BGForums

BattleGoat Studios
It is currently Nov 20 2017

All times are UTC-05:00




Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Aug 07 2010 
Offline
Warrant Officer

Joined: Oct 05 2008
Posts: 28
Hello,


Just some random thoughts,


Units, Naval or Otherwise
I want to see more strategic beneifts for a carrier and a fleet. Carriers are usually mobile military bases and the supporting craft giving additional strengths (anti-air, anti-missle, anti-sub, anti-ship, troop and aircraft transport and the various other supporting roles the ships along with the carrier provide).

MEGA wishlist item for me would be to totally reaug the unit interface. I would like to actually see the vehicle, I see a lot of redo's in icons and such (they all look like hummvees or a basic truck). I would rather have fewer overall units (and hopefully there would still be plenty, maybe more added back with expansions...?) that I can even customize that would be cool. For example, I have a Humvee chassis or a Truck Chassis to choose from, Add extra armor or not? (costs more, heavier, less mobile, greater survivability), how to equip the vehicle? Machine guns? Rockets? communication relay? Just an idea. ALso not looking for ingame battle, but it would be nice to have more controlin the visual representation of what they look like and how I customize them (i.e. "as president/leader dude" is my investment into research beneficial and give me more influcence/impact to my country based on my style. Am I more like the isreali's where I'm less mobile but invest more in increasing the survivability ratio? More like the US with a greater investment in air force and special forces?



Advisors/Key Roles
I would like to see something more interactive. the existing ones maybe doing some stuff behind the scenes but I don't feel like I'm really in control or that they're really there doing something. Some things I thought about are dialog messages to the mailbox or less important matters or popup screens or the most urgent ones (Russia has be detected precariously close to US territory with a load of bombers/fighters...what do we do??

I would like decision choices, do you want A or B; A gives +5 whatever bonus, B gives -5 stat +20 Infantry Morale, I didn't really have a list but also not 5 types of messages done over and over (decreased frequency with a little wider variety).

Im looking for valuable information or sabotage/assassination attempts (?) with espionage, feedback, trade or an opportunity to do something.

an espionage example, one of your passive spy cells is near where some president or even another countries "advisor" is in the area and you are given a chance to execute (i.e. Isreali suspected involvement in that assassination on that hamas guy not too long ago). if it a hit on an advisor then say there is a risk/chance you are identified (maybe it depends on your investment into espionage) and it worsens relations, that country should also suffer the penalty maybe if military for example and you're engaged in a war already it distracts the other advisors because they either want the job or are scrambling for security.


espionage
I would like to see the current model retooled a bit. I dont know that I use them much or that they are overly important to my strategic requirements while at war, I've tried using them but end of day i need the tanks to take it over, they aren't starting rebellions, and from a "presidental" position do I overly care about what city operatives are in (that's more the job of my NSA/Intelligence advisor unless I need something very specific in that country and I want to endorse a mission).

Maybe changing it to a budget item that we invest to? The more money invested into security the less likely a chance a covert action has of succeeding and minimally would uncover who tried it. Do I spend more on the leader and less on a senator/lawmaker or diplomat?


Adviosrs part 2
For this I would like to have some options like choosing my cabinet, and having some traits they come with (i.e. Tropico, but more serious/fit for this game). They do this in the total war franchise where some cabinet add to corruption others increase military effeciency



I would also like to see something iwth abvisors being more regional, i.e. the US has a middle east command, more famously NORAD, etc


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 08 2010 
Offline
Warrant Officer

Joined: Oct 05 2008
Posts: 28
to elaborate on this:
I would also like to see something iwth abvisors being more regional, i.e. the US has a middle east command, more famously NORAD, etc


This is where you can link carrier fleets, for example, the carrier is a "capital ship" of sorts, so maybe when its built, before its deployed I need to staff an admiral? If I'm going to war, maybe I need to select the regional general to coordinate the ground offense and an airforce general for the region to coordinate air superiority.

As an example...when the US went to Iraq they have the air base in saudi arabia, and other supply and bases for transporting in other countries (i.e. the base in Germany is pretty active). My point though is that I have a Middle East command, I have generals running the air, ground and sea mission, this comes in handy if you add in a longer duration to conquer and then control.


If you're going to have the UN/Nato, maybe have an area where I "dontate" select units


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 08 2010 
Offline
Major
User avatar

Joined: Jan 02 2010
Posts: 164
Human: Yes
Location: Evansville, IN
1) Carriers in 2020 are so under powered and under rated that I either scrap them or sell them as soon as the game begins.
Recommendation: have them be about to function as truly mobile airbases. Also, have them either start or have the ability to have attached fighter/helo wings. I hate hitting the button and watch my wings take off of the carrier and not go back.
- I like the carrier fleet Idea, on that note. I think the unit grouping needs retooled. I think you should be able to make; Fleets, Armies, and AWACS units (Combined air) with their own AI operation. I also think making a "Task Force" (multiple types of units) would be great, this would help make some operations easily and keep some forces you don't want in something, out; IE: invasions.

2) Advisers need serious work, they are almost pointless to have in the game. I like your idea about preemptive warring, would be a good thing for the Intelligence Adviser. I would like them to give you reports on their subject and also have recommendations.
Note: I do not want selective choices in the game. Also that adviser traits is a poor idea in my opinion.

3) The UN should be more useful. It should b far more interactive with countries.

4) Bases that you are allied to should be able to act as if they are your bases to your units. Though you can not built on your allied bases or land, your troops should be able to use their facilities to repair, maintain, and service your units.

_________________
-ZT Strike


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 08 2010 
Offline
Brigadier Gen.

Joined: May 05 2006
Posts: 611
Location: Norway
I would like a better trade system. I like how they have done it in HOI3 where you can intercept and sink enemy convoys.


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 09 2010 
Offline
Brigadier Gen.

Joined: Dec 14 2008
Posts: 574
Location: Elland, West Yorkshire, England.
Eldin wrote:
I would like a better trade system. I like how they have done it in HOI3 where you can intercept and sink enemy convoys.


I second that. Blockading an enemy island and shinking shipping, should be modelled in game imo. Attacking merchant fleets can win or loose a war.

_________________
Image


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 14 2010 
Offline
General

Joined: Sep 11 2008
Posts: 1857
Quote:
Carriers in 2020 are so under powered


I think the reason carriers are so under powered is because of 2 factors.

1. The carriers capacity limits the types of aircraft you can use. Normally an carrier air wing would have a several different types of aircraft but being limited by the carrier capacity, you either have to build more carriers to make up the difference or do without some of the capablities a carrier would provide.

2. You can not to reload your aircraft with missiles if the carrier is not in a friendly supplied sea hex. This usually means you have to put your carrier close to a coastline which puts it into harms way or limits your ability to keep up the fight.

#2 is the biggest issue, We need a way to reload missiles onto our carrier based aircraft.

Quote:
I hate hitting the button and watch my wings take off of the carrier and not go back.


They seemed to fixed this in a past update, I havent a problem with this for some time.


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 14 2010 
Offline
Warrant Officer

Joined: Oct 05 2008
Posts: 28
As I was playing more today there were a couple other things that get a little frustrating.

Countries are just declaring war on me left and right. ok. ok. I attacked hawaii as california but I needed it logistically because apparently my planes are unable to transport much of anything let alone across the pacific (I could have sword some of those transport aircraft have that range) and my ships are all wonky not dropping troops off (this is probably something I'm missing but I can't seem to get my troops to shore, the best success I've had is getting a foothold on a enemey dock and when I do I can reinforce that area fast renough.

RE: hawaii they weren't allied and we weren't friendly, russia went into Georgia, the US went into Iraq both against hte UN, yet I get cast out. I dont have any options in diplomacy to prevoke violence lol, but yet when I try to reach out to my allies (whom I've shown no agression towards) they tell me off, shouldn't my treaty integrity be based on additional actions such as if I've shown any agression towards allies? in fact I've given them weapons and ammo and other resources. the additional cause I'm finding is my military buildup but again, there are issues with this.

