for SC.Let's hope these things will all be included in SC2,so let's ask Hubert for an update! Hubert ,give us some news,we're dying to know!! Look at JerseyJohn,he thinks disorder's the pope,you gotta help him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Number 3 would be really easy to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Nice list John, but you know my hot button. Fix the siberian transfer and alot of the balance issuse's will disapear. Bringing the LR tech back to earth would be nice too. Bombers fine, change starting Air Fleets with AP/SP 4 AR 3 (now 5&6), Carriers change to SP 3 AR 2 (now 3&3) Not sure what your asking for in #2. If would be nice to see a second tech for tanks just like Fighters (jets and LR). Call it "Tank ???", five levels with each level incressing one aspect of tank capibilitys. L1 - SD +1 L2 - AA +1 L3 - SA +1 L4 - AP +1 L5 - ND +1 or AD +1 or ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Kurt You mean, he isn't? !! :eek: Hubert seems to still be pretty concerned with this version of SC as well. I'm hoping his SC2 ideas are significantly different from what we have now and it would pay for him to fix these problems first, before finishing up on the next project. Panzer Yes, I think that might be the easiest to change, along with BBs and CAs shore bombardment values. Iron I'm not very good on the technical phrasing, this tank topic has been discussed a lot by Shaka and I agree with what he's said on it, that tanks should not only be effective in taking ground, but also in holding it against counter-attacks. Tank groups seem overly prone to being destroyed on the defense. The Siberian Transfer is another great point, it was only through an oversight that I forgot to list it with the other items. Also a weak point which it would seem should be easy to fix. [ August 22, 2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Ground units by the numbers TA Tanks Attack SA Soft Attack ect..... Corps TA 2 :: SA 2 :: TD 1 :: SD 1 :: AD 1 Armys TA 4 :: SA 4 :: TD 2 :: SD 2 :: AD 2 Tanks TA 5 :: SA 4 :: TD 5 :: SD 4 :: AD 3 In looking at this you see Tanks have a GREAT defence (5 vs 2&1, 4 vs 2&1, 3 vs 2&1) but an equal attack value comparied with armys (4 vs 4&2). Tanks are best used as 'Moble shields', when a tanks is exposed and attacked you need to have backup units ready to counter attack as the units attacking the tank will be heavly damaged. What you see in SC: 1) people use few tanks, too few to make a difference normlly (5-7 at the start in russia is right for germany) 2) people use them as 'heavy' tanks. This is wrong they should never attack unless: A) your going to distroy a unit +.3exp your using them in a breakthrough hole to open the edge and free yourself of the ZOC. 3) people expose them with no or little support (supply and other units). A single tank rushed out and left with little supply can be cut off and destroyed with little fear of a counter attack. 3-6 tanks going through a breach can cut supply and survive (str 1-3, lots of reinforceing required) most attacks. If you have infantry following (armys) you should be able to crush the attacking units as they will all be str 5-7. 4) Tanks are best used in citys. A tank entrenched in a city is in an increadable position. You must go around and encricle or you going to lose MPPs. I think what you want to see is the HA value of armys reduced to 3 showing that infantry can't attack armored units as equally as they can other infantry. Of course armys had tanks destroyers, AT guns ect.. so maybe this is not a good historical idea. Historical note: Germany entered Russia with 3000 armored vechials (sp) and stoped outside of Moscow with 100(??). To be honest the attacker is ment to lose armored units that he push's into the breach. But his following armys should 'break the line/back' of the other player after he counter attacks. If no counter attack, great - drive into his rear and encircle some units. sorry for the spelling errors, just my thoughts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Iron Spelling not a big issue, most of us come up with some interesting variants on the language without a spelling checker. For those who are sensitive about it, it's easy enough to keep a WP program minimized and make the entry there, run it through spell check, then paste it here. I do that sometimes but I think we're all very tolerant in this respect. Agreed about the tank losses. Of course, tank units, especially on this scale, would be significant in their mix of vehicles, both armored and soft, and their overall mobility. Also, many of the tanks knocked out of action were repaired behind the lines and put back into the lines later on. Someone on the history channel was describing how he didn't mind repairing the shell holes, what bothered him was having to go inside and scrape body fragments off the inner workings and walls. No doubt my friend disorder will follow that with some half dead bull fighting it's way out of the slaughter house in 1966, terrorizing Iowa for two weeks. :eek: Agreed with your point about the use of armored units in the game. During my past few Axis games I've hit the USSR with six or seven panzer groups