Strategic Command 3

[jon_j_rambo]

Money is overated. Squares are lame.

[justanotherwargamer1]

Originally posted by Timskorn:

In that case, he just needs to determine how many people want to buy the game you'd like, and how many people would buy the game we like and then make the one that'll make him the most money.

In the end, that's generally what I assume is usually the decision.

I can deal with being the 1 out of 10 instead of part of the 9 out of 10

Often a game (or anything for that matter) can and usually does fail, when a person attempts to score all 10 out of 10.

[PowerGmbH]

Xwormwood: I agree with you, stacking is not really necessary if you have a Expansion option for the units.

GENERALLY I THINK SIMPLIFICATION IS ALWAYS BEST, so i am not really Fanatic of all this "new Units" like anti Tank or Anti Air,

I think the Main Old Units could have some more Upgrade Features.

For example if a Corps gets a REAL anti Tank Upgrade ( This REAL Anti Tank Upgrade may Cost, say 60 MPP ) and an Anti Air ( or say an Air Brigade ) so you would best solve the Malta Effect as well as the Stacking Problems.

All this different Units are not allways useful, sometimes there is simply not the Place to Put Anti Air, Anti Tank and Artillery on a specific combat Zone. A Corps with Artillery Upgerade and the Army with a Air Squadron Upgrade may be easier to handle.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ PowerGmbh:

Fully agreed. At the moment there are 3 possible upgrade slots per unit, and if Hubert designs a different engine with more slots (4 or 5), he can easily achieve what you mean.

Example Tac Bombers: they have three slots for upgrades, one for Anti-Tank (which kills infantry better, what nonsense), one for long range and one for anti-ship. Basically it would make more sense if this unit has 4 or 5 slots: long range, anti-ship, anti-tank and anti-infantry (in that case that means all none-armored units, i.e. Arty & HQ).

I think the new engine will be the most important issue in SC3. Once upon a time I suggested to Hubert that the player can "create" his own units.. the normal standard corps comes with 3 infantry divisions and one Support/Maintenance brigade. The player can attach Tank Hunter Brigades, AA Brigades, Arty support, Pioneer Battailon (entreches quicker) and whatever else we can imagine. For those player who think it`s too much micro management: they can use archetype units..

The combat values of the Corps itself results from all the extensions the player buys.. and to make it more realistic, you need to produce the extension brigades separately before you can attach them...

[Kuniworth]

thread still relevant.

[Joe98]

This is a grand strategy game. Sitting up high as a commander at the grand strategy level there is no difference between a division of US infantry and a division of US Marines.

If you say “quality” this can be achieved. Each unit has a number of variables and one of those is quality. Quality can be “researched” in the factory at a cost so some units have higher quality than others. And the ability to name units would then satisfy every player. One of them might be named “Marines” for example.

At the grand strategy level there are no anti tank units and no artillery. Rather each unit has a number of variables. One would be anti tank and one would be artillery. Each of these can be researched in the factory so that some units are better than others.

Another variable would be movement. This too could be researched in the factory. Some infantry units then have greater movement capability than others thereby representing motorized units.

This idea of having Marine units and anti tank units is not appropriate at this scale.

[Joe98]

As for squares. If you are going to use squares then movement and combat should be limited to UP, DOWN and ACROSS. If you really want to move diagonally then you should switch to hexes.

I am astonished that the game view is isometric AND units move diagonally!

-

[Lars]

Er, why?

You spatially disorientated?

[SeaMonkey]

Well in SC3 I would like to see a breakdown or numbers attached to the graphs of the contributing MPPs from every friendly resource.

This would be a good addition into the "Reports" layout screens. Let me have some numbers at the top of those bar graphs showing the resource levels of factories, mines, cities, and oilfields.

I want to see the exact contribution of every MPP generating tile, like sort of how the diplomatic screen is.

It names the source/tile for each country by selecting the flag and on the same line the MPPs generated for that location.

Maybe for the enemy resources, the revelation could be tied to the intelligent research level.

[pzgndr]

I am astonished that the game view is isometric AND units move diagonally!

What, you never played chess in your whole life?? I guess looking at a chessboard at an angle with that isometric view made moving bishops diagonally a difficult experience. How about moving those horse things two up and one over??

Too funny. Y'all crack me up.