For example, one state/country declared war on me... they have (according to the trade system) 200 units of military goods and like 10 units. I have the worlds 3rd largest army. Really? you're going to attack me?! Washington declared war on me...they had one navy ship which I promptly sunk with a sub and 2 frigates which I had positioned between Oregon (an ally) and British Columbia which are at odds with Oregon and myself...how does washington expect to win? why would washington declare war without some sort of alliance? granted most of canda hates me now but the same military issues crop us. its not axis versus allies, they aren't "punishing" me for my attack on hawaii (they hated me when the game started).

I know this is a military game but I cant go an attack Iraq, I have no supply routes far enough to make the journey and even with strategic allies its not always a straight shoot, my units (which the specs say they should) can make some of the journey's but for whatever reason dont.


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 14 2010 
Offline
Warrant Officer

Joined: Oct 05 2008
Posts: 28
I agree with the air craft carrier stuff above and keeping the ships far enough away from the coast (i.e. china now purportedly has a missile that can sink a carrier 500miles out), which means the US carriers need to either stay at least that range away, or have defensive craft capabile of defending (hence the need for a fleet).


I also agree with teh part above regarding missle rearmament. I like building missiles. I dont like them running out if i got them. i dont necessarily need a missle category other than to know my stock and queue up my building requests for them but I also want an enhanced targeting system. i.e. crusie missiles, they are more precision targeted not exactly a hellfire missle for my jets/heli's. again, i like building missiles but there really only a handful of types. the fast majority are more available (i.e. bunker busters and such) that are used pretty frequently and require a higher maintained stockpile to use. then there are defensive ones (i.e. missle shields) which aren't as cheap or as abundant like with cruise missiles, many ships and subs carry them but are use for strategic, precision based missles "take out this camp", "hit this base", they are few but intended to have a signfincant damage capability. The last type are more of the ICBM's. yes there are plane delivery nukes, but also ICBM's which require silos and launch facilities. they are also extremely expensive. I know there are also land based vehicle launchers but again, i think cruise missle for those versus icbm. In other words, they are "mission" based. "Yes, I absolutely want to nuke that city, regardless of the civilian population that will be affected and I understand that the consequences will be steep".




I also like (again special missions, maybe espionage type stuff too) but sending navy seals in on a misison targetted at a strategic point, or to exeucte an enemy general or something, ranger squads into a drop zone to secure an airport before the enemy can react (losing them tanks, aircraft whatever and giving me a strategic foothold to expand from and even though they controlt he surrounding area, I can still drop in more and more troops via aircraft while I work on taking a strategic port from that air point as well as the sea to bring in the really big guns.




I also like the trade convoy's as well as supply routes, to me they are actually very similiar. If I trade wood witha peaceful nation I dont know I need it to go by boat but if I'm sending military goods or units, instead of them instantly over there a "merchant" vessal can be commissioned (not one of your own supply vessals) to send it over and the other nation (or if you're recieving) can decide how much to protect it (i.e. "dispatch vessals and a checkbox window opens with avaialble, unengaged units, check 3 frigates, check a sub, etc) and then off it goes. I would like supply lines semi-automated or at least the option to do so. some of my ships get stuck. as a player and "president" (or whatever) I wouldn't tell a cessna to fly to japan andif I did I would hope the pilot wouldn't keep trying (as they do) and instead tell me I'm smoking crack or "do you want me to arrange to land on a carrier?". i see the AI has issues with figuring out its routes periodically (more so for long distances or whatever plotting a course through ally nations requires mulitple hops). For example, I sent a plane to Korea, it woudln't go threre for whatever stupid reason (hence my attack on hawaii earlier), so I had to take the damn thing, land in hawaii, got to japan and then go to korea. its like "look, pilot, I told you where I want you, your craft has the range, take these effen troops to that effen city ok?" and the pilot looks at me like I'm speaking another lanugage sometimes? Waht europe? NO?! wtf? K-o-r-e-a? France? NO?!!


