What we would like to see in Global SC.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

It might be an interesting idea to have the ability to create convoys during the game. If Germany puts DPs into Venezeula, at some % activation, a convoy would be created to ship oil to Germany. The Axis player should be able to direct the path of that convoy. This could be expanded to allow all players to move the paths of convoys during the game. Of course this would mean that the other side would not be able to see the path.

Until they scouted it out with a sub or other naval (or perhaps air) unit.

[Baron]

The changes I want to see are the same I've been asking for since SC2 came out.

1) air and naval forces can not destroy the last factor of a ground unit

2) direct invasion - a unit can land directly on top of another unit - combat would result and this is when the last factor of a gound unit is destroyed. The victorious attacking unit then can move inland into the tile. This is what Marine units do.

3) surface units have a chance of intercepting convoys - they wouldn't necesarily do as much damage as a sub does but it would give the "feel" of the Bismark loose in the Atlantic

[emf]

Intelligence could be expanded to show diplomatic moves and convoy routes, or a single convoy tile. Could also show what the enemy is building or how many mpps they have.

[SeaMonkey]

OK, expanding on the post over in the Nupremal World Campaign thread, we need some movement changes.

My 2 cents is nonmotorized units should be able to move 1 tile no matter what the conditions/terrain.

It doesn't seem unrealistic that a "foot" unit could travel 50 miles in a week, two weeks, a month. Would be a good reason to always keep some units around without the mobility enhancement.

It feels right!

[Colin I]

Agreed - I always thought mechanization should be cheaper but more vulnerable to poor supply so in bad terrain without good logistics its worse than foot. This adds a bit of subtlety and realism at no real cost in complexity.

Actually, I suppose you should actually charge 1 or 2 mpp each turn a mech (or naval?) unit moves. This way only the Allies would mechanize everything whilst Axis would be more selective. Indirectly, this is an oil based rule.

[Colin I]

Whilst we are at charging MPP:

Paradrops should cost as least as much (in MPP) as Amphibious assault. This particularly prevents the abuse where you use paradrops into clear friendly terrain just to move faster/cheaper. Arnhem was a huge logistics operation but SC portrays it as cheaper than sea transport from the UK (if riskier).

Abolish the engineer - the entire engineering capacity of the USSR would not be in one location. Instead pay to upgrade or fortify (or create other infrastructure). Make it a non-linear scale to avoid abuse - upgrade 2 locations at once, base cost (1 location for minor powers) but add penalties for working with more locations simultaneously. If upgrading locations become enemy held tile lose MPP and abort construction.

I think if we did this and increase MPP for oil tiles more we do not need an oil system.

[SeaMonkey]

Excellent Colin, and it reminds me, instead of abolishing the engineer unit, allow it to upgrade tiles as far as efficiency/supply purposes.

Engineers should be able to construct roads and extend rail heads and while we're at it this feature of airfields in every tile, other than water, needs to have an engineer adjacent for viable air unit basing at least for rough, mountainous or terrain costing more than 1 AP.

Finally, the amphibious assault from a sea tile. A lot of room here for innovative ideas, but I believe this is an operation conducted only by smaller SC units, special forces and corps only, with the appropriate upgrade = training and equipment.

[emf]

I would like to see the engineers kept, but expanded, simular to what SeaMonkey has said. I think they should have two modes: construction and combat. In construction mode you may build roads, railroads, fortifications, fortress and ports(?), airbases(?). In combat mode they would negate the entrenchment value of a unit or the fortification value of a tile, for the engineer unit and maybe, for every ground unit which attacks that same tile during the turn.

Each tile would cost ?mpp's too build a road or railroad depending upon the terrain.

We could have this value modified by infrastructure research.

If we allow engineers too build ports they should be different than the ports which start the game. I feel that the ports which start the game should be given a mpp value of 1 due to its economic value and they could be concidered a town, and any newly constructed ports should not be given any mpp value.

[SeaMonkey]

Here's one that would be very consequential, almost forgot.

Allow the deselecting of a ground unit, saving its APs, and then reselecting later to use the remaining action points.

This feature will be in WI's, "Time of Wrath".

[jon_j_rambo]

More types of units in general would be cool.

Finnish ski troops

American Marines

Russian fanatics

German SS

Gliders

Multiple types of engineers

More types of planes

Trucks, trains, and more types of transports

Game stuff

Different types of victory condition calculations. Example: How about a live score!

[Colin I]

Rambo,

Think I would actually like to see fewer land unit types (lose the antitank, artillery and antiaircraft and maybe engineer and special forces) on the grounds of elegance and simplicity - and that you do not get strategic formations that specialized.

Then allow units to have a special upgrade slots that lets them add back an ability. Units can have a special forces upgrade, or an AA or artillery or engineering capability added. More than 1 special upgrade slot should be very, very expensive or we create monstrous super units.

We also need a few new technologies (low cost, maybe 50 MPP per level). Particularly Jungle Warfare and Winter Warfare and maybe mountain Warfare. This would allow an upgrade (maybe as part of the above system) for Finnish winter troops or Chindits - reduce move, supply and combat penalties in appropriate terrain or conditions. A winter warfare would let a German player choose to prepare better for the Russian winter (or the Russians who were vulnerable here too).

We could also allow Amphibious assault as an upgrade to allow attacking an enemy held tile and reduce landing penalties.

So I see a unit as being: Soviet Artillery Army: Army. Strength 10. Upgrade IW 1, AT 1, Motorization 1, Special Upgrade Slot Artillery 2. Or US Marine: Corps with Strength 11, IW 1, AT 1, Motorization 0, Special Upgrade: Amphibious Assault 3, Special forces (or Jungle warfare?) 1. Japanese Corps (Early War): IW 1, AT 0, Motorization 0, Special Upgrade: Jungle Warfare 1.

You get the idea......

Taken to its ultimate you need 4 unit types - Land, Sea, Air and Logistics (think HQ should stay separate but maybe not).

Do not think we need a specific system for elite troops - protect them, let them gain experience and pump resources/upgrades their way works.

[jon_j_rambo]

There's not that many special forces. Germans get 2 Paratroops, 2 artillery, 2 Engineers. In Vypuero's World Campaign, the AT pieces are used as garrisons.

[xwormwood]

Not that i want to stop a debate, but (unfortunatly, and i might add: as usualy) there is no input or comment from the developers side.

One year back, there was a StratCom design challenge. As far as i can tell, all those suggestions made there have been more or less without any coment (i don't count "thank you" and "great ideas" as relevant comments) been buried.

Right now (as far as i can tell) there has been nothing substantial been added from the developers- like "IF" they plan to do an official global game at all.

And no comment on what can't be programmed, even though heartfully wanted by them. And no comment as well on what can be programmed, but is not wanted by the developers. No comment on what is very likely one of the first improvements or additions in a future game. Instead: all quiet on the development front.

I salute those who have still enough enthusiasm to discuss (even though they overlook that many suggestions are by now pretty nearly as old as SC1, and where still never introduced, discussed or denied by the developers).

In my eyes it would be a very, very healthy descision if the developers would start to declare their goals with this game series, their ideas of an ideal game. And to show the audience their gaming roots, their inspirations, and to comments on these game and the game mechanics they decided NOT to use n SC / SC2 (because of ...).

But what i know exactly, what often was explained, is their opion about forum discipline.

Ok, the last sentence was a bitter one, and probably very unjustice as well.

So sorry for that. But i think the reader will get my point.

And sorry for shooting against the developer. But on the other hand:

would it be truly so hard to comunicate or debate a bit more with the customers about everything concerning the game of SC?

With this question i have said my piece, thanks for reading it, and may it do its part to bring some life back into everything concerning SC2.

[jon_j_rambo]

Well, the original Pacific Operation Z game was not competitive. There was no play testing. It took me one game to say,"I will never lose as the Yanks". Obviously, everybody wanted to sit out on the "Outer Islands", while I sail for the cheese.

Lets get down to the bottom line. Vypuero & myself have been playing thru several of his world campaign re-versions. Without proper legend testing, exploits will be left. There's been so many updates because of strategy considered "gamey", that things are a work in progress. It's a hard thing to get a balanced scenario mixed with fun playability within some reasonable historic framework.

@Colin --- Your proposed system seems like you tailor make the units. I'm just looking for more types of units.

WHAT REALLY NEEDS DONE FOR A GLOBAL GAME? Answer: A complete flexible overhaul of victory conditions. No two games are alike. I'd like to see a "current score". Right now it's like a boxing match. Unless you get a knockout, you have no idea who really won. A point system, some flexibility would be nice.

Would also like to add some "Hidden random" events at the beginning of the game. Remember in 3R, drawing a chit at the beginning of the game? Something like that would be cool. Mix it up a little.

[emf]

Colin I gave me an idea. HQ's whose mode could be set for land, air, or sea. Each HQ would have a bonus depending upon the individuals strengths. For example Rommel would have a bonus if set for land, and Nimitz would have a bonus if set for sea. I'm not too sure how the naval portion would work, perhaps all naval HQ's would have to be adjacent to a port. This idea could be further enhanced by giving each HQ a bonus for a specific style of warfare. For example if an HQ is good on defense then all units attached to it get a defense bonus. An HQ which is a submarine warfare specialist would give bonuses too all submarines in attack, defense, search, etc...

[SeaMonkey]

Another good idea, emf. You know I kind of like the specialization uniqueness of HQ, but I'd like to think of them as an offensive or defensive bonus on the order you have suggested, much like using an "offensive chit" in WiF to give the player initiative.

Have you ever noticed that in some SC turns, it seems that all the randomizers(die rolls) go against you or for your attacks, the majority anyhow. Sometimes, doesn't matter what kind of odds you think you have, how much of an advantage, you just don't get the rolls, right? Sometimes I see the writing on the wall and I suspend any remaining attacks as not likely to be advantageous. Am I just imagining this?

If not, think about that kind of luck, not being so randomized, sure there's always the chance things go against you, but what if you could help yourself assure that they wouldn't, that little advantage.

You bring the right force mix, the right commanders' emphasis in the form of their HQs(staff), the commitment of supplies and resources and you get those odds to your side....of course always subject to FoW and your enemies force profile(the ever present "wrench" ready to be thrown into the gears).

Think of it, your opponent gets his turn, but he knows, you know, you have the initiative and most of his attacks will be concluded obtusively, better for him to surrender the battlefield.

[emf]

Ya know SeaMonkey thats very true. Sometimes the gods of war are against you.

So here's another idea, since there's no stacking and we attack with one unit at a time I suggest that for every friendly unit which is adjacent to a tile being attacked each unit attacking that tile should get a bonus to their moral and/or a detriment to the enemy being attacked. This bonus or detriment could be lessened or negated by how many units the enemy also has adjacent to the hex. You could also say that the type of unit might increase or decrease the bonus or detriment. The adjacent units would not have to attack.

For example: Germany has 1 army attacking 1 USSR army. Germany has 1 armor unit adjacent to the USSR army. The German army would get a 10% bonus to their moral and the USSR army would get 10% detriment to its moral. If USSR also had a armor unit then the bonus and detriment would be negated.

Armor +/-10%; Army +/-5%; Core +/-2%; HQ +/-1%

OR

Every additional unit which attacks the same tile gets a ?% increase in their moral. Maybe 5% for the first additional unit, 10% for second unit, 15% for the third, etc...

[jon_j_rambo]

@EMF --- I'm with you do. Naval Leaders was proposed way back in SC-1. I want them per specific ship.

Would be nice to bring up a serious thread of "what we want", if battlefront is willing.

[emf]

Hey Rambo, yeah I remember all those conversations. It would be great to have Naval Leaders and Air Leaders. I just figured it might be easier to code the current HQs with different modes than it would be to create new units.

[emf]

So I was playing PDE today as Germany and I'm about to enter France during the second turn of the western invasion. It is the first week of May and I have clear skies. On the next turn I get rain, yuck! If I had know it was going to rain I might have postponed the offensive. Then it hit me. Why can't our wonderful intelligence office PREDICT the weather?

Start out with a base of 25% accuracy for the next turn, increase by 1% for every level of intelligence, decrease by 5% for every consecutive week of prediction.

Pop-up would say "Our weather forecasters say that over the skies of France we are probably going too have clear weather next week and we might have storms the following week."

This might be a good feature to add as a game menu button perhaps under Reports. Press the Weather button and get predictions for all weather zones.

[SeaMonkey]

I kind of was thinking that perhaps the SC operational/tactical level could evolve into a campaign type system. You know like PG had with a core group of units that continue down variable branching scenarios(depending on the outcome) culminating with the war being won at the end.

You could have naval-air oriented core groups, land groups, you know the scheme. Don't know whether Eiffel could handle it, but it would be new trend for Hubert and company to continue down. I mean the AI has gotten pretty damn good.

It worked before!

[janu03]

If simple tasks like emailing or chatting with your friends and family have ... We're sure it'll work for you. Read hundreds of glowing reviews & see how Stay ... inKline Global's Stay Connected will solve your connection problems." ... "Although Stay Connected! would be useful for anyone who needs to keep their .

[SeaMonkey]

Alright I have a little problem! This is something that is a consequence of SC not having the ability to stack units. Now it can be remedied, but it will take the "communication" layer to do it. Someone offer me an alternative.

Here's the deal. With the island scenario that PTO has brought to light, I find concentrating my air assets is a bit disingenous. Even though I have an HQ in proximity, having 8 supply, because the terrain has an AP cost greater than 1, usually two or three, my air assets suffer accordingly, less supply = less efficiency and morale. Subsequently they are not that effective on the attack and essentially it limits by build up for future plans.

My persceptive is that with a continuous communication connection these island bases should eventually, over a few turns, reach a supply level of 8, allowing the HQ supply depot to have a 10 supply. This will impart a greater supply/efficiency level to my massed air units that I choose to deploy in proximity(remember NO stacking) of that HQ representing the commitment of resources for offensive/defensive operations and not suffering the decrease of AP penalties that nonstacking affords.

To expand on this a little more, the ground units I accumulate at a given base for projection of amphibious operations will also benefit from the increased supply. Isn't this a bit more realistic than the current model?

I mean, now the islands are of increased importance( I know I've said this before) as a staging area for the next invasion. Think about it, isn't this the way it was?

[SeaMonkey]

Gathering my thoughts here......Bombers...tech, LR and heavy bombers, but come on .....think...these are large aircraft. There were many large type airframes in WW2 not necessarily designated as strategic bombers or having that strategic mission exclusively. Many were multi-role, recon, tactical ground attack, interdiction as well as the SC designed feature of strategic attack.

Long story ....short...I would like to see the NW tech extended to "Bombers". This allows a more customized mission design of what a player wants his bombers to fulfill. Early in the war this was obviously not their intended concept, but they adapted, and by the end, they were effective.

So if we have the NW tech applied, bombers should start out with 0 as a naval attack combat target value, but as we allow up to 3 levels, by the third we should have NA = 3. Now we do have the issue of the twin strike program. I'm of the consensus that all aircraft types should have double strike due to their agility in reference to all other SC units, perhaps excepting CVs because of the size of CAGs in comparison to other SC air units.

I think this is worth an initial effort to be revisited after play of the Global version has been extended for at least a quarter, 3 months.

Remember there is a "give and take" designed into SC, defined in the CTV, as well as the limiting build numbers so that double strikes can be effectively curtailed if necessary. What I want to see is players making the decisions to operate and commit their air assets to certain locals/theaters, not everywhere!

[emf]

If we allow all air units a multiple strike then we should allow anti-air that ability as well. I also feel that multiple strikes be allowed for defense as well as attack. I can give artillery a multiple strike on the attack but why not on defense? We should be given the choice (via the editor) of multi-strike attack or defense for anti-air, artillery, and anti-tank.