What we would like to see in Global SC.

[emf]

I would like to see, on the reports menu, a break-down of units by type, both for what you have and what you have eliminated. It would also be nice to show what units are yours and what units are your minors.

[emf]

I think it would be nice to have HQ's drop by parachutes, after all para units did have some sort of HQ with them and they were able to put into amphibious ships. Now I do realize they may not be a large as regular HQ's but that can be solved by limiting the strength of said unit to no higher than 5. We might also limit the number of units and the range of units attachable to the HQ, perhaps 2 or 3.

[Baron]

Great suggestion!

I'd love to have that information available

[emf]

I think that improvments in infrastructure should increase the industry modifier. Building better, more, and more efficient roads and railroads means you are able to move more materials faster. Each new level of infrastructure will give the industrial modifier an increase of 1% to a max of 5%.

[SeaMonkey]

Have to agree with emf on the double strikes for the anti-air, anti-tank, and artillery, as long as they have been entrenched 1 level, which represents them being sighted in, calibrated(in battery) and the proper supply level is achieved, greater than or equal to 5.

In fact I would be of the opinion that all units capable of double strikes be in possession of a supply level 5 or greater to produce that action. This represents a logistical support structure for them to perform at their utmost efficiency.

[Colin I]

Seamonkey - but its a strategic game. Surely tsight/prepare is more of a concept for tactical games? I assumed entrenchment is a bit more than that with quite some work by combat engineers

Very much agree on supply being needed for second strikes. I would certainly support double strikes by tactical aircraft and double intercepts by fighters to give parity with carriers.

[emf]

Colin I - imho, I concider anti-air, anti-tank, and artillery to be tactical, but for the purpose of this game they are organized in batteries and thus are operational in nature. I think that, for such units, entrenchment levels also could be concidered as organizational in function. So for a battery to entrench it might take as long as a week to get all the units dug-in and sighted, communications networks laid out, chain of command, etc... Long story short I kinda agree with Seamonkey with the need for at least entrenchment level 1.

[SeaMonkey]

I here you Colin, I agree, the concept of SC is strategic, but since we have these units why not make them function in their realm of the tactical and enhance the overall play of the game?

SC has come such a long way and I like to believe that it borrows from all levels of the wargaming genre with its foundation in the strategic scale. Warfare is so complicated and to try and create a simulation as well as a gaming platform is no easy task as I'm sure Hubert will attest to.

Its playtesting and adjusting, its innovation and improvisation, its trial and error and it seems it never is perfect....and we know it never will be, but we can make it better. So let us not limit ourselves with strict definitions, this is about our imaginations, let them roam.

Definition: Forum = roaming imaginations. Limitation = Moon;)

[SeaMonkey]

Now I'm assuming there is a veil of secrecy hovering over Global SC, but wouldn't it be nice to liven things up a bit here with some trivial news item?

We don't need as much as perhaps other game publishers' forums get, since we trust Hubert to get things right, but a tidbit here or there might give us a morsel to digest with some conversation.

Hubert / Battlefront, its OK if you have 5 chits in intelligence, but a little random news......duely laced with a plethora of ;)s surely would be a welcome to our continuing patronage. I ....don't even mind if its misleading. :confused:

??????????????????????????

[jon_j_rambo]

You can use the editor to adjust number of attacks, but not sure if it is based on supply.

Far as a World Campaign, we've got a good now......not many players, and certainly no smack.

[scottsmm]

SeaMonkey good luck with that, you’re probably going to get a "maybe" response from anyone that knows anything. Then again you could probably ask them if they were designing some galactic star wars strategy game, and you would probably get the same response. It all boils down to a business confidentiality agreement that they have.

[emf]

The leaders of countries, large and small, don't liked to be pushed around. Nor do they like to feel that they have been forced into a situation not of their choosing. When a major country tries to influance a minor who's to say that they must react neutrally or positively? Can they not also react negatively?

I suggesst that there should be a small chance (1% per chit, or higher in the editor) that a minor would move away from the country trying to influance it and towards the enemy parent.

[emf]

This could be done either as a researchable tech or as an event.

The event would be easier, as they would appear the turn after D-day. They should have no more than a supply level of 5 and perhaps, be able to supply no more than 3 units not including HQs, and no more than 3 tiles away.

The tech would allow them to move? from port to any non port, have a higher supply level, supply more units, and supply units further away.

[PowerGmbH]

i think the Political influence frame is supposed to be a little more controlled as in any case the Historic backgrounds of WW2 DoW is quite a small list:

Axis DoW on Denmark ? NO, it was a "protection" proposal against Allied occupation, same for Netherlands ( there they where not happy with Axis "Protection" ), Norway? NOGO, as Axis just came some days earlier than any British Invasion.

Indochina? Not a DoW as it was a "Trade" between Jap an Indochina Gouvernent....

if one reduces the DoW to the "REAL" ones, there are just a hand-full: Axis-DoW on USA, on Russia maybe the RO/HU/BG DoW's on RUS, and the Thailand DoW on Allies...

but REAL Political influence was a lot more tricky thyn just DoW's or Political chits...

[carverrt]

Hi EMF,

Negative influence upon minors...

In the activity scripts you can have a minor pull either war: toward the Allies of Axis.

So, maybe your suggestion would work if the activity scripts had a variable that would activate a relationship between the script and the Diplomacy module.

Mulberry harbor...

Not too sure about this. Maybe in a smaller scope, not global. Essentially HQ's enhances unit supply even if there is no port. So, HQ's have expeditionary port (Mulberry) capabilities.

Robert

[SeaMonkey]

I've been trying to figure a way to use the smaller units in a more realistic function for SC. Given the scale, many of you have professed an inclination that anti-air, anti-tank, artillery, and even perhaps special forces don't belong in this strategic environment.

Your opinion has been duely noted and rejected!

In lieu of having attachments, which I would prefer, I want to offer a new approach for the "small" units of SC. Think of it, what advantage do the "small" units have over the regular sized versions? IMO small units have a greater effectiveness, not staying power, or combat power, they simply display a greater cohesiveness than larger units.

They can react quicker and are not bogged down in the command chain. They don't use as many resources so they're not so dependent on logistics. So how do we model this?

I propose an effect similar to when a nation has been successful at subduing its enemies, the conquest bonus to "readiness" and "morale" that enhances its combat units in subsequent turns.

How will it work? Let's say that you attach the "smaller" units to the normal sized SC units, Armies, Corps, Tank Groups, by having them adjacent to that unit, a connecting tile. Think of a condition that exists when you have an HQ support certain units although in this case they must be adjacent to each other.

Now what does this remind you of? Could it be representative of "combined arms"? Of course it does and each unit that fulfills the adjacent requirement, including the parent, all get that bonus in morale and readiness. Perhaps the more you fulfill the combined arms concept with the adjacent smaller units, anti-air, a-tank, art., the greater the bonus.

Imagine the configuration...a Corps, Army, or TG, with an anti-air, anti-tank on the flanks and the artillery in the rear echelon creates the combined arms maximum bonus.

[SeaMonkey]

While I was doing an OpZ turn and using my carriers I was thinking about a modified movement and strike component for Global SC. This would be an alternative for the ability of units to save their remaining APs and come back later to use them in a movement or combat capacity.

Presently with a double strike Tank Group unit you can attack, move, and attack again, but what if with an upgrade in mobility tech you would enable a slightly different sequence? Remembering how the Fast Carrier Task Forces worked in the Pacific, lets say you moved first, in for the strike, made the attack(only one allowed) and then moved off again. If you decide to stay there and not move, then you get the additional attack. I think this represents how the CVs were used the majority of the time, they just didn't linger long.

Now take that concept and apply it to land units that get a >/= to 5 AP value, obviously they need mobility tech. In reference to my above post about combined arms, players will need a lot of firepower to break a "configured" defensive deployment and if we happen to be going back to hexes....well...you can see the problem of stagnation.

