Lars Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Really? Thought you already had it in there with the random fall of minors. But another victory hex works too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 You know, I'm with Hubert, its far too early to make any drastic changes. I have 4 PBEMs going, two from each side and before I look at 1.03 I want to finish these. I think many others are in the same boat. Easy fix idea, on the supply check(b/4 victory assessment), enemy unit occupying victory tile must have supply 6 or greater. Idea being that before you can actually claim victory the tile should be "secured", meaning an HQ must be in proximity. I mean who's going to accept the "Articles of Surrender" from a major belligerent? [ April 07, 2008, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted April 7, 2008 Share Posted April 7, 2008 Sombra if you turn on the soft build limit you can prettywell build all the planes you can afford. I was suggesting a overall reduction of 1 of each plane type for Germany because of the overall power of the tac.bombers.If this is going to be addressed in other ways then no need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sombra Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I hope if the soft attack is reduced there would be no need for the captial switching to Egypt for GB as it would be possible to defend teh Island. Right now many players simply neglect the defense of England totally as in the worse case they get a even better position in Egpyt and /or they invest a huge amount of resources in Egypt . Feels like of gamey for me. If the TacBombers are not so effectiv anymore it qould be possible for Egnland again to defend its Island (if they make it their first priority) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 This is why I play Canada as the fall back position for UK. Its more historical and it removes the Egypt gambit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I agree with SeaMonkey by just making England fight on from Canada(which is what they probably would have done)England can never really be totaly conquered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baron Posted April 8, 2008 Share Posted April 8, 2008 I like the idea of adding Manchester and of checking a units supply level to determine the victory conditions. I agree it is early in the patch process to make drastic changes but some of the changes mentioned should be being play tested to find out how the changes would effect the balance. I did not realize that limiting an AT level for example could not be done for one unit exclusivily. Of all the ideas submitted I like the increased cost for upgrades the least. When you are talking hundreds of points per turn I'd pay the extra 20 or 30 points to upgrade the TAC air because they are just so powerful. Hubert, thanks again for checking in on your community and working so hard to make the SC family of games so great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Saunders Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 I've been playing the Thrawn European Theater on SC2 WaW 1.02 via PBEM. We have played several times through and switched sides. We've been using the editor and making tweaks for balance and recently brought Tac Bombers down by 1 point on hard attack, soft attack, and air attack. This seems about right so far. Hard and soft attack get upgraded with AT capability so eventually gets respectable (at a cost). And now they can't be used to readily destroy every fighter unit on the ground. Otherwise, the Tac Bombers...especially German units which draw on all the Poland/France experience are total killers. The only defense is AA and even then, as stated in another thread, AA needs to be level 2 or 3 just to adequately defend against level 1 tac bombers. $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armuss Posted April 9, 2008 Author Share Posted April 9, 2008 In cmmods.com is only beta (0.8) version "Thrawn European Theater" mod. You have newest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Saunders Posted April 9, 2008 Share Posted April 9, 2008 Originally posted by Armuss: In cmmods.com is only beta (0.8) version "Thrawn European Theater" mod. You have newest? I got mine from CMMods. I think 0.8. But we have made several edits for our private PBEM. One of the complaints about that campaign was it was too easy to knock Russia out of the game. We created fall-back capitals for Russia and made Egypt a little stronger. Among other things, including adjusting tac bombers, it is more balance IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibukovec Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Well i agree. If u play germany right the russian player cant do anything to prevent the fall of Moscow and Stalingrad (Im not aware of a successful deffence so far), no matter how good he is. after that u just have to sent ur 10 planes to France and take out London and u win. Dosnt seems right to me. Im playing a PBEM game in the turnament and i will win this way next turn (hope no bad weather will come). Its summer 42 and ther is no defence vrs it. Its frustrating for the Allies. Ivan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibukovec Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Well i forgot u need Cairo to pull this off. So if u lose all this as an Allie maybee u need this punishment. Ivan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 Just noticed this thread (come here about 2 times a week anymore). My quick take is that air should primarily damage morale, readiness, and/or supply, but not damage actual strength points very much. Probably too much of a drastic change for SC2, but something to think about for the next generation of the series. That way you still need the ground units to come in and mop up the shattered enemy hordes (which should crumble fairly quickly given the auxilary damage done). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lparkh Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 I vote similarly. To John DiFool. After 10+ pbem games as allies and a focuse for about 8 of those on how to deal with german air in russia I am feeling like there is just nothing I can do. I tried the upgrade russian ftrs path but can't afford that enough early on (have to build a land army dont ya know). Air pts just too expensive and of course german's are too expensive. Then for last 5 or 6 games I've tried heavy emphasis on AA instead. This helped some but even with a strong emphsis takes a long time to get to even AA level 3. And you can't realistically keep your units all crowded around the AAs. Mayve 1.03 will help a bit. I tend to be a 'can-do' kind of player ...fighting hard to find away to overcome an obstacle.. but the air power jsut seems too much (and yes I'm trying to do allied air and draw soviet air off.. but by now all his axis air is just too darn experienced even with my high tech american ftrs :-( ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lparkh Posted April 12, 2008 Share Posted April 12, 2008 I should add it's not just the TBs even the ftrs become absolute ground killers (even naval killers!) after a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted April 15, 2008 Share Posted April 15, 2008 Having the capital move to Canada is an option as we have added the necessary scripts but one criticism is that by doing so it is very unlikely for the Axis to ever force the surrender of the UK and one of the reasons why we left Egypt as the default. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts