| Grant Winston (Fearless Blue) | Friday, August 1, 2008 - 11:00 pm 
Yeah that would really help so you dont have to switch countries all the time |
| JMR32 (Golden Rainbow) | Saturday, August 2, 2008 - 07:02 pm
Yeah, sort of like a Supreme Commander deal. Especially for those empires who have huge amounts of slaves. Being able to, from one page, airdrop units from, say, 7 or 8 different countries onto one spot would be a nice time saver. |
| FarmerBob (Little Upsilon) | Tuesday, August 5, 2008 - 07:47 am
To complete the war engine, aside from removing the ridiculous notion of Off/Def weps, the missing factor of terrain needs to be added.
We have the following of the TLP:
Mission
Equipment
Troops Available
Time
just need realistic terrain features.
A future option to select operational objectives for units, rally points, phase lines, etc. to coordinate unit maneuvers would be a logical next step. |
| Adam (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 05:41 am
I like having the separate countries in an empire fight separately. It introduces a real command and control problem that requires organization and forethought to overcome.
Adam |
| Angus88 (Little Upsilon) | Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 06:10 am
Adam sometimes in real life, when a lot of countries are involved. Some countries forces will be placed under a command of one country. In the event of empires or vassal states, the subjects would donate forces to the master state/king etc. Also how is it realistic for a single general (I'm assuming) to be able to coordinate 1M+ sized armies, realistically this would be a logistical nightmare.
Would be good if units could receive specialized training, and more strategically oriented terrain. Bridges and dams, along with strategic terrain and supply lines could allow guerrilla warfare, or strategic special force deployment to sabotage the opposing country before large scale war.
But probably too much programming would be involved. |
| Adam (Fearless Blue) | Wednesday, August 6, 2008 - 07:24 am
Angus,
I couldn't decide if you agreed with me or not.
It is very realistic for one man to control millions - through a chain of command;however, the friction of command means that individuals in the chain of command will be more or less competent than the commander, show more or less initiative than the commander, etc.
Navigating the screens of different countries in your empire simulates this friction pretty well.
On a side note, look at the level of control that countries achieved during WWII - the last war controlled with paper, pencil, and filing cabinets. FUBAR and SNAFU haven't left the vocabulary with the advent of computers.
Adam |
| Angus88 (Little Upsilon) | Sunday, August 10, 2008 - 10:44 am
I neither agreed or disagreed completely with you Adam. Realism isn't an argument in SC, not yet anyway. Yes it is more realistic to have separate countries command separate armies, but all this realism does is made the game a tedious process of switching between countries. Its simply a more convent feature, but possibly a more unfair feature. Players with less countries may have even less ability then before to fight larger empires. More realistic game play does not necessarily equal more enjoyable game play.
The command and control problems point you presented, would be present in a large enough army in SC. It should be the size of the army being commanded that would more realistically present command problems, not some predefined game border. |