and they really do make a huge difference, especially when combined with local air superiorities; the slow HQs tend to prevent them from becoming truly decisive. Also agreed as to their use, they have to always be available to exploit breakthroughs. It's possible that the settings are fine and the problem was actually in the way myself and others were using them. Altered Opening Thread Added the Siberian Transfer as item 9 and withdrew the tank group subject, replacing it with FoW for activation for Human while AI sees everything. [ August 22, 2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Good Post, I like all of your points. I really like Point 8 about having an option for the AI to see All while the Human operates under FOW as I mainly play the AI. The only point I would add is 8c - The Siberian transfer is covered by FOW and this transfer event is hidden from the Axis player. [ August 22, 2003, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Also, many of the tanks knocked out of action were repaired behind the lines and put back into the lines later on. This is only true for the USA, they had great support units and could get a tank back on the line in days. Germany had nothing like this and left them lay for the most part (expection is in Libia, Rommel put together a tank retreaval unit that worked wonders they say). It's possible that the settings are fine and the problem was actually in the way myself and others were using them. The problem is the overwelling power of massed long range air. Why risk having an expensive unit exposed and destoryed when you can move two armys up to a unit and finish it off with air 6 hexs away. Long range air fleets are simply too powerfull (not air but the LR is the problem). This comes from the lack of stacking I think. If they shorten the range to a realistic 3-4 hex attack range, you would have a road jam at the point of attack. Look at the invasion of France. The LC normally is full of units and quite offen in advanced play where you place your unit means life of death. Bottom line Shaka is right in limiting air units but really what we need is a change in the starting values of air fleets and carriers plus the ability to stack two units. This is never going to happen so, play or don't play but I've reached the conclusion that germany is unbeatalbe unless your very lucky or you use some set of house rule in the Fall Weiss game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Edwin Thanks for the support, agreed that about the Siberian Transfer idea, which would also make the situation closer to what the Germans had to deal with when the winter struck. Iron Yes, agreed that Long Range is usually the culprit. I made a suggestion months ago, and I'm sure someone, probably JP Wagner, must have thought of it before I did, that air fleets have their ground attack values calculated in three range zones, with the middle being 50% effectiveness and the outer third being 25% effectiveness, but it didn't go anywhere. I've been moving things around in the first posting and will now ammend it further to add the long range issue as well as Edwin's idea about FoW applying to the Transfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 that air fleets have their ground attack values calculated in three range zones, with the middle being 50% effectiveness and the outer third being 25% effectiveness, but it didn't go anywhere. It went somewhere, I think everyone thinks its a good idea but the powers at be will never make another patch. Changing the AP/spoting/AR numbers would be easyer to code then your above idea. But I think this is what your looking for Ground attack values are only 2 for air fleets what you would need to see is 1-3 hexs SA & HA = 2, if 4-6 hexs SA & HA = 1 (50%), if over 6 hexs SA & HA = 0 (but removes one level of entrenchment and has the +\- 1 random damage value and experence value of 0-4 added in). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Thanks for clarifying it, and glad the three tier reduction idea was noticed, I'd thought it went nowhere. Will paste that section you wrote onto the opening post in the Long Range area, thanks for posting it. Perhaps it's all futile, but I've got a feeling Hubert may actually incorporate some of these things. Adding any of them would improve the game tremendously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Perhaps it's all futile, but I've got a feeling Hubert may actually incorporate some of these things. Not bloody likely. While I would like to see some changes I understand the need to say 'the project is done!' and move on. I've lobbied for a three way switch on the ST but will never see it (std, off, set date), and thats sad, because this is a good game and with 3-4 changes it could be very balanced. [ August 22, 2003, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 One item that I have noticed is that intelligence from air power is always perfect. Considering the fact that the number of hexes to be covered increases exponentially the farther out you go it may improve the game to have the chance of spotting a unit drop by some factor (say 10% per hex) when the unit is 5 or more hexes away from the air unit. Thus an air unit would spot an enemy unit 100% of the time at 4 hexes or less, 90% at 5 hexes, 80% at 6 hexes, 70% at 7 hexes and 60% of the time at 8 hexes and 50% of the time at 9 hexes. Naturally the chance to spot a unit should be reduced by say 10% if it is in a Forest or Mountain Hex. This would remove some, but not all, of the perfect intelligence that long range air gives while facilitating the excitement of the unexpected attack. -------------------- Other options for those roaring vikings might be 1)to reduce the strength of the unit by 1 every nth turn above 5 or 6. 