Global Conflict Gold Expansion-Suggestions

[Sharkman]

I know that is is probably not possible to make such a big change to the game prior to it's release but I thought I would throw it out there anyway. My biggest problem with Global Conflict is that the air units get in the way of the ground units, they simply take up too much space. Would it not be possible to remove the air units completly from the main map, possibly giving each tile a separate airfield function accessible with the right mouse button, each tile being able to base 1 air unit, citys 2 or 3 and possibly allowing airfield construction which would raise the number of air units that can be based in a given tile, some tiles could even be given a starting airbase value of 0, like parts of the Soviet Union. A ground unit entering a tile containing enemy air units would damage and displace them to the nearest freindly airbase.

[soetekouwd]

Alternatively a bigger map, such as with the scale of SC WW1, might be an interesting option.

[SeaMonkey]

How about allowing naval units to build some experience? Presently, it is totally impossible to gain any experience with naval units during gameplay, without opening up the editor.

[carverrt]

Sharkman,

You wrote: "My biggest problem with Global Conflict is that the air units get in the way of the ground units, they simply take up too much space."

Yes! I found someone that shares my sentiment. My proposal is to go back to SC2 Blitzkrieg with the Global version and have just two types of air units; Tactical (Combine the fighters & tactical bombers) and Strategic (the bomber).

I go a little farther... combine the destroyers and cruiser and call then light fleets. Call Battleships heavy fleets.

I also think we can reduce the number of HQs by increasing the number of units a HQ can control and increase the range. Also, why have so many minor HQs for the Commonwealth. How about making them UK HQs...

[SeaMonkey]

What SC really needs is an accurate supply model, this is the #1 priority. Now I know that will involve a code rewrite and I'm not sure that Hubert can incorporate something that complicated into the expansion, so what we need is some good ideas.

So, everyone, put on your thinking caps and let's come up with some viable ideas to incorporate a supply network into the current engine, something that the AI and Hubert can cope with.

SC desparately needs an LoC system that works.

[pzgndr]

SC desparately needs an LoC system that works.

The traditional Zones of Control (ZOC) rules work pretty well in boardgames, where usually only armor and mechanized units exerted ZOCs that either stopped or slowed movement. The same concept could work well in SC, for both unit movements and tracing supply.

[SeaMonkey]

I've thought about that Bill and I agree, but then we have islands to deal with and the way SC allows negation of enemy ZoCs at the beginning of the player turn is kind of a problem on the small maps, not to mention the HQs as a logistical base.

Surrounding and cutting off a unit from supply shouldn't be easily accomplished and so the tile configuration of needing 8 units to finish the task works well IMO, but the presence of an HQ ruins this situation. Even strategic bombing can't get it done if the HQ occupies the urban/port tile as it recovers 1/10% per turn.

We need some kind of mechanism to negate the HQ logistics and "a last to pass through" tile feature that makes it necessary for the owning player to re-establish the LoC once enemy movements have turned over ownership of the tiles, especially at sea.

[SeaMonkey]

Now, in conjunction with the out of supply feature, we're going to need some visual help for the players to find their units that are currently under 5/50% supply. So how about on the strategic map(as well as the regular one), the units / urban /ports that are cutoff, <5/50% have their symbol / icon or the tile they occupy show a red tint?

[jon_j_rambo]

speaking of supply. Partisans could use some in their home area.

[Sharkman]

Carverrt,

Interesting idea with the HQs, reducing their number but increasing the number of units supported, anything that gives the other ground units more room is good with me. Although your air unit idea is probably easier to employ than mine, I would still prefer to completly remove the air units from the main map.

[Sharkman]

How about a reserves box in England, units in England can enter and exit the reserves box free of cost, this would enable the Allies to have more units in England than is now possible. It could even be taken a step farther and every major country having a reserves box, Probably not nessecary for the large countries, but Japan could definately benifit from it.

[SeaMonkey]

All you got to do Shark is keep some units in the build Q that are ready to deploy. It's pretty tough for the enemy to reduce all your urban areas to less than 5/50 to disallow deployment.

I always keep my reserves for every major in this configuration and I do it early so they're ready throughout the game, especially if invasion is imminent.

[Peter Palchinsky]

My proposal is to go back to SC2 Blitzkrieg with the Global version and have just two types of air units; Tactical (Combine the fighters & tactical bombers) and Strategic (the bomber). I go a little farther... combine the destroyers and cruiser and call them light fleets. Call Battleships heavy fleets...

Yes, Carverrt, I agree on both points. Air and naval "fleets" should be used in a "strategic" game; especially one covering the globe with little space to spare for individual countries. Such units would reduce clutter and the need to manage tactical air/naval engagements. A swing towards more strategic level play might alleviate debates over topics that are more germaine to the tactical realm while developing an environment more conducive for improving other strategic concepts like supply, command and control of units, and economic centers of gravity. Also, development of more DEs might foster grand strategic thinking in the community. How about a call for DEs that provide players strategic level decisions with second and third order affects instead of the traditional yes/no choice? Current DEs lose their luster after playing the games a few times. More robust DEs that multiply the possible benefits/costs yet focus on decisions at the political leader level would keep their luster.

PP

[carverrt]

Peter,

Yes, DEs with third and fourth order of effects sounds very interesting, complicated to set up, but interesting.

You made a solid point by proposing the creations of a an environment conducive to a strategic setting.

[Sharkman]

All you got to do Shark is keep some units in the build Q that are ready to deploy. It's pretty tough for the enemy to reduce all your urban areas to less than 5/50 to disallow deployment.

I always keep my reserves for every major in this configuration and I do it early so they're ready throughout the game, especially if invasion is imminent.

That's ok for everyone but England, I would like to get Americans into the British reserves area in order to reduce the clutter in England, Americans in their build Q doesn't help much, I have tried leaving British units in the build box, but with all the air units and the Americans in England it still gets all jammed up.

Of course removing the air units from the main map as I have suggested would do the trick as well but I doubt that is possible with the present game engine.

[SeaMonkey]

Yea, you're right about that Shark, the island nations are a bit cluttered at times. I had proposed awhile back to give units more customization through the use of tech upgrades / slots and of course I'm an advocate of the double strike air units therefor reducing the unit density on the map.

With the smaller world maps, unit density becomes a real problem and you lose the tactical flavor of maneuver.

[mathiasbw]

i want the air units ON the map and changes only possible for me in the "panzer general style", air units can be over the ground units (with one click the player can switch between the air and ground units). and PLEASE not fewer units/unit slots, i want even more!

the railguns are a MUST for scww2, i'm so happy that is included in the gold version, i'll hope i can use it with all majors, e.g. with japan: from china to india and deep into the soviet union :-)

a great change would be, if the player can add new units and majors/minors with the editor, but the nations are in gold also limited to 65? and the unit slot limit is...? i have all areas activated (bolivia, afghanistan, saudi-arabia, cuba etc.). in gold i must do the same??

why are nuclear or chemical wpns so a problem for the most people here? i think, the player should self decide to use wmd or not...

[Sharkman]

I don't want to hide the air units, there should obviously be some kind of simbol to show that there are air units present in the tile. I don't think they should interfere with ground movement and combat though, not on this scale, if ground units enter a tile with enemy air units, they should be damaged and displaced to the next freindly air base. It's rarely in the intrest of the owning player for the aircraft to stay and fight, and anyone who tries to hold somthing with an air unit is being desperate and unrealistic, the AI used to do this a lot but that has changed with the patches.

I really see no need for more units on this scale, and as I understand there will be additional units, Garrisons and rail guns.