Ideas, suggestions, improvements

[Marky]

okay, i may be a little presumptious here, but i think it mite b a good idea to put in this thread

im sure ppl can come up with sum ideas that could still possibly b added

btw, thx to all for creating SC, i love it and play it and play it and play it over and over

[Panzer39]

Rail roads that connect cities and could be bombed. This would be historical and add some value to every hex. If all the lines leading to a city are destroyed, that city is reduced in supply. Damaged railroads make operating units cost more or impossible.

[Marky]

sounds cool

how about the addition of a port and or city on crete, cyprus, and sardinia ?

how about the ability for the engineers to build actual military bases and airfields?

and, wat about increasing MPP income, or decreasing unit cost to make it a little more ww2 realistic?

[ April 14, 2004, 12:44 AM: Message edited by: GeneralMark ]

[kossuth]

and a port to ireland

[Kelly's Heroes]

New units should only be available from certain "supply" hexes located in the rear. They must then be brought up to the front.

New units should not be able to be initially placed at any city at the front.

[Exel]

How about real amphibious invasions, if they're not in yet. Ie you could land into an occupied hex..err tile and fight for it. This would of course require a special kind of combat system, where for example the losing side (determined by some obscene formula ) automatically withdraws to the next free tile - or in the case of the invader, is destroyed or withdrawn back to the transports at much reduced strenght.

Also, add beaches! The land-anywhere rule sucks, as unanimously agreed by all those I have played against. There's a reason why the Allies landed on a relatively narrow beached in Normandy...

[zappsweden]

Originally posted by Kelly's Heroes:

New units should only be available from certain "supply" hexes located in the rear. They must then be brought up to the front.

New units should not be able to be initially placed at any city at the front.

Excellent. Buying units with no enemy ZOC. Exception: Can always build in Capital.

[willebra]

Should not make the game too detailed though.

I often find that computer games tend to become more detailed in later versions. This makes micro-management more important (and thus strategy less important).

A good strategy game should be based on simple solutions: game-play itself can be very varying and/or complicated but this is achieved by recursing the existing (simple) solutions.

Ok, I agree that the supply of cities could be affected by the amount of enemy units nearby. (E.g. the current situation in SC1 where five units surrounding a city do not affect the city's supply at all is perhaps unrealistic).

But I would rather think that railroads are already modelled in existing hexes (keep it simple). Supply rules could be refined.

[RobRas]

Sea Zones:

Some time ago there was a discussion of the idea of sea zones instead of hexes. Kinda like in the old - but excellent - Clash of Steel. Made the naval warfare part of the game distinctive in flavor and strategy. Instead of just land warfare on blue hexes.

Strategic Bombing:

Option of bombing transport infrastructure increasing the cost of operational movement.

Experience loss:

Substantially reduced experience loss if units are rebuilt 1 strength point at the time - signifying the value of integrating replacements slowly.

Artillery:

In my view arty is integrated in the units combat factors and attack range. Artillery is usually assigned as corps or divisional assets and seldomly as independent units.

Breakthrough:

Perhaps and attack-move option for armor units where a hole can be created and exploited.

[Wachtmeister]

Suggest that strategic bombing be revised to provide for damage to cities, and resource tiles, even when these are garrisioned. Perhaps there could be some proportioning of damage between garrision forces and the underlying infrastructure.

Regarding AA tech, this might be a purchased asset for MPP's, since the amount of AA coverage is more of an asset allocation rather than reasearch driven decision.

Cost in MPP's would vary depending purchase of light or heavy flak assets. Light flak would be effective only against tactical and carrier air attacks, while heavy flak would be less effective against TAC air and more effective against the true strategic bombers.

[Elmo]

Agree that rail lines are a must have. They were critical to strategic planning, and their conversion in the Soviet Union was critical to the Axis for logistical support.

From a strictly aesthetic POV can units have a facing? It looks weird for the Soviets to have their backs to the Finn's in one screenshot, although not completely unhistorical in the '39 scenario.

[CraigRS]

I think to be able to play in a windowed mode would be nice. ALT-TAB can be slow sometimes in SC1 when the boss walks in. LOL!

[MasterChief]

I have read through the forum threads and I'm impressed with the scope and detail of the SC fans input. Although most seem to be focused on the WWII grand Strategy theme ...imagine that Allow me to focus my comments on another major characteristic of this game.... it's scope as a moddable wargamming engine!!!

1. Railroads, roads, bridges, beachs, marsh/swamp, hills, rough terrain, airfields, ports and smaller urban areas ... You get the idea. Please consider including them, especially given the editing and modding capabilities of this game. With the new editing capabilities it is feasible to adjust scope and scale as desired. This would make the dynamics of mobility extremly important.

2. Units

- Add Artillery... some grand strategy games may be set up at a divisional level vice army or group.

- Allow editing of engineer capabilities (combat assualt, fortification capabilities, bridging, rail repair...etc.)

- Allow editing of units to represent Special forces or second line/garrison forces (morale, experience, airborne capability, amphibious assualt bonus.)

3. If not already done increase depth of naval and air model (intercept, interdict, escort, assualt, patrol, deny, etc.)

Please consider adding the above to your already exceptional game. The potential moddability would be incredible. Example: lets say a couple of us old fossil wargammers, who cut their teeth on Avalon Hill's TacticsII, wanted to recreate that experience in the SC environment. What a beer and pretzle game that would make!!! The inclusion of the above features would be crucial.

Hoo-yah!!!

[Marky]

how about escort carriers to protect convoys ?

wat about the ability to actually starve britain into surrrender using a uboat campaign?

(submarines should also b harder to find)

could ships b able to make sum repairs at sea?

cuz allied and axis ships could in real life

carriers shoulndt b damaged we n making air raids on targets defended by fighters, particulary at long range, but instead lose a percentage in readiness that will come back the next turn or so?

wat about the ability to produce battalions, regiments and divisions? and during combat they can divide or form up?

[norvandave]

I'm hoping that following an opponent's DOW if we will get the chance to set-up minor countries when they are invaded instead of the same pre-determined setup everytime. This could cut some of the gamey play out. It would also be great if we could control the setup of Russia and USA before they enter the war (perhaps within certain restrictions).

Loved SC. Looking forward to SC2.

[Bill101]

First of all, it looks great, and I'm really happy with the way it looks and the ideas from the forum that have been incorporated.

I do hope that there will be an official Pacific campaign added shortly after SC2 is released (or a very good mod of one created, I don't mind which, as long as it is good).

Some things I'd like to see, if they aren't already there. The first point means the most to me as it will make the naval war far more realistic - allied submarine warfare isn't as well known as the German U-Boats, but it was also very important.

1) Axis shipping should also be vulnerable to submarines, especially in the Med where the allies sunk about a million tons of Italian shipping. It would be good if this was in the editor too so that in a mod of the Pacific campaign the US subs can take a heavy toll of Japanese shipping too, just as they did in real life.

2) Friendly territory not linked directly to a friendly major ally, such as Malta and Egypt, should have some basic supply as at the moment, but in addition there could be some ability to send extra supplies by convoy. Again, these should be vulnerable to submarine attack at relevant points on their journey.

3) When having submarines (and surface ships too please!) interdicting shipping lanes, it would be good if not only did the opponent's countries lose MPPs as at the moment, but they also had the odd strength point here and there taken off units passing through the interdicted areas.

[ April 15, 2004, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]