SeaWolf_48 Posted February 6, 2003 Share Posted February 6, 2003 Some common things I would like to see in SC2. 1) During Head to Head Play, let waiting player see his own units, and research charts, date, and purchase of units before turn starts. This would speed up play! 2) When saving game default to last name used, and the real day and date shown. 3) Change Quit box to small red button. A few times I have hit the quit instead of done button, and the game is gone (anyone else admit they did this). 4) Show statistics of how many units have been purchased, how many points have gone toward ships, air, and land forces for each country. Not a pie chart but a spread sheet for each country. Allow this option in tool bar to hide or see enemy numbers. 5) Show unit number on face of unit. Make it changable like now, but on the counter face. e.f. 1SS, 82AB, HG, etc. 6) Allow to see enemy research levels (delayed), when troops saw new models of tanks or planes they would tell the Intel Officers, and the info would get to all concerned. Also Britain and the US exchanged inventions, e.f. radar, sonar, prox fuse, penicillin, high octane gasoline, Merlin engine, and Enigma to mention a few. Research points could be exchanged between US and England, Germany and Italy. 7) Map hex really 50 miles. Produce a map that will be a classic that will be spoken of by gamers for decades to come around Chat forums. Accurate, different mountain sizes, mountain passes, real names of rivers, seas, and Islands. Allow Islands to be occupied and evacuated e.f. Rhodes, Majorca, Greenland, Gotland, Aland, Lesbos. 8) Because of radio traffic, Military Intel, code breaking, reccon planes, and spys some of the units (in a random way) during FOW should be visible to the opposite side. This could be increased by spending MPP's toward Military Intel research. 9) And all the other things we want, Murmansk convoy route, Airbonrne troops, units that retreat instead of stand and die, etc..... Airborne troops in Third Reich would take away land and fortress bonuses. [ February 06, 2003, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: SeaWolf_48 ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Great things to strive for in the game. It looks like most of them would also be fairly easy to implement, which is always good. [ February 06, 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 As usual, let me go at this a different way. While making general suggestions for SC II is nice, what we end up with is a list of things that we want, some of which contradict other items on the same list. If we were Hubert, wouldn't it be better to actually "help" by working out the design, discussing it (since we can't really playtest it), and then present the conclusions? For example, Battle of Atlantic, people were unhappy with. But in the course of that thread, a couple of workable solutions were presented, which Hubert could actually use (if he so chooses). Don't like the way the units look? Create new ones. Hubert and his "staff" (do you actually have one yet?) can't do everything. JerseyJohn, you mentioned that the items on the list were easy to implement. There are a couple of things on the list that would be extremly hard to do. While the ideas themselves have merit, a solution to a problem, that to the best of our abilities is balanced and doesn't create as many problems as it is trying to solve, may be more beneficial for the future of SC. Now, after saying all of that... let me make a new post with my own list of what I want! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 I'll try and limit myself. Lots of people have asked for weather. But wait, we do have weather, since we have a variable movement rate. Ok.. problem with that is that the "weather" is the same for the entire map. And what most are really asking for, is for the effects weather had on combat to be included. So what we really want is the effect that weather had. This has been discussed enough in other topics, so no need to go into it. But let me take this in a different direction. Give us the beautiful map, real names for locations, rivers, etc. Assuming its not too big of a percentage of the budget, go for it. But what would make SC II stand out, is for the individual hex types to have a different look depending on the weather. You know... like mountain hexes with snow on them during winter? And give me sound effects for troops marching thru mud, along with a hex showing muddied (?) ground. Yes, its eye candy, but I only know of one other game that has tried this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted February 7, 2003 Author Share Posted February 7, 2003 You make some good points Mr. Carthage about other comments but not mine? I think that SC in a way has a weather factor by having one turn in December and four turns in June. Eye candy is pleasant, but marching one hundred miles in one hex and thirty in the next is goofy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 SeaWolf_48 I was trying not to make a long post... really, I was really trying very hard. But since you asked, I am more than happy to respond to your suggestions. 1) During Head to Head Play, let waiting player see his own units, and research charts, date, and purchase of units before turn starts. This would speed up play! If this doesnt suck up too many computer resources, sure, why not. But it is nice to have the time to just sit and think about what is going on. 2) When saving game default to last name used, and the real day and date shown Couldn't care one way or the other. 3) Change Quit box to small red button. A few times I have hit the quit instead of done button, and the game is gone (anyone else admit they did this). Never did it. Color doesn't matter, since one is on the top and one is on the bottome. But change of color wouldn't bother me. But if we were changing the buttons, how about making them smaller so I could see more of the map? If its too big for me and my old eyes, I'm sure you young fellas have it worse. 