JerseyJohn Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 This is not my original thought. Hueristic suggested a random map generator and Les the Sarge suggests the ability to vary initial troop placements. Others have made similar suggestions and I mentioned the map idea earlier but it was not expanded upon. So, as Mr H won't initiate a forum and I don't believe the Sarge will mind me offering his related suggestion, here goes. I think the campaign editor should incorporate both a random map generator and a map editor. If the random part is impossible then the map editor should be a reasonable request; something where, if you're inclined to, you can start out with a field of blank hexes and fill them in as you please. Add to this greater creative flexibility like renaming countries, etc., and you have a full blown game generator using Hubert's system. If such a thing, revised and sophistcated, were realized I'd be willing to purchase it as a seperate product and I believe others would as well. As I said in the earlier forum, people would still buy this game as is and SC 2 because most people want to see what the pros come up with. In the case of random troop placement, the Axis should be able to position neutral Italy's units and the Allies ought to be able to place neutral Russia's units. As it is things are too simple for players who want to play against fixed and unalterable dispositions. Here's hoping everyone voices their opinions. [ January 02, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaWolf_48 Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Yah, it would be like the Startrek episode where Kirk and Spock went down to the planet to find a lost starship crew and found nazi ruling the planet. The Off World Senario, great stuff guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Well JJ's notions are perhaps a bit wackier than my needs hehe. Editted this post because hey I can. JJ you have to stop seeing everything you read as an attack. Wacky does not imply stupidity (at least not to me). I merely stated (here in this post), that your needs exceeded my own personal interests. ie ALL I want, is to be able to re position the forces. Map editing, force editting, all that editing stuff is way past my interest level. Which explains why I have never altered or dabbled in any wargame I have ever played. Just doesn't interest me personally. [ January 02, 2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Les the Sarge 9-1b ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genghis Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 JerseyJohn, Aye I wouldn't mind paying for a separate map and or unit editor as well. The ability in setting up neutrals is a big improvement. Also the ability to design other theater conflicts as well that could be done with the current SC engine (i.e. WWI, Pacific Theater in WWII, Arab Israeli conflicts in 1948, French in IndoChina 1950, Korea war 1950-53 etc) Editing names, changing values forresources/cities, and create new types of units like Airborne or Horse Cavalry troops would be awesome. Or get really crazy and do some fun fantasy/medieval battles like Tolkein's Battle for Middle earth or Helm's Deep if the programming worked. There was a computer game called Universal Conflict Simulator or something release in the early 90's. They used one engine and had modules that spanned from 1914-1990's but the program allowed you to make your own battles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 SeaWolfe_48 Not even remotely what I'm talking about. What I suggested was something where a player can try his hand at using Hubert's game system to create other theaters like the Pacific, for instance. I don't recall StarTrek appearing at Iwo Jima. Genghis' posting above is what I'm talking about. Did you bother to read the damn thing before making your comment? Sarge -- Could have sworn you suggested the ability of each player to place his own units and said it would be prefarable to having them fixed the same way game after game. Yeah, I'm whacky all right for forwarding a suggestion you already stated. Thanks for both your profound insights. Genghis -- Thanks for that info, will check it out. Guess you cheated by reading what was actually there instead of pressing the automatic farce button. You get the point exactly. The reason I say there should be an ability to rename nations is so a custom map could include Japan in a Pacific War scenario or allow a Korean War , Middle East War scenario or whatever else somebody wants to create. But I guess Captain Kirk would beam himself down. -- * -- Don't mean to have gotten so annoyed at those two postings. Counter suggestions are good and necessary, but those two had nothing to do with what I was saying and were only looking for some stupid negative entertainment. It's easy to deride. All I ask is that the critics bother to know what the issue they're attempting to debunk. It's especially annoying when brainless garbage like that comes from people you like and respect. [ January 02, 2003, 03:30 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Keep in mind that ANY proposed interactive activity during a game turn would require new turn phases and data transfers. That would significantly increase the time required to play this game via PBEM or TCP/IP and necessarily require things to be done in certain orders. (Shades of 3R here!) I like the current simplicity, despite some minor irritation about air escorts and interceptions that we can't control. It should be possible to have multiple setups for each neutral, which could be selected by the computer based on who declares war and other factors. That would be good. I think Hubert is seriously considering making Italy, USSR and US active neutrals in SC2, which would solve the setup issue for the major powers. FOW should hide all those deployments until war is declared, which in itself would lead to some interesting situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 Bill, Thanks for stating that. Those changes would make a considerable difference and would put an end to some of the more extreme and historically unjustified strategies