|
Hairog -> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 (12/14/2013 7:20:16 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: JameyCribbs
quote:
ORIGINAL: birde
I agree with adjacent units contributing to the defense. I'd like to see AT units help in the defense of armor attacks just like the artillery units do now.
For aesthetic purposes can we get SU-122's and SU-152's for Soviet AT units?
If you are talking about having something like an AT unit attached to an existing army or corps counter and thus providing an anti-armor bonus, I'm all for that.
But, if you are talking about having a separate counter on the map that is an AT unit or an artillery unit or an engineer, please don't do this!!!
At the scale involved, i.e. units equal armies or corps, having separate units that are more like battalion sized units is just weird and takes away from game immersion, imo.
I didn't buy or play the later SC2 games, but I think they had some of these and, to me, that was a bad decision.
Hubert, please go back to the way SC1 worked in this regard! I want to play Hitler or Stalin, gazing at my map table and, with a sweep of my hand, ordering an army to move here and a corps to move there.
Just my two cents.
Jamey
I agree as long as strategic air, convoys, and naval warfare are included. These are a must for any strategic level game on WWII. After all half of the production of the US was for strategic bombing and a large portion of the British was also. The US, Germans and Soviets spent quite a bit on tactical bombers/fighter bombers. The US, Japan and GB spent billions on their navies and merchant marine and the Germans on the means to sink them.
|
|
|
|
