DISCUSSIONS
00crusader said
I agree with the E series, however, if you are asking about the PZKW IV, these should just be upgrades as the guns already existed, these should be a question type thing, of do you want to upgrade your medium tanks, a new tank gun used in the Panther is now available. Otherwise you will most likely be presented with other research options of Improved Medium Tanks, Advanced Medium tanks and so on, this we do not need, another series of research that will take you 60 to 80 turns to accomplish. The improved weapons I think already exists with your Advanced Infantry unless you want another research category such as Late War Infantry. If it is to introduce the infra-red system, then I think I will have to agree, because those systems can make a huge difference on the battlefield. The infantry support vehicles are already in existence or should be with the Improved Mechanized and Advanced Mechanized infantry categories. I think one category that might be added would be tank destroyer/anti-tank gun research technology as well as research into improved ammunition for these weapons. The Yamato and Shinano I think are already addressed with Advanced Battleships and Super Carriers. Though I think the Sen Toku-class I-401 submarines are a good idea because now we would have an opportunity with Submarines being able to unfog regions. This should also be extended to capital ships and heavy cruisers as these type ships were armed with seaplanes and catapults, air search with these units was much used during the war.
Glad you agree :P
With self propelled artillery infantry support I meant for it to be more specific as in mh1 it is just panzer force self propelled artillery. Wanted to see a difference between armoured and infantry self propelled artillery. Also for the japanese ships I meant Japans as to be more powerful then standard ships or carry more planes if you get what I mean. Also improvements to the tanks should be an option like you said if you have already research lets say heavy anti tank weapons you should be able to put that gun onto a supportive tank chassis on current tanks. Also extra armour should be a case of refitting and some more money. Thats one thing i forgot to add! Jagdpanzers! They played a vital role in world war 2 as much as the tank in the latter years specifically for Russia and Germany such as for a while the only armoured vehicle capable of penetrating a T-34's armour was a Stug III. Proof of their importance is the most built armoured vehicle by Germany was the Stug III which was being used as an antitank weapon. A reason for this is of reports stug III's performed better then panzer IV in certain battles. Having a couple of jagdtigers on your side in a large tank battle wouldnt go amiss ; ] Other things that should be in MH2 is Sturer Emil, Elefant, winter warfare and urban warfare training (think these have been said, ah well)
Thanks for answering my question about improved infantry small arms as well
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
I think you are forgetting crusader, that MH2 is aimed at being not only a wargame, however a political and economic game aswell. Part of the reason many people like MH is due to it's simplicity and boardgame like approach to warfare.
If you want a more in depth wargame, you might aswell go play hearts of iron 3, but if you haven't noticed that game only proves how going deep into military details is too much for even a greatly experienced company to handle.
I personally hope that making history will verge off from being a purely war oriented game, and instead have a smart and fun political and economic side aswell. Nothing is more dull and boring to me then a pure wargame. Hearts of iron, if you were to ask me is one of the most dull and boring games ever made, however Victoria is my favorite grand strategy game ever.
If you really think about it, a heavy tank division does not have the same tank, but the majority of them are of that model. And every division has AA too, called Air Attack. An Artillery Division just means the majority of that factory was spent building artillery equipment. Basic infantry has artillery too, it's just not visually represented. It's all abstraction, which to me keeps the game fun.
Seriously, you guys are treating the game like the only thing about it is war.
- grievous5226
- MHII, MH GOLD
- location: United States of America
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 69
I think the fact you can merge different land forces and such means you can achieve what you want Crusader as before the are put into a division they are built differently from each other which is shown in MH. You need to realise Crusader the amount of effort into making this game and balancing the economic, political and military aspects while keeping it playable. I wouldn't go as far as to call the makers idiots which they surely aren't. What they are aiming for is a balance of simplicity and in depth which they achieve. Agreeing with Grevious 5226 HOI3's approach makes it boring. MH is nearly the perfect grand strategy world war 2 game in my opinion. I know they can't go too detailed on the war aspect and cant have too many different units to as to cause confusion I was merely saying what would be cool to see in the game but I know most if not all could be implemented for the sake of keeping the game playable. I actually really appreciate the time and effort making it and I don't mean to lessen this achievement with petty requests :P. Although having said that flamethrowers would be sick and snipers xD. With what Grevious said though these are just not visually represented with most of the requests as it would be more hassle then worth and with which I agree and most requests here are only for the sprites which modders here could make
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
It seems like every strategy forum you visit, there are always one or two guys dissing some games developers because of some mundane detail that would have minimal effect on overall game action. Never mind that they probably tried some of those things in testing and they unbalanced the rest of the game. Even if thats not the case, its a game, LOL !
- Gladiator
- location: United States
- joined: Jan 29, 2010
- posts: 9
This thread has evolved from discussion of what players would like to see in MHII to complaints --and in some cases some rather insulting commentary-- on the previous game.
A reminder that ad hominem attacks are not allowed here, and that includes attacks aimed at us. If you can't state your opinion without being rude, think twice before posting.
Chris--
Product Manager
Chris said
This thread has evolved from discussion of what players would like to see in MHII to complaints --and in some cases some rather insulting commentary-- on the previous game.
A reminder that ad hominem attacks are not allowed here, and that includes attacks aimed at us. If you can't state your opinion without being rude, think twice before posting.
Chris--
Hope I am not one of these. If I am I didn't mean to be but I don't think I said anything in form of complaints or anything like that
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
Things I want in MHII:
- Paratroopers
- Expanded Diplomacy
- Expanded Tech Tree
- Expanded Air and Land units
- The ability to make events in the editor
- The ability to make region-specific scenarios in the editor
- The ability to make new units in the editor have their own sprites. In the MHI editor, if you made a new unit, it would show up as an infantry without a decal.
- The ability to edit the world map and regions in the editor, or in any external application.
- Expanded Economic actions
Its alot, but most of them have already been considered and/or put into the game or are being put in.
S.A.S.
"Friendly Fire isn't" Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them. All wars are civil wars, because all men are brothers
- TJelas
- location: Unknown
- joined: Feb 07, 2010
- posts: 210
- Banned
ian241289 said
Hope I am not one of these. If I am I didn't mean to be but I don't think I said anything in form of complaints or anything like that
You're not.
Chris--
Product Manager
Chris said
ian241289 said
Hope I am not one of these. If I am I didn't mean to be but I don't think I said anything in form of complaints or anything like that
You're not.
Chris--
good good : ] on a side note are stealth bombers in MH2? as earlier in this Ralph said Gotha GO229 was in the game and I wondered if it was for strategic bombers or stealth bombers
I tore a path screaming through wind and blood, I will it all, burning deep, in my, skull
TehBoss said
Things I want in MHII:
- Paratroopers
- Expanded Diplomacy
- Expanded Tech Tree
- Expanded Air and Land units
- The ability to make events in the editor
- The ability to make region-specific scenarios in the editor
- The ability to make new units in the editor have their own sprites. In the MHI editor, if you made a new unit, it would show up as an infantry without a decal.
- The ability to edit the world map and regions in the editor, or in any external application.
- Expanded Economic actions
Its alot, but most of them have already been considered and/or put into the game or are being put in.
I would like to see those too. Also, I would like to be in the need of producing an army of more then just one unit. Now, in MH1 you could just make light tanks and take over the whole world. Light tanks are pretty good, pretty fast and not easy to destroy. If you make a lot of 'em, you can do anything. Not very realistic. I would like to see I have to make (for example) infantry to protect my tanks against the enemy force which has anti-tank units. Or something like that.
'If it ain't Dutch, it ain't much!'
- Dutchie
- location: Netherlands
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 400
I'd absolutely love to see a more robust diplomatic game, it being the main thing I thought was missing from MH1 to make it an ideal war/economy/diplomacy trifecta. Everything we've heard so far on that sounds great and I hope it lives up to its promise, even to the point of a potentially interesting game that doesn't even have you being directly involved in the war.
The military system should be structured so as to make mixed armies more effective - in fact, they should be indispensible for a world-class military. It was too easy to skip entire branches of research and rule the seas with just heavy cruisers, the land with just light tanks, or what-have-you.
On the same token, more ways to pursue weapons development is great. I love that you can build a zeppelin fleet, even if it likely won't be very cost-effective. But this should be broad branches, not nitty-gritty details - MH was a grand strategy game, not a tactical wargame.
More terrain and weather modifiers, and logistical difficulties to keep it from being easy to conquer all of Russia/China/etc. Again it sounds like this is coming, so good. :)
More uniqueness to as many different countries as possible. I think this already will be in place due to the many new factors (more granular culture, religion being a factor, and so forth), but anything that makes each new play experience more unique will be awesome for the long-term fun of playing the game. Or as an alternative (or adjunct), maybe some randomness would be an interesting factor to spice things up - countries could develop particularly good designs for their fighter craft which would be superior to contemporaries, or what have you.
By the same token, I hope many possible creatable countries are included to allow for fun historic puppet states and new regimes. Ideally, every regional identity and relatively recent historical entity should be "liberateable" as ally/vassal/puppet governments.
I'm withdrawing all of my previous comments on this thread, I was trying to raise points to get rid of prerequisites on research and research that I felt was unnecessary, obviously there are so many who feel that I am wrong in my thinking. But, just so you know, here are some examples of things that you need to consider: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/British_Gun_Carrier_Mark_I_-60_pdr.jpg/220px-British_Gun_Carrier_Mark_I-_60_pdr.jpg http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/UnitedStates/selfpropelledguns/usspc-T3-75mm.jpg for this one, it's a 75mm howitzer on a chassis that is definitely not a medium tank chassis. and for mechanized, if you are talking about half-tracks as most people would think this form of infantry would be, refer to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-track. As you can see the concept preceded light tank development. and finally something else of interest.
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
- 00crusader
- location: United States
- joined: Dec 04, 2009
- posts: 142
The Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source of information.
I however, dislike the idea of being able to research whatever I choose to. Atleast that is what I gained from reading your posts.
Otherwise, I pretty much enjoy having to pre-research somthing to obtain another thing. It is much more realistic then researching a light tank and then researching an advanced tank.
If that makes sense.
~Feared.
"If I kill you, You can hate me. If you kill me, There are no hard feelings." - Rawr.
- FearedxRawr
- MH GOLD
- location: United States
- joined: Oct 26, 2009
- posts: 15
FearedxRawr said
The Wikipedia isn't exactly the best source of information.
I however, dislike the idea of being able to research whatever I choose to. Atleast that is what I gained from reading your posts.
Otherwise, I pretty much enjoy having to pre-research somthing to obtain another thing. It is much more realistic then researching a light tank and then researching an advanced tank.
If that makes sense.
I agree with you on htat. Wiki is not the greatest, but; some of what they say is true. Here is another forum that I belong to, you might want to take a look at these threads. http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=162258&p=1425587
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=112&t=84920&p=763965
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
- 00crusader
- location: United States
- joined: Dec 04, 2009
- posts: 142
Barrage balloons.
- Bigmak5
- location: United States
- joined: Aug 10, 2009
- posts: 77
I would like to see the super carriers have a little less power. If you have played a multiplayer game with alfred you know what im talking about.
Also I would like to see a feature where if a person sends in 1 unit to stop a huge oncoming army the 1 unit will get destroyed and not stall the army moving in for a turn.
Also Nuclear missles would be sweet
Floating dry docks. The floating dry docks should be able to be towed to a port city that you have captured and the port becomes an Advanced class 3 industrial city with 50 IPU capacity and is not effected by the negatives that a captured city would normally incur. The dry dock should travel at the speed that a submarine travels or perhaps even slower. Ships repaired at these port cities with a floating dry dock are repaired as if they were in your own home port. However, the dry docks can be attacked as they are nominally ships so you will have to protect them. Maybe they can even throw in an Improved and Advanced Floating Dry Dock as well. If they added the destroyer/submarine tenders this would be a complement to the port city and floating dry dock. You will however not be able to build/construct ships, only repair them. Also only cruisers and below, including light aircraft carriers can be repaired using the floating dry docks. If the research is added to include Improved and Advanced floating dry docks then the larger ships can be repaired once the research has been completed and the units built and moved to a port.
Watch out buddy, the last time you only got a hole through your head...this time it could be worse
- 00crusader
- location: United States
- joined: Dec 04, 2009
- posts: 142
Wolf123 said
I would like to see the super carriers have a little less power. If you have played a multiplayer game with alfred you know what im talking about.
Also I would like to see a feature where if a person sends in 1 unit to stop a huge oncoming army the 1 unit will get destroyed and not stall the army moving in for a turn. Also Nuclear missles would be sweet
The carrier system is completely overhauled, so hopefully the Super Carriers will be better for you. We are also working on the combat system to address the issue of small units holding up large forces - more on that later. And missiles delivering atomic warheads will make an appearance.
Producer, Making History II
dave said
Wolf123 said
I would like to see the super carriers have a little less power. If you have played a multiplayer game with alfred you know what im talking about.
Also I would like to see a feature where if a person sends in 1 unit to stop a huge oncoming army the 1 unit will get destroyed and not stall the army moving in for a turn. Also Nuclear missles would be sweetThe carrier system is completely overhauled, so hopefully the Super Carriers will be better for you. We are also working on the combat system to address the issue of small units holding up large forces - more on that later. And missiles delivering atomic warheads will make an appearance.
Thanks for the information. i think these changes will make multiplayer mh2 alot more fun than mh1