montrose Posted March 5, 2009 Share Posted March 5, 2009 Hello, I have a couple of questions-- 1) Is there no way to save a move in progress in a MP (PBEM) game? In other words, does the turn have to be completed in one sitting? 2) Does an HQ with a rating lower than 10 lower a unit's readiness? It would seem so as I read the formula. Thanks, The Dinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Cater Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Hi Montrose, 1) Unfortunately not for PBEM games as this is one of the methods we've long employed to help limit cheating 2) Not exactly. Any attached HQ will increase a unit's readiness versus not being attached but of course the increase will be higher if it is 10 and lower if less. Hope this helps, Hubert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montrose Posted March 7, 2009 Author Share Posted March 7, 2009 Unfortunately not for PBEM games as this is one of the methods we've long employed to help limit cheating Thanks, Hubert. It would be cool if the ability to save in PBEM could be a selectable option. A couple of reasons why-- 1) The guy I play with has been a gaming opponent for over 30 years and we have no trust issues between us. 2) I usually make my moves during my commute time on a train. As we get later into the game with more unit density and overall strategic considerations, I'm not sure I'd be able to complete a move in one sitting of my commute. 3) We were hoping to play with multiple players per side in the future where say the UK player would make his move, save and send to his teamate playing the US, and then to the Russian, etc. We used to play Clash of Steel that way and it was a lot of fun. Anyway, I don't know if it would be possible, but it would be nice. Thanks, The Dinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I agree, I think most of us using PBEM have no trust issues with our long time friends (my usual opponent and I have been playing together since the early 1980s). Generally I find a single turn in SC2 is quick enough to play out in a single sitting so it's not a problem for me. However one of my great disappointments of SC2 is not being able to play a *multi* player game. So although it would be a lot of work, I'd like to see each nation be able to be played individually by either a human or the AI. Example: I might play as Italy while my friend plays as USSR, thus potentially not having any direct conflict between our forces yet playing in the same game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montrose Posted March 8, 2009 Author Share Posted March 8, 2009 I agree, I think most of us using PBEM have no trust issues with our long time friends (my usual opponent and I have been playing together since the early 1980s). Generally I find a single turn in SC2 is quick enough to play out in a single sitting so it's not a problem for me. However one of my great disappointments of SC2 is not being able to play a *multi* player game. So although it would be a lot of work, I'd like to see each nation be able to be played individually by either a human or the AI. Example: I might play as Italy while my friend plays as USSR, thus potentially not having any direct conflict between our forces yet playing in the same game. My thoughts exactly on the multi-player, Mithel. It adds a new dimension to the game. The Dinger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John DiFool the 2nd Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 We can only hope that the upcoming "secret" SC2 expansion will introduce true multiplayer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I wouldn't expect it. This would be a major change of design. But we can certainly hope! As long as we are on the subject of wishful thinking... probably what I'd like to see is a far more extensive economic model, this would be more important than "multiplayer" and would be a foundation for making playing of smaller individual nations far more interesting. The simple and crude first step would be to make "oil" actually represent oil and a supply of it should be essential for operating armor and air units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arado234 Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Mithel imho the reason oil and other economics dont come into play more extensively is it would firhter complicate the game.It would be a good option thouigh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mithel Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Certainly yes, such enhancements for realism would "complicate" SC2, but SC2 is extremely simple currently and I'd really like to see "complications" like this which would greatly influence *strategy*. I believe in keeping with the simple design of SC2 this could be kept very crude and simple with a system such as: a cost of one oil point allows one armor or air unit to move and/or attack each turn (automatically expended when you move or attack with such a unit); when you run out of oil points for that turn then you can not move or attack with any further air or armor units. An enhancement could be to allow stockpiling of oil but that might be better left out of such a simple and easy game system. This would add some strategy and realism without adding hardly any complexity. (i.e. it would be pointless for the Axis to build large armor or air forces without having the oil resources to keep them running) This would get a lot more complex (and interesting) if stockpiling was managed, thus allowing a player to "save up" for offensives (but this would become a lot of work to correctly balance a scenario). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts