emf

@xwormwood, I don't recall having any problem upgrading minors to the same level as majors, maybe I just wasn't paying attention or I'm so used to my own scenarios. And yes, it is quite expensive.

I believe that the minors should never have tech values as high a the majors. No major would ever give away its cutting edge equpiment, if for no other reason than for national security. I also think that the costs associated with minor tech upgrades should take into consideration training and logistics. Training - the language and cultural barrier. Logistics - getting the equipment to the country. For instance Hungary, minor of Germany - the cost for training should be minimal since the culture and language are similar enough to Germany to negate the minor differances. The cost of logistics should be negligible since the two countries share a border. Hungary, minor of Britian - the cost of training should be more than for Germany since the language and culture are not so similar. The cost of logistics should be high since Britian would need to first - transport by sea, then transport via land, if allowed by another country (one more reason to use politics). Hungary, minor of USSR - should be between that of Germany and Britian For instance China, minor of USA - the cost of training should be considerable since the language and culture is compleatly dissimular for one another. The cost for logistics would also be tremendous since all equipment must be shipped half-way across the world then half-way across a continent. China, minor of Germany - the cost of training should be the same as for USA. The cost of logistics should be even higher. China, minor of USSR - the cost of training and logistics should be low. I'm not sure how to make this work in the game, but I think it should be given some thought.

Thanks SeaMonkey, didn't realize that.

I believe the ability to re-build eliminated units should be tied to the units ability to trace a supply line at the start of its turn. A unit which starts the turn without being able to trace a supply line, i.e. surrounded or behind enemy lines, then it should NOT be possible to rebuild that unit.

It might be helpful when creating a new map to be able to click on the river, road, or railroad button, then click on a tile, click on another tile and have the game connect the two points with the appropriate symbol...river, road, or railroad. This would be in addition to placing them individually.

In the spirit of the "What we would like to see in the Global SC" thread I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread solely for the editor. I'll get the ball rolling with: When setting a tile's weather, all tiles with the same weather should highlight. This should be in addition to the different colors used to identify weather zones. I noticed that the colors repeat, for example 3 and 23 are the same color. If the tiles were highlighted then the job of editing the weather zones would be much easier.

@arado234: in a way yes, but perhaps the ideas could be used to create specific scenerios. Besides, speaking for myself, the ideas we are coming up with I'm sure we know that most will never see the light of day. They are just a starting point for discussion.

@ SeaMonkey I like your ideas, but I think that with the groups of units, all units should be adjacent to a unit that is in contact with an enemy unit. And/or if they are farther away, then they should have a very high readiness, perhaps for every tile away from the enemy the necessary readiness should increase.

This could be done either as a researchable tech or as an event. The event would be easier, as they would appear the turn after D-day. They should have no more than a supply level of 5 and perhaps, be able to supply no more than 3 units not including HQs, and no more than 3 tiles away. The tech would allow them to move? from port to any non port, have a higher supply level, supply more units, and supply units further away.

The leaders of countries, large and small, don't liked to be pushed around. Nor do they like to feel that they have been forced into a situation not of their choosing. When a major country tries to influance a minor who's to say that they must react neutrally or positively? Can they not also react negatively? I suggesst that there should be a small chance (1% per chit, or higher in the editor) that a minor would move away from the country trying to influance it and towards the enemy parent.

Colin I - imho, I concider anti-air, anti-tank, and artillery to be tactical, but for the purpose of this game they are organized in batteries and thus are operational in nature. I think that, for such units, entrenchment levels also could be concidered as organizational in function. So for a battery to entrench it might take as long as a week to get all the units dug-in and sighted, communications networks laid out, chain of command, etc... Long story short I kinda agree with Seamonkey with the need for at least entrenchment level 1.

I think that improvments in infrastructure should increase the industry modifier. Building better, more, and more efficient roads and railroads means you are able to move more materials faster. Each new level of infrastructure will give the industrial modifier an increase of 1% to a max of 5%.

I think it would be nice to have HQ's drop by parachutes, after all para units did have some sort of HQ with them and they were able to put into amphibious ships. Now I do realize they may not be a large as regular HQ's but that can be solved by limiting the strength of said unit to no higher than 5. We might also limit the number of units and the range of units attachable to the HQ, perhaps 2 or 3.

I would like to see, on the reports menu, a break-down of units by type, both for what you have and what you have eliminated. It would also be nice to show what units are yours and what units are your minors.

If we allow all air units a multiple strike then we should allow anti-air that ability as well. I also feel that multiple strikes be allowed for defense as well as attack. I can give artillery a multiple strike on the attack but why not on defense? We should be given the choice (via the editor) of multi-strike attack or defense for anti-air, artillery, and anti-tank.