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 14 2010 
Offline
Supreme Ruler
User avatar

Joined: Jun 04 2002
Posts: 20397
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios
dyonsos wrote:
...ok. ok. I attacked hawaii as california but I needed it logistically...

Ah yes, the old "I wanted it" defense. I'm sure all the dead Hawaiians understand. :P

Don't expect us to make actions like these acceptable, it's not the type of system we're looking to model.

And attacking overseas is possible, although complicated.

Hundane wrote:
...#2 is the biggest issue, We need a way to reload missiles onto our carrier based aircraft...

There is another thread discussing this issue but it got little reaction when we mentioned the issue. We did do research and find that if you fully load all your aircraft you're carrying more missiles than a normal carriers does since the aircraft are on board separate from the missiles in most cases and because of the missile system we use.

_________________
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 14 2010 
Offline
Warrant Officer

Joined: Oct 05 2008
Posts: 28
Balthagor wrote:
dyonsos wrote:
...ok. ok. I attacked hawaii as california but I needed it logistically...

Ah yes, the old "I wanted it" defense. I'm sure all the dead Hawaiians understand. :P

Don't expect us to make actions like these acceptable, it's not the type of system we're looking to model.

And attacking overseas is possible, although complicated.
[/quote]


LoL, I know I know, but I guess part of my frustration playing is I want some mechanics easy, or close control (like some combat elements, I want to "be the hero" be the one achieving victory) and there are elements of trust with the AI advisors. If I have to fight multiple fronts (and i might be able to pull that off), i can't have my attention on all the regions at a very fine level, only one region at a time and when I'm not looking I need to know the AI has my back. I want complexity and control but without an equally complicated interface. I dont trust them to follow my orders and I dont have a means within the system that allows me to tell them what my orders are so they have that eureka moment and go "ohhhh...you want to station troops in korea to help against the chinese attack...ok...what do you want over there? oh a battalion of fighter...oh course not sir, we wont dare send our most advanced, we'll send our last gen fighters to help out. and what's that? oh, you also want us to send tanks? great no problem, they are ont he way? and you want a small fleet off the coast, a heli-fleet, sure, we do need to move our troops around and some chinook's are much easier to move units around versus having to use air craft to drop in special forces and wait for them to walk to a airport to relocate). ok sir, we'll hold this position or we'll move troops to secure that spot and hold it. and alarms/alerts "sir!! we need more support or we're going to lose this location you wanted us to hold within a week or two!!!" and you can dispatch additional support or like recently in afghanistan pull back to a more sound position until i can boost the troop levels or whatever without giving up the whole thing (or maybe I need to withdrawl all my forces with haste out of the country to my nearest ally to bring them home. maybe I can strike a deal with the local populace or something for help too...?

Part of the complication factor you mention is part of it in getting things to other areas in the world. my intention was to protect my real allies japan, taiwan and korea but was frustrated i couldn't get what I needed over there...hawaii appeared a means toward that end, I know there were other ways about it but none I knew about. plus giving the AI my "trust" only amounted to my navy acting all willy nilly like moving around in what appears erratic behavior and not toward my "goals" so I turn it off...slowing the game and requiring me to micromanage. again, in some cases I want to be more involved in what's going on (being the "hero/general dude") but without having to babysit.

right now I'm sitting on a pile of poo (that i created)a nd it will be fun to squash these countries and expand my territory but many of them just didnt like my build up and again, i threatend a neutral nation, not any of my allies, many of which I have recurring trade agreements with and have been supplying them, why would i supply a nation, an ally nation, that I wish to attack? it doesn't make sense to me, I would just attack them and save myself the resources. I want to be certain countries allies. now...my attack on hawaii, being a nation that didn't even like me in this game (before the attack) and were NOT my ally in any way, we had the basic of relations, this should have other nations re-evaluate me. Hmmm...he has quite an army...I am concerned but he isn't going out and attacking everyone...he attacked an island....mexico attacked him and now mexico is california...3rd largest army...top tech country (122 where the next highest is 111)...I'm also only a few hundred miles out, well within range of bombers and his military...maybe I should be a bit more cordial, i dont want him in my country... how can I appease this warlord? I'm also fine witht he oppostie logic... hmmm big threat...however if me and my 15 allies were to come together...we might be able to take him on...lets unilaterally cut trade and see if economic sanctions hurt at all? I also dont mind being kicked out of the UN but other than some units they keep offering me and some supplies i didnt need really, it wasn't really hurting me at all (maybe some consequences I haven't identified...).


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 14 2010 
Offline
Warrant Officer

Joined: Oct 05 2008
Posts: 28
btw... on this part:

Quote:
Part of the complication factor you mention is part of it in getting things to other areas in the world. my intention was to protect my real allies japan, taiwan and korea but was frustrated i couldn't get what I needed over there...hawaii appeared a means toward that end, I know there were other ways about it but none I knew about. plus giving the AI my "trust" only amounted to my navy acting all willy nilly like moving around in what appears erratic behavior and not toward my "goals" so I turn it off


what I believe the AI is "trying" to do is partol...but not liek I would want.

there are certain areas I want patrolled (i.e. my coast line). I want to make sure there are no enemy subs spying on me or waiting to pounce. I want some nearby (in territorial waters) and others in international waters near enough to come back if I need but far enough out to catch an impending attack. The same goes for those specialized planes that do radar jamming, communications, espionage, etc, I don't "see" their value. I like to pretend they have value but I wish they were real values. Like mabye I have a friendly nation (nevada) and a hostile (oregon) near me. I want my units to help my friend (if they are helping me) and to jam or spy on my enemy (oregon). I want to see them flying around. If I give AI control they will unreserve units (no...I want you to stay parked, use the units i have on active duty...if you want to activate them general, you need to ask me and dont just keep asking me so i ignore your message) or they will just do some quirky stuff to me. i have manually "sent them on patrol" but it seems like a frivilous action (i dunno...maybe they are doing something but I dont "see" it so I dont know they are and what that value is. is it worth me constantly updating their patrols?

This also goes to the fleet type portions mentioned about by myself and a couple others, the existing "groups" aren't enough. I need the fleet/group to be and act like a cohesive unit. I want a carrier for each ocean, its my mobile launching platform for air offense/defense (i dont NEED one for each ocean but say I want one or two for the pacific, like in my scenario as california, I'm not too concerned regarding the atlantic at this time...maybe if I was the US but right now, my focus is different) and I also need to ensure that carrier, which is expensive and takes a long time to build, is protected like crazy but I dont want to manage a sub and all the different roles manually, I essentially want to group them all together and say "you are now one, go forth and do my nefarious deeds!"


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 14 2010 
Offline
Warrant Officer

Joined: Oct 05 2008
Posts: 28
Balthagor wrote:
Ah yes, the old "I wanted it" defense. I'm sure all the dead Hawaiians understand. :P

Don't expect us to make actions like these acceptable, it's not the type of system we're looking to model.




One other thing I wanted to add on this. Ok, so you want a relistic system then to me the game needs a little support in the area's that make it more realistic, right now its tailored more towards war in my opinion so there really isn't a "trade game" or a "diplomatic game" or "espionage game". I dont have non-war challenges to really deal with right now. I dont have internal controversies affecting some decisions as "rulers", my choices of research don't really affect me. when I attacked hawaii, my "approval rating" was 42% before the war, when I attacked it dropped to 1.3%...when I was done attacking and conquered hawaii it jumped to 33%, so I only lost 9% points for taking over hawaii...sweet! if my people are against cloning research they don't seem to care much, it might cost me 1% when i start or when done but it doesn't seem to matter in the long run but DOING that reasearch gives me a unit or other item as a result so that I do it not caring about the consequences at all.


Things need to mean more to me to refocus some of my war lust (which the game endorses very well) to give me pause to look at maybe a more trade focused agenda or where I include elements into that. right now, I just care about making enough resources/supplies to build my country to make more troops, to defend/attack against another nation to take their land to build more troops to defend/attack, etc.. where can I retool my war lust to supply lust causing a war or something else to entertain me? right now, if I didn't have the wars or fighting, then the game wouldn't be doing much to entertain me and I wouldn't play it.

