SC2: Enhancements On the Way

[Liam]

In North Africa, many of the Italian Tanks that brokedown were actually taken used by the British!

This would certianly reflect a lot upon research.

I'm certian when the Advanced Bombers of the RAF were shot down over Europe, there tracking systems used to find their targets at night were extracted by the Germans and used to scramble the updated Tech. There are so many cases of this in WW2, you wouldn't believe....

Originally posted by The K Man:

Liam,

Yes, I like that idea. Even if you just damaged a level 3 tank, you should probably get a % increase for research if your still at 1. (I figure if your damaging a unit, some tanks will be left there for retrieval & study.) That would definitly balance out the luck factor on techs.

[Liam]

In North Africa, many of the Italian Tanks that brokedown were actually taken used by the British!

This would certianly reflect a lot upon research.

I'm certian when the Advanced Bombers of the RAF were shot down over Europe, there tracking systems used to find their targets at night were extracted by the Germans and used to scramble the updated Tech. There are so many cases of this in WW2, you wouldn't believe....

Originally posted by The K Man:

Liam,

Yes, I like that idea. Even if you just damaged a level 3 tank, you should probably get a % increase for research if your still at 1. (I figure if your damaging a unit, some tanks will be left there for retrieval & study.) That would definitly balance out the luck factor on techs.

[Liam]

How long did you have the 2 chits in? What is the chance of success per turn? In General when I put 2 chits in IW, I get an advancement 95% of the time within 1 year... outta 100-200 games that is definitive, ask my opposition!

Originally posted by targul:

Just finished a game as Axis didnt recieve an up in rockets for entire game even though I had 2 chits in it from the start.

I find that to be correct, however. When you begin research you never know if or when anything will develop.

What I do is develop my military based on what impoves the quickest. That means one game I have planes, next subs, then tanks etc.

[Liam]

How long did you have the 2 chits in? What is the chance of success per turn? In General when I put 2 chits in IW, I get an advancement 95% of the time within 1 year... outta 100-200 games that is definitive, ask my opposition!

Originally posted by targul:

Just finished a game as Axis didnt recieve an up in rockets for entire game even though I had 2 chits in it from the start.

I find that to be correct, however. When you begin research you never know if or when anything will develop.

What I do is develop my military based on what impoves the quickest. That means one game I have planes, next subs, then tanks etc.

[Jollyguy]

Taojah;

I can't think of too many times a game is over by 1940 unless you did something really reckless. If you just stick with it sometimes your opponent does something reckless, too, or maybe a series of smaller mstakes that you can capitalize on.

One time France fell by December when I was the Allies, and I eventually won that game! The worm turns many times.

Add to the real WW II luck (strategic) factors:

1) Luftwaffe shifting to English cities in retaliaton for British bombing attacks, allowing the RAF time to catch their breath.

2) The Japaneese Admiral switching from bombs to torpedoes and back to bombs at Midway, allowing our dive bombers to sink his carriers in the middle of the last switch.

3) Our carriers being out of port at Pearl Harbor.

4) The Nazis chasing all their best scientist out of the country, and right to our Manhatten project.

5) The Germans falling for an obvious feint at Pas de Calais, instead of Normandy.

6) The Brit paratroopers landing at Arnhem into the teeth of panzers, and Montgomery ignoring their prescence.

7) Hitler starving his jet program until it was too late, in favor of conventional prop fighters.

8) Hitler refusing to fall back in an orderly fashion, shortening the war.

9) A German transport plane going down in Belgium in 1940 with their attack plans on board, resulting in a change to pure blitzkrieg tactics.

10) The Yugoslav coup and Mussolini's foray into Greece, forcing the Germans to delay Barbarossa for six valuable weeks.

11) A German officer bumping his leg on a brief case, and placing Colonol Staffenburgs bomb on the other side of a thick oak table leg, allowing Hitler to survive the assasination attempt.

12) The Germans never attacking all at once at Bastogne and overrunning us when they could, instead doing scattered, uncordinated attacks which allowed us to shift forces each time.

I'm sure the list can go on and on. In SC2 luck balances out. I.e., in my current game with Terif my Russian tank chit has yet to hit...4 years later! But my Russian tanks have performed well regardless, taking out their share of units. I just had to adapt and use more discretion in their usage.

