SC2 v1.02 Tech caps “Thank you for your visit and goodbye”

[Rolend]

SeaMonkey you think i would tell you that and lose our edge, the earth will belong to 'us.' All your worlds belong to me

EDIT ADDED: I am a big fan of the old Twilte Zone series, and this reminded me of that. There was one show where everyone was sure there was this allien running around and they were all stranded in this coffie shop do to bad weather and a bridge being out. They kept trying to figure out who the allien was and were trying to get the dinner cook to help. Turned out there was actully 2 differant alliens and the dinner cook was one of them, he had a thirid eye under his cook hat LOL. ... Emmm no don't even think it, never mind I brought it up, I am not that dinner cook LOL

Shhhhhhh Don't tell anyone this is the real me

[ June 16, 2006, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Rolend ]

[vveedd]

I have told Hubert long time ago: too much luck factor – crappy game. There are many problems related to luck and main is reloading. As “NO RESEARCH AT ALL” supporter I will say once again: SC2 will be much better game with research concept like Panzer general games have. At certain historical date you get automatically new equipment to buy (or in this case new tech to upgrade units) and that it.

OR if you must have research then it will be better tech concept from Civilization I,II,II,IV games.

Hubert as much I respect your work you didn’t learn much from SC1 experience. SC1 was a great game with some great problems and these was research and luck factor. I tried to play a few times SC1 without research and must say it was much better game (with, of course, house rule for air fleets).

[ June 17, 2006, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[Fartknock3r]

I like the current reasearch system. Is that bad? I love how luck determines research, it prevents your ability to be sure about something.

[Exel]

I'll repeat my point:

The only thing wrong with the current tech system is that the tech levels leap too much in performance. If the bonus from going to Lvl1 something to Lvl2 something was less dramatic the problem would be solved. No more game killer lucky strikes with one side getting IW3 while the other is stuck with IW0 and then dominating the whole game.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by Exel:

I'll repeat my point:

The only thing wrong with the current tech system is that the tech levels leap too much in performance. If the bonus from going to Lvl1 something to Lvl2 something was less dramatic the problem would be solved. No more game killer lucky strikes with one side getting IW3 while the other is stuck with IW0 and then dominating the whole game.

2nd. that. The system itself ilike I just needs some minor twekaing and away with teh tech caps then of course

[bloodstar]

I'll third it...

reduce the effects of an increase in tech. there should be an advantage to an increase in tech...

but it should be an example where the Germans

(for example, can have advanced technologies

to compensate for their reduced force pool)

and the Soviets can use cheap massive forces

to overwhelm the Advanced tactics and equipment

(remember technology can also represent advanced

in tactics in addition to better weapons.)

no unit should wipe the floor with another one

[Rolend]

Weedd I to am a big fan of the Panzer General series but I don't think you can really compare the two games. PG was a tatical based game, SC is a stratigic level game. I don't like the idea of having set Techs in a game like SC. I just wish there was a little less luck to it, and no I am not saying to elimante luck but the system needs tweaking and honestly I am not sure which of these ideas is best so I will just say lets keep the ideas coming.

[vveedd]

I respect your opinion Rolend and partially agree with you about PG2 tech system and absolutely agree about luck in tech. To my humble opinion tech system similar like we have in Civilization I,I,II,IV or Hearts of Iron 2 (but less complicated, of course) will be the best for SC2.

[ June 20, 2006, 05:19 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[R.J.]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

Hmm wouldn't artillery tech (or more proper,

artillery doctrine) be subsumed under IW?

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

Possibly - what were the changes to artillery tech and doctrine throughout the ar then?

VT fuzes for tech for the allies, rockets for everyone....and......and???

Doctrine - not sure there were many doctrinal changes - crtainly comms got more efficient but land-line was still the normal means of communication to a batter at the end of the war.

Some thoughts/info on IW(Arty) tech:

In Closing with the Enemy, Michael C. Doubler says: "Artillery FOs with infantry battalions often became casualties or were not in a good location to call for fires. To solve these problems, (US) infantry regiments in Sicily and Italy began to train all personnel, down to and including platoon sergeants, in FO procedures. At the same time, artillery units began to train all members of FO teams in call for fire techniques. By having more people qualified as FOs in the front lines, infantry regiments helped ensure the availability of constant, responsive fire support."

from: http://www.fireandfury.com/artillerytutorial/artyus.shtml also see:

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/doctrine.html#US

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/observer.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_ranging

And of course their was the extremely efficient US counter-battery fire using sound ranging, the UK getting fire on target in two minutes (the German system took twelve), and for the Germans, the development of the indispensable Sturmgeschütz.

Originally posted by Stalin's Organist:

but did it really cost the entire production of the UK for a fortnight to achieve??????

Again does the effectiveness advances in SC@ reflect real life?

No answer to that, but by the end of the war, the difference between a highly trained infantry unit, and the (volkstrum was it?) could be a bit like pistols and phasers (or whatever the quote was).