If I would make a Mod or change the game.

[jon_j_rambo]

I don't do editors, nor do they interest me, because I prefer to play, not design. Nor do I enjoy reading manuals, combat charts, or anything else. I'm a dive in, learn, think up strategies & smack kind of player.

BUT, if I would make a Mod, here's what I'd do:

1) First, this rebuild deads units at half price needs to go, this is really stupid. When push comes to shove, that's all you do with your units in the Russia front. Just slam them around because they'll be brought back to life like Resurrection Day. There's no real consideration for the survival of original units. This is where SC-2 really failed. When HQ's and their leader die, they should never been able to return.

2) Units that are Out of Supply for consecutive turns should take damage or really drop off the map as any type of fighting force.

3) Put in MANY units to the production queue. And reduce the allowable builds.

4) Give partisans some damn supply. Good grief, how'd they form in the first place if they are always supply-0 the second turn they are in the map in their home country.

5) Allow fighters to intercept two times per combat turn. And reduct their attack value on grounds units.

6) Get rid (reduce) the paratroops landing damage. Good grief, you can lose 40% of your men just hitting the ground, a little high.

7) Make airfields.

8) Add beaches for terrain.

9) Expand the Oceans, more types of ships, including supply ships.

10) Gives ships an intercept zone of control. Would get rid of the awkwardness of defense & turn-based gamey stuff.

[Fancykiller65]

There should be a little damage for the paratroopers, Ex.The Battle of Crete

Number 2 is bad beacuse well that mean any forces without would die and well, they still there, just starving, the allowable builds are to, i think are part of the country's production abilty.But everything else you said, seems right.

[jon_j_rambo]

Partisans really need redone. Their supply/movement/etc. Maybe even give them "silent" or some type of "hidden" status like subs.

[SeaMonkey]

Rambo, that is a great idea for partisans!

Your #10 is interesting, would it be like a fighter intercepting to its range, except from a port since its a naval unit?

I would think that if you try and land airborne units in anything other than clear terrain and next to tripleA units you would suffer high casualties, >30%. Remember the strength loss is also a function of the unit's continuity and jumps are notorious for getting strung out, especially near imminent confrontation.

[jon_j_rambo]

Not sure how "to do" naval interception, but something doesn't feel right about the whole ship combat currently. You could make "Interception range & rules" based on a slew of factors. Supply, Ports, Sight (by either the ship group in question or other ships/planes). Could require ships technology for this feature, or could be increased by tech for range.

Maybe you could decide a sector for ships to intercept, and give ships settings.

a) No intercept (like now).

radius-1 intercepts (currently, before detected there is surprise contact, but afterwards you could intercept).

c) radius > 1 (based on design/rules/tech)

d) special intercept (you could designate something custom)

Something needs done to naval. Right now it's just a big pile of turds slamming into stuff on the high seas. Spotting & surprise combat is weird. You try to sacrifice a couple units to spot the enemy, slam in your units, then block with subs or something.

Back to partisans & other ground combat. Would be cool if you could set "modes" on ground. Partisans would always try to run away if the enemy was the attacker. Kind of like the old Victory Game's Civil War game for armies. A die is rolled, if successful, the unit would retreat to avoid combat.

Modes:

a) Stand & die (like now)

Skirmish line (soft defense, fallback if possible)

c) Retreat upon any contact.

Of course die roll would determine if possible.

Far as your paratroops flying into AA, I agree. You could make an argument that fighters could intercept.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

And a long-standing wish, no reinforcements/repairs through ZOCs. No, you can't build/rebuild units with enemy tanks on either side of your little highway to hell.

[arado234]

Rambo I like your ideas but if H.Q.s die for good then they HAVE to be able to be motorised like everyone else.

Yes airfields are a GREAT idea.

[jon_j_rambo]

Well, you can build HQ's, but not the same dude who just died at half the price!

[SeaMonkey]

I'm with Rambo on this one. In reality, commanders die, but in SC, HQs also represent logistical management, supply depots.

I would think, for balance sake, you would need to build a new HQ at the present rate, no resurrections. Since a country's commander pool would be unlimited, I would say that once the starting build Q of HQs have been used up, a generic, low value HQ(2) should be available at a reduced price.

More a representation of the logistical role than a competent commander as those good generals have been used up and their subordinates have assumed those positions.

Kind of would be an added feature if we could name that HQ also.

[Nupremal]

some of those are able to be changed by editing - many in fact - just don't necessarily agree with you

[xwormwood]

deleted / double posting

[xwormwood]

There should be a little damage for the paratroopers, Ex.The Battle of Crete

Number 2 is bad beacuse well that mean any forces without would die and well, they still there, just starving, the allowable builds are to, i think are part of the country's production abilty.But everything else you said, seems right.

Sorry, but losses on Crete were a direct result of heavy fights, not of the mere landing process.

There is only one reason why these high losses occur in SC2: because the Programmer weren't able or weren't willing to programm a way which would allow a unit to invade an occupied hex / tile. During such an invasion would óccur massive or high losses. Without hard fights there should be a readiness losses, and that should be all (as long as you don't jump into cities, fortifications, woods or jump in stormy weather conditions).