Bob

[Jollyguy]

Taojah;

I can't think of too many times a game is over by 1940 unless you did something really reckless. If you just stick with it sometimes your opponent does something reckless, too, or maybe a series of smaller mstakes that you can capitalize on.

One time France fell by December when I was the Allies, and I eventually won that game! The worm turns many times.

Add to the real WW II luck (strategic) factors:

1) Luftwaffe shifting to English cities in retaliaton for British bombing attacks, allowing the RAF time to catch their breath.

2) The Japaneese Admiral switching from bombs to torpedoes and back to bombs at Midway, allowing our dive bombers to sink his carriers in the middle of the last switch.

3) Our carriers being out of port at Pearl Harbor.

4) The Nazis chasing all their best scientist out of the country, and right to our Manhatten project.

5) The Germans falling for an obvious feint at Pas de Calais, instead of Normandy.

6) The Brit paratroopers landing at Arnhem into the teeth of panzers, and Montgomery ignoring their prescence.

7) Hitler starving his jet program until it was too late, in favor of conventional prop fighters.

8) Hitler refusing to fall back in an orderly fashion, shortening the war.

9) A German transport plane going down in Belgium in 1940 with their attack plans on board, resulting in a change to pure blitzkrieg tactics.

10) The Yugoslav coup and Mussolini's foray into Greece, forcing the Germans to delay Barbarossa for six valuable weeks.

11) A German officer bumping his leg on a brief case, and placing Colonol Staffenburgs bomb on the other side of a thick oak table leg, allowing Hitler to survive the assasination attempt.

12) The Germans never attacking all at once at Bastogne and overrunning us when they could, instead doing scattered, uncordinated attacks which allowed us to shift forces each time.

I'm sure the list can go on and on. In SC2 luck balances out. I.e., in my current game with Terif my Russian tank chit has yet to hit...4 years later! But my Russian tanks have performed well regardless, taking out their share of units. I just had to adapt and use more discretion in their usage.

Bob

[Liam]

Bob, I couldn't think of a better list. Life is a lot more about "Luck," than a game!!! All the factors that go into life make it so unpredictable one has to be Ultra-Careful, that's why our real life Military tacticians, strategists, politicans, etc... on and on and on... are so very careful, think everything out. I bet you on one decision, a Planner could spend months and have a whole team to make the decision we make in SC2 in about 2 mouseclicks. They try to take every life variable into account, they try to take every action and reaction into account. It is their job and their proffessionals. We're merely ArmChair Generals Abstractly simulating the real thing. It's not that close but with a few dice it's supposed to simulate what is reality... NOW THERE IS ONE flaw here,

as I said before if Italy was fighting under Rommel in N.Africa, he'd give IW1 at least and AT1 at least to his Italians... If they hadn't researched it themselves! That is not that abstract, so it looks like with the new add-on some of these things will solved.

Also Rocket Science and Infantry Weapons are not the Same. If you invest money in Assualt Rifles there is no breakthrough technology there. Any Major Nation has the capability to upgrade such a weapon without "Chance!"

So in this was Taojah is right..

as far as predictably of many other items, such as whether or not X British Corp takes 20% casualties landing in Normandy due to flooding by the German High Command it is accurately simulated in abstract fashion by SC2. It's ultra-kewl and we just need to look at it the way it is.. We cannot expect a miracle though I do feel as Tao does about some items, they're not meant for chance but other things are definitely Historically "What if"

and we do plan all the roles of Military Planner, tactican, strategist, Politican, etc... It's kewl, GrandPuppet Master of an entire Alliance...

P.S. The Germans Sent Researchers to Tibet to attempt to find their Roots in the Aryan Race

P.S.S. the Germans researched the location of the Holy Grail!!!!

They definitely believed in more than luck and weird Stuff

P.S.S.S. German U-Boats used the Stars-astrology- to Track Allied Convoys ROFL obviously not levelheaded individuals

Hmmmm, they must've not been quite as good as us, "Common Sense might've worked better!"

[Liam]

Bob, I couldn't think of a better list. Life is a lot more about "Luck," than a game!!! All the factors that go into life make it so unpredictable one has to be Ultra-Careful, that's why our real life Military tacticians, strategists, politicans, etc... on and on and on... are so very careful, think everything out. I bet you on one decision, a Planner could spend months and have a whole team to make the decision we make in SC2 in about 2 mouseclicks. They try to take every life variable into account, they try to take every action and reaction into account. It is their job and their proffessionals. We're merely ArmChair Generals Abstractly simulating the real thing. It's not that close but with a few dice it's supposed to simulate what is reality... NOW THERE IS ONE flaw here,

as I said before if Italy was fighting under Rommel in N.Africa, he'd give IW1 at least and AT1 at least to his Italians... If they hadn't researched it themselves! That is not that abstract, so it looks like with the new add-on some of these things will solved.

Also Rocket Science and Infantry Weapons are not the Same. If you invest money in Assualt Rifles there is no breakthrough technology there. Any Major Nation has the capability to upgrade such a weapon without "Chance!"

So in this was Taojah is right..

as far as predictably of many other items, such as whether or not X British Corp takes 20% casualties landing in Normandy due to flooding by the German High Command it is accurately simulated in abstract fashion by SC2. It's ultra-kewl and we just need to look at it the way it is.. We cannot expect a miracle though I do feel as Tao does about some items, they're not meant for chance but other things are definitely Historically "What if"

and we do plan all the roles of Military Planner, tactican, strategist, Politican, etc... It's kewl, GrandPuppet Master of an entire Alliance...

P.S. The Germans Sent Researchers to Tibet to attempt to find their Roots in the Aryan Race

P.S.S. the Germans researched the location of the Holy Grail!!!!

They definitely believed in more than luck and weird Stuff

P.S.S.S. German U-Boats used the Stars-astrology- to Track Allied Convoys ROFL obviously not levelheaded individuals

Hmmmm, they must've not been quite as good as us, "Common Sense might've worked better!"

[targul]

"Also Rocket Science and Infantry Weapons are not the Same. If you invest money in Assualt Rifles there is no breakthrough technology there. Any Major Nation has the capability to upgrade such a weapon without "Chance!""

Not sure I agree here. Many times the newer more modern latest is not necessarily the best. The M16 rifle is a good example when released it jammed all the time. Compared to the M-14 it was simply not a good weapon. Even the later M16A1 version was inferior. You could not chamber a round and have it ready since it had a tendacy to form a vacuum in the barrel and could actually explode when fired. The weapon was never able to be used with a 20 clip of ammo due to jamming. The M-14 had none of these faults sure it was not a mattel toy weight but it was accurate or dependable. Chambering you weapon prior to firing alerts your opponent and removes any chance of surprise.

It has been 40 years since that weapon was introduced and was not reliable for its first 10 years at least not sure about it now or even if they still use them.

Many airplanes have been similiar in dismal performance compared to there predecessors. Electric firing for subs and aircraft is another example.

So even though you may not be doing break through technology in some cases the development may not be as good as what you have so all the money maybe lost and you may have to go back to the drawing boards even after you think you made it.

[targul]

"Also Rocket Science and Infantry Weapons are not the Same. If you invest money in Assualt Rifles there is no breakthrough technology there. Any Major Nation has the capability to upgrade such a weapon without "Chance!""

Not sure I agree here. Many times the newer more modern latest is not necessarily the best. The M16 rifle is a good example when released it jammed all the time. Compared to the M-14 it was simply not a good weapon. Even the later M16A1 version was inferior. You could not chamber a round and have it ready since it had a tendacy to form a vacuum in the barrel and could actually explode when fired. The weapon was never able to be used with a 20 clip of ammo due to jamming. The M-14 had none of these faults sure it was not a mattel toy weight but it was accurate or dependable. Chambering you weapon prior to firing alerts your opponent and removes any chance of surprise.

It has been 40 years since that weapon was introduced and was not reliable for its first 10 years at least not sure about it now or even if they still use them.

Many airplanes have been similiar in dismal performance compared to there predecessors. Electric firing for subs and aircraft is another example.

So even though you may not be doing break through technology in some cases the development may not be as good as what you have so all the money maybe lost and you may have to go back to the drawing boards even after you think you made it.

