Matrix Games Forums

If SC 3 includes an Italian AI for the Axis side You as Axis player can't use the Italian units in an optimised way but have to live with an "AI-Ally" making more trouble as benefit. That could be an interesting challenge for Axis players.

Even if individual countries do not get AI control as an option in SC3, things like this can always be variably scripted into a game. Surprise- Italy has declared war on Greece!

I think SC is the most flexible system I have worked with. A.I. is also easy to implement. You can get real creative with it.

I agree that SC is very flexible and I would not want the variety of unit types reduced. Modders can always adapt extra unit types to be relevant for their scenarios. For example I am using the extra cavalry unit in AOD to play the part of weak but large Chinese Warlord forces that fought for the Japanese. There were over 1m of these so they should be represented but their capability should be much less than an equivalent Japanese Army unit.

I do think naval unit types are under represented in current versions of SC and I have to create additional countries to represent some of the real British and US naval units. Examples are older battleships that should not realistically have the possibility to be teched up to be equivalent to newly built ones and the range of specialised CVE's different variants of which were used either for anti-submarine or for ground support roles.

The flexibility of SC does let me do this but sometimes the fundamental AI handling code of SC will prevent my modded units from behaving as intended because the AI routines tend to be driven by unit type rather than its actual combat values. I would really like SC3 to be able to establish a mechanism to apply different stategic responses in different theatres. Thus I might like to adopt a strategic defensive posture in some naval theatres whilst being offensive in others. An example might be the British in the Mediterranean - if their force level there fell below a certain strength then I would like the AI to stop rushing out and attacking anything it sees moving on the water. Ideally the strength calculation would relate to the actual CTVs rather than the number of units of each type.

Regards

Mike

Posted originally on slitherine: I followed Hubert over here from battlefront. Please, please have units adjacent to a unit contribute to the defense of an assaulted unit as it is historically so. The SC series were great and Hubert did great improvements (well except for losing the hex in my opinion) but the sole defender thingie really bothered me, especially after one assaulting unit comes after the next. Assault on a unit should be orchestrated with other units and turns should be simultaneous - turns are made and then resolved. Igougo is not really reality in warfare. Other adjacent naval groups should also contribute to the defense of a naval unit and if it is within the sphere of air cover of a carrier, the carrier's air wing also lends a hand or other land based air assets that are within range. It is unrealistic that a sole defending battle group is sunk with nearby defending assets available to contribute. Multi-core support as you are taking your time to make your turn, the AI is already making moves in the background. I know this request comes belated, sorry. There needs to be a continued cost in supporting units not just abstraction that you bought it no need to worry about food, maintenance, cash, war material, soldiers. Each country should have a population pool where units are drawn from and scripts for decisions in increasing (teens but less reliability, increased training but longer production but tougher units, general conscription but hitting morale/increasing pool). There should be a representation on the map of important resources (metals, oil, industry) that each side will try to safeguard and for the other side to capture and techs to increase them or supplant them.

As a beta tester of SC3 I have lobbied to keep the basic SC3 engine simple with only some tweaks and new features.

Let's not HOI what is an excellent engine with great moddability.

The new version should be all about new units, new graphics and chrome, increased flexibility of decisions and some cool new features such as oil, manpower, revamped diplomacy and moddability of everything.

No stacking, hexes, increased map size, more unit upgrade slots (for artillery, engineers, anti tank etc), nuclear weapons and more complex alliances including AI control of selected nations.

That would be a hell of a nice SC3 that already has the best AI on the market.

Actually dhucul with enough upgradeable / asset attachment slots you could give a hex deployment plenty of diverse capabilities(no need for stacking). Say you could attach an air group and/or an artillery section to an infantry organization with numerous strike capability. Wouldn't that accomplish the same thing as a stack of air units, ground forces and a bombardment capacity? Seems pretty simple for a human, but for an AI.....hmmm..what do you think Al?

Yes, I agree. I said NO to stacking and YES to all of the options in my post.

Lets git ta the Kiltin eh'
IDG
[&o]

Kiltin time eh Hubert ... !!!
Faugh a Ballagh'
Irish Guards

[X(]

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

Thanks Jpinard, much appreciated as always [:)]

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.

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?

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

ORIGINAL: JameyCribbs

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.

ORIGINAL: JameyCribbs

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.