4) Show statistics of how many units have been purchased, how many points have gone toward ships, air, and land forces for each country. Not a pie chart but a spread sheet for each country. Allow this option in tool bar to hide or see enemy numbers Don't pay attention to the one we have now. So a new one I probably wouldn't look at either. 5) Show unit number on face of unit. Make it changable like now, but on the counter face. e.f. 1SS, 82AB, HG, etc. Number of characters allowed for us entering a name is way too large to try and display on the icon. Effort to do this wouldn't be worth it. I'd rather have more unit types, or national units instead of generic ones. 6) Allow to see enemy research levels (delayed), when troops saw new models of tanks or planes they would tell the Intel Officers, and the info would get to all concerned. Also Britain and the US exchanged inventions, e.f. radar, sonar, prox fuse, penicillin, high octane gasoline, Merlin engine, and Enigma to mention a few. Research points could be exchanged between US and England, Germany and Italy. Confused. We can already tell what tech level our enemy has by looking at his icon and his strength levels. While what you say is true, that the tech advances were exchanged, I also think the R&D chits represent investing in the infrastructure to be able to produce those new inventions. So while our "friends" may have the knowledge, they still couldn't produce the items. Besides, I can point out that there were just as many examples of tech advances NOT being exchanged among friends. Germany never allowed Italy to produce the latest tanks Germany had, only the obsolete ones. US/UK exchanged, but they sure didn't give everything they had to the Russians. Besides... again... it would give the Allies another advantage, which would swing the balance more in thier favor than it already is. 7) Map hex really 50 miles. Produce a map that will be a classic that will be spoken of by gamers for decades to come around Chat forums. Accurate, different mountain sizes, mountain passes, real names of rivers, seas, and Islands. Allow Islands to be occupied and evacuated e.f. Rhodes, Majorca, Greenland, Gotland, Aland, Lesbos. It isn't 50? The map and the map size as it exists today is a limitation of the software used. I don't mind what we have, and would rather have a larger area than the same area that was better looking. Island bit... yea, it would be nice, but at the scale we are, I don't know if its possible. 8) Because of radio traffic, Military Intel, code breaking, reccon planes, and spys some of the units (in a random way) during FOW should be visible to the opposite side. This could be increased by spending MPP's toward Military Intel research. Interesting point. I don't think we should be able to spend MPP's to have an effect, but I do like the idea of randomly removing the FOW from certain areas. 9) And all the other things we want, Murmansk convoy route, Airbonrne troops, units that retreat instead of stand and die, etc..... Convoy routes... quite a few topics address this one way or the other. Boils down to giving us a 50mile hex Atlantic ocean where we actually move units as we do currently OR abstract the ocean into sea zones where the computer determines the details. I wouldn't want to actually build and move merchant ships (assuming we get that 50mi hex Atlantic Ocean), rather use the current method of implied merchant lanes that can be interdicted. Paratroopers... 350 to 400 MPP's, "airdrop" range of 4 hexes, strength max of 5 points. Sure, bring it on. No other effects needed, since it acheives all its effects from being behind the unit or in its rear. So no "combat shock" bonus, no "remove defensive bonus", etc. Units that retreat... As us oldtimers would say, you want a bloodless CRT. Where what we have now is a bloody CRT. They have the ability to retreat when you move them now. To do what you ask, you now have to deal with "stacking" units... or would you not complain when your unit was eliminated because it had no hex to retreat into since friendlies are lined up behind it? Keep the bloody CRT and if you want them to retreat, move them. If you are about to mention "but we need to be able to clear coastal hex"... Amphib assault option... just like transport option, but expensive, only available for a Corp, and all other naval transports have to unload in a port. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 SeaWolf48 I think that SC in a way has a weather factor by having one turn in December and four turns in June. Eye candy is pleasant, but marching one hundred miles in one hex and thirty in the next is goofy. Maybe I don't understand properly. If so I apologize. We both agree that SC has a variable turn rate... so one turn is one (1) week, but in a different month, that turn is four (4) weeks. My understanding of your next statement is where I am confused. So here is what I was saying ... SC retains the variable turn rate. If the turn is one (1) week (summer), the hex would look one way. During the four (4) week turn, same hex would have snow on it. During the two (2) week turn, I want to see mud on the same hex. Marching sounds same as they are now for summer, but for the other seasons, I want to hear the mud sucking on the boots and wheels. Or the chatter of teeth during winter. Yes, this is "eye-candy", but in this case, its the sort of eye candy that can get SC exposed to different venues. More exposure, more sales. More sales, more profits. More profits, the more work we can beat out of Hubert, or his cast of thousands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Archibald Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Originally posted by SeaWolf_48: Eye candy is pleasant, but marching one hundred miles in one hex and thirty in the next is goofy. It already happens in a mountain hex. You pay two APs to move in rather than the normal one, and it's the same for rivers. If it's OK for terrain to affect movement, why not the weather? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Shaka Yes, it would be very good to work within paramaters set down for SC II by Hubert. Tell me what they are and I'll gladly limit my remarks to them. There's a huge difference between weather and variable turns. We do not have weather in any sense of the word, end of story. In the overwhelming number aspects this is an outstanding game, but leaving out weather is a gross failing that should be corrected. The way the Battle of the Atlantic and the Atlantic Ocean itself is another gross failing. The save game option of seeing what files are already saved so you don't accidentally rename one, etc., is such a routine suggestion that it should even inspire a comment. The fact you don't care about it is fine, but others do and it's a mechanical aspect that can be easily implemented and would make the saving of games more accurate and better. Unit identities don't matter to me either, nor do specific designations within types, i.e., it doesn't matter to me if a unit is regular Army or SS or Luftwaffe or Guards or whatever, but it obviously matters to SeaWolf and a number of others so I'll lend my support if Hubert doesn't mind getting it in somehow. At any rate, I can't see being against it simply because I'm indifferent. Paratrooper units would make a nice touch. If, instead of buying items like Battleships and Aircraft carriers a nation wanted to go wild with airborne units I see no reason why it shouldn't be able to build a few corps and why they shouldn't have special functions. Again, the suggestions have been made, quite a few postings, and Hubert should give us his take on it so we'd have something to go on. All in all my ferver for SeaWolfe's list runs from enthusiasm on many items to indifference on a few. As they are all things that have been discussed at legnth elsewhere I'd have to say, overall, I support the list. At worst there's nothing in there I'd push to see removed and several items I'd truly like to see. If I say I think something would be easy to implement and it isn't I stand in error. No big deal. The idea is I'm lending support to the overall concept. On numerous occasions there are ideas I'm adamantly against and I say so. But recently that hasn't been the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 JerseyJohn I'm not saying work within the parameters of SCII. We don't know what SCII will be. What I am saying, is instead of saying "give me this" or "give me that"... How about working out the details? Someone mentioned once that the Russians don't have enough units, so I want more Russian units or more MPP's to be able to buy them. Instead of asking for that, support the claim by figuring out how many units the Russians had, translate them into our generic unit equivalents, then draw the conclusion if we have too many or too little Russian units. The results may surprise you. Like with the statement that the game favors the Axis. Made mainly because no one was winning as the Allies. But in reality the game favors the Allies, once Russia enters the game. This is where I disagree with you. We do have weather, its the variable turn length. We just don't have the effects that weather would have on combat. Different seasons slow your rate of advance. Weather effects movement. Variable length turns, uses time instead of length to reflect that. But the effect on readiness, equipment, supply, etc (ie combat effects) is not represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 Just wanted to mention that we have one effect of weather, that is the increase in partisons from 15% to 75%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted February 7, 2003 Share Posted February 7, 2003 KDG Yes, that's an aspect of it, but nothing like what the Germans experienced that first winter when their oil froze in tank engines and their weapons became useless exactly when the Soviet counterattacks began! The second winter was less pulverizing for them but they were still seriously handicapped vs. the Russians. The only true Winter Offensive Germany launched during the entire war was the Bulge, but because there's no real winter in this game one turn leads directly into antoher. Having a few number of turns per month but allowing things to flow normally during those turns misses the point. Shaka I see what you're talking about. SeaWolfe, although his list appears to just be a bunch of statements, pretty much consists of items that have been discussed in earlier forums, which is they way it seemed they were intended; a sort of recap. As I said, there are several items I'm not passionate about one way or the other, but nothing I'd particularly object to and several things that I'd like also appear in it. Can't see any point in elaborating on them as I've done so already numerous times and by now people are as sick of hearing my reasons as I am of giving them. I know there is a slowing down during winter months in a addition to the reduced turn per month ratio. But the thing is, if you're the Germans going for Moscow or the Urals you can continue your forward momentum, or at worst halt for a turn and regroup. It should be much more severe than that for German units already deep inside Russia. More realistically the present winter effects should be fall and spring mud effects while winter itself should be truly severe and leave the Germans deep inside Russia weakened, undersupplied, dead in their tracks and holding on for their lives. In any case it would be a great help if there were some way of knowing what things are too outlandish to be included and what things are feasable. As few of us are programmers it will probably continue being a grab bag of suggestions. [ February 07, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts