City Improvements Idea

[Edwin P.]

May I suggest - the ability to purchase air defenses for individual city and resource hexes.

For example:

Air Defense: You can increase the Air Defense rating of a single city (or resource) hex by 1 (max) for a cost of 125MPP. This would represent an investment in concentrating anti-air units to protect important cities.

For example - as the Brits I might invest 125MPP to increase the Air Defense Rating of London by 1, but not invest resources to protect Manchester which is usually out of range of the German airfleets (until they develop Long Range Aircraft).

Even so, it would be more economical to research Anti-Air as that tech advance would protect all city and resource hexes. also purchased air defense assets can only add 1 at most to a city's air defenses.

[ April 15, 2004, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Kuniworth]

As always interesting Edwin. But I'll guess it all comes down to simplicity vs details.

[Some_God]

What Edwin says is what I have always wanted in SCI.

[roman uk]

Good ideas.

Its tough to get the balance right.

Add local improvements like air defence, modify city resource production, spotting (local radar instillations), etc., or go for strategic assets, like the number of oil resources you control has impact on mobility of units, or on the number you are able to build. A 'soft' ceiling for unit limits.

I wonder if Hubert would still implement any additions?

BTW, talking of city improvements reminds one of civ2, which sc2 shares its 2D view with, but thankfully there are supply rules!

[Edwin P.]

Roman UK, you comment about oil resources brings up an old thread.

I believe the thread was related to limiting the movement of armored and air units to the number of oil resource hexes that one controlled.

For each oil hex you controlled you could move X Armored or Air units their full movement allowance. This allowance would be assigned to the first 5 units moved. Amored Units not in supply would have their movement allowance halved 50% of the time.

That thread also suggested Synfuels as a tech. Synfuels tech increases the oil production of each resource hex - mine or oil.

This change would make control and bombing of oil resources much more important.

Of course the problem was how to reflect this limit vs a vs the UK which had no native oil wells.

[roman uk]

Edwin,

I think those would be really interesting wrinkles, as Hitler's drive east, and esp south-east, was more about oil (and sustaining an indefinite war) than lebensraum. Hitler trying to win the colonies (closer to home) that Germany 'unjustly' lost in WW1.

Also, I think it would conveniently answer the unit limitation question, as why would a player build 15 air fleets when he/she could only fly 2? I dont like the idea of hard limit for units because it legalistically removes the what if options of players, instead of the game guiding the player in concerns he/she (well there could be woman players I guess) could imagine adolf/joe/winston/franklin making.

England would rely on 'shipping' in oil, and I think this would bring subs into their proper place, and correct a glaring weakness from SC1.

Adjust the sub interdiction rules accordingly.

Add to, as you interestingly point out, it would open up strategic bombers to be actually used in game play, other than their ahistorical use as naval exterminaters (what I used them for in SC1 anyway). Allied bombing of Ploesti destroying the German drive East; it would be great to recreate.

I think easy enough to implement, as an oil Credits. It would make for much more diverse way to win and thus greater variety in 'gambits'

Im sorry if I am rehashing old ground, as I have lurked a long time, but have no recollection of this debate (enjoyed all the humour though! (g)). Also, I think SC2 potentially has the adptability to implement the above.

What do you think?

[Edwin P.]

Roman UK,

Excellent points. Especially as you said it would increase the value of Strategic Bombers.

For it to be effective long range tech effect should benefit a bombers attack range (not the spotting range!) at a ratio of 5:1. THis would allow Long Range Bombers to make those historic long distance attacks into the German heartland or the Romanian oil fields without giving a player unrealistic intelligence about units in the intervening hexes.

Example: Tech Level 2 in Long Range would increase the range of Air Fleets & Carriers Air Fleets by 2 and the attack range of Long Range Bombers by 10 hexes/tiles/squares.

I also agree with your aversion to hard limits and much favor limits based on resources controlled for the reasons that you stated.

[roman uk]

Edwin P.

I agree bomber range should be extended if strategic bombing of resources could be implemented. 5:1 strikes me a bit high, though, as during the war the range of bombers often was not as much the limiting factor as fighter escort range. Hitler tried to build the 'America Bomber' but thankfully it never saw the light of day. Also, US liked those airfields in north africa/italy to target ploesti, and England for mainland germany.

Fighters and carriers range I think were extended too far in SC1, as your Army Group North Fighter could unrealistically settle that tricky problem on the Southern front for you.

I also agree that the issue of spotting is very tricky, and I would prefer it handled more as 'intelligence/radar' facility.

Oil would definitely raise some interesting dilemnas: build strategic bombers, fighters, or mechanized in terms of unit number, and/or actually try to fight the battle of the atlantic and 'sink' england into starvation with a flotilla of subs (Raeders vision).

I could see players taking north africa (egypts and iraqs oil wells and timing of Barbarosa) much more seriously, and considering the drive to baku as the prime russian theatre aim (as Hitler did in 42).

If Comand HQ (did you ever play that gem?)and high Command could do it, Im sure Hubert could if 'encouraged'

[Night]

Command HQ was an awesome game. And your right it's use of oil as a resource you needed to have was good.