2)have a 1% per turn at sea cumulative chance that the enemy intelligence spots a transport at sea becuase they broke radio silence. Thus 1% on turn 1, 2% turn 2, 3% turn 3, 4% turn 5, 5% turn 6, etc. [ August 22, 2003, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 I thought we put the combat radius issue of aircraft to rest awhile back? Granted, when Jets (tech level 4) come online, then it should be reduced, regardless of what Long Range tech you have. Stacking... I love hearing people ask for this. This one deserves its own topic, but I will restate my position from awhile back. As a strategical level game, we have to be careful about what is allowed to stack. In SC currently, two (2) Corps should be allowed to "merge" into one Army, but not allowed to stack together. Look at the soft combat numbers, especially when anti-tank tech starts to kick in. Two (2) Corps will always be stronger on the attack than one (1) Army. No stacking for HQ either, since they are in effect a Corps all by themselves, just one that cannot attack. Naval? Well naval has problems that stacking won't solve. Air? Good case can be made for the ability to stack these with other ground units (Corp or Army or HQ). Thats another topic though. Siberian Transfer... I'm holding my comments until the thread that was started outlining the problem is finished. I don't believe it is, since I haven't seen any additional posts in it. Panzer problem... There is an old topic or two that covers the problems. If someone wants it, ask and I will summarize the issues in a new topic. [ August 23, 2003, 12:10 AM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Shaka This is just a laying out of topics, it doesn't matter whether a given matter was put to rest long ago -- all the more reason for bringing it up again as many of the people who read that material aren't posting any longer and many of the people posting now weren't back then! The main push is for an expanded editor. Hubert responded in that Thread (Kuniworth's) and I think there's a chance of at least getting something going in that direction. Sure we've had entire Threads dedicated to parts of this list and will have more on the same ideas in the future. What I was hoping for here wasn't a discussion, but some indication that possible some of these things would be rectified in SC as opposed to SC2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 -------------------------------------------- 7) Allowing amphibious landings during summer months only -- except for the Mediteranean. -------------------------------------------- I think that this would make the game too predicatable and in WWII "in the pre-dawn hours of April 9, 1940, flotillas of German warships, their decks crammed with Army ground troops, bluffed and fought their way into the six major ports of neutral Norway."....."By 0600 on April 8, the number of German ships poised off different points of the Norwegian coast totaled 107. In manpower and tonnage the German armada represented the largest seaborne operation in history." Perhaps one could achieve the same result by 1) Limiting the prohibition to Winter Months or 2) Increased chance of damage to units landing during Winter - Fall - Spring seasons or 3) During a season there is a chance that units can land during a turn. This would account for the occasional break of good weather. Of course if the weather could turned bad on the next turn followup units could only land at a port. and It would be easier to program if this proposed prohibition applied to all hexes north of hex xx. [ August 23, 2003, 03:14 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted August 23, 2003 Author Share Posted August 23, 2003 Edwin Excellent points and refinements. I tend to not take the German landings in Norway very seriously as amphibious operations, but the British and French also landed there at the same time. I think the best idea is increased chance of losses or even total failure as the weather worsens. The reason I made it a flat rule was for simplicity sake; a lot of things I suggested used to be slugged because it was said they were too complicated. Something along the lines you proposed would be preferable. I'll need to reorganize that opening Post a bit to incorporate this and also the ideas from your previous posting. 3:30 a. m. here (I believe you're in the same time zone anyhow and right across the big harbor, probably a fellow insomniac!) so it will be the first job after wakeing up. [ August 23, 2003, 03:26 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 JerseyJohn I understand your original post. You were simply wondering if Mr H would address the issues you laid out. Its just that when those issues get into specifics on how to address it that it concerns me, because we end up drawing conclusions or recommendations from erroneous information. See below. I'd also bring up Iron Rangers conclusions about the Panzer, but I'm too tired to do that now. Edwin P You can't use the Norway operation to prove anything regarding amphibious operations. Norway was the equivalent of having a sea unit go to the port, gain control of it, then using the port to land ground troops. Thats not an amphib operation, nor is it something we can do in SC. JerseyJohn is correct about the seasons. North Sea, North Atlantic and Baltic Sea were not very friendly to naval ships. Between the fog and the rough seas, amphib operations could not be conducted except in a very narrow time frame, and even then, it was not something to be lightly considered. Its the same reasons that carrier operations, like the ones conducted by the US in the Pacific, were not conducted in those same areas. The British carriers had obsolete aircraft because all they needed them for was recon and ASW. The other thing that has to be solved, is the transport ships sitting offshore until its time to use them. I do it all the time, so does everyone else. The best solution that someone came up with, was to limit an amphib operation to a specific range. I think it was three or four hexes. Otherwise, it has to return to port. Transporting a unit, from port to port, would work like it does currently, with no limit on how long at sea. It solves every amphib problem we encounter today, not to mention the fantasy "invasions" of Canada and the US. It doesn't solve Norway, but like I mentioned, Norway wasn't a amphib invasion. To reflect that one properly, by sending a German transport unit to the hex outside the Norway port, that should trigger something that makes Norway have some sort of "coup". Then the German unit enters the port, lands in the unoccupied city and just like Sweden, may or may not surrender. The two defenders (though there should only be one), could then act after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 Siberian Transfer... I'm holding my comments until the thread that was started outlining the problem is finished. I don't believe it is, since I haven't seen any additional posts in it. If your talking about the one I started, it will go no farther then what you read. In fact I deleated the post. I felt it would not benift anyone and my only way to push the subject is to beat everyone my not triggering the ST. Huge mistake and luck (quick advances for little investment) aside, the allies have only 2-8 turns from just before the attack on Russia to just after the attack to turn the tide. Otherwise they lose, this creates a very static game plan for the allies and degrades replayablity. This is why I feel the ST needs to be triggered early and not in 1944 when the Germans are pushing on the Urals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Ranger Posted August 23, 2003 Share Posted August 23, 2003 After reading the post and doing some thinking, here would be my list of desired changes for v1.08. I'll trying to make them 'easy' in the programing side. Option screen 1) Tech chit window. At the start of the game you have drop window that allows you to change the max number of chits you can invest in one area (0-5) 2) Three way switch for siberia transfer. On, Off, Set date (Feb 1942). The other two wod be the same as present, the set date would have a logic check, triggered by present events and if this date is reached, max trasfer occurs. Game play 1) fix the minor bugs with the map and other areas. This is minor but should be easy to work on. 2) Adjust LR air, several options: a) Go with JJs distance redustion. 1-3 hex 100%, 4-6 hex 50%, 7-11 hex 0%. This is only for air fleets and carriers, not bombers Reduce starting values. Carriers spoting 3 : Attack range 2, bomber stay the same, Air fleets spoting/AP 4 : attack range 3. This one might create some real problems with 'road jams' that could be solved by allowing air fleets to stack. However this would create a huge programing problem. 3) Turn Carriers into Air units, they attack, defend ect.. as air and not navel units. 4) Create a second tech for Tanks, see above. 5) Install 5-10 hexs in eastern Russia and the central Alantic (I know, not possiable due to file size?) 6) Have a 'mini Sibrian Transfer' for the British colonial troops in egypt, summer of 1940. Like Canada, they would be allied minor troops. Economic outlook: By mid 1942 most of the minors will be attacked and taken. Breaking this down you see why the allies must start to push the axis back or they will be crushed under a higher MPPs of Germany and Italy: Germany - 600-800 for all of main land Eroupe Italy - 125-150 picking up Germanys scraps Total - 725 to 950 USA - 180 Normal UK - 130 +\- (can't hold med) USSR - 300-450 (depends on the german play) Total - 610 to 755 There are several other issues here but they deserve another post. Most of this has been written before so no need to cover it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts