What is the most pressing change needed?

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Mr. Clark:

Retreats of the size we are dealing with here would be more of an ordered retreat... which we can do simply by moving the units away ourselves.

Assuming that your opponent hasn't pounded you to dust in the mean time. The problem arises due to the game mechanics surrounding any turn based game. A player can take advantage of the artificial IGO-UGO system. Therefore, the scale of the game is irrelevant in this case. Other games of this scale have used "retreat" rules quite effectively to reduce the abuse that comes from people gaming the turn system in their favor.

[pzgndr]

Another comment about retreats. I like the 30% loss threshold idea, which would prevent players from abusing retreats. It should be optional, permitting units to stay in place if desired. Since you give up entrenchment value, you may make things worse if you retreat. Overall, I don't see a problem with retreats at this scale. I do question entire armies being eliminated in a single turn. I'm also beginning to question max reinforcements. Perhaps there should be a limit of 3 or 4 factors per turn. Armies going from 1 to 10 just doesn't seem right, even with experience loss considered.

[Mr. Clark]

Originally posted by Bill Macon:

Another comment about retreats. I like the 30% loss threshold idea, which would prevent players from abusing retreats. It should be optional, permitting units to stay in place if desired. Since you give up entrenchment value, you may make things worse if you retreat. Overall, I don't see a problem with retreats at this scale. I do question entire armies being eliminated in a single turn. I'm also beginning to question max reinforcements. Perhaps there should be a limit of 3 or 4 factors per turn. Armies going from 1 to 10 just doesn't seem right, even with experience loss considered.

Also in response to M. Tanker:

Now that I read both of your responses, I could accept RETREATS built into the game system IF they were optional, and/or changeable by the player. If I could decide to allow NO retreats, 30% casualty retreats, or 80% casualty retreats... then I think it would be a decent addition!

[Sarge Saunders]

PBEM playback as mentioned before. I would like to see my opponent's attacks against me within constraints of FOW. This seems like a "must-have" to me. Otherwise 2 player has less than desired fun factor.

[edit]Also more seamless support for non 1024x768 resolutions (higher and lower) as mentioned in other threads. This outweighs everything else. User implemented workarounds for this are fine for the demo but not acceptable for the purchased version.[/edit]

-Sarge

[ May 30, 2002, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[LuckyStrike]

Look at normalising production in the 1-month winter turns as equivalent to the 4 x 1-week Summer turns, ie one winter turn gets same MPP as 4 Summer turns added up.

[ May 30, 2002, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: LuckyStrike ]

[hobbes]

The port of Gillingham next to London?

This should be Dover I assume?

[Ancient One]

I think it's key to allow strategic bombers to bomb cities/resources even if there are units on them. It should not be too difficult to have a pop up box allowing a choice. Without this feature, strategic bombers just aren't worth it, regardless of how upgraded they are. Who's ever going to invest research points into Anti-Aircraft Radar, certainly not me. I'll just put a corps on every threatened resource (especially mines and oil wells). Even Axis & Allies deals with strategic bombing more realistically.

Also, rockets are far too weak, at least give them an air defence of 1.

With the game as it is now, there are 2 types of units (Strategic Bombers, Rockets) and 3 research categories (Heavy Bombers, Anti-Aircraft Radar, Rockets) that just aren't worth it.

[BloodyBucket]

Here is my wish list, gameplay first:

</font>

• PBEM replay (optional, in a perfect world, otherwise default) </font>
• Strat bombers can hit resources under units </font>
• Allow players some choice in what units get the HQ effect </font>

A subset would focus on the stong point of SC, sheer fun.
</font>

• Seperate capitol city graphic, to be modded by the great unwashed </font>
• Some sort of graphic indicator of the time of year </font>
• Sound files for events like Declaration of War, Conquest and Plunder (Ka-ching!) </font>

[Immolator]

First, I'm glad to hear that PBEM replay will be included. It should add to the fun.

Secondly, a couple of things that I would like to see tweaked are:

Strategic bombers doing more damage to industry. They cost too much to bother with knocking out a couple of MPP's of the enemy.

The same goes for the submarines. Lower their cost or destroy more MPP's. The sub cost doesn't seem to be worth it as they are readily destroyed.

Damage to naval units when bombarding a port gets too expensive. Why bother for a couple of MPP damage to the enemy?

I also like the idea mentioned in a previous post which would allow naval units in range to interdict transport ships.

Having some report at the end of the game. The demo doesn't have this. I should probably assume this will occur, but I'm just tossing in my 2 cents.

Working out some way the undo move in PBEM doesn't tempt the cheater in us. I know security can be overcome by those persistent enough. Just make it as inconvenient as possible to reduce the abuse.

Overall, I do like the game and look forward to playing the full version. It looks like a winner to me.

[Titan]

Definatley the undo and the replay.No replay takes away that bit of excitment,like CM has when you target that AT gun against that tank and have to wait for next turn to see result.Just to see a report is abit boring and Cheap.

[BloodyBucket]

Titan, there will be replay of opponents turn in PBEM.