zappsweden Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 When the Suez Canal transfer was added to the game (the arrows west of Africa) it was decides so that it would take longer time going around Africa than through the mediterranean. That is correct, but in my opinion having units transfer for so long time cost too much time to be efficient. In SC2, I would like the arrows to be placec near UK instead and make the long distance transporting FASTER instead of slower than moving manually. It makes more sence since being in a boat for months is not so accurate. Alternatively, have arrows both near Africa and near UK. The Africa ones should be slower than manual movement (to Egypt) but the UK ones faster than manual movement (to Egypt). You can operate land units from Ural to Normandy in one week, so to balance things I think long distance boat transporting of land units should be quicker too. [ November 19, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: zappsweden ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I think the reverse. Opereating units should take more time depending on distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted November 19, 2003 Share Posted November 19, 2003 I agree. I think operating units multiple regions should take two turns instead of one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 And probably should cost more too (maybe base 10 and + 0.25 MPPs per hex moved, rounded up). John DiFool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 How long does it take for a person to travel from one coast in the US to the other, by train? And lets not forget, that the turns in SC are not a standard time frame. We have twelve (12) one week turns, fourteen (14) two week turns and three (3) four week turns. What SC does, rightly, is restrict the operating based on the supply level of your destination. If you figure that the fighting has caused damage to the railroads, then it takes some time for your engineers (those units you never see), to repair them so you can get troops into that area. The most obvious example is when Germany invades Russia (assuming you play with scorched earth, but who doesn't?). It takes quite a few turns before you operate any units into Russia, usually you go to Warsaw, then walk. And if you let Partisans pop up, the first thing they've done is damaged your railroads. But I also agree, that the Suez loop should not be made faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer39 Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 Who's to say that SC2 will use the same turn scale system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KDG Posted November 20, 2003 Share Posted November 20, 2003 The big question is what was faster in the 40's. Movement by train or by ship. The max movement by water is 10 hexes in a turn, while you can transport a unit up to 40 hexes away. Is this correct, or should the max operation be 15-20 hexes(or some determined number). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappsweden Posted November 20, 2003 Author Share Posted November 20, 2003 Just to clarify. Manual movement from Manchester -> Egypt = 6 turns Manual movement from Manchester -> Egypt (using safer longer route) = 7-8 turns. Manual movement Gibraltar -> Egypt = 4 turns. SC Suez Route (West Africa -> Egypt): 7 turns PROPOSALS: Proposal for SC2 Suez Route (West Africa -> Egypt): 5 turns Proposal for SC2 Suez Route 2 (North of Manchester -> Egypt): 5 turns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaka of Carthage Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 If Mr H's gets rid of the current movement system, he would be making a major mistake. The variable time, same movement rate, is one of those simple but subtle things in SC that push it beyond the other games out there. It makes the weather effects on movement transparent to us, to the point that hardly anyone who plays SC realizes the effect. Add the missing combat effects that weather would have on units, and perhaps some visual changes to the hexes to reflect the different seasons, and weather has been addressed, using a system that in the future, I'm sure you'll see other games copy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin P. Posted November 21, 2003 Share Posted November 21, 2003 How could the Germans intercept the transports with the proposed Manchester > Egypt Route? The axis must have the option to intercept these transports. I very much like the current system. The only changes I would make is 1> Have the Suez loop be a two way loop. But allow only 1 ship/transport per turn to travel from the Suez west to the Atlantic via this loop. 2> Allow it to handle naval and transport ships. 3> Add a second route for the allies from north of Bergan to Russia and allow airfleets to be transported via transports and sent to Russia. Of course, if the airfleet transport was sunk it would be an expensive loss. 4> Allow a route for the axis from north of Bergan to the North Atlantic. [ November 20, 2003, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts