Suggestions for the next patch.

[Iron Ranger]

A few things first. I'm looking at the game from a 1) Balance view (where its right) 2) Historical (less gamey the better) 3) 'Fluid' (there should be more then one 'best' option in most case's). Some problems have no solutions.

I do not have the playing time in that other do, so if I make a mistake here please point it out. Most of the below suggestions refer to the 39 game, though some could refer to any situation. Some could say you should make a mod if these are the changes you want, I'll pass and hope that some of these will become STD.

A) Poland: She had a stong military, a new country that had defeated USSR in the 20s and took a huge chunk of ground from her. Change: If she is not defeated quickly she will/try to fully moblize. A minor HQ a few turns in and perhaps a unit or two is in order

Suez Loop: (1)Reduce the number of arrows in the Alantic to 6. Place 6 Arrows in the Red sea and set the scripts so that ships must start and end on a arrow. No arrow to land on, then the ship turns around and returns to the starting arrow. (2) Bug by Terif already noted on # of units. (3) Incress the time it takes to pass from the Alantic to the Red Sea. Three turns now but if you sail the Med its 3-4 turns; bump it up to 5 or more.

C) Other Loops: (1) Add in a Persin Gulf loop; two arrows near USA and Iraq. (2) Add in North sea Loop; one arrow near Norway to Archangel

D) Spotting: I'm not sure I agree with the perposed change to spoting of 1 for groud units on Navys. If we do go that route then I suggest ports (citys?) have a naval spoting of 2. These resources would have fishing fleets, comerace fleets and civialian air (plus garison patrols) that would notice something like a naval battle group close by and report it. Yes groups with say long range air could target the resource without being spoted (Pearl Harbor anyone?)

D) NA on air units: Flip the combat numbers for Air Fleets and Bombers on naval attack. Fighters groups, not heavy bombers formations are what sink combat ships.

E) Transports/Amphib: I have listed this a few times. HC did find one bug. Not going to post this again.

F) French Armor: Should start at Tech1, they didnt produce new and better tanks in the winter of 39. The armor is already at 5 str so the moblization issue is not a problem.

G) HQ's: If a HQ is destoryed it should not come up in the list of units that can be rebought for 60%. The loss of even a fraction of such a units would be hard to replace. These are normally men with YEARS studying war. A new HQ should need to be purchased if you want one.

H) Major Power Capitals: While I like the idea of captials that might move, it shouldnt be a sure thing. On top of that even if a country doesnt surrender the side that captures a capital should get a moral bump. (France) Low % chance (10%?)that if Paris falls the country will move its capital to Aleria. (Russia) Already IG but it should be a %, very high (95% first time, 85% next time) but still a chance that losing Moscow will be the end of the Red army. (Germany) Moderate % (25%) that if Berlin falls one of the citys in the SW will take over for the Nazi's. (Italy) Moderate % (35%) that if Rome falls one of the N citys will take over for Le Duce. (UK) High % (90% first time, 90% next time) that she will continue the fight Change: Remove Egypt as the second option and make it Halifax in Canada. This is both for a balance and historical reason. Ciaro was not were the 'free british' would have continued the war. AND giving UK a 10 str suppy center in north africa shuts down alot of Sealion options.

I) Dual MMPs: Alreadyed noted that axis get bonus MMPs for Italy taking Norway or Sweden.

J) Convoys; Land Route: If a convoy's (more latter on this latter)port is damaged (eather one) and a land route is a option then the MPPs should still be recived my the Major power. However it should not compleate remove the convoy route (shiping by sea is still the best way to go), just replace it till the port(s) are repaired and ready for service. Perhaps at 50% value as overland cost more in time and MPPs to diliver.

Examples of this: Axis hold Norway, Sweden, Finland and Leningrad. Land route to the resources is there. UK bombs the port so Axis recive the Norway and Sweden resource MMPs at 50% value. Several turn latter port is repaired and the convoys start again, but USA has moved a sub near Norways route. German recives the Sweden MPPs but only the surviving Norway MMPs.

