Proposed changes to the game (Full Version)

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



Message


bcg -> Proposed changes to the game (12/22/2018 1:11:21 AM)

1. Make the decision events where your decision will impact the decision events of your opponent. For example, if the Allies are presented with a decision event of either A or B. If they choose A, the Axis powers in the future will get a decision event of C or D. if the Allies chose B, the Axis would get a decision event of a E or F.

2. Don't always generate the decision events automatically. Depending on previous decisions you made, and your opponent made, a probability factor on whether the decision event is given to the player. For example, the Germans have the decision event "Building the Atlantic Wall", because of their past decisions, they might have a 70% chance of getting the decision event; 20% chance that decision event is delayed by 6 months, and a 10% chance they do not get the decision event at all. Those percentages will be affected by earlier decisions. Right now, experience players are taking for granted the certain decision event will occur at a certain point in time. If the German commander does not get the "building the Atlantic Wall" decision event, does he risk that it is just delayed, or does he generate more units on the Western front.

3. For the research element of the game, make it more difficult to climb that technology ladder. Have the game as it is for levels 1 through 3. For levels 4 and 5, other factors must be achieved to get to that level. For example, to be able to "Advance Tanks" at a level 4, you first must have researched "Armored Warfare" and have a "Industrial Technology" at a 3. Also as you progress up the research ladder, their is a greater cost to advance to the next level. For advance tanks it is always 200, at level 3 make it 250, at level 4 make it 300, and at level 5 make it 400. Make it painful and more difficult to go up that ladder


4. Have the research for each country more unique. Have certain research area, that is only for Germany or the USSR. For example, for Germany have a research of "State Security". This will affect the partisan activities, and the commando raids. For "Great Britain, the research could be "Special operations". I also believe that more research area are needed, so the player has to choose where his strategy is more carefully.


5. The generals are almost generic, Patton is the same as Bradley. For each general, give them an attack, defense, mobility, and organizational factor. Thus the troops connected to Patton, will have a higher attack and mobility levels. Thus the Soviet Union will pick generals with a higher defensive values in the early game. If this is done, if a general is wiped out, they can't come back into the game. Thus you will need to protect your generals more. The player will be able to replace the general, but with another general all together.





LLv34Mika -> RE: Proposed changes to the game (12/22/2018 4:55:55 AM)

1. I like the idea... needs testing and new/other events.
2. Same as 1
3. Research was tweaked with the latest beta patch to slow down research a bit. Your idea is also nice. Especially the "research A --> B is possible now" makes sense to me.
4. that already happened in some parts. See rocket artillery or the number of units you can buy in each category. I wouldn't change too much since it might become a problem really fast. Players are much better when it comes to exploiting something than developers. So asymmetric games (like Strategic Command... not every side has the same starting conditions) are the most difficult to balance. Btw... I love these games, but they are hard to find.
5. Might be a balancing problem too but yes, could be another feature. Making it too complex is dangerous. In 1942 or 1943 one turn already takes 15 - 30 minutes for me. Don't know how much time others need but making the game too complex might be a problem for a turn based game.

What I would add is a more specific "intercept" option. Intercept bombers, intercept fighters, intercept all. At the moment you see players flying "fighter sweeps" before attacking with bombers. My last christmas wish already came true. Subs can no longer dive at 0 supply!




nnason -> RE: Proposed changes to the game (12/22/2018 11:00:01 AM)

These are interesting ideas.
For me I would much rather have the Naval mod which is in testing incorporated into SC.

In any case I agree Testing testing testing (so game doesn't get unbalanced.)

And I agree don't make SC3 to complex. We already have super complex war games such as Oo Art 4 and World in Flames.




ivanov -> RE: Proposed changes to the game (12/22/2018 4:45:39 PM)

I've been recently thinking that SC4 ;) could benefit form an introduction of the card system. A little like in DC Barbarossa, a little like in board games, for example No Retreat system. The decision events could be played as cards and there could be also some combat cards introduced ( air support, siege artillery, air support etc, NKVD etc ). There's nothing like a board game feeling in a PC game. I don't think that SC would benefit from extended research system. It would make it more HOI like and SC is not HOI, nor it should be.




Keenan -> RE: Proposed changes to the game (12/22/2018 10:41:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bcg

1. Make the decision events where your decision will impact the decision events of your opponent. For example, if the Allies are presented with a decision event of either A or B. If they choose A, the Axis powers in the future will get a decision event of C or D. if the Allies chose B, the Axis would get a decision event of a E or F.



If recall correctly, this is technically already possible as of today. So this is purely a question of scenario design.

However the downside is that one forces (kind of) "historic" behavior to players and often limits the "what if" / "game" aspect.
Also handling those dependencies gets quite complicated (if you look up the existing scripts, some events are duplicated three or four times to handle dependencies. Decision trees have a tendency to grow exponentially, so depth is even restricted by the three digit number range for events (2^10=1024, so anything beyond a depth of 6/7 is not even feasible) - it might help a bit, if the "#LINK=" feature would support an "OR" option, so parts of the tree could be merged).









Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375