RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII War in Europe >> RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 - 10/28/2013 8:18:10 PM

jpinard

Posts: 500
Joined: 4/19/2004
Status: offline

Hubert - I'm thrilled to hear you're working on SC3 and to see you over here. And hexes are a go too? Wishing you the best and really looking forward to it :)

(in reply to Irish Guards)

Post #: 31

RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 - 11/4/2013 8:46:57 PM

Hubert Cater

Posts: 5199
Joined: 7/22/2013
Status: offline

Thanks Jpinard, much appreciated as always

(in reply to jpinard)

Post #: 32

RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 - 11/15/2013 3:22:31 AM

AlvaroSousa

Posts: 9927
Joined: 7/29/2013
Status: offline

An option could be put in the game for technology determine the "luck factor" method. A player can select how much luck and spying affects research. I prefer linear technology for WW2 for example.

_____________________________

Creator Kraken Studios
- WarPlan
- WarPlan Pacific

Designer Strategic Command
- Brute Force (mod) SC2
- Assault on Communism SC2
- Assault on Democracy SC2
- Map Image Importer SC3

(in reply to Irish Guards)

Post #: 33

RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 - 12/10/2013 4:43:26 PM

Birdw

Posts: 196
Joined: 3/21/2007
Status: offline

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?

_____________________________

Birdman

It's just like shooting squirrels, only these squirrels have guns

(in reply to aesopo)

Post #: 34

RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 - 12/11/2013 8:16:11 PM

JameyCribbs

Posts: 35
Joined: 2/27/2007
Status: offline

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

(in reply to Birdw)

Post #: 35

RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 - 12/14/2013 7:20:16 PM

Hairog

Posts: 1645
Joined: 7/11/2000
From: Cornucopia, WI
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Hairog -- 12/14/2013 9:47:49 PM >

_____________________________

WW III 1946 Books
SC3 EAW WW Three 1946 Mod and Naval Mods
WarPlan and WarPlan Pac Alpha and Be

(in reply to JameyCribbs)

Post #: 36

RE: Changes from SC2 to SC3 - 12/16/2013 12:02:18 PM

solipsismMatrix

Posts: 55
Joined: 12/13/2013
Status: offline

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.

Fully agreed. AT units (and the like - can you say "artillery") on the strategic scale are silly. Fine to have them around for small-scale actions where the hexes represent a lot less territory.

The solution, for those who want visible combined arms, is, as a above, an attachment / enhancement (with some marker on the chit) for "heavy artillery", "AT", "anti air", etc. As long as the markers / enhancements are moveable at some cost, one can concentrate assets while maintaining a strategic feel / reality.

I will of course lose the ability to create a wall-o-AT units in fortified-Normandy, but that is as it should be.

(in reply to JameyCribbs)

Post #: 37