K) Inactive Major Powers (USA USSR Italy): Major powers controll thier actions, minor powers do not. With this in mind I'l like to see a change in what happens when a Major Power hits 100% readness. It shouldn't be a automatic DOW on the other side. They can continue on as before but with a few 'stipulations'

1) Unless a war with another Major power no Diplomatic Points (same as when less then 100% readness)

2) You can DOW minors (A)If they are allied with the other side in effect you have DOWed that major power. Exmaple: USSR DOWs Finland, Finland is at 29% Axis - USSR has also DOWed the Axis then. ( If they are allied to your side a general % drop in readness for all inactive countrys. Example - Italy DOWs Tunisa, Tunisa is at 10% axis - All inactive countrys allies with axis take a hit in readness.

Ok, this might be too much. Mainly its there to stop the gamey effect of letting USSR readness reach 100% and start a war with her as axis without the DOW and bump in USA readness. Or the pushing of Italy into war (if she's not ready) in ealy 39 by the allies by removeing garrison troops.

L) DOW's and readness effects: I love them, perhaps they could be 'tweaked' abit but not sure where and how. (Axis DOW on USSR) The USA readness bump is too much, drop it back to were it was in the last patch. (USA on Axis DOW of Irland) The USA should get a small bump in readness if this happens.

M) Scripts: (note I have not read them all) One of the major problems I feel we have is in balance (its a pro allied game; if hes a ok player). The main problem with this balance is the number of scripts we have that 'side' with the Allies. Game play and history should be what determins events, and we should leave the scripts to just cover area's SC2 just cant control.

Siberian transfer: Posted on this before. Change it to the historcal date at some %, each turn after. Remove all triggers as these just punish aggressive axis play and reward 'poor' defence of Russia. Giveing up 1/3 of your country and 1/2 its people and resources should not reward a major power so heavyly. Also reduce the size of the transfer by 1/2.

Ural Industry: HellRaiser posted on this before. Change it to some area (3-4 tile zone) around Moscow and Klosivo (sp). Having it one city that people bypass with little effet is too gamey.

USA Home Gaurd: Seams ok, no mobile capital + only limited tiles means instant units works best.

UK Script: This would be the readness bumps to USA and USSR when axis units are in England. Since the last change I'm not 100% sure of what each exact incress is (FYI). This is another script that rewards lack of defence in UK and punish's Axis agression. A tough one due to other balancing factors but with the decress in axis amphib distance I think we need to revist this script (plus above mobile capital change). more latter

Epypt advance: Another script that hem's in the axis by punishing them for aggressive tactics while rewarding Allies for having UK pull its units to make mischief elsewhere. USA and USSR get bumps in thier readness when axis units get near the two citys in Egpyt. Change: Cut this bump by a huge % or remove it compleately. Or push it back to if axis units are near Baghdad (USSR incress), and Tehran of Iran (USA incress).

The three scrits of Siberians, Egypt and anit Sealion provide a unrealistic 'defence' against the axis. This gives them units (removed from these areas) that can inturn go fight in strenght were they should not have strenght. This is the primary reason I feel the game right now is unbalanced in the allies favor.

Malta Effect: The IG effect should be that supply are reduced in Libia. This is a % based on what type of unit is in Malta (or should be). Change: Seams too low, X2 the %s of this effect happening. In other words if a bomber is in Malta the axis are going to have next to no supply in north Africa almost all the time.

Gabralter Effect: Same as above (but axis holding it/ supply in Egypt), should be changed that the % of it happening is effected by the tpye of unit in Gabralter

N) Minor power's Convoys: I love them, much better then the use of pure hex's in SC1 for navel raids (subs). Exellent way of representing how a minor with RESOURCES supports the major powers its tied to. However a few notes/ect... At the present a country gives its 'full' MMPs to the major power it supports (example Iraq Allied 30%+). You dont get a differance weather the minor is DOWed and destroyed, fully allied or just supports the Major power its tied to. Seams depending on the level of status that a country is at should determain the number of MMPs it sends to its Major power. Change: MMPs based on status of minor (1)Supports Major but not at war MPPs from its resource only {Oil in Iraq, Mine in Norway ect...] (2) % readness for support not reached yet 0 MPPs {same as now} (3) If DOWed and destoryed or allied full MMPs.

