Cool Features Compendium

[Edwin P.]

A collection of posts with interesting information about SC2.

Originally posted by pzgndr:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RE: IT Research growth rates for USA and USSR. How do they differ from the standard 5% in SC1?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The standard in SC2 is now 10%, but there's a lot of increased tech costs now to worry about. USA gets 20%. USSR is also at 10% (contrary to what I just said previously). We started testing with a higher value but USSR has a Urals Industry event that activates several resources after Axis invades. Between the Urals and Lend Lease, they do OK. It's a balance, and there has to be a challenge.

Note that if Axis does NOT invade and trigger the Urals event, USSR won't get those resources. So they aren't exactly positioned for overwhelming offensive action even if they activate due to other events (like Sealion). Players will have some interesting choices to make.

[ January 06, 2006, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Can I write an event that says if France and UK have not surrendered the USA does not enter the war?

Why? When playing against the AI it seems most unrealistic to see the USA enter the war if the UK and France have sucessfully replused the German invasion.

EP, you CAN re-arrange and re-adust the "activation scripts" so that USA would not join, given the cirumstances you've alluded to.

IE, should the GErman player opt to invade Russia immediately! following conquest of Poland, for instance, and allow the Western Allies to do what they will... with the WILL that they've got, militarily, economically or diplomatically, well,

That is an interesting "what-if" scenario that you might fee-fie fiddle around with.

Thing is... you CAN do just about ANYTHING with this Editor.

NOT everything, but quite a LOT.

</font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> for someone who likes playing 3R

DesertDave and I plead GUILTY, your honor! One thing both Dave and I miss from 3R is that ebb and flow that took place. Force pool limits that restricted the Axis at their peak and an economic model that allowed the USA/USSR to rapidly expand their production helped create this effect. This was lacking in SC1, but we're working like beavers to try to make it happen in SC2. So far, it's looking good!! :cool: </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Well Bill and Dave, what's the verdict, will SC2 have the possibility to incorporate such a feature?

Yes and no. No, in that Hubert probably will not code a feature to randomly select certain events. There are a lot of events! But yes, in that players can toggle certain events on/off at game start up from the menu screen. I can envision mods where additional events are provided which would be like the old variant chits in Third Reich, and players can randomly select those themselves. Not quite the surprise during the game when something happens, but it is an option. </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />1. There is a Murmansk convoy route and the western allies can decide how much MPPs go to Russia, as I recall from prior posts.

Perhaps a good reason for the Axis and Allied AI to take Norway?

You recall correctly, EP.

And JdF2 need be worried no longer.

Only, it is not "Murmansk Convoy" but "Arctic Convoy" since the destination is the (... occasionally "iced over") Russian port of Archangel, and not Murmansk, which does not fit on the default map.

[... GErman player may decide to send more Panzers and grenadiers NORTH, by way of Vologda, so to cut that potentially lucrative convoy? And yep, that depends on how generous UK can be, at any given point in the game...]

And sure, the small, isolated port of Trondheim is VITAL to the GErman game player, should he or even, she, opt for active shadowing of those ice-rimed transports.

In fact, I can foresee this particular strategy as causing quite a fierce contest.

Should UK player be prepared to land in Trondheim?

Should GErman player be prepared to RISK their meagre Kriegsmarine... BEFORE Bismark arrives on the sea-going scene?

Would that delay be just enough to allow UK to carry the day, IE, conquer Norway BEFORE the GErmans can do so?

And if THAT happens, is UK then more vulnerable to See Lowe?

Typical, I tell you true.

Of SC-2.

SO-o-o-o VERY many choices to make, WRT to EVERY single... action-reaction escapade! :cool: </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />... and once Germany controls Norway what does it do then?

----- 50% Garrison It Lightly or Heavily?

And so, EP, you bring up another VERY troublesome aspect for the SC-2 player.

There are force pool limits.

There is only so much gained ground the GErmans can cover, garrison wise.

