Victor Reijkersz

well i think its just very funny. this just goes to show you should always log out! even if you think you are visiting an obscure website nobody else will be visiting

@Kuniworth, Actually this used to be game-genre on it self. Cant quite remember the game name, but you had to semi-code your robots behaviour and then sent them into an arena facing robots of other players. Only thing you would need for this to work is the option to easily import different ais for axis and respec. allies. Bwaah.. anyway.. it was just a thought. it is a good and quick way to test an ai script though.

Do I forsee your AI versus my AI battles? Who can make the best AI?

@Hubert, Thanks for redirecting Mr Constructive to my forum Looking forward to seeing SC2 soon! Happy coding. @All, PT was never ment to be like SC. It is ment to integrate tactical and strategic gameplay into one game. Anyways i am working hard on PT2 and am trying to move it towards a beta version. Still half year to go for that happening though. @Retributar, I fear the rules will not be simplified. I just like it to add somany rules to a game that playing it correctly becomes more a way of intuition than cold calculation. Kind regards, Vic

Whats the point of a 512x512 map. If a unit can move like 5 squares a turn, it will take it 100 turns to move from one side to the other!

Actually i think the Vikings used their seaworthy battleships a lot to go up rivers to perform battle actions.... kind regards, vic

Patience leads to expectation Expectation leads to anger Anger leads to hate Hate leads to the dark side of the force Take your time, Hubert. It is no strawl in the park to code a game. Especially not if you are recoding everything.

Dear friar, It is a bit of neccesity in abstract games. Since where exactly on a x,y access would you position an Army Corps? I guess it could be done using some fuzzy logics and moddeling frontlines, but a real x-y axes system is much more suited for tactical wargames. And they do use them. I think Close Combat or Combat Mission are fine examples.

Mmhh.. it could be intriguing to create a traingle based wargame. Would that oversimplify things even more than squares? or would it become more complex then? Or is it a question that squares are associated with simple games?

I repeat my point. Though i don't know if troops can retreat in SC2, if they can, adding morale could be an option as an influencer of their retreat trigger. Because as we all know the Youth division fought well, but also fought itself to dead, as many Japanese troops did too. Morale doesn't let you fight more efficiently, it enables you to take more casualties in defence (to the last bullet/no retreat) or in attack (kamikazi, charge).

Or in other words: multiple variables can add to the same modifier (combat strength). Morale as extra variable as providing a positive modifier on combat strength is pointless, since it could just as well be modled through experience. Only point of adding morale is if it for example influences the retreat-behaviour of a unit.

On the eastfront Hitler first issued his no retreats order. I think this would not have enabled Rommel to conduct the battle like a naval engagement. I do not see how Rommel could have avoided catastrophy at Kursk. The only way he could have avoided that was: not strike at kursk but at an unexpected place. And that is something more people tried to convince hitler off. Also the problem with the Ukraine is it large number of towns, rivers, and villages. The Ukraine is not like the dessert at all. Now having made Rommel supreme commander in 1942 and having hitler leaving military affairs (like Stalin) to him, that would have been another case.

Very convincing. I surrender. Probably you are right... i concede against logical arguments. I am not going for a detailed discussion. But as an afterthought i would like to ask you how Rommel's plans when he just arrived in Africa must have sounded... (we must be on the defensive, not the offensive) What i am saying there is if the allies would have taken some chances they might well have paid off. The historical slow and low-risc allied advance always gave the germans the time to build up defences and get troops from other parts of the Reich. If the allies could have stalled the arival of this reinforcements for some months, which is an eternity in politics, the italians would have switched sides.

They could have used Malta for air support couldn't they? The point is there were almost no german troops in Italy at the time of Torch. So if in a quick strike the Allies would just have occupied the main logistical (ports) and political centres.. the Italians would have switched sides. Especially because it would co-incide with the Italian debacle on the East front. The few germans in Italy at that time would have been overwhelmed by the Italians and Allied troops. This would then happen at a time that Rommel still had a LOT of italians fighting with him. A few months of no supply and surrendering italians would have surely killed him off. Ok the germans would have moved in and would eventually destroy the Allied troops and switched-Italian troops and militia in the North of Italy, but that would buy time to reinforce the south and middle of Italy, which is very defendable (as Kesselring showed) and it would result at least in a frontline just above Rome in early 43, instead of early 44.

Argh... sorry... i meant Eisenhowers book!!! Stupid, stupid mistake. It was Eisenhower: Crusade in Europe. Btw a more bold plan was to go directly for Sicily and Rome and cause a total collapse of Italy, cutting the Afrika Corps completly off.