Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Another movement suggestion. It would be nice if ships could make some kind of an operational movement accross controlled sea areas. For example if no enemy ships are present US ships could move from the west coast to Australia in one move, or from the east coast to England. I'm certainly no historical expert as to how long it took for ships to go from A to B but it seems a bit slow as it is now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 205
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bored waiting for an Ikea delivery so I thought I'd throw some thoughts into the mix.

Features that I'd like to see in updates/redesigns (some of which have already been suggested by others):-

Research:

1. Separate research for each major power. However, add a research chit option for Research Collaboration which would increase the likelihood of a hit in areas where your allies are more advanced.

2. Allow research for Intelligence (spying) to achieve hits in areas where your opponents are more advanced.

3. Allow research for Counter Intelligence to stop opponents achieve hits in areas where you are more advanced.

4. Introduce research for Naval Radar and Sonar to improve spotting.

5. Introduce nuclear research but also with the proviso that certain resource tiles would have to be held. For example a heavy water tile in, say, Norway.

Decision events:

1. More random and strategic decision events. My view is that these enrich the game and if they weren't there we might as well play chess.

Naval warfare:

1. Split each sea and port tile (as is now) into 4 i.e. for every land tile the equivalent at sea would be 4 tiles. This would open up a multitude of interesting ways to handle naval warfare and the interaction between land/air and sea units.

2. More realistic convoys where they have to travel across water and be found by subs/raiders.

3. Allow naval units to 'drop out' of a movement and take action if an enemy unit is spotted by radar and/or sonar.

Air warfare:

1. Paratroopers should be able to be intercepted and shot down.

Misc:

1. More realistic strategic redeployment as has been stated before.

2. The swap function for units as discussed before.

3. Allow Engineers to build roads and railway lines for improved infrastructure.

4. Allow Engineers to attack fortifications with a bonus e.g. fortification level halved.

5. If nuclear weapons have been achieved, allow for the purchase of nuclear bombers. (say one hit wonders).

6. Give Minors units higher tech later in the game, if attacked, on the assumption that their research has not stood still. Also, more units, there should be a difference in attacking, say Sweden, early in the game vs later.

That's enough now as Ikea has turned up. :-) Key is to strike a balance between playability and more realism. However, if players can turn the features on and off themselves that's sorted. ;-)

All the best,

Marcus

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the air units are too effective against ground units, I don't think air units should be able to completly wipe out ground units, disorganize, lower morale, un-entrench and damage, but not eliminate. Do the air attack and air defense values of ground units change at all throughout the game? As far as I can tell they don't.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gronq:

On sharing technology:

Really you need to first overhaul diplomacy system so you can influence a non-cooperating ally to be cooperative and from that to a very close alliance where you share tech. This would be quite hard to doing programming/game terms I think, but an excellent step. So US could influence Soviets to cooperate more etc.

On air warfare: Paratroopers should be able to be intercepted and shot down.

YES....! You should not be able to do a paradrop in the face of enemy air. Paradrops should be intercepted and escorted like a bomber would be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shark, don't forget in the new WW2 model, anti-aircraft is now an upgrade slot, along with HW and of course the old motorization enhancement.

This should change the ground unit vs air unit dynamics. It's things like this, the more depth that SC evolves into, that likely is causing a delay with the new WW2 campaign, but it will be worth it.

Everyone needs to remember that if you value a challenging AI, then you'll need to be very careful about what complications you suggest for SC incorporation as the CPU opponent does not possess deductive reasoning skills.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, since I started playing e-mail games my intrest in playing against the AI lasts about 1 turn, then I turn it off and wait for the next e-mail. I'm not saying I play well against the AI because I don't, I just don't have any motivation anymore. As far as I'm concerned the game could be developed without an AI. Or there could be 2 versions one with and one without an AI, I would think the one without an AI would be easier to develop and test.:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

There has been many comments about the research system. Fact is, that in a lot of games i have experienced very fast, almost game-breaking progress in certain sectors, and no progress in others. It just doesnt feel right when Germany plays with less good tanks than everyone else, and it also doesnt feel right with sub level 5 in 1940...

Certainly, the system with chance still adds to the game and is good to keep. What i would like to see though, is a guaranteed progress... You could for instance have a guaranteed progress of 5-10 % (dependent on how much real time a turn represents) by chit invested in a certain technology and an added element of luck which might be as much as 20 %. Such a system might produce more realistic results without being deterministic in its outcome. Of course you could still have the option to keep the current system in the preferences when you start a game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my games Britan seems to allways fall way behind the other countries' technologies, and the USA has almost everything by mid 1943, and I even played a game where the Soviets never got motorized which was quite frustrating (big modern slow tanks). It's not a bad system but it could use some adjustments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Hubert, I'm wondering if it would be possible to incorporate a new ZoC rule? Since armies are the largest formation on the map and they do reflect the infantry characteristic of "holding ground", what if they could negate a smaller enemy unit's ZoC when in conflict for possession of the same tile(unoccupied)?

Now, it would be much easier to cut-off enemy units or force the other side to bring additional reinforcements(two enemy units exerting possession of the same tile would cancel the friendly army's), returning to the present scheme.

In addition to a new supply model, this added feature would bring additional strategic and tactical depth(think in conjunction with paradrops) without being to laborious on the AI or the player and provide more significance to retreats.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now come on Big Al, you know what I'm talking about, in the turn sequence where the tiles change possession. If the sequencing player doesn't have enough units to force the repossession of a tile from an enemy army, the ZoC is blocked for Command & Control(supply) computations and the unit is considered surrounded.

Now we'll have a purpose to institute an air supply mission from our bomber groups, something that was done frequently in WW2, even at this scale, an added dimension to SC realism.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, right, tell that to the "Battling Bastards of Bastogne".;) No, really, air supply as a last resort to extend the life of a formation that is surrounded is what I'm proposing, with a chance for rescue from outside forces. Still there needs to be that slow deteriation of supply with the combat consequences for a unit(s) that are without a traceable path to a supply source(in the home country), other than an HQ and a cut off port/city.

I wonder how long the Sixth Army could have survived in Stalingrad without the Luftwaffe's constant resupply efforts as compared to when the final surrender came in Feb.43, maybe one or two SC turns?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans can survive a lot longer on just water than you think.

One can survive about 3-4 weeks on water only with minimal food. Your body starts cannibalizing itself. There comes a point where it hits the “no return” zone and the process can’t be stopped.

It also depends on the person. Im sure a japanese soldier could survive longer than any other. They ate less already.

All Im saying is that 100% resupply via air wasnt accomplished. Bastogne they were still hungry and it was only an 8 day seige. You can survive 8 days without food.

Here is another example. The average Jap soldier had 2 pounds of supplies a day, the average american 200 pounds. So a Jap division of 20k fully reinforced men would get 40k pounds a day. Now think about a fattened USA division, 4 million pounds a day. This is to keep them fully supplied.

Its a game airlift power, great idea IMO. There can be a modifier to show how effective it is in the editor so people can adjust at their pleasure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...