[Liam]

During the last years of WW1 the Machine Pistols were comming in their own, powerful weapons. Italy had actually created one in 1915... Many designs and many weapons exist Pre-War, though they never get manfactured or they never get backing financially. If you want to call this chance, you could. Though Infantry Weapons are from everything to tactics, all the way to Anti Personal Mines... it's a broad subject and there is no rocket science I promise you. Italy, Germany, USA, UK and USSR ALL had comparable weapondry throughout the 20th century. Some slightly better, some more rugged, some revolutionary... Not all used or mass produced!

The Cost to Indorse this area of expertise is partially chance though even with an AK47 and a M16, which are comparable firearms and many may debate which is more powerful and with the right tactics which would prevail, in the end regardless, they are what they are... One is rugged and reliable, one is got a great bullet and jams...

In Truth it is unlikely Italy could manufacture certian weapons grades due to her lack of Industrial Capacity in WW2, she just didn't have the time! Her Tanks would have never stood a chance beyond 1942! They were antipersonal tanks but in SC2 you can build Italian Armor with the same characteristics as German, Russian, French, British or American...

Definitely some weapons are revolutionary and there is chance in that but may I ask if investing say 5 Xs 75 MPPs... over a year does not pay off in giving you an increase in your tactics, mines, antipersonal Machine Guns, Guns, Rocket Launchers, Mortars, machine guns... you're dead wrong. And for say Italy the same Investment gives them Superior technology to that of Germany!!!

In what Decade? Definitely not in 1930-1940!

The game needs some tweaking alright and these areas of investment are not rocket science but definitely closer to a sure thing than say Aircraft design. Which is a MUCH more expensive endeavor, sometimes it takes 5 to 10 years to get an Aircraft even off the drawing board. I'll imagine the ME262 was designed many many years before it every flew... Still even there, all sides have the capability to develop, not always upgrade every unit to that capability, Perhaps a cap on what certian nations can upgrade would reflect true history...???

Also a reflection, Soviet Infantry weapons were quite awesome, Germans were quite innovative... However equal in their own regard? Did you ever see the German assualt rifle of WW2 that's Muzzle slants backwards so the Soldat doesn't have to look and possibly get shot???

Of course I'm not sure a true Assault Rifle exists from WW2...

[Liam]

During the last years of WW1 the Machine Pistols were comming in their own, powerful weapons. Italy had actually created one in 1915... Many designs and many weapons exist Pre-War, though they never get manfactured or they never get backing financially. If you want to call this chance, you could. Though Infantry Weapons are from everything to tactics, all the way to Anti Personal Mines... it's a broad subject and there is no rocket science I promise you. Italy, Germany, USA, UK and USSR ALL had comparable weapondry throughout the 20th century. Some slightly better, some more rugged, some revolutionary... Not all used or mass produced!

The Cost to Indorse this area of expertise is partially chance though even with an AK47 and a M16, which are comparable firearms and many may debate which is more powerful and with the right tactics which would prevail, in the end regardless, they are what they are... One is rugged and reliable, one is got a great bullet and jams...

In Truth it is unlikely Italy could manufacture certian weapons grades due to her lack of Industrial Capacity in WW2, she just didn't have the time! Her Tanks would have never stood a chance beyond 1942! They were antipersonal tanks but in SC2 you can build Italian Armor with the same characteristics as German, Russian, French, British or American...

Definitely some weapons are revolutionary and there is chance in that but may I ask if investing say 5 Xs 75 MPPs... over a year does not pay off in giving you an increase in your tactics, mines, antipersonal Machine Guns, Guns, Rocket Launchers, Mortars, machine guns... you're dead wrong. And for say Italy the same Investment gives them Superior technology to that of Germany!!!

In what Decade? Definitely not in 1930-1940!

The game needs some tweaking alright and these areas of investment are not rocket science but definitely closer to a sure thing than say Aircraft design. Which is a MUCH more expensive endeavor, sometimes it takes 5 to 10 years to get an Aircraft even off the drawing board. I'll imagine the ME262 was designed many many years before it every flew... Still even there, all sides have the capability to develop, not always upgrade every unit to that capability, Perhaps a cap on what certian nations can upgrade would reflect true history...???

