C in C for SC2

[SeaMonkey]

I've got an idea prompted by a new game at matrix that uses a team coordination concept for opposing sides. Since we have a nice little SC community here and it seems that we kind of have a team mentality, wouldn't it be nice to play SC2 with a C in C and subordinate commanders on each side. Each sub would have his area/units of influence, approved/allocated by the C in C who also directs research and MPPs allocation and finally approves the overall movements of the subs. Each sub would exercise influence through the command radius of his HQ unit/s, complete his turn and then forward it to the next sub and so on until finally submitted to the C in C for approval and submission to the other side as the Axis/Allies turn. This kind of just happened off the top of my head,....have we discussed this before? Obviously this idea needs some refinement, so what do you think? To complicated , not interesting,..ok, no problem.

[ October 14, 2003, 07:27 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Shaka of Carthage]

One of the problems with having additional people in the same game as you, is that it slows it down. The other, is that you have to make sure each player has enough to keep them busy (usually measured by the number of units the player has).

If the scale of SC2 was more operational, with units being divisions and corps, not Corps and Armies, then its a better enviornment for what you are asking.

However, along the lines of what you are asking, is the option of Russia being played by a 3rd person (or even the AI). The Western Allies (Fr, UK, eventually US) have enough to keep one person busy. Russia, by itself, could keep one person busy. Especially, if with a human player, the conditions that made Russia no longer neutral where not so clear cut. For that matter, the conditions that dictated what side Russia took, would make it even more intersting.

[Edwin P.]

I like the option for Russia being handled by a third person or the AI. It would be a realistic simulation of the war and more interesting since you would not control all allied units.

Imagine if the Russian player and the Allied player could engage in chat to plan simultanelous actions or decide on a plan of action - ie lets both work together to take Iraq.

Of course if the Germans intercepted the communications....

[SeaMonkey]

Agreed Shaka, we would need more units to manage for a viable multiplayer game(>4)in conjunction with a larger map or some other concepts to keep the players engrossed.

On perhaps a different note but with a somewhat ambiguous connection I've been thinking about hex control. More specifically after a unit vacates a hex/position ;it was usually customary to leave a rear guard or some garrisoning influence. In SC2 we could have, on the unit menu, an option for detachment creation in the previously vacated hex by the retreating unit. The unit menu would allow the assigning of a certain amount of strength points subtracted from the parent unit to allocate to the rear guard/KG/TF icon that would reside in that hex. The KG/TF could have the effect of stopping enemy units and attriting strength as surprise contact works now. Of course if the owning player did not allocate enough strength to the rearguard it could allow the enemy unit to keep moving but possibly lose a strenth point or readiness or suffer some other adverse effect(depending on unit type). The enemy player should not be able to discern the strength of the rearguard as a small detachment would be stealthier. This rearguard kampfgruppe/taskforce wouldn't necessarily need to be represented by new unit but perhaps a ghost type icon in the vacated hex and would only have a lifespan of perhaps a turn or two before it is re-absorbed by the creating parent unit if it wasn't destroyed. Critique?

[ October 14, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]