Passive-automatic settings for the nonphasing player (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe



Message

SeaMonkey -> Passive-automatic settings for the nonphasing player (10/29/2013 6:42:07 PM)


OK, I don't want a WiF experience, but some of our units, especially air, need to be able to interact with the phasing player's actions. Imagine something on the lines with fighter intercepts and defensive artillery.

Start with something like the Medium Bombers within range and a 5 strength/50% readiness minimum for a defensive ground attack mission. This could also be linked to an HQ attachment for the mission to be conducted under proper weather/terrain conditions. The simple pull down menu selection would activate the response. How about an interdiction selection which would actually reduce the supply calculation for the ensuing enemy attack before the strike or perhaps only to be applied on the armored/mechanized 2nd strike feature.

More to come.?.?.developers....a viable request?....or..... quit wasting my time. I'm a big boy, I can take it![:'(]



mcaryf -> RE: Passive-automatic settings for the nonphasing player (10/30/2013 12:08:27 AM)

Hi SeaMonkey

I seem to remember once suggesting that some Naval units such as CAs might be given an escort mission which would mean that they would automatically change places with certain types of other ships e.g.CVs or Transports to which they were adjacent if they were attacked. This would be a neat non-phasing player move for naval action.

Regards

Mike



SeaMonkey -> RE: Passive-automatic settings for the nonphasing player (10/30/2013 2:09:15 AM)

Indeed you did Mike, I remember that post well. You were an advocate of simulating the dynamics of Task Force screenings and configurations dependent upon the threat prognosis. Very innovating and unique among naval suggestions in which I believe you excel over other ideas I've heard over the last decade. I think that I made an observation about that time that you should be included in the group of Beta testers for SC3.

Here's hoping that comes to fruition.[8D]



mcaryf -> RE: Passive-automatic settings for the nonphasing player (10/30/2013 11:17:58 AM)

Hi SeaMonkey

Thank you for your kind words - I am not sure that I would have enough time to volunteer as a Beta Tester. Ideas are rather less labour intensive than making them happen. When I worked full time I was responsible for strategic planning in the services business of a multi-national IT company - much easier than actually managing the delivery of the services themselves!!

Regards

Mike



AlvaroSousa -> RE: Passive-automatic settings for the nonphasing player (11/15/2013 3:26:42 AM)

A simple solution is on the right click where you can select the mission.

A = auto
I = intercept 50% (readiness)
O = optimal intercept 75% (readiness)
G = ground support
so on and so on.



SeaMonkey -> RE: Passive-automatic settings for the nonphasing player (11/20/2013 6:33:07 PM)

Since air units represent large formations, like a group, and a turn of SC is usually weeks in length, I would think that as IRL, air units based closer to their target would be more effective. Therefor, doesn't it seem appropriate, in lieu of a multiple strike mechanism or in addition to, that the air combat algorithm should reflect the advantageous position of being able to make more effective sorties the closer air units are based to their targets?



solipsismMatrix -> RE: Passive-automatic settings for the nonphasing player (8/7/2014 8:57:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: StratComAl

A simple solution is on the right click where you can select the mission.

A = auto
I = intercept 50% (readiness)
O = optimal intercept 75% (readiness)
G = ground support
so on and so on.

This type of SOP would bring a level of realism to air support, make surprise beach landings much more difficult, and generally get tac air to do what it was best at: interdiction. So, if a unit uses, say, more than 1/4 of it's "movement points" (I don't recall the correct name), then an air unit within range, tasked with interdiction, could respond.

Fighters would be able to intercept air unit in mid-flight, instead of having to do it at the target area (which could be out of range).

So overall, greater realism and still quite playable.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9060059