Editor question

[vveedd]

As I have said I don’t care much for editor (I’ll play default scenarios only) but I have one question about it. Actually, pzgndr putted this question to my mind with his post about Advanced Third Reich adaptation.

Question is: Is it possible to change-adapt supply rules like 3R game have it?

[pzgndr]

Unfortunately supply is one of those things that's locked in by design. It might be nice to get another option as a future enhancement. An alternative idea to improve the current supply situation would be to add more HQs to a campaign, perhaps with zero command ratings to provide supply only. That would create the basic effect you're looking for.

Now, I'm curious what you really mean by playing default scenarios only. You NEVER play ANY games with house rules or other personal tweaks?? Sure. And does "default" mean you will play with weather effects on or off? Production delays on or off? Soft build limits on or off? Etc. With SC2, it will be difficult to define "default."

[Blashy]

You will be SERIOUSLY hindering your SC2 experience if you only stick with the default scenarios.

MODs that will be totally different games (Napoleon, US Civil War, Great War, Pacific WW2, Full Map WW2, etc...) are going to be developed.

[Retributar]

That's the 'Spirit' Blashy!!!...most of us will be looking for 'MODS' as you suggest, and for me...i can't wait for bizarre home-made 'Scenario's'!.

The 'Default Games' & 'Scenario's' will be Just-Fine in any-case!...but, add-on's that will enter our gaming sphere later on, will be most welcome!.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

I was hoping there would be a "cost" for offensives

(3R had just that, abstracted to heck tho of course):

something like sitting still uses one MPP, moving

uses 1 per space moved, an attack costs 2, etc.

Is this just pie in the sky dreaming or would

something like this be workable?

[Blashy]

Oh boy, let me just say that I am glad this "cost" thing is not in SC2, it would bring micro managing into play and I hate that about all other grand strategy games.

[vveedd]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Now, I'm curious what you really mean by playing default scenarios only. You NEVER play ANY games with house rules or other personal tweaks?? Sure. And does "default" mean you will play with weather effects on or off? Production delays on or off? Soft build limits on or off? Etc. With SC2, it will be difficult to define "default."

I have played some games with house rules, 3R for instance but only because this game was never made for PBEM. By default scenarios I meant scenarios made by game developers. If I must choose some options like you said then I will choose with my opponent of course.

I don’t have good experience with MOD’s made by players or someone else.

For instance, I have played also Napoleonic MOD for Medieval Total War and it was good, very good but it didn’t have square formation because square formation can implement only game developers. And because of that it was not it if you understand what I mean.

Originally posted by pzgndr:

Unfortunately supply is one of those things that's locked in by design. It might be nice to get another option as a future enhancement. An alternative idea to improve the current supply situation would be to add more HQs to a campaign, perhaps with zero command ratings to provide supply only. That would create the basic effect you're looking for.

Basic effect what I looking for is when units are without supply they should be destroyed (or at least can’t move). As I have said in some post not long ago with this effect players are forced much more to look out for flanks and front lines. With this rule game will not have some unbelievable situations like a few opponent units in middle of nowhere and they making damage. Only partisans should be enabling to do that.

[ March 06, 2006, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: vveedd ]

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by Blashy:

Oh boy, let me just say that I am glad this "cost" thing is not in SC2, it would bring micro managing into play and I hate that about all other grand strategy games.

Yes, indeed, if you start implementing micro-managing things like this, it will be a totally different game ! Perhaps they can put it in as an option, but if it's a forced feature, I might as well play another game.

[pzgndr]

I can certainly appreciate the nostalgia for the old Third Reich rules, but you have to remember that SC/SC2 is a different game. 3R/A3R used seasonal turns, and for this it made some sense to charge BRPs for DOWs and offensives, and to eliminate out of supply units at the end of their turn (at the end of 3 months, that is). Besides, corps-sized units in 3R/A3R were either unaffected by combat results or totally eliminated, which was a very abstract binary system that failed to address step losses and incremental replacements.

I'll argue that the increased unit reinforcement costs for taking additional casualties during a multi-turn offensive in SC2 *IS* the cost of an offensive. Why have to pay something more, or worry about some sort of routine maintenance cost? And for units out of supply in SC2, their readiness will drop and they can be defeated quickly enough. Recall that 6th Army was cut off at Stalingrad in December of 1942 but held out until February 1943. Why should a similar encirclement in SC2 warrant a unit's immediate elimination at the end of a single turn, which could be only 2 weeks in summer?

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Actually I myself don't have much nostalgia for 3R:

in many ways it was clunky and unsatisfying. I'm

just bringing up the point that logistics shouldn't

be "free", however you model it. There was a reason

(well several) why the Germans didn't attack all

along the line in 1942. It's just a pet peeve of

mine when it comes to operational/strategic games;

they all seem to give the subject short shrift.

Go back in time and ask Manstein, Guderian et al.

whether they thought logistics were secondary in

importance.

But I can live with the indirect "repair" costs =

logistics costs. :cool:

[vveedd]

Good point on both themes. Time period is a big difference between SC/SC2 and 3R/A3R games. But problem with lonely units in the middle of nowhere still remain with existing supply rule. Maybe this rule needs more harshness?

[pzgndr]

I think SC's simple supply rules work pretty well, abstract as they are. Players need to capture cities and from there supply levels decrease with distance. Players can also buy more HQs and move them forward to provide better supply where needed. HQs provide an important logistics function too!

So while logistics may be "free" in most cases, it may not be all that great. Try invading Russia as Axis without ANY HQs and see how you do. Players do have a choice; buy more HQs and "pay" for the additional logistics costs, or suffer with reduced supply. That's an interesting choice this game allows players to make, yes?

Back to the editor question, I'd say you do have an opportunity to tweak supply effects by adjusting the numbers and locations of cities, as well as the number and cost of HQs. I've noticed this in my Tactics II mod where there aren't too many cities on the big board for either side and you really need HQs for logistics support. There ARE things you can experiment with.

[John C]

Let us assume that someone creates a full world map. Is it then safe to further assume that the editor will allow a new power (Japan) to be added and that this new power can either be controlled by the Axis player or that it could be controlled by a separate human player in a multi-player game?

[pzgndr]

Yes.