SO why don't we get a feature which the grandfather of SC / SC2, Clash of Steel, already did offer 15 years ago?

Unfortunatly Hubert neve explained why he did or did not offer / programmed a feature, such as per example retreats, mutliple attacks, no invasions of occupoed tiles, no phased movement, no mullberry, etc.

All quiet on the programming front.

[arado234]

As far as motorising H.Q.s go when the enemy is coming the Commander isnt just going to sit around they usually are gone long before the enemy arrives and they always have transport either with the retreating troops or their own.If you cant replace the H.Q. then they have to be able to get away just as fast as everyone else like they would in reality.

The H.Q.icon represents more than just the commander.Its also a supply depot plus it would represent the staff needed to run the logistics of a H.Q.So just because the H.Q.is wiped out it wouldnt always mean the whole command structure was destroyed.Look what happened when Rommels car was shot up.He survived it and was ready to take another Command but we all know what happened.

Rambos idea about having a random die roll in certian situations is a great one and would work well in that if an H.Q.is attacked and destroyed(depending on if its surrounded or not)then there should be a random die roll to see if the actual Commander escapes.

[jon_j_rambo]

@arado234 --- I understand your point, which makes my point. We all know HQs represent a big mob of supply crap, communications, support staff, etc. The destruction of such is really hard to replace. That goes for any unit. When SC-2 came out, I disliked the rebuilds for half the cost.....whether it be HQ, tank, army, corp, whatever. There should be more of a penalty for getting wiped off the face of the Earth. Maybe my thought is more about "experience" for units. When the Germans lost their Army in Stalingrad, they couldn't just print more money & buy the same army back for half the cost. In the US Civil War, the South would always keep intact the same units, and replace with green troops as they died off. Vets would train/lead new troops. The North would create complete new units.

I'm really not making myself clear. The SC-2 model is just off a little bit. The feel isn't there. Maybe it's the squares? Combat whether on land or sea is just like a big cluster_f. Slam units into each other, buy them back. I guess that's war.

What's the next game to play?

-Legend

[CSS]

Having spent 8 years in the 12th Group special forces. I wish to rebut some of Rambos concepts. I was Airborne every time we did a jump there were injuries. A night jump tripled those injuries easily.

Rebuiding dead units at half price is completely correct. Seldom do entire units die especialy at the corp/amry level. They are reffited and rebuilt. Sections, squads, platoon, even companies can be wiped out but larger units such as battalions, regiments , divisions on up dont just disappear.

Most other items I agree to semi agree with Rambo is a great guy and a legend on these boards.

[xwormwood]

Having spent 8 years in the 12th Group special forces. I wish to rebut some of Rambos concepts. I was Airborne every time we did a jump there were injuries. A night jump tripled those injuries easily.

.

How many men of your unit died from jumps and how many men suffered major injuries like broken legs, broken ankles, broken bacs?

About 10 - 40 percent per jump died?

About 10 - 40 percent suffered heavy injuries?

Were the injured able to defend themself if nescessary?

Was your unit able to jump into enemy positions?

[jon_j_rambo]

Oh, I don't dispute jump damage. Swamps, injuries or even death at night, hit a tree, or get stuck in a bell tower like in the movie "Longest Day".

We could also say,"this is a strategic game", so when you lose 40% of your fighting force, this doesn't necessarily mean the troops died, just their effectiveness due to injury, equipment loss, or screwed up organization for the fighting force.

[SeaMonkey]

I don't want to get into a big argument about airborne losses as I've stated my position based upon WW2 facts, paratroop losses(effectiveness), the majority of the time are high.

But in retrospect there is something that maybe we have failed to consider and that is the confusion aspect the enemy is exposed to from an airborne operation.

How about any enemy units in proximity to an air drop be subjected to a significant loss of readiness and morale?

[jon_j_rambo]

Yep, there's another good point. The Buntas were rather confused on Allied drops.

Paratroops are great units for the game!

[Nupremal]

hell what about the fact that your paras get to land EVEN IF the opponent has air superiority!!! They should be damaged based on enemy fighters present and it should be suicide if you dont have air superiority

[emf]

I believe the ability to re-build eliminated units should be tied to the units ability to trace a supply line at the start of its turn. A unit which starts the turn without being able to trace a supply line, i.e. surrounded or behind enemy lines, then it should NOT be possible to rebuild that unit.

[SeaMonkey]

Actually emf that is kind of the way it works. If a unit is below supply 5 level then it does not reconstitute at the reduced rate if it is rendered "combat ineffective"(eliminated).

[emf]

Thanks SeaMonkey, didn't realize that.

[Big Al]

Naval is hard to do BTW. Intercept counter intercept, now you gotta change hexes to sea zones. If I do this, he does that, wait you got too many ships I dont wanna intercept.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

The intercept "problem" can be reduced if turns come more frequently, reducing ship movement rates, allowing you to "intercept" on your turn (as the enemy ships in question haven't vanished over the horizon).