dicedtomato Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 SC2 does a poor job of modeling the U.S. military. The U.S. had a limited (but still large) number of divisions compared to Germany and Russia, but those divisions should have better firpower, mobility and logistics. SC2's tech system doesn't really account for this, because everyone can and does reach the same tech levels eventually. Here's my idea. Increase the number of air fleets and tank groups in the U.S. force pool. America should have lots of MPPs to spend. Give it lots of expensive, high-firepower toys to build. Diced Tomato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Turn soft builds on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dicedtomato Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 And give the Axis additional air and tanks? Not likely. Diced Tomato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Softbuilds break the game, Germany and Italy just poor in with corps. And it does not fix that USA is under represented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honch Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Add an air fleet or two to the production queue in the editor and reduce the cost of building air and bomber fleets, tanks, battleships, carriers and subs for the US only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Nice thread! We want the USA represented in the REAL GAME, NOT personal mods! FIX IT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Spinello Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Actually, I´d rather have Hubert spend his time fixing strict bugs and adapt things that can´t be edited by us. I don´t fail to see that human vs human gamers want to have something like a "standard scenario" for their ladder games etc, but couldn´t you guys not simply discuss whatever changes you want and then issue an "official tournament-mod" yourselves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lars Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Originally posted by Blashy: Softbuilds break the game, Germany and Italy just poor in with corps. And it does not fix that USA is under represented. And then the US just kills them with the high tech tanks and planes he wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eikelhoofd Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Won't that totaly ruin the gamebalance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honch Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Originally posted by jon_j_rambo: Nice thread! We want the USA represented in the REAL GAME, NOT personal mods! FIX IT! Try the editor and it would solve 99% of your problems Rambo! They gave us the editor so that they didn't have to deal with all of the personal opinions about who should be stronger, who should have what techs, who is under-represented etc. Very few of us think that the US should be all powerful. Why don't you use the editor, make everything max attack values and max tech for the US with 100 armies, tank groups, air fleets and ships and I think that you'd finally make yourself happy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 You can take your editor & go jump in the lake. I'm tired of the USA being dissed on to please the world. Reality, History, and Truth are more important. All you clowns rally to the German Worship Cause 24/7, but when it comes to the USA, it's nothing but insults. -Legend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Rambo, you avoided my question. If the USA was able to do what it did historicaly in the game, it would be unbalanced, if you want to have the USA represented better, then YOU come up with a solution to show it w/out breaking game balance. Don't avoid this question! This is your chance, speak up, or stop making threads about how the USA in represented poorly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honch Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 What a character. I'd love to meet you in real life Rambo! Just leave your guns at the door. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 What insults have there been in this thread JJR? apart from the ones you give to people who you disagree with that is? Fartknock - the trouble is that the game should NOT be balanced. There should be next to no chance of the Axis winning, just like there was in "real life". the only question should be how long can it hold out for? Games that allow the Axis to easily invade the UK and reach the Urals are not based in history - they are based on an unreal concept of "fair play". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Originally posted by Honch: What a character. I'd love to meet you in real life Rambo! Just watch George Bush on TV, same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Originally posted by Blashy: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Honch: What a character. I'd love to meet you in real life Rambo! Just watch George Bush on TV, same thing. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: [Fartknock - the trouble is that the game should NOT be balanced. Why would people want to play a game they can't win? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Who said you can't win? an unbalanced game "simply" needs unbalanced victory conditions - IMO a WW2 strategy game should be about how long the Axis can last - if the last long enough then they win If they get beat early then they lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I agree, the Axis holding off until 1947 would be a victory IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 If the US is able to produce wht it did historically then it'll be over way before 1947. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Well there's the challenge then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 Listen, I think we need to come up with something to both better represent the U.S. historicly, and not unbalance the game. I think we are all overlooking something, just because we add to one side, doesnt mean it has to unbalance the game! why? WE CAN ADD TO THE OTHER SIDE TOO! Here is what I propose, allow each axis minor to build an extra corps then currently avalable, allow Germany to build an additional army. slightly lower the cost of subs AND give the Germans better startin sub tech. why you ask? simple, the U.S. still has to transport its troops, no matter how many, across the atlantic. Let us encourage the use of subs to slow/reduce the amount of troops getting across, as is historical. Right now you barley even think about it as a threat, in real life many people were scared out of their minds that the ship would be sunk by U-boats! I believe slightly increasing what the axis can build will allow you to increase the U.S. forces per historical, while taking the edge off of unbalancing issues. How is that for a comprimise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blashy Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Originally posted by Fartknock3r: If the US is able to produce wht it did historically then it'll be over way before 1947. You can't compare, without any of Hitler's moronic decisions things might have ended much later. A stalemate with Russia might have even occured. If they played it smart and not with an EGO the size of the moon and complete beleif in Hitler as a military leader... :eek: BUT, in the end, they were undermanned and underproduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fartknock3r Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Originally posted by Stalin's Organist: Well there's the challenge then! Why not make it challenging for the allied player as well. You guys make playing the axis seem so easy that you can walk over the allies the whole game. play balance IS needed, no matter what country is represented poorly, otherwise people would only want to play the winning side, and in this case, that is the allies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Originally posted by Night: Listen, I think we need to come up with something to both better represent the U.S. historicly, and not unbalance the game. I think we are all overlooking something, just because we add to one side, doesnt mean it has to unbalance the game! why? WE CAN ADD TO THE OTHER SIDE TOO! why not? All you have to do is then change the victory scripts to allow for an unbalanced victory? Adding historical US production and then "balancing it" by adding fantasy axis features is a pretty daft thing to do IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts