Random Suggestions For SR2020

[jrokshady]

1. when you have two units at half strength or like 4 units at .25 strength you should be able to combine them and make a new full strength unit.

2. when an upgrade gets researched for a unit, you should be able to upgrade the existing units and not have to buy new units. sort of like how the US didnt have to buy new tanks when the M1A1 came out, they just made the existing M1 tanks into M1A1, and did the same thing for the M1A2.

3. military fuel efficiency. basically a player should be able to research techs that allow his units to go farther on the same amount of fuel. sort of how civilian cars have kept getting more fuel efficient over the years, the military fuel use should go down the same way.

4. alliance of convenience. much like the US and the soviet union during WW2 two countries who are both at war with the same country should be able to declare an "alliance of convenience". the main difference between this type of alliance and the regular type is that once the mutual enemy is defeated, then all cooperation stops and then you are no longer an ally with that country.

[Lightbringer]

Ahoy Jrok,

This thread probably works better in the 2020 general discussion, but I can comment on your points.

1. I don't completely disagree with this idea, but I have some questions about exactly how you mean it. Permanently? or simply until the units can be repaired? Remember, as long as a unit is in supply, it will slowly repair itself in the field. If there is a base anywhere near, most units will repair at the base about as quickly as you could give them the orders to combine (and most definitely more quickly than you can build new replacements). I think in most situations it would be better to spend the effort at repair than permanently lose units and have to rebuild them.

2. As long as you include some sort of price tag for such unit upgrades, I agree completely.

3. The fuel cell research goals in 2010 did indeed upgrade military fuel efficiency. (Vehicle Fuel cells, and several other technologies.)

4. I like the concept of this.

-Light

[tkobo]

1) i could be wrong here, but im pretty sure you already can(in sr2010).I'm pretty sure i remember way back having some tank units that were badly mauled and i combined them.This gave the new unit the strength to fight on,instead of being killed off as they would have as seperate units.
If i remember correctly, you can even combine them to achieve a higher than normal unit str.

2) within certain limits this is not a bad idea,i think the devs have stated its down as something to look at for sr2020.
BUT for some units it shouldnt be possible.
For instance upgrading an M1A1 into a M1A5 should be impossible.

Or a F/A 18 Hornet into a F/A 18E/F Super Hornet.

Some models are new designs, not just upgrades even though they hold the same base designation

3) Already can(in sr2010) im pretty sure.

4) Auto dissolving after certain criteria are met ?Id vote for that.

[The Khan]

1)exists

2)Hearts of Iron concept, and I say heck yeah. It should be at a cost of money and military goods

3)Exists, just refit the vehicles with fuel cells and you can traverse deserts

4)I need that badly. I hate it when Israel just doesn't want to beat Iraq attacking me, or Ukraine sitting idle when I whack Russians..

[jrokshady]

2) within certain limits this is not a bad idea,i think the devs have stated its down as something to look at for sr2020.
BUT for some units it shouldnt be possible.
For instance upgrading an M1A1 into a M1A5 should be impossible.

Or a F/A 18 Hornet into a F/A 18E/F Super Hornet.

Some models are new designs, not just upgrades even though they hold the same base designation

i dont think upgrading from m1a1 to m1a5 should be impossible, just that you would have to go to m1a2 and m1a3 and m1a4 first, etc. the point would be to gradually improve your army units as you do more research instead of always building at max capacity. that way you save money and only have to build new units when the old ones go obsolete.

[Balthagor]

Upgrading of units remains on our wishlist, we're just stuck on some of the mechanics and interface. No word yet if it will make it in.

[jrokshady]

what about the alliance of convenience idea. in my opinion that is the best idea of all the ones on the list.

[Balthagor]

We've considered this sort of thing before, but how do you define "convenience" to an AI? Why should it believe you'll do anything other than backstab it? Feel free to offer more details on this but until we're discussing AI changes publicly we'll be remaining quiet on such issues.

Welcome to the forums btw.

[The Khan]

We've considered this sort of thing before, but how do you define "convenience" to an AI? Why should it believe you'll do anything other than backstab it?

If this convenience alliance is accepted, it will be better. Why:

*You said, why should it believe? So? You will be giving the player a fun feature with an OPTIONAL backstabbing ability later on. So can the A.I backstab the player, or even if it doesn't\can't, the player won't have to exploit "convenience".

True gamers won't need to exploit it, some people who want an edge in game will. Plus, if the A.I loses, you guys won't lose money

In return, more people would play a game with an optional exploit. Think of it as the daggerfall shop exploit. People who REALLY want nice items at the start will use it, but it is optional.

There is no reason not to place distant(difficult and unnecessary to trigger) exploits in a game.

[tonystowe]

I agree that this would be a great addition to the game. As for how the AI should "look" at such an agreement I would suggest a menu option that the AI presents to player with what it will agree to - or negotiate. The player then inputs his take on what the AI offers and the diplomacy goes from there. In essence, you programmers can define the limits of what the AI would ever agree to plus give the players the possibility of such an alliance.

my 2 cents on a subject matter than I know nothing about.

Tony

[tkobo]

4. alliance of convenience. --

I can think of some that seem like they'd be easy.

War- Region A declares war on region B.Region B seeks help from region C, in the form of a war allaince.This alliance would disvolve once region A was defeated/ends its war .

Trade- Region D agrees to give region B special priority on trades of region D's resources til the war is over.At which time the alliance deal would auto disolve.

Diplo- Region D agrees to form a land transit treaty with region C ,for as long as its at war with region A.
End of war equals end of treaty.

[SoB]

No4

A has a low aprovel of b c go to war with b a gains aprovel with c depeding on a b disaprovel


Still on cell internet will elaberat when on pc