presently being employed, and with great success. I don't blame the guys developing them, I regard them as game flaws which should be corrected. If it's possible to do something within the game structure, then it's fair game for players to use it. What's called for then is a correction in the basic set-up or game system. [ January 02, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by JerseyJohn: This is not my original thought. Hueristic suggested a random map generator and Les the Sarge suggests the ability to vary initial troop placements.I refuse to have anything to do with such a stupid idea! I never recommended something as stupid as a Random Map Generator! LMAO Damn glad u posted the suggestion and caught the flame instead of me Seriously I hear bitching and complaining about "That unit should not have been able walk through that hex" And "How can that port be attached There?" Marseilles port to hex adjoinging Torino. Man i caught that loophole like game 2. Yes This game doesn't run historical and from what i can see it never will. SO What! It's a damn fun game with low micromanagement and gives alot of peops enjoyment. I for one could care less about History. I think half of the Old Players were morons and the other half were self rightous Pricks. I can't think of one Leader back then that I respect (maybe Churchill) I want a strategic Challenge against the best strategists around. That's why I'm here. And if it takes a Random Map to get that Game Then So be it. A random Map With FOW will test the steel or the true Master not the Loophole learner or the Pattern Follower. Anyone can learn those I've Seen and Found buttloads since my time here. The only way to Stop these "So called" Gambits. Is with a Unknown Board. I get asked every game practically "what's takeing u soo long on the first turn" Duh what r u stupid? I happen to not like where the "Pieces" are located originally. This is not a Action where Men's lives are on the line. this is a game like any other with rules. Some of those rules can be bent."Matrix Quote" Lol Even If you detest Exploreing territory that Qoute "I should already know" Than You can see the Equalizeing Factor of a new map for each game. At least for tournement Play. Are far as the History buffs go You can have all the Maps and Variations You want and I'll play on them all. Just don't expect me to move my piece like Some POS General From a Long Past Conflict. This Post May make Some Mad at me and So be it It shows me Your true Self if in fact it does. I want a tool to fight like minded peops if u don't want to play on random maps for whatever reason then You don't have to But Just like my Views On Religion I don't Want freedom of Religion I want Freedom FROM religion. Man what got me going? Hmmm Well anyway JJ Good post Sorry I was too lazy to Do it and You caught the heat. And the Randomly generated Placement of pieces by the computer not the Player(choice would be nice) Would take no extra setup time For players. Damn maybe a Couple clock Cycles. But if u can count them Your in the wrong Place. Whoever did make the that suggestion thank you I think it's definately a step in the correct direction. Damn and i told jj i wasn't long winded enough write this thread(must have just been the fact i'm a lazy basterd). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 I like that idea of editing units. But as for placing units i am against. It will be just like 3R where all units were placed at the places that can do the most damage and every game is the same. [ January 02, 2003, 06:26 PM: Message edited by: Carl Von Mannerheim ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Genghis: JerseyJohn, Aye I wouldn't mind paying for a separate map and or unit editor as well. The ability in setting up neutrals is a big improvement.Damn Straight Also the ability to design other theater conflicts as well that could be done with the current SC engine (i.e. WWI, Pacific Theater in WWII, Arab Israeli conflicts in 1948, French in IndoChina 1950, Korea war 1950-53 etc)Sure a whole series Could take years to do and would be a blast to balance out. There was a computer game called Universal Conflict Simulator or something release in the early 90's. They used one engine and had modules that spanned from 1914-1990's but the program allowed you to make your own battles.Umm what was that "the Universal Game Designer" I think yeah that thing what a waste. The options were so limited basically it was the same game over and over with a severly limited selection of unchangable units that could have diferent names and tiles lol. In CGA i believe released like 1987. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Hueristic, Get on AIM so we can finish our game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim: I like that idea of editing units. But as for placing units i am against. It will be just like 3R where all units were placed at the places that can do the most damage and every game is the same. Not on a random map. also not if u could not see where your opponent was placeing his. Or maybe U have a choice to take turns placeing. U could even conced before the game started as soon as u reilize u got outsmarted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by Carl Von Mannerheim: Hueristic, Get on AIM so we can finish our game!I am posting and All the Aim peops keep messeging me at once and it crahses. All the other services work fine but when i get 2 aim peops talking at me boom. AOL sux. I may get on to play later i'll let u know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Originally posted by SeaWolf_48: Yah, it would be like the Startrek episode where Kirk and Spock went down to the planet to find a lost starship crew and found nazi ruling the planet. The Off World Senario, great stuff guys!You mean this game can "Go where No game has gone Before"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Im not sure if i can play later. Keep tring on AIM. CvM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted January 3, 2003 Share Posted January 3, 2003 Ok, I have yahoo messenger now winnieisback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts