pzgndr

Once the fleet script is executed, the fleet returns to generic AI control. It should return to a nearby friendly port unless there's an enemy it can respond to or it gets picked up by another fleet script. It won't just sit there, and AFAIK it doesn't "remember" its home port from the start of the fleet move order.

An issue to consider is how the AI handles different unit types. For garrisons, it prefers to use the corps unit-type. It may never use the rocket unit-type, even though you may define it as infantry. For hth games this won't matter, but if your intention is to provide for challenging human and computer opponent play then you need to consider the AI limitations. I ran into this trying to create a second tank unit and using the anti-tank slot. The AI doesn't use anti-tank units like tank units and I found the overall effect unsatisfying. Ideally the editor should allow you to redefine a unit-type slot to another unit-type - for both AI behavior and applicable research- but this is a code limitation and probably can't be changed. It would be nice...

This feature allows you to exclude selected resources from generic Axis and/or Allied AI planning. Sometimes the generic AI will try to focus on objectives that really may not be appropriate under certain conditions, like the Germans beating themselves senseless against the Maginot Line fortresses in 1940. So, exclude them. An offensive or garrison script to attack/defend an excluded resource will override the exclusion list and allow the plan to execute.

I agree. The Third Reich board game exploitation feature was OK for that application but not very realistic here. Another board game feature from games like AH Russian Campaign is to allow mech/armor units a second "impulse". This might be doable, since we already have multiple strikes possible, so the game "knows" a unit has done something once and then allows it to do it again. Maybe same could be done to allow a unit a complete second move?? Alternatively, just allowing a unit to move/attack in any combination and/or sequence up to its AP limit, and saving these APs even after de-selecting the unit and moving another unit, would be great.

Yeah, that's the ticket! :cool: That and sharks with friggin' laser beams on their heads. THAT's been on the wish list for over 5 years now!!

In an ideal world I would not disagree with you. However there are lots of things we do these days that we should not have to do. I would appreciate not having to take off my shoes and be subject to search simply for using an airline ticket I payed for. If you want to be a Battlefront Don Quixote tilting at DRM windmills, enjoy yourself. Methinks there are better things to do.

Yeah, software pirates hate DRM. Funny though, most honest people don't have a problem with it... :confused: You don't mention which game you played only twice. SC2, SC2-WAW, SC2-PDE? The "game" has become more complex and robust throughout its development, with each successive game better than the previous. If you take some time to check under the hood, experiment with the editor or try some of the custom mods available, you may find there's more depth to the game than you think. To each his own. I have played HOI and HOI2 and personally cannot stand the single-country continuous time format. Yes it is a very complex game with considerable depth if you're into that sort of micromanagment. However, turn-based games like the SC2 series with relatively simple game mechanics are fast-playing and fun in their own right. Many players prefer playability over those "FAR" superior aspects of complex monster games. :cool:

Something you can do is increase the movement for any or all of the HQs. I did this with Advanced Third Reich. Since UK and USA had 3-4 infantry based on greater motorization, I set the movement of HQs and artillery accordingly. The other units can still research motorization, including UK and USA for greater motorization, but HQs are constant with UK and USA having the advantage.

I can only speak for myself and my Advanced Third Reich mod. When I started it under SC2-Blitzkrieg, it was rough and the AI had issues. Under SC2-WAW with the additional unit types, I was able to split air units into fighters and tac bombers for some better results, but the AI still had issues. Under SC2-PDE with global variables and decision events, I have been able to resolve many of the AI issues and the mod plays much better for either Axis or Allied AI. Personally, I have no plans to go back and update the older versions of my mod, and even the PDE version is now in my rearview mirror. I could maybe make a few adjustments here and there based on things I have learned since SC2 was released, but there are still too many issues that cannot be overcome and I wouldn't be happy with the results. I'm currently working on the next version, and hopefully one more step closer to perfection.

This keeps coming up also. Except for a high level air unit attacking a cheap corps someplace, it is rare for a single air unit attack to completely destroy a full strength ground unit. What we have in this game system of individual attacks is multiple sequential attacks culminating in a "kill shot" by one unit. Assuming multiple combined arms attacks, why not allow that air unit to destroy the ground unit? And if one air unit can inflict some damage, then multiple air attacks on a single target should also be able to inflict damage and perhaps completely destroy a unit with air attack alone. So what? If air assets are all being used on a few select targets then they are not being used elsewhere. And if there are too many air units or too many at high level, then that's another issue to consider. This is just another case of focusing too closely on an individual combat and not liking the abstractions. So, don't focus too closely! Look at the bigger picture and see if overall results over time and across a theater are reasonable or not. Going back to the 'ol Third Reich game, consider if 3 air fleets and an infantry were all attacking an enemy infantry at 3-1 odds and completely destroyed it. Who did that, just the infantry with some air support or maybe just the air units with some token infantry support? Who cares? In the course of that 3-month long seasonal turn you applied combat power to a battle and the results were what the were. Move on. See the forest, not the trees.

A few years ago I read the Eastern Front memoir of General Erhard Raus, Panzer Operations. As commander of 6th Panzer Division, in one chapter of the book he vividly described his unit's role in the unsuccessful effort to relieve the German 6th Army surrounded at Stalingrad. Combat operations literally started the moment his panzers offloaded at the railhead in Kotelnikovo on 27 November 1942 and continued for the next four weeks. Raus had prior Eastern Front experience with Army Group North before moving the division to France for refit. When he "operated" back to the Stalingrad area he kept crews with their tanks on the railcars and fully armed. They successfully fought off partisans enroute at one point. And of course they hit the ground running when they offloaded. This particular example is a notable exception I would say. Most movements are goatscrews in one way or another. I had some experience back in late 80s as a Bde Asst S4 moving our units around Germany to Grafenwoehr/Hohenfels and back and railhead opns were always a pain. So I can personally relate to why a readiness reduction makes sense.

Hey that's what grumpy old guys are here for! Rather than the cadres showing up on the map, the virtual cadres are assumed to be forming the new units at reduced cost and build time. May not be perfect but works OK. Better than before in SC1 with no rebuild advantage. Another retreat perspective is the old AH Russian Front game. In that game combat occurred in the hex. Encircled units could move to "attack", accept a soakoff loss, and continue to "retreat" through the encriclement lines and back into friendly territory. Point is there are many possibilities and hard to say what is "right" and "wrong" in a game design. If every game was the same, that wouldn't be very interesting.

Basically it reflects a reduction in readiness, since a large unit (corps-sized) would require many transports over a period of time and some consolidation/reorganization would be needed at the disembarkation point. The morale loss is temporary and quickly recovered; besides units cannot operate and then fight in the same turn anyway. What it really does is penalize the player somewhat for rapidly operating defenders into a hotspot rather planning ahead for a deliberate defense. Anyway, that's the reasoning behind it. This morale loss parameter is editable. If you think 25% is too high then change it. For other scenarios with different scales such as brigade- or division-sized, a lower morale/readiness loss may be more appropriate. To offer another perspective, some other games of old which had strategic movement or strategic redeployment rules generally restricted units from being "operated" through enemy ZOCs or adjacent to enemy units at any point. It was meant to help move units long distances but didn't much help you during the turn of movement.

Maybe, it depends on the system. I would not claim retreat is a must-have fundamental feature for every game. My all-time favorite AH Third Reich board game had no retreat or step-loss feature; the CRT was either AE, DE or exchange with no in-between. Combat results were HEAVILY abstracted and unrealistic, and yet the overall ebb and flow of the game managed to be a pretty good simulation of the ETO struggle. All? No, you need to go back and read again what I wrote about the loss calculations. But even if all these things were "fixed", ie revised calculations and introduction of retreats, all you do is move the goalposts for this game and then begin to argue about the limitations on unit types and force pools and other issues. Like no stacking, no combined arms odds-based attacks, etc. etc. It remains a game and not a simulation. I have been relatively happy with recent game results from my A3R mod as far as that overall ebb and flow of the game is concerned. Individual combats remain abstract, but results over time appear fairly historical and realistic. See, this is the beauty of the Editor and ability to mod the campaigns. Players can make adjustments to achieve more of a simulation effect, or add more flexibility for a wilder game. :cool:

This is an important point. It's a game. The other thread haggling about what specific tanks or airplanes represent each tech level and whether their appearance is historical or not is just getting down into weeds that don't mean anything. It's not a simulation. As a game it's fun and there's adequate WWII historical flavor. IMHO, one way around the "bloody" combat results associated with the high tech levels is to restrict research to just a couple levels or not have any research at all. #1 reason being there is no "relative difference" calculated between attacker and defender tech levels. Both loss calculations account for increasing tech levels for either side, which both increase over the course of a game, but do not cancel themselves out. Thus two L5 units will beat the heck out of each other worse than two L0 units will, whereas intuitively you might think the results should be more consistent?

Well it means Hubert isn't done yet! LOL. And that's all I can say about that. But seriously, it doesn't make sense for me to convert to PT and then convert again later. Upon review of my first AI-AI game using the "new" force pools, I am rather not liking the new 1-3's not garrisoning. Too many good units are being wasted on garison duty, and the AI logic for employing anti-tank and anti-air is not the same as for tank and infantry. This may not work after all. But rest assured, I will keep trying and come up with something. Maybe the heavy tanks as anti-tank and 2-3 infantry as anti-air will be better. If not, then I'll keep what's already working with the infantry and tank research scheme. Anyways, my point is I'm still continuing to develop A3R.

Thank you! This is most likely a final update for PDE. I am moving on to the next version of the SC series (not Pacific Theater ) and have converted over my campaigns. I am working on three significant improvements, now that the AI scripting issues seem to be resolved to my satisfaction: 1. I have decided to bite the bullet and use those unused anti-tank and anti-air unit slots to better differentiate all the 2-3/3-3 infantry, 3-5/4-5 armor and 4-6/5-6 armor units for Germany, Italy and USSR. So, no more infantry and heavy tank research with its wild card randomness and all units being treated the same. Now Italy has its two 3-3 infantry at start, USSR can begin building 3-3 infantry and 4-5 armor, and Germany gets back its heavy panzer corps. This required some gymnastics to revise all the CTVs, force pools, production scripts, unit events, etc. One compromise is that the 1-3 infantry/replacement corps use the anti-air slot which provides them an automatic defensive fire for adjacent air attacks, but their air defense is minimal so it's no biggie. I have noticed so far one nice effect - the AI likes to garrison with #UNIT=1 corps which means capitals and other key locations now tend to have 2-3 infantry or other units, allowing those cheap 1-3's to be used for other roles. 2. I have also decided to bite the bullet and update the 3D icons so all these changes look acceptable for playing in that mode. That's another little project in itself which I have been avoiding for too long. Now is the time. 3. Finally, I shall work on adding the 1942 and 1944 scenarios to the A3R series. Not sure what the demand might be for those, but once I get everything else squared away it's not too difficult to update from 1941 to 1942 and then to 1944. I may make other minor adjustments and enhancements here and there, but the game is pretty solid now and it's time to make the changes I mention above. As always, if anyone spots issues with what's out there now or has suggestions for improvements, just let me know!

How about a simple determination if interceptors win or lose the battle with escorts? If they lose, they abort. If they win, they proceed to a second battle with the bombers. Should be doable? As it is, it's unrealistic for low-grade escorts to take all the hits from top-notch interceptors and the bombers aren't touched at all. While we're on the subject, how about paratroop airdrops being subject to escort and interception??

I have submitted updates to my A3R mod to the Battlefront repository which should be posted shortly. Both the 1939 and 1941 campaigns are updated with the following changes: I initially thought this would just be a minor update but as seen above there have been quite a number of tweaks and adjustments. I want to acknowledge Big Al for his inspirational idea regarding convoy scripting and Blashy for his feedback regarding Axis and Allied AI performance. I want to mention a few highlights. The AI is beefed up in many respects, and deselection of elite reinforcements helps level the playing field. Germany starts with reduced production in 1939 which makes their buildup a little more challenging. The revised convoy scripting allows more Lend Lease to USSR in the middle game and reduces aid later when USSR is on the roll and the western Allies are building up on the continent. Lastly, some revised UK transport scripts now provide serious Allied AI opposition in the Middle East. All-in-all, everything is much better. Enjoy!

The hard build limits and production delays were introduced in SC2 to provide more realism for players who want that in a wargame. These can be disabled to still allow for fun and exciting games if that's what players want. Having the force pool limits enabled represents manpower and resource limitations to some degree, which was a complaint from many SC1 players. It's not perfect in SC2, but helps to make games more historically accurate.

Here's what I said in my Wargamer article: Those two big changes - decision events and global variable - really make a difference.

Soon? That's a technical term meaning sometime between later this afternoon and within the month.

Yes it's a bug and is fixed in the next patch. I saw the same thing playtesting PDE v1.02 and Hubert's resolved the issue.

Unfortunately no. That picture in the manual was edited manually to help show the supply concept. It would be great to have some actual supply graphic in the game one of these days: numbers, red/yellow/green dots, something. Hubert has this on a To-Do List I believe, along with hundreds of other back burner ideas.

I'm curious what you're referring to also. I wrote the original SC2 manual and tutorial. The tutorial only covers the first couple of turns and does not address an invasion of Norway. I did a couple of searches and couldn't find what you're talking about? My initial thought was if blocking the British navy around Norway was the goal, it was probably to protect an invasion fleet of amphibious transports. Use the German navy to screen the transports, not venture out into the North Sea to aggressively block the British Navy out in the open. That's what I would have said, and maybe did someplace. If you try my Advanced Third Reich mod, the Germans have a slight qualitative naval advantage over the British. The British have a quantitative advantage but not by much. Early naval encounters are not usually to the British advantage and they should be cautious until they gain a few more fleets.