SC3

[Retributar]

Yes...im jumping the gun..but, what the heck!.

I would like a game like SC2 but more complicated or indepth...to make it more interesting...and absorbing. SC2 is already light-years ahead of SC1...and i think that SC3 could repeat that incremental evolutionary process again.

I don't have all my ideas gathered at this moment...so i will just iterate what is on my mind as i speak!...and add the rest into this posting later!.

To begin with, I would like to have a 'Technology Tree similar to what 'HOI' has...but the difference here is that "for example" i could examine a 'Tiger I', then see what technology i have available for tanks in that category...as well as see what present ongoing research relating to that weapon-system i have.

Then...i could decide what i wish to do,...include some or all of the existing technological improvements into this weapon-system...or, wait a little longer for existing research to be completed before beginning contruction of the new prototype...or, with the technological advancements having being discovered i could instead decide to to press on with the next advancement in this category...hoping to have a better weapons-system and in greater-quantity in the end, so... instead of expending resources to commit to production of the presently researched product...then later again on the next model,... i could rather have instead 800 Panthers produced at a later date...instead of 300 Tiger-I's now...and 250 Panthers later....[As well as 600 Pzkpfwgn IV's]...re-tooling takes time...right???.

Of course, one could elect to begin construction of a Weapons-System...then also elect to make further upgrades later...but, this will use up valuable Industrial-Manpower-Points that could be used more effectively and efficiently elsewhere and will cost more than waiting until the product is complete.

This would by-pass that 're-tooling' time factor...and that manpower could be used for something else in the meantime(should also have a manufacturing or industrial man-power pool).

The Panther tank was superior to the Tiger-I in its armour design as well as its speed and so on. So, in the meantime,...i could elect to make improvments on existing Armoured Weapons platforms...like the Pzkpfwagen IV's to assist shoring up the technology-gap with the Russians until my new models could make it into the field...and in greater numbers..."Quality & Quantity".

This, of course would have an incremental combat adjustment allocated to what-ever formation that this weapon-system is deployed to.

One could elect to let the computer handle this for the player, or the player could elect to do this himself!...one or all of the weapons-systems.

This could be for all weapons-systems...the player could let the 'Albert-Speer'(AI) know whether he wants him to produce what he can at the moment in whatever numbers at the existing levels of research...or tell him to produce the next generation of weapons systems in greater numbers at a later date...with a higher technological level.

The player could elect the 'AI' do all or some of the work for weapons research...the player could elect to do however much or little as he wishes...and let the (AI)...do the rest.

----

Going further into this,...a particular Corp's would not necessarily be the same as a similar looking Corp's...as from the preceding writing...one could see that superior weapons upgrades could be marshalled or integrated into specific units that would be used to spear-head the armies missions,...so these Corp's may look like another ,but may indeed be for example 25-50% stronger because of the technologically advanced equipment that it inherently has.

in this manner a player could have a direct hand in how his nations forces are structured...so that he can design his forces as he sees fit,...there would not need to be any 'Generic-Units' here!,...that could be readily understood for their capability. So, the opposing force would never be quite sure what it is up-against until it had made contact with it!.

This would again...add more realism and uncertainty into the game.

Now...i wait to hear all the spoilers of this idea... . Let the fun begin!.

[ September 07, 2004, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[it's Les]

I think you are designing your game in the wrong direction actually.

Rather than start grand strategy and work backwards to hyper detailed, you might want to start off at the higher end of Tactical and work upwards.

In SC I have zero interest in every hearing about a specific tank model. I have no desire to acknowledge specific plane types. I just don't want that in a grand strategy game.

SC3, I would rather it was a Pacific setting than some sort of turn based HoI.

Leave the micromanage hell for Paradox, they have to bugger up something after all

[Retributar]

I suppose so Les ...although ive always wanted that feature or features in a game.

Actually the core of that idea comes from a game called 'IMPERIUM GALACTICA II'. That concept works very-well in that game...and...for those who have it , they will know what im saying.

Another game that touched on that same method was a game called 'Pacific Theatre of Operations II' (P.T.O. II). You could design your own Battleship or Aircraft-Carrier or whatever with the features you want in it...then you could revist over the passing month's or a year or so and see the actual progress on those constructions. That was ever 'so-cool' to have such personal input like that.