Present Convoys:

Norway gives 50% of its MPPs

Sweden gives 60% of its MPPs

Canada 100%* of its MPPs

Iraq 100%* of its MPPs

Egypt 100%* of its MPPs

* To UK - no convoy if axis(?). Shouldnt this be changed? If axis controled the required tiles a convoy is set up for them? Example: Axis control Iraqs oil, Baghdad and BIEROT. A convoy is created from that port to a Italian port (if ports are damaged see above on land route)

The Engineer in me likes liner systems. So why the low % for the two 'standard' axis convoys? Balance? And Egypt has no resource, why a convoy at all? Why not make the Scandinavian ones 100% and remove the Egypt convoy (they get the MMPs no matter what, just like whoever holds the citys in other parts of north Africa)?

I'm not sure on the overall effect in balance the above would create. UK normally gets most of epygts MMPs till its falls (little raiding normally). But the incress in value for Norway and Sweden would make holding these resources even more desired.

O)Major Power's Convoys: Suggest adding in a convoy from USA to Iran. Another Lend Lease option (10% of US MMPs). Leaves a southern port in USA and into Perisian Gulf to a new port put in southern Iran. Only opens up if Iran is Allied control and after USA enters the war fully. Note this is above the convoy that opens to Archangel if UK falls.

P)Para, Rockets, Engineer units: Changes to these have been suggested already. No need to retype anything.

Q) Diplomanicy: Right now this really breaks down to only two countrys getting opening chits. Spain and USA, rarely have I seen anyone put chits on anything else. In the late game at times you will see the Allies focus all thier chits on one of the minors (Turkey). Without making the game insanly complex (DOWs, and interlocking changes in readness) I dont see how to change this system but its lack of options is depressing.

R) Subs: If we are looking at changing spoting lets adjust the sub/spoting game. Subs in silent mode are 'pushed' one tile when a ship runs over them unless a successfull % check is made. % check is adjusted on the level of tech (Anti sub/advanced sub).

[ October 25, 2006, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: Iron Ranger ]

[Colin I]

Impressive list. To add, many discussed before but still to add my vote:

I want to see return to three German starting HQs and balance the game in other ways. Think this simulates the one real advantage the Germans has very well.

I REALLY want to see air attacks and bombardment of units have less effect on strength and more on morale and readyness.

For all nations cheap HQ rebuild is fine - General gets away but staff has to be rerecruited is a reasonable explanation of this.

Add one UK starting submarine.

After UK falls remove capital to Canada but drop UK resources hugely (or else impossible to knock UK out of game).

Put some Russian units in buld queue (a few armies a year) but scrap Siberians.

Add random diplomatic shifts and events and make diplomacy of minors more volatile.

As discussed in another thread only allow Amphib of armies and tank units at high Amphib levels.

More random fog of war beyond one tile range.

[Retributar]

Very good discussion here, and i for one think that these point's by the both of you need to be taken out of the 'Neglected/Forgotten' page!.

This game is, i agree...over-heavily favouring the Allies as described by 'Iron Ranger' , and even if that is so, 'balancing of these issues' is critical so as to not swing the WW2 reality out of adjustment!.

Additionally, to the point's mentioned by the two previous poster's above, i would like to see that certain cities have a higher than normal 'Fortification-Factor' , as was historically!. This could be different ratings for each individual city or location!, as they would not all be equal in this respect!.

This, of course would be Tobruk, as well as...'Stalingrad-Where the Germans's i believe lost over 300,000 Troop's there', Not-with-standing Leningrad & finally...'Berlin-where the Soviet's lost over 400,000 Troop's in the taking of this City!'.

[Blashy]

The HQs represent supply lines, not the PERSON itself. This is why you can repurchase it.

The supply and command center is destroyed in part while the commander "runs away". The repurchase can be seen as the commander rebuilding this structure.

Siberian transfer is not a "reward" it was a reaction after loosing so much land and troops. Even so Siberian troops were minor. They had little to no factor in USSR pushing back Germany, even Zhukov mentions this in his memoirs. Soviet industrial might is what killed Germany.

As for the game favoring the Allies... where?

Hubert's goal is to have it 50-50 and right now the Allies are not even close to getting their due in industrial production. The game is closer to 50-50. I personally don't like this because it IMHO it is no longer replaying history.

[Colin I]

Isn't the consensus that the game is now 50:50 if Axis is experienced enough to avoid mistakes and knows a lot of the standard strategies vs equal Allied player? Given that only a few players are near Terif's level I think this means on average an Allied bias (which IS reasonable at least historically, as you note)given a full spectrum of player abilities.

I still favour further command control advantages for the Germans though (even if not return of the third HQ at start maybe in production stack to simulate good Generals coming through). If you want to balance this by Allied production, so be it but maybe some expansion in UK Navy or US/USSR forces in the build stack is a good alternative.

[Blashy]

I personally prefer increasing production, that was the deciding factor, it was the Allies greatest strength.

Let players decide which unit they wish to produce.

[GhostRider3/3]

Just a Question, I have not played Strategic Command 2, and it sort of sounds alittle off balanced. Any way to edit your starting forces, and such? How does it compare to Hearts of Iron 2?

Thanks, Juergen

[Hubert Cater]

Originally posted by Jurgen12/26HJ:

[QB] Just a Question, I have not played Strategic Command 2, and it sort of sounds alittle off balanced.

Welcome to the forums Juregen23/26HJ I think what you'll find here is that this is a very open forum and suggestions and feedback are always welcome so don't let the comments above surprise you.

In the end though what I have tried to achieve with the game is a balance between what happened historically, what might have been possible as well as what works well game play wise. This as you can imagine is can be an inordinate challenge especially with WWII in the European Theatre as I doubt that even a consensus within these forums could be made as to what the perfect game might be... i.e. everyone has and is always welcome to their own opinion

But with that being said, and I'll re-iterate what Colin has said above, I think that the only real general consensus is that between 2 equally skilled opponents both sides have a 50/50 chance of winning with a slight bias towards the Allies. I'll also agree that this is a reasonable outcome for games within the context of history and essentially matches the goal I set out to achieve with the game. Also I would note that the bias is given to the Allies as the Axis would almost have to play a perfect game in order to win on a regular basis whereas this is most likely not the case for the Allies and primarily due to an MPP, time and geographical edge in terms of game play.

Any way to edit your starting forces, and such?

Absolutely and in fact the Editor is quite powerful and with the next patch even more so. Take a look at the MODS section for links to the various customizations available for SC2, many of which are very well made including a recently added Civil War scenario.

Also, the next patch which should be out in the next few weeks addresses many of the concerns expressed recently in the forums as well as a huge boost to AI capabilities and planning.

How does it compare to Hearts of Iron 2?

Probably best answered by others

I hope you enjoy the game!

Hubert

[ChrisND]

Jungen,

You just got a lengthy greeting and answer from the dude who created the game. Need I say more?

[GhostRider3/3]

Thank you very much Hubert, that was very informative and I apreciate your reply as well as everyone else's messages here. I find it wonderful as many can come to these forums and discuss things in a civilized manner, and produce great insight and thought.

I will definetly keep reading the forums here, and probably pick up a copy and check it out for myself.

thanks,

Juergen

[n0kn0k]

Balance always has 2 sides. Some want it historical and others want it balanced for gaming purposes. It's balanced for gaming purposes atm imho. And the editor basicly let's you change anything. I've even made a space strategy mod with it Though it's only a proof of concept.