n0kn0k Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Didn't they do something like that in Panzer General 3D ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 SC2 is 'Ripe' for enhancing!. enhancing can only help it out!,...there have been many idea's suggested for this soon to be...'WILD-BEAST'!. I would like to see some enhancement's introduced into the Game [For instance to just see what it will or can do for it!], there are probably a thousand ideas to pick from!,...that have already been suggested in the last 2-3 year's!. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 19, 2007 Author Share Posted July 19, 2007 Right you are Retri. I'm thinking its time for a new direction in this scale. Since units of this size, usually corps, have many elements, many abilities to perform different functions, it is time for the unit to display mission oriented combat factors. Just like there are different functions for SC AFs through the pull down menu, other units should have a similar feature. Depending on the mission selected through the pull down menu, the unit will display different combat factors or abilities. For example a typical pull down menu selection for an army could be "bombard" or "recon" or "infiltration attack", or maybe "full assault" or whatever. Depending upon the mission tasked to the army the unit will perform the action with different factors. Like for recon, there spotting improves by one tile, for bombard-they can attack an adjacent tile without suffering casualties using there artillery assets, degrading entrenchment levels. For a full assault they can cause great damage to the defending unit but take a large amount of casualties themselves. Maybe they choose "defend" and they are dug in, all weapons are sighted and positioned to create great havoc for the attackers. We wouldn't need a lot of different units, just a few with emphasis on certain abilities built in by the players adjustments to tech and TO&Es and their mission selected accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 I am 'Tinking' that you are on to some-thing 'SeaMonkey'!. What can it possibly hurt to experiment with such concept's as you have presented?, to see whether such additional enhancement's will either 'Enhance' or 'Degrade' one's playing experience?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Yep, I have thought about suggesting this before. The only thing is it starts to get a little too much into micro managing. Right now even with ALL the new stuff, the game play managing has not changed at all for me. This game is the ultimate beer & pretzel war game and I say this as the utmost compliment to Hubert's most ingenious design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 Good point Blashman. I kind of hesitated because of the micro feature this suggestion alludes to, but we already have the AF mission selection. Probably for a new player it would be a bit cumbersome, definitely gives us vets something to think about although the actual physical "click" aspect I think we all could handle. Could be very complicated for coding an AI though. Besides it goes against the axiom, "Don't fuss with success"...or something like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 This topic should be changed to "Ideas and Suggestions" and stickied. Here's something for HQ's: HQ’s are a perfect unit for added functionality. Right now they serve as supply wagons and help boost unit stats. The mechanics for manually choosing units for an HQ to supply aren’t readily apparent right now. Sometimes a unit is highlighted, but you can’t attach it to that HQ. Sometimes a unit not connected to an HQ isn’t highlighted and I’m not sure why I can’t connect them. HQ’s could also serve more of a feedback/UI role. On the drop-down menu for the HQ, a “Status” button could be used to give the player some plain English feedback on the condition of the units under that HQ’s control. For example, after selecting “status” a pop-up graphic appears of the General and a small summary of his assessment and recommendations. This could be based off of a lot of different factors, depending on how detailed HC would want it. You could measure the general fighting ability of those units based on the combined averages of the units’ stats, such as strength, supply, morale and experience. Out of five units, for example, two may be fully ready to fight, but he may say the other three aren’t prepared for heavy fighting. For “recommendations”, that would be a bit more difficult but if done well could be a good way to give suggestions to new players on when to throw the kitchen sink at them, stay defensive or fully retreat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Any unit that IS highlighted means it can be attached to that unit, if it won't it simply means you already have all 5 (6 for Germany) units attached. Range is affected by land this is why sometimes a unit who is 5 tiles away can not be attached, you might have a mountain in between which costs some extra action points. Basically one thing you have to know very well for SC2 is how land affects your movements. It does the same for HQ attachments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The K Man Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Speaking of HQ's, here's another question: How much of a difference does a 10 strength HQ have vs. a 5 strength HQ? In other words, is it worth upgrading the French HQ from 5 to 10? (When supporting the armies at a supply of 9 for example.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timskorn Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 Thanks for the info Blashy. I just think future iterations need more apparent feedback for all those people who like to jump in and just play. You'll be amazed how many mainstream reviewers do this, then rate a game based on their own ignorant experience with it. And, to a degree, it helps bring in casual players who will typically play a demo and determine if they'll purchase it from that. If they can't figure it out the first run through, their next step is usually "Uninstall". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 That's the great thing about have auto attach on, someone who just starts won't suffer all that much for not knowing about manually attaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 K man, has no bearing on supply, just combat readiness and morale. It is indeed worth it to upgrade HQs to full strength. Check the equations in the manual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuniworth Posted July 22, 2007 Share Posted July 22, 2007 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Instead of these there should be just a labour force unit that can construct forts and has a seriously low combat value, with no reconstruction bonus if killed in supply (if that's possible) since it represents non-combat personnel. It should have a moderate cost, representing the loss of production for taking those people out of the "normal" production system - probably between the cost of a corps & an army. the combat functions of engineers are already subsumed within the proper combat units, and there is no case for having them seperated out at this scale. I 100% agree. For the scale we are using they should naturally be construction/labor force with no additional combat values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts