Tweet
Originally posted by 
Smiley
Gave the current alpha a spin today, playing the Commonwealth. comments:
1. too many unit choices!
Though I appreciate the efforts at realism, there are way too many unit types of tanks, planes, and troops. A lot of them are similar in appearnce and performance as well.
Smiley Gave the current alpha a spin today, playing the Commonwealth. comments:
1. too many unit choices!
Though I appreciate the efforts at realism, there are way too many unit types of tanks, planes, and troops. A lot of them are similar in appearnce and performance as well.
This is especially true for the "build units" screen. Many tanks, planes, etc. are built from parts that are made in different parts of the USA - a civil war would shut down production of these conventional weapons. The player should still be able to build other informal equipment. Attrittion ought to be a big part of this scenario. Tech could be a way to reopen access to the fancy toys.
2. AI not aggressive enough in critical opening turns.
I pushed into Baltimore the first turn, and took Washington the 2nd. AI made no similar concentrated push of forces.
I pushed into Baltimore the first turn, and took Washington the 2nd. AI made no similar concentrated push of forces.
I know about the AI's lack of aggression, which is why I implemented a variation of what Alex did in 2194 Days of War - generate enemy units every turn. I had memories of fighting off German Panzers in the ETO, and thought of doing something like that. Is my system too weak? What can I do to improve it? I'd go for a variation of Agricola's "dynamic defense" but I'm 1)it seems to have some problems at the moment and 2)I'm worried about taking up too much events space.
3. Airplanes are weak.
The AI did throw lots of planes at troops in the field, and lost almost their entire air force. At the same time, there's not enough difference in capabilities between air and ground troops. I can fly cross country in 6 hours, yet out in the West, cities are often beyond the operational radius of planes based out of adjacent cities.
One way that would make the air-land balance work and model modern war better, is if airplanes had huge range and could take out ground troops easily, while ground troops had slower movement but are essential for taking cities.
The AI did throw lots of planes at troops in the field, and lost almost their entire air force. At the same time, there's not enough difference in capabilities between air and ground troops. I can fly cross country in 6 hours, yet out in the West, cities are often beyond the operational radius of planes based out of adjacent cities.
One way that would make the air-land balance work and model modern war better, is if airplanes had huge range and could take out ground troops easily, while ground troops had slower movement but are essential for taking cities.
). As for the planes' power, you do have a point, though I do have bad memories of those nigh-invincible SAM batteries from First Strike (they won't just beat planes, they'll beat ANYTHING!) Of course, if I give every city SAMs, that might alleviate things a bit (for realism, I'd probably have to change the graphic from a SAM battery to a guy with a Stinger, but that's a minor issue.)
Also, in regards to range, I did a comparison of First Strike and my scen. In FS, an F-16 can go from San Francisco to Columbus, Ohio in a single turn. In my scenario, the same feat would require the F-16 to have a range of over 100 terrain squares!
4. The ships aren't that useful
Mostly, I used mine to sink enemy ships - there are only a handful of coastal cities.[/quote]
Good point. I've wondered about the movement value of ships - They're far shorter than their real-life counterparts, but I was worried about the Union being able to too easily land a bunch of forces in New England and chew up the Commonwealth interior with a bit too much abandon. Maybe if I made the rivers navigable - would that be too unrealistic? (Well, maybe with some Neutral state troopers to prevent Iowas and Nimitzes from chugging up the Mississippi and/or some home rules to do the same.)
5. Unit camouflage is a little too good
Beautiful units, but I can barely see them when they are out there. Makes it had to assess the battlefield.[/quote]
While it's not really a problem for me, I see what you mean. The scenario will come out with an optional lighter terrain pack.
6. The guerillas and mountain troops add a lot of fun
Let's see more of these! As someone mentioned before, there aren't really red and blue states, just red and blue cities and towns.
Let's see more of these! As someone mentioned before, there aren't really red and blue states, just red and blue cities and towns.
Thanks for the comments. They're sure to help!
On a different, yet scenario-related topic, I read some op-eds in the paper today about some politicians - namely Democrat John Arthur Evans and Republican Tim Pawlenty - who combine social conservatism with populist economics, and was wondering if one of those guys might be a better fit for the "red" politician who appeals to "purple" America. Though "President Santorum" and "The Santorum Administration" sound better than "President Pawlenty" and "The Pawlenty administration." (Wait - that last one might not be so bad) Plus there's the fact that I'd have to change my title screen. Which reminds me...
*does puppy pout* Could somebody please try and get my title screen to work for me (you'll see a full-color version of it on the scenario's Sleague page)? I've tried running it through the Civ 2 color scheme and the color scemes of other scenario titles, but it still doesn't seem to work for me? Can anybody please help?
) is that you have forgotten to apply delevent and the program is still using the old set of events? 
*
Comment