Not if you have the ability to move, attack, (player's choice) to move or attack again. Think how a mechanic like this represents the Blitzkrieg. You start out with two powerful units adjacent to the position you want to take, they attack and move off. Next group of highly motorized units swoop in, attack and move off. How many groups can you concentrate within the range to pull off the Blitz and move off?

You see this is a matter of concentration of forces that could present a very real major offensive build up with the dynamics of a breakthrough with this withering sequence of attacks. Sure, your opponent could unveil it with recon, and it can be inhibited with weather and terrain constraints, but under the right conditions......is there any defensive position that could hold..., I think not.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

A little wish for air units (CVs too)-a toggle for them to either bomb the unit, or the resource. Right now strat bombers hit the resource, and everything else the unit-since the SBs already have the highest ratings in the strat tech, unless I'm wrong I don't see any downside to this (unless Rambo or someone is able to severely "game" this to death somehow).

[SeaMonkey]

Good one John, but there should always be some collateral damage from either mission.

Another wish, especially for fighters and CAGs, is to differentiate between CAP and intercept. The "intercept" mission allows the fighter contingent to seek out enemy air to the max of its range, while "CAP" leaves the fighters to defend the tile/CV they are deployed in/on.

[emf]

@ SeaMonkey I like your ideas, but I think that with the groups of units, all units should be adjacent to a unit that is in contact with an enemy unit. And/or if they are farther away, then they should have a very high readiness, perhaps for every tile away from the enemy the necessary readiness should increase.

[arado234]

Emf,SeaMonkey those are great ideas but imho the SC series was built to be somewhat accurare historically but still quite easy and fun to play.If you start adding more possibilties(im for what you guys want)does itnot start to take away from that?

[emf]

@arado234: in a way yes, but perhaps the ideas could be used to create specific scenerios. Besides, speaking for myself, the ideas we are coming up with I'm sure we know that most will never see the light of day. They are just a starting point for discussion.

[SeaMonkey]

You are exactly right arado and acknowledging additional agreement to emf's above post. As I've said before, SC is an evolution of a game engine and as we patrons are the most likely buyers we are comfortable with moving along to a bit more complication, not a lot.

We know the mechanics, therefor we are able to handle more in depth features that may be a little tougher for new players to grasp. Never the less, the SC UI is so intuitive I don't believe new gamers will have too difficult of a time, many of whom crave the details of micro-management as it adds to reality(in their minds).

I'm not in agreement with them(grognards), but I also wish success for SC as that provides the incentive for Hubert to continue the saga. So in essence as emf so clearly indicates we want a flow of ideas for Hubert to contemplate, as well as the betas to hash out.

Most of the time I try to pattern my ideas with the reference to what I believe the AI can handle and those that don't require so many direct actions(mouse clicks) from the players. I believe the best ideas are the ones that only require a thoughful moment for a player to consider and the resulting game action that makes logical sense, quickly induced by a physical motion. I just hope the AI will be able to comply competently, not perfectly.

Now, it is my opinion that it is time, with the advent of Global SC, to move away from the historical chronology of WW2 and focus on the greater strategic "what ifs", that were viable for the technology, political ideology, and logistical dynamics for the era and the participants. PDE broke that ground, its time to put it on the global scale.

[Big Al]

be neat to see theres. I wish they would ask me for input. Ive played every WW2 game for the last 22 years and WW2 is a hobby of mine. Got a lot of great books. Also I got my mod so.

I love SC2. I dont think I ever liked a game so much.

Simple in design, easy to use, plays fast, the strategy tough. I LOVE IT.

And the editor and how you can change the game is fantastic. I tried so many combos of things. I even made kamakazis and the A-bomb in my game viable.

[SeaMonkey]

Big Al this is the recipe for input, this forum. There is no theirs, only ours.

I would love to play your mod, but I need it in SC PT format.

There can never be enough betas, solicit Hubert to become one. You've definitely paid your dues by doing a mod at the global scale, go for it!