Last night when I played the game, the GErmans got raked over by those Norwegian partisans... with substantial damage to the iron ore mines. :eek:

Let's see... you'll likely need 4 corps to cover Norway sufficiently (... UK can spare this many low-tech militia type units? I wonder?)

How many more in France, would you suppose, with the "Free France underground?"

How many more in mountains of Greece? With those fierce Spartan descendants?

How many more in Tito's Yugoslavia?

How many here, there - everywhere at once! :eek:

In truth: GErmany has a problem, one among many.

Sure, you CAN take damn near any Minor you want, and usually, not a major problem.

But, as above, and as it will be with Spain (... or Egypt or Ireland for the UK) you always gotta watch out for those partisans... some of which appear on board, with that cool new partisan sprite, while others do their sly sabotage invisibly. :cool: </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What I'm looking for is a feature that parallels that undying human characteristic of hope. No matter how bad it gets, there is always the possibility, however remote, that a light exists at the end of the tunnel.

Here's where that random event(s) come into the equation, unknown by either side, not necessarily changing the game, but providing for "that light".

Long post. I'm starting another thread for this topic. To illustrate some of the event capabilities, here's the basic structure for the unit event, which is typical of the structure for most other event scripts:

; Basic structure for a unit event:

; {

; #NAME= Event name (this will be shown as a selectable event under an options menu within the game)

; #POPUP= Event popup text (this will be displayed when the event occurs)

; #FLAG= Will this be a default event for the campaign? (values range [0, 1]; True= 1; False= 0)

; #TYPE= With all other factors satisfied will this be a (values range [0, 2]):

; A) Single check regardless if trigger is satisfied= 0

; Multiple check until trigger is satisfied= 1

; C) Reoccuring check until end of game= 2

; #COUNTRY_ID= Country ID that will be owner of unit's in the event

; #TRIGGER= Trigger percentage that the event will occur (values range [0, 100])

; #DATE= Failsafe date for the event to occur, i.e. regardless if #CONDITION_POSITION checks have been satisfied (format yyyy/mm/dd)

; #DESTINATION_RESOURCE= Resource destination position for units listed by #UNIT_ID

; #CONDITION_POSITION= Map positions that will serve to trigger the event as well as distance and

; number of enemy unit ranges.

; Format: x,y [min_range, max_range] [min_enemy_units, max_enemy_units] [alignment]

; #UNIT= Units to be created as well as a name (optional).

; Format: unit_id [strength] [experience] [name]

; }

The #FLAG can be toggled on/off at game start regardless of whether you set an event as default or not. So players could create a whole series of what-ifs which they can easily use or not use for each game.

#TYPE is used to define single checks, multiple checks or reoccuring checks once conditions are satisfied. #TRIGGER sets the chance that the event occurs.

Now, a random event could be easily added to the game to give Italy a free Tank Group, or USA a free Bomber, or whatever. This could represent an emphasis on a particular doctrine or perhaps that "light at the end of the tunnel." For example, Allied ground units within 3-5 tiles of Berlin could trigger a release of hidden panzer reserves.

There's a lot that can be done with all this. A trigger of 1% per turn would have a very good chance of not occurring at all within a particular game, and could become that "unknown by either side." Ditto for a higher percentage but as a single one-time check only. Not only would this surprise human players, it would also introduce a new condition for the AI to evaluate and may prompt some interesting offensive/defensive reactions from the computer opponent.

On the flip side, here's the concern about introducing too many random events. What if too many happen during a game which skews things one way? Unlike the old Third Reich variant chits where each player selects an equal number of supposedly balanced events, the fickle finger of fate in SC2 may deal an uneven hand. Statistically, even those 1% chances can occur quite frequently!

So. My take is that SC2 will offer a few surprises but a lot of the more creative development will happen after release. Some folks will want a crazy anything-goes game while others won't. Some will want historically realistic what-ifs and others won't care. The good news is that the SC2 Editor offers enough flexibility for most everyone to be satisfied eventually. :cool: </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

At present there are no restrictions on Russian deployments. No event penalties for having too many or too few troops on the border, like there are for Germans. We'll see how it goes. Having it open-ended offers a lot of strategy possibilities for Allied players to consider.

Russia cannot DOW anyone until they activate. It would be nice to see this changed eventually, but that will have to be an enhancement for later.

Originally posted by pzgndr:

There is an event for the Winter War with Finland:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Treaty of Moscow and the Soviet-Finnish Winter War – A territory event. There will be a 60% chance per turn after February 12, 1940, that USSR annexes territory from Finland following the end of their Winter War. The historical date was March 12, 1940.

This gives the Russians a few more tiles and doesn't change much else. Statistically there's a slim chance it might not happen at all by Barbarossa...

Just having the opportunity to conduct research and production for a neutral Russia and having the freedom to deploy as desired is fascinating. There may be other things we can consider later, like allowing neutral Russia to attack other neutrals like Turkey, but this is minor stuff. The important stuff is taken care of! :cool: </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Question: If there are no penalties for not having Russian units on the German border doesn't this allow the Russia to avoid the loss of all those front line units that occurs in SC1? And if so, doesn't this make for a much stronger Russia?

Maybe. Maybe not.

There is an interesting new feature that was added not too long ago. I'm not sure if Blashy highlighted this during his AARs. Destroyed units that were in supply are repurchaseable at 60% base cost with 1/2 the production delay. Think of these as surviving unit cadres. Anyway, this helps Russia in the defense, and later Germany when they transition to the defense. And others of course.

So the strategic decision you have to make as the Allied player is whether to sacrifice units as speed bumps until mud and snow arrives, or allow the panzers to zip straight ahead toward Moscow and be allowed to hit you full force in good weather. Loss of Moscow does not mean loss of game of course, but that's 30 MPPs per turn plus all the other eastern Europe resources you've given up without a fight.

Every battle fought along the way inflicts some losses on the Axis, losses which take time and MPPs to recover. Rebuilding some Russian losses at reduced cost and production delay makes this a viable strategy. Giving ground and avoiding early losses may also be a viable strategy, and players will be free to explore this option without an artificial penalty imposed.

In fairness, I previously advocated the Russian penalties. If these are needed for play balance, we can reconsider them later. With playtesting so far, the jury is still out. </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Destroyed units that were in supply are repurchaseable at 60% base cost...

Bill has it right on,

There WILL indeed be immense differences

In how you'll have to play

The Russian Campaign.

And I DO mean... immense.

Greater open spaces there on them Steppes,

AND very many choices to make

In terms of S & T.

I would differ with his excellent account, only on this score:

I'm not so sure we have firmly established

That 60% figure... could be higher,

We'll have to see what Mr H decides.

Yet, it IS an inspired idea, and will surely

Be just one more feature that should cause

The "defensive GP" to have some sooner

Arriving reserves, which can also

Be outfit with the latest

Tech advances, thereby saving the turn

Usually required to pull back from the line

For re-fit. :cool: </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> What are the screen resolutions that will be supported in SC2?

1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200

The sequence of AI moves and combat actions does not take into account the "front" to which a given unit participates

Hubert would have to comment about this. There's probably some sort of optimized sequence that the AI follows. To change this so it focuses on one map area at a time may be far more trouble than it's worth. Let's get a decent AI that runs well and THEN worry about how it looks.

the possibility of (re)playing the AI turn

A playback feature is planned. </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Hey guys, here's some detail from the current Combat Target Values tables for you to chew on (sorry about the formatting, but you can figure it out):

SC1

SA TA NA RA

Air Fleet 2 2 4 2

Bombers 1 1 5 3

Carrier 1 1 5 2

SC2

SA TA NA RA CA UA

Air Fleet 2 2 2 1 2 2

Bombers 1 1 4 4 4 4

Carrier 1 1 4 1 4 4

The CA and UA are new Carrier Attack and Sub Attack values. As seen above, most of the stuff is the same but there have been a few adjustments. Naval Attack values have been reduced, mostly for AFs but also a little for Bombers and Carriers, and these carry over to Carrier Attack and Sub Attack also. Strategic Attack is reduced slightly for Bombers but considerably higher now relative to AFs and Carriers. Land-based AFs remain more effective against land targets than Bombers or Carriers.

Bombers gain an obvious advantage for strategic attack on resources. AFs lose a lot of their SC1 naval attack capability. The air war at sea goes to Carriers and Bombers. Now, it's true that high altitude bombers were not overly effective against surface ships but Allied bombers were very effective against subs later in the war with radar.

The issue in game terms is that AA Radar research will not affect Bomber naval attack values and a proposed idea for naval bomber research was not adopted - both primarily because there is no competing defensive tech for the naval units. So, our "rationale" is that Bombers also include naval bombers (dive bombers, torpedo bombers, and other naval air expertise) and thus deserve to keep the higher naval attack values relative to the land-based AFs.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Could this adjustment be made in the editor? ie Naval Attack = 0, Carrier Attack = 0, Sub Attack = 4

Correct. This is something players can experiment with. And as playtesting continues, we could consider reducing Bomber NA and CA from 4 to 2 to be consistent with AFs, and leave the real naval air expertise to the Carriers. Nothing is final, yet! But note that this naval attack capability of Bombers make them useful for both sides. Some players dislike Bombers since they believe they are not effective at anything, but hopefully SC2 can change that attitude. </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> My suggestion regarding naval attack:

Air Fleet 4

Strategic Bomber 2

Carrier 4 (as it currently is).

-- It doesn't work to say the strategic bomber unit has torpedo planes and dive bombers contained in it's organization, that's a vodoo explanation. And if it does, it means the unit has to have a different range for them; torpedo planes and dive bombers don't have anywhere near the effective strike range of strategic bombers.

Good points as well. I would consider the strike range bonus a "feature" and as Edwin pointed out you still have the limited spotting range to deal with. One thing we are desperately trying to achieve is to break the idea that AFs are all-powerful. If you don't really "need" Bombers, if there's no inherent advantage to having them, then we're back to trying to fix this old SC1 problem. So it's worth keeping that in mind. We need a balance between AFs and Bombers, and giving the naval bomber advantage (despite the voodoo range) to Bombers helps in this regard. </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Actually, I don't know if Hubert's already got an engineer unit.

JJ,

Yep, there surely is one in the game.

Currently, it is only able to construct

Fortifications.

[... it is an Icon with two soldiers

instead of 1 for Corps and 3 for Army; can

be considered a place-holder also, in

the event that the Modder

wants to include some "special forces."]

Bill had a fine suggestion recently.

Allow the Engineer to act as a temporary port

For supply purposes.

This could be used to great effect

During D-Day landings.

Also,

Once the forces are established ashore,

Then help to dismantle any Fortress Europa

Kind of bulwarks the GErmans might have built,

With an EXTRA effect, IE,

If they participate in an attack,

Allow them to reduce entrenchment by 2, IE,

They are using the flamethrowers

And high explosives, etc.

Earlier in the process I had suggested

Two other uses for the Engineer:

1) It might build a SUPPLY DEPOT.

This on-screen icon would take one turn to construct, last two turns and cost... ~ 50 to 100 MPP's. And it would then BOOST the supply of all units within range for the following 2 turns.

It (... and the Engineer, during construction) would be vulnerable to air attack, should the enemy discover it by way of recon Ops.

This would allow for all-out "summer offensives" and could also help to relieve the reduced supply state of units that are somewhat isolated, IE, have exceeded the normal range of a nearby HQ, City or Port.

2) The Engineer could build an Air Base.