I guess that would be like watching 'Golf' or being able to play it 'Personally' or for real!...it's not the same thing.

Granted, IG2 has only a fraction of the units that a WW2 game would have...so to make it simplier a player could just select "AI controlled'...and the computer would Auto-Select closely as possible those features that existed historically...[That you had/have researched up to that moment.]

THis would by-pass the extreme micromanagement to a great degree.

Anyway, this is JUST a discussion...to throw some ideas around here...nothing is written on Tablet's at this point!.

[ September 04, 2004, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Retributar ]

[Edwin P.]

I agree with Les, Let SC be remain a game of grand strategy without the hyper detail. Tiger 1 vs Tiger 4 in SC its just Armor Tech Level 1 vs Armor Tech Level 5.

I do want more detail in the game, but detail that is of a strategic nature and offers players more choices with a minimum of complexity.

Example - Secretary of the Navy

For this war should I pick a Secretary that favors large battleships or one that favors carriers or one that favors submarine warfare or one that hails from the Marines and favors amphibious warfare. Each one offering specific bonuses and disadavantages to play as they allocate funds and promote officers according to their priorities.

Favors Battleships - Battleships cost 10% less, other naval units 10% more.

The interface is simple - a screen with a columns for the Army, Navy and Airforce. Selecting the general or admiral in each area brings up their portrait. Changing a General or Admiral costs 250MPP due to the temporary disruptive effects of changing your warfighting strategy during a war.

Now for the Airforce, do I select a general that favors Air to Air Combat, Strategic Bombing or Air Defense or Recon.

Strategic Bombing - 10% Readines bonus for Bombers

Air to Air Combat - 10% Readiness bonus when air fleet unit is set to intercept only.

Air Defense - +1 Level Anti-Air for cities and resource hexes.

Aerial Recon - +1 Spotting Range for Air Units

For the Army,

Favors Trench Warfare - Armies cost 5% less, Armor and Corps 5% more.

Favors Mobile Warfare - Armor units cost 10% less, Armies and corps 10% more.

Favors Fortifications - Engineers cost 50% less, Armor, Corps and Armies cost 5% more.

[ September 04, 2004, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

[Victor Reijkersz]

Cannot hold myself to post this line:

"What would be great is a Gary Grigsby like game (war in the pacific,Second Front, West Front) strategic level with divisional detail upto equipment, but than for the whoooooole world."

regards.

[J P Wagner]

Originally posted by Victor Reijkersz:

Cannot hold myself to post this line:

"What would be great is a Gary Grigsby like game (war in the pacific,Second Front, West Front) strategic level with divisional detail upto equipment, but than for the whoooooole world."

regards.

The manual would rival War and Peace for shelf space!

[Retributar]

Some good ideas being plotted down here!...keep it up Guy's!.

[it's Les]

Sorry but SC3 is to yesterday.

And I am skipping SC4 the game done in 3d real time, because yawn everyone has done that too

SC5 was nice, but somehow an SC Online Mud just isn't my bag.

So I guess I will be rooting for SC6 where I get to play the game in a holographic full sensory immersion war room.

Although, I have heard some talk about a retro SC7 (lucky seven eh). Where you take the original base SC game, with a full modifications to eliminate the original games oddities like "no way out of Ireland", and fight each and every initiated battle as a tactical wargame simulation through the updated Ultra Combat Mission which can be selected to run as a 2d look down version of itself.

[Mick782]

Well, maybe it will be too complex and make the game unplayable....but i agree to some of Retributars Ideas.

I remember PG 1...i played it for weeks, month...years over and over again.

Then i saw SC 1 and i like it very much...still playing it...and then i thought, a mix of both would be perfekt.

Lots of different Units with different strenghs compared with a world map, science&productions and political aspects...

Until today, there is no game that contains both...there are some strategie games like SC with few unit types but large maps and tons of games with hundreds of different units but only playable in small scenarios or missions.

I really would like to see a game, that have all of this in one game...but the other side of the medal is, that this would be very hard to realize...