Dialog is needed...a lot. the messages I recieve and optins I can do are limited in my opinion. scenarios like:

"hey people of the world, I'm about to give Iran a **** ton of nuclear material, everyone ok with that?" lol,

"oh hell no!!! you do that and we'll collectively attack you!!!"

ok, ok...how about a B-2 bomber then?

"What...the...F..??!!! why are you doing this to us?! let's talk about this..."

and so it opened with a controlled dialog, "i want to do this" *game responds* "hmmm...ok what about this" *game responds*, i think what it needs to do is illicit pros/cons. ok...i do this, I make a lot of $$$ but I risk a war...risk it...hmmm...i can take them...but I dont want to...but...hmmm...do I? don't i? hmmm... or it should anger you. "I've supported this nation for all these years and you go and do this to me!!!! oh... I'll show you mutha...........*NUCLEAR LAUNCH DETECTED!!!* lol, or maybe just a couple of "close bombings" of the presidental car int hat country or inciting a riot or whatever to cause them varying about of greif based on the level of emotion it attracts or requests.

russia did this to the world with Iran's nuclear plant, in fact they are readying their first load of material to Iran right now in real life. the world being outraged didn't stop russia from buildign the plant or suplying materials, in essence they filpped the world the bird and said eat it. The same can be said for the south korean and US joint training session flipping the bird to north korea. same with isreal and their recent turkish vessal boarding. they weighed the decision...do we attack in international waters? Pros - we have a surprise advantage and less chance of a day time PR stunt. Cons - they can repsond the way they did which still has a PR impact but maybe less because or yet another choice "do we let them dock? they might have weapons? well...what about next time, that might embolden them to send more ships and challegne our blockade...". but you have to make a chocie, the lesser of the percieved evils.


with all due respect, if the game isn't aligned for us to just conquer the world right now, then...what else is there to do? I've tried to "not engage in military" but...its really, really boring. my spies aren't valuable, amusing or helpful, i spend 3 hrs one night sabotaging the hell out of a country and while they may not have thought well about it, they sure as heck weren't doign anything about it (i have 5 spies there sabotagign the air and land facilitictes and other essential points and they just keep humming along). I can't really have a naval blockade (maintained by AI) or that it means anything, sure I can "pretend" but that's not enough. Same with embargos, I dont create any I'm aware of, I cannot really cause a countries trade to suffer ot short them on consumer goods or something like that, i dont have any influence in game to affect anything on that scale. I'm not building and improving units or designing them. I'm not building towns or cities, or defensive positions or anything that would give me something to do outside...war.

There are also no responses to things like oil platforms, really, people are ok with me setting up lumber yards in forests, oil platforms off the coast, or other things like global warning, fires due to increased temperatures? like the recent mosque thing in NY, those are all examples of things to entertain me instead of war, in the absense of those..."things"...there is only war and so to war we go!! :)


Top
   
PostPosted: Aug 14 2010 
Offline
Warrant Officer

Joined: Oct 05 2008
Posts: 28
and since I'm so chatty today...

but, better troop management. the current interface doesn't let me look at my units. I'd like to see a spreadsheet filter of sorts, like where i can decomm my oldest models, heck, remove them from even being available to make (unless...I'm selling it to other countries?) but maybe put it in a different area for those two differences, what i build and what I sell?


this sort of circles back to one of the copious number of suggestions above somewhere about building/designing units. I take an abrams tank and add this design option/feature or another, i.e. HumVee's are this way. some are light, some with more heavy armor, some with 50 caliber mounted guns, some gunless, others rocket platforms etc but the base unit is still a humvee chassis. Also, this would link the research options to my units and allow me to upgrade. do I buy the merkava tank design from the isrealis and load it up with all my own uber technology? the US does this by sellign the f-16 chassis' to other countries like jordan and stuff.


Top
   
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked  This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC-05:00


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited