Patch 1.04

[Honch]

Hubert:

Just in case you were not busy enough getting English 1.03 ready (the changes sound great), I thought I'd get started on what I need for 1.04!!

Not including the usual bugs to fix and the changes to the scenarios for balance etc, the game engine changes required are:

1. Give cruisers, battleships and air and bomber fleets that are in range a small chance to raid convoy routes just as subs do.

2. Make subs operating as "silent" even harder to hit.

3. Allow majors to transfer tech to their minors.

4. Create a script that can force a surrender on a nation under set conditions or on a failsafe date.

5. Allow "at sea" supply for naval units. This should be an option just like reinforcing etc., should cost MPPs and only be allowed if a line can be drawn to a friendly port without enemy units in range.

6. Allow "later move and fire" so units don't lose their action points if you accidentally right click away from them. (Very frustrating)

7. Give the option to set max morale and readiness values for different units of different nations. (For example, I would like to set all Italian units at max morale and readiness 75%).

8. Maybe a tough one.....Create a script that will, for the duration of the game, allow you to change the contents of a tile if certain conditions are met. For example, heavy bombing changes a city to an impassable tile or a nation laying mine fields at sea.

9. Create a script allowing for units to be damaged in a particular tile if certain conditions are met.

10. Make the current scripts more robust, allowing them to be adapted to even more situations.

11. Allow popup pictures and sound attached to popup text.

12. Allow air and naval HQs, Donitz, Goering, Dowding, etc.

And.........of course...more country slots, unit slots and terrain slots.

I would love to add garrison/territorial troops and destroyers as a unit. I would also love to be able to add minor ports in addition to regular ports.

Feel free to add anything else guys!

[R.J.]

I'd really like to see HQ's have two values under supply – one to list their actual supplied value, followed in brackets by their supply source value (or vice versa). Counting tiles in Russia gets so tedious.

[TaoJah]

I4d settle for a decent D-Day. Preferably after a Sealion, but a good one without Sealion would already be a good first step.

The only point in your list that I think is important is "Allow "later move and fire" so units don't lose their action points if you accidentally right click away from them. (Very frustrating)", that is indeed very, very, very frustrating.

[Canuck_para]

I would like to see the addition of destroyer/escort units. These would be cheaper units used by the Allies (corvettes) to counter Axis subs and could be used by the Axis (e-boats)to counter Allied transports and amphibs. All of Honch's ideas are great.

[Retributar]

What i would like to see is a versatile Unit/Icon creator where one could then decide or select as to what characteristic's to include in it!.

For example, a manned Bunker bitmap for a Japanese Occupied Fortified island in the Pacific,...not the Unmanned fortification's that we currently have for the European Theatre.

You see, this is not a carbon copy of existing Bunker/Fortified Position stat's, but now something different [Manned Bunker], so what im asking for is an ingame 'Utility' programme to deal with alternate unit design characteristic's!.

[Canuck_para]

I like the idea of having manned forts. The garrisons can be a permanent part of the fort and can't be moved. Examples are Gib, Sevastapol, Maginot, Singapore, Halifax. Fortifications should remain as they are. They require units to man them.

[Gorgin]

Halifax ??

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by Gorgin:

Halifax ??

The port of Halifax has been called the Western Gibralter. It was fortified heavily during the war based on older fortifications that the British built. It never completed major defensive work for a ground assault it would have if Canada had been threatened. It did have major AA and anti shipping weapons.

[Edwin P.]

All I want is a much better and unpredictable AI.

[Retributar]

So do i Edwin P., Some are of the opinion that the AI is redundant, however, as it is i think it's not bad really, but i too would like to see more improvement's.

I think with some inventiveness, more tweaking, more AI feed-back from player's and so on, that eventually it will start to take real shape as 'a much better and unpredictable AI'.

[Edwin P.]

Agreed, Retributar, most strongly.

In the current game I always know when the AI is going to launch D-Day, I know that it will not take any coastal cities if I leave them empty and that the AI will not make a strong push to take Egypt, nor will the Axis or Allied AI attempt to take Sweden or Spain or Turkey - ever. (Hint, Hint)

[Canuck_para]

It would be nice if the AI did more unexpected things like go after Spain or make a push in Africa. I still have hopes that it will be made better.

[KG]

Originally posted by Canuck_para:

It would be nice if the AI did more unexpected things like go after Spain or make a push in Africa. I still have hopes that it will be made better.

The computer did this in my last game although I was using a mod. It took Vichy France, then invaded Spain, then Portugal. Sadly it wasn't able to do much in Russia and the Axis war machine is grinding to a halt.

The big problem once again is the AI's inability to finish off a unit. It always reinforces first(or retreats said units), then attacks. Sometimes a unit that was reinforced ends up being the unit that was needed to finish off the above mentioned unit. The computer needs to attack first, then reinforce units it didn't need in its attack.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

My biggest wish for future patches is to move a lot

of variables out of the .exe and into config files,

such a the Civ games have. Hubert how easy/hard

would that be? Right now a lot of the limitations

we have to work around are hard-coded. Yes I know

about the cheating angle but I'm sure something

could be done about that too.

[Hubert Cater]

John, part of the attempt with SC2 was to move as much as possible into scripts as well as config files that are accessible via the editor such as combat target data, unit cost etc.

Now I realize that it is not entirely complete, for example there are a few items still hardcoded such as sub dive percentage etc., but if you could list some of the other items that are not currently accessible (that you would like to access) please don't hesitate to do so as I'd eventually like to make the game as configurable as possible.

[SittingDuck]

Hubert,

Right there with that reply you have pushed me into the status of customer - again.

I bought SC1 previously and delighted in much about it. What you have done here with scripting and other things has opened it up to much of what I enjoy. I was a large mod maker for Paradox's HoI and HoI2 for several mod communities (CORE, TRP, etc) and have always felt - rather, KNOW - that the key to a truly great computer wargame is to make a great, responsive, intelligent engine that allows/responds to customer modification.

So I am happily going to purchase and d/l SC2 right now. I appreciate your views as a designer and attention to customer concerns/preferences/ideas. I feel it will serve you well in the long end.

Offhand, aside from the SC series, are there any games you have done previously? Might I also ask, any games in the making for the future?

Looking forward to lending whatever abilities I might have to the community --

-SittingDuck

[SeaMonkey]

Welcome SD, you have observed what we have over the years. HC is indeed one talented, as well as a receptive designer, definitely occupying the pinnacle of that class.

Your attentativeness to SC2 can only improve its mechanics, and we look forward to your contributions.

[SittingDuck]

Thanks, SM. I already have been working on things with the demo, while I am just about to purchase the game itself.

Made silent wav files for the menu 'knobs' as well as the select/deselect clicks on units. I felt it was driving me crazy.

Bigger issue will be to replace the menu knobs with applicable images or perhaps silhouettes or graphics. I am finding it difficult to remember which knob does which. No-likey that, but the rest of the graphics are quite fine to me.

What I really enjoy about Hubert's work is the extensive amount of updates he has supplied, meaning that it is obvious these are real gems to him that he wants to polish off to a certain degree. I think he will be a big name in the design field at some point.

[Retributar]

SittingDuck

Quote:

am finding it difficult to remember which knob does which

When you 'Mouse Over' the different small boxes on the Right Hand side of the screen, you should notice a small white backdropped pop-up box show up behind the mouse pointer, indicating what the symbol's game function is!,...as well as INFORMATION on the symbol in the function box is also displayed in the upper Tool-Bar as it were, at the very top of the screen!.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Well my list would start with the following:

Each unit slot would be fully configurable. Right now the sub slot has to be used by some submersible/stealth unit, or else not used at all.

This would include things like:

Can raid convoys

Subersible/stealth (then we could have stealth aircraft!)

Fly/sea/ground

and so on.

That's really my main wish right now. I think some of the grogs here could chime in with some other configurable options.

[My pie in the sky wish would be having NO "Axis/Allied" sides at all, but individual states of war/peace with ALL other countries. That could open things up to some really wild scenarios.]

[Edwin P.]

Or perhaps, one of the major nations on the human side could be Allied controlled.

Example: Game with Russia Human, UK, France and USA AI, Germany and Italy AI

Example: Game with UK, USA and France Human, Russia AI vs Germany and Italy AI

[Retributar]

Ive alway's liked the Game-Idea that you are proposing Edwin P ., however, will it not take a vigorous 'ramp-up' on improving the AI before what you say has a chance of becoming a reality?.

[Edwin P.]

Retributor, Not quite - as the Human player will be handicapped by partnering with the A.I. Making for a more interesting and frustrating game as your AI partner does not do what you wish it to.

[xwormwood]

if I may add some suggestions for 1.04 as well:

diplomatic effects:

whenever a minor country leans toward one side with more than 50% it should generate their favorite coalition a little amount of income (trade, tributes etc.). This cashflow could be shown on the diplomatic status window.

This would inspire players to use diplomatic chits even on not so worthy allies, just to collect their support / tribute.

Opportunity to change the sides in games against the AI

This would so very much enhance the games against the AI. If you think you game is won, well, just change the sides and see if you are able to turn the tide. This would add really some motivation to single player games. I wouldn't write this if i havent't already experienced this wonderful feature in clash of steel (SSI) a decade ago.

Edwin P. Great idea! I would really appreciate this feature as well (russia human, aestern allies AI)

[Edwin P.]

Xmwormwood - Ability to change sides would be great.

The AI offers to change sides with you if it is losing and the human player could accept or reject this request. This would not require any modification to the user interface, though a manual option would be much appreciated.

Naturally the AI would make this offer only once per game.

Mechanics:

Popup: "Human, do you wish to change sides? Yes / No"

How would the AI calculate that it is losing?

As Allies, perhaps on a random turn (10% per turn) after it has lost 2 of 3 Major Cities: London, Moscow and Stalingrad or if the Axis has a 2:1 advantage in units after 1942.

[ August 27, 2006, 08:27 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]