This might cost, say - 150 MPP's (... since it would be permanent unless and until over-run by the enemy) and would allow any Air Unit on or next to it to have a "bonus attack" on any turn.

It might appear on the map as an icon with runways and maybe a control tower.

Of course, this would "cluster" your air units within a confined area, thereby preventing wide-ranging Ops, but it could be yet another offensive boost during one of those planned "offensives."

Though if you achieved sufficient long-range air, you could place Air Bases in a couple prime locations and cover a lot of territory.

Now, NONE of these are approved by Hubert and therefore NOT coded as yet.

They may never be; or, if enough people REALLY like some extra abilities for the Enginer unit, perhaps post-release, who knows?

These are just some suggestions that Bill and I have made so that the Engineer might be more active and a sort of... "Jack of all Trades," eh? :cool: </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Well for now all Intel tech does is increase your research bonus and decreases your opponent's. I agree there are lots of other little things intel could affect, but right now it's simple and that's a good thing.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Well I can't say I ignored it, I had to show a few little issues with Iceland which have since been fixed.

But Iceland declares independance if Denmark is attacked (as in WW2) and eventually has a nice little bomber for Atlantic patrols, so sub raiders have to be carefull.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> As originally posted by Edwin P:

Has anyone in the Beta Group successfully used diplomacy to influence Spain or Turkey to join their side.

Yep, I had Spain up in the 70 percentile.

Then, I suspected wily (... and Diplo board attentive) Opponent had canceled my Diplomatic chit with one of his own, so I stuck another flyer in there.

I was hoping for that occasional "large parlay" where you can get a 20-30% hit.

At that point, it is Molly over the Windmill (... rather, in this instance - Don Quixote, kicked head over heels, I guess)

Because... once you reach the magic number, IE, 90% leaning in your favor, well, then there are automatic and gradual increases whether you have a Diplo chit canceled out or not.

Kind of like... the Minor has JUST ABOUT been convinced, and all that is required now is to roll out the red carpet, toss the garlands around, and open the back door of the waiting limosine.

Mercedes or Packard or Rolls Royce, as the case may be. </font>

[Edwin P.]

Blashy, on getting Spain to go Axis for 750MPP invested in Diplomacy:

Originally posted by Blashy:

Well, you get the following:

4 cities and 2 ports.

1 corps on each city

2 cruisers.

2 armies

1 HQ, 1 tank and 1 AF all at 5 strength.

MPP wise it is worth it (obviously) but you have to consider; you do not choose when it joins OR will it EVER and none of these troops can have tech upgrades, as well only Franco HQ can suppor them.

Basically you have 1 tank, 1 AF and 2 armies to fight with, the others must remain on your cities, especially with amphibious landings.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Let me dust this one off, now that I've seen some things in the game.

Normal spotting rules apply to both sides. USSR is free to move units about, and for them it's no big deal since neutrals cannot entrench. So it's not like you're losing something by moving around. On the other hand, your Axis opponent can see some of this going on and might have to readjust his plans. Depending on timing of the actual attack, things could go well or maybe not so well. It's still too early yet to make a lot of sense about game strategies. In many ways, we're discovering a whole new game!

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Well... Soviet garrison scripting is still undecided. It may or may not be needed.

Consider if you forward deploy. Germany can spot and strategerize accordingly. (Gotta luv that word!) And it's not like USSR can build a whole lot AND conduct research, so either they have a lot of weak units or a small core of potentially tough units or some combo. But by being able to move around right before an attack, it may be possible to blunt the main German attack - since the Soviets can spot and strategerize too.

Consider if the Soviets pull back. Again Germany can spot, so if they know there's no opposition on the first turn or two why wait until nice weather sets in? Go ahead and start Barbarossa in the spring and be ready to fight hard when the weather clears. USSR might gain an additional turn or two of full production but there's a production delay to worry about. By the time those "extra" units arrive, Germans can be past Smolensk and all over you.