Also a reflection, Soviet Infantry weapons were quite awesome, Germans were quite innovative... However equal in their own regard? Did you ever see the German assualt rifle of WW2 that's Muzzle slants backwards so the Soldat doesn't have to look and possibly get shot???

Of course I'm not sure a true Assault Rifle exists from WW2...

[arado234]

Also politics played a fairly large role in weapons development.Willy messerschmitt had the R.L.M on his side and was awarded contracts that should have gone to other fighter developments.The he112,was a much better fighter than the 109(available around the same time) same as the he280 which flew on jet power april 5th 1941.It was as maneuvrable as the 190 and faster.It outclassed anything we had.The R.L.M.actually got upset with heinkel because he went to private firms for backing and refused to help him out!!!!It and the me262 would have been a formidable foe.I dont know how you could add this but how far do we really want to go?Liam as far as italy goes with tech.like you said they they didnt have the ind.capacity to build alot but had they spent more on tech.(remember they had good ships with no gunnery adavncements)they may have been able to build limited numbers of quality equipment.Maybe with the italy they can still get to level 5 in tech.but the cost should go up more for each chit after they reach a certain level in any one area.Remember WE are the ones running the show not some of the blockheads that were really in charge.The fact that italy gets a very poor mpp base has a big effect on their tech.as it is.

[arado234]

Also politics played a fairly large role in weapons development.Willy messerschmitt had the R.L.M on his side and was awarded contracts that should have gone to other fighter developments.The he112,was a much better fighter than the 109(available around the same time) same as the he280 which flew on jet power april 5th 1941.It was as maneuvrable as the 190 and faster.It outclassed anything we had.The R.L.M.actually got upset with heinkel because he went to private firms for backing and refused to help him out!!!!It and the me262 would have been a formidable foe.I dont know how you could add this but how far do we really want to go?Liam as far as italy goes with tech.like you said they they didnt have the ind.capacity to build alot but had they spent more on tech.(remember they had good ships with no gunnery adavncements)they may have been able to build limited numbers of quality equipment.Maybe with the italy they can still get to level 5 in tech.but the cost should go up more for each chit after they reach a certain level in any one area.Remember WE are the ones running the show not some of the blockheads that were really in charge.The fact that italy gets a very poor mpp base has a big effect on their tech.as it is.

[targul]

I do agree certain countries equipment was just not up to par. Especially that of Italy but there bombers where definitely not second to any.

Each country seemed to have certain pieces of equipment that was just better then others.

England seemed to make the best fighters. Germany antitank was second to none. Russian tanks are some of the best on the market etc.

But with a game of this scope I am not sure we want to get that involved in each piece of equipment. It would be interesting to see a special piece for each nation but then we would argue which is best.

It does seem that somethings are too expensive compared to others but the balance seems correct.

BTW it took 8 years to develop the M16 and 15 more years to make it work correctly. War always shortens development times since the items required are so necessary for survival.

[targul]

I do agree certain countries equipment was just not up to par. Especially that of Italy but there bombers where definitely not second to any.

Each country seemed to have certain pieces of equipment that was just better then others.

England seemed to make the best fighters. Germany antitank was second to none. Russian tanks are some of the best on the market etc.

But with a game of this scope I am not sure we want to get that involved in each piece of equipment. It would be interesting to see a special piece for each nation but then we would argue which is best.

It does seem that somethings are too expensive compared to others but the balance seems correct.

BTW it took 8 years to develop the M16 and 15 more years to make it work correctly. War always shortens development times since the items required are so necessary for survival.

[Lars]

Originally posted by targul:

BTW it took 8 years to develop the M16 and 15 more years to make it work correctly. War always shortens development times since the items required are so necessary for survival.

Yeah, but the BAR and Thompson pre-dated WWII by quite a bit.

They were good enough to get the job done, as history shows.

[Lars]

Originally posted by targul:

BTW it took 8 years to develop the M16 and 15 more years to make it work correctly. War always shortens development times since the items required are so necessary for survival.

Yeah, but the BAR and Thompson pre-dated WWII by quite a bit.

They were good enough to get the job done, as history shows.