We are still learning and tweaking things. It's just too soon yet to impose scripts to solve what may be a non-problem. Let players decide what their strategy should be, yes?

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Desert Dave:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The Ever Curious Edwin P:

What do the Amphibious Warfare and Infrastructure techs offer?

The chance to move land or air units to distant locations at reduced cost.

Amphibious Movement was originally conceived to be a separate research category, but, in the end, Hubert opted for the KISS principle,

IE, IF you have an argument with your wife or mistress or girl-friend, ALWAYS make it right, just as soon as you can, with a kiss... Ooooops, WRONG one

I mean to say, Amphib is contained within the Infrastructure category since that allows ALL forms of movement to be in ONE category, thus... "keeping it simple, Senor."

Amphib is EXPENSIVE (... twice the cost of plain old transport from port to port) and so researching Infrastructure will reduce the cost of amphibious movements, and, transport as well.

It is supposed that you are not only improving roads and rail, but also port facilities and your transport network in general, no matter how done or whether across land or the 7 Seas.

**[... having Amphib COST a LOT more is ideal in another way, as it prevents too many of those willy-nilly "nuisance raids"... IF you intend to amphib invade, you have to PAY for it; thus, it would most especially be something the USA Player would probably want to invest in for later invasions of North Afrika or France]

And, it is for your usual Operational Moves.

This could be an immense savings over the course of a 6 year war, especially for those countries that have far-flung territories, as Britain, or who would advance deep into enemy territory, as GErmany early, and Russia later.

And, if you are using "home builds" as an option (... and it IS part of the default game) then Infrastructure would save you MPP's since you could only place newly constructed units that arrive off of the build queu in your HOME country.

OK, what benefit? Well, it REDUCES cost of Op Moves and Naval movement of men and materiel by 15% for EACH level of achievment.

IF you should reach level 5, you would consequently save 75% (... 5 Xs 15) for each and every Op Move or transport/amphibious movement. </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Will evacuations be possible without ports? I'm thinking Dunkirk style.

Not currently. This would be nice to have as an enhancement later. Allow units on coastal tiles to select Transport but at double the cost and something like 25-75% random losses inflicted?

Perhaps, no longer will the game be won by researching soley Long Range and Jets.

You'll find that the unit costs and reinforcement costs start to add up more quickly in SC2 for these high techs. I still have a tendency to upgrade most all my units when I can, but then find I don't have enough MPPs to sustain them. Unlike SC1, players will have to make some tough decisions about how to spend their MPPs. And with production delays, you also need to correctly predict what you will need in the future. </font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Each new level of Intelligence research increases your own research bonus by 1% and decreases your opponent's bonus by 1%. This is in addition to the catch-up bonus you're already familiar with in SC1. That's all the intel tech does.

The military strength and loss reports are pretty much the same as in SC1, with updated graphics. These can maybe get enhanced later. Keep your fingers crossed.

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

How about the United States? What are their starting pieces, production, & possibilities?

USA does not start off with anything big, 1 corps and 2 armies.

With that said, by the time USA joins the war you can easily have 2 HQs & 8+ Armies.

I had 2 HQs & 8 Armies at level 3 infantry weapons and level 2-3 motorization the turn before USA joined the Allies.

I also had level 5 Industrial Tech.

2 Battleships and 1 cruiser which are in the production queue by default.</font>

[Edwin P.]

Originally posted by Blashy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:

Back to this weather...it better not become the "new luck factor" for the game.

Nope, you can plan around the seasons, obviously at times it is a hinderence. Like moving into France after Poland. It is the fall, so you can get slowed down by the mud and a slight possibility of snow.

But it is definitly not a game breaker by luck. No one wanted the "tech luck game" SC became.

Even tech in this game is no longer a game breaker. Russia can have no planes and put up a fight. </font>

[jon_j_rambo]

@Eddie --- Long as there is a way to turn of all your event stuff, then it's fine to give it a chance. If it sucks, they it does become luck, not skill.