pzgndr

For a retro-moment, I recall buying Tactics-II for $5 about 30 years ago. Relatively speaking, $25 today for SC with all its capability is a genuine bargain. Now, if I could just spend that $25 and get the game already and play the campaign game and read the designer notes and tweak the scenarios some and play the game some more and play the game some more and play the game some more ...

Not necessary. Electronic Arts is planning a Fall 2002 release, "The Sims - WWII European Theater." Design and play your own character. Massively multiplayer support is expected to consume ALL available internet resources. Stay tuned. :eek:

I was hoping to hear something about builds for axis minors, and maybe about HQs for Finland and Rumania. Any comments?

With all this time on our hands waiting for the game release, could we get some more information about what the editor does offer us? Starting from scratch, I assume we can define research levels, starting MPPs, types and locations of units, etc. How about neutral countries and axis minors? How about neutral Italy and Russia? The map and resources are fixed, but are the resource values defined somewhere that we could edit them? How about plunder values? Anything to do with partisans? The game specs don't provide much information about everything in the editor or how it works, so just looking for what its capabilities and limitations actually are. Perhaps a quickie tutorial?

This is a good idea worth considering for a future enhancement, maybe as an advanced game option. If attacks cost slightly more than 1/2 total action points, units would be limited to 1 attack per turn. That would permit move/attack, attack/move, or extended movement/no attack. Also, readiness could decrease as action points are expended. This would make deliberate attacks more effective than hasty attacks from the march.

Wonderful! So tweaking the setups to provide MPPs to build units you want will work and should provide sufficient variation. Has this been done during any of the playtesting? Just curious what the AI does with an open checkbook, whether it tends toward a historical balance or does weird things. I'd probably opt for about 70-80% historical setup anyway, to keep games fairly normal. This will be fun! :cool:

We're not likely to see divisions introduced at this scale, even abstractly as you're proposing. The best we can hope for is some later addition of specialized corps units, like airborne, mountain, or artillery. Mech infantry corps and armies have been proposed for British and US forces, so maybe that will happen eventually. And as it stands now with leadership, unit success affects HQ experience, which simulates commanders being promoted and such. That's fine. I really don't want to deal with additional detail below the HQ level at this scale. Interesting idea though. An interesting strategy vs tactics issue to watch is whether to buy more armies or more corps, since there are pros and cons both ways and there are no force pool restrictions to deal with. It's hard to tell in the demo, but maybe the playtesters have some insight on this. If we eventually see specialized corps, it may get even more interesting.

I suspect the full SC campaign game will contain sufficient surprises for now. Adding more partisans shouldn't be too difficult, and could probably be an option for all partisan activity and not just by country (Yugoslavia and Russia, etc.) Maybe have no partisans, mild partisans, or aggressive partisans as options? As for units not being able to move, this could be added as a random chance. Russo-German War has this as a FOW option, where sometimes when you select a unit it can't move, so this is a possibility.

We can probably use the current editor to adjust setups and provide for some variation. Reduce the starting forces for each side by a unit or two and add their MPPs to the setup. Can we do this - give countries at-start MPPs in addition to unit setups? Since you start "at-war", you'll need to start with some forces deployed, but perhaps you could start with substantial MPPs and build whatever you want. You would then have some flexibility to customize your strategy, but it would take at least the first turn or two to build and deploy the different units, so you lose some time. However, it would be very interesting with FOW to see what the AI does with some additional flexibility. :cool: For later, I would also like to see some advanced game features offering variants and optional details.

This needs to be looked at. Without getting into a complicated supply discussion, if units can get someplace then it stands to reason that their supply trains can also. Maybe limited supply and reinforcements relative to being within range or a city or HQ, but not zero. I'd prefer to see armor ZOCs which can cut off supply lines and operational movements, rather than arbitrary supply ranges. Watching units die on the vine simply because they're a couple of hexes beyond the normal supply range is frustrating. Another option is to provide low-value HQ units for some of the minor allies, primarily Finland and Rumania, which would improve their supply situation and provide some historical leadership since German HQs aren't allowed to. Maybe we can do this with the scenario editor. If not, maybe there's still time for another tweak to make this happen. And what's the deal if minor allies are lost in combat? It appears Germany can't buy any new minor units. Do replacements magically appear later, or are they lost forever? Just wondering. There should be a way for Germany to buy new minor units.

At least include a plastic action figure of Hubert in the game package. Maybe with sound effects and canned responses from Magic 8-Ball. That should do it.

I agree we don't need Calais, but I'll put in a vote for adding Southampton/Portsmouth on the southern British coast, Cherbourg on the French coast, and Bremen/Hamburg on the German west coast one of these days. These were major port facilities. Sealion is such a bear until you're able to take London, but logistics for the landing force should not be as tight as they are in SC. Not easy, but a little better - and a port on the southern coast would help. If play balance is the issue, then there are probably other factors to consider besides severely restricting cross-channel supply, like ... beaches. Another thing about ports. In my attempts to invade Norway, I note the British fleets are unable to enter the port hex at Bergen, even after it's been reduced to zero, due to the German defenders in the city I guess. However, with Sealion I note the British fleet could still come and go through Gillingham even after I took London. This was irritating. I haven't quite figured out the port control thing. Btw, was "Gillingham" a real port? How about Harwich or Great Yarmouth, or just call it London. I am noticing if I build up a stronger garrison in Poland then Russia doesn't declare war so quickly, so perhaps the Nazi-Soviet Pact politics takes that into account. It will be interesting to see to complete designer notes when they come out. :cool: Anyway, May 16, 1941, rolls around much too soon. Where the heck is that Gold Demo??

What if we combine SC with Space Empires IV and Combat Mission? Have a galaxy quadrant map, then system maps, then the global geodesic map, and then theater maps for ETO and PTO? Then zooming in ultimately to the squad/crew level and 1-minute turns? Yikes^2! :eek: Friends don't let friends post drunk.

PARATROOPS! BB, you are such a tease! "Tweakleaks" is an excellent term. Something to add to the Devil's Dictionary - a snipet of information with limited value; a thing to be neither confirmed nor denied.

After watching this volley of discussion and then hearing the cryptic ruling from the umpire, the crowd is still left wondering "What exactly has been changed?" We certainly do not expect daily updates on every tweak to the code during beta testing, but it would be nice to get periodic updates on what is being addressed and how. Are our various comments on track or not? You guys release a beta demo and open up a forum for discussion, so you have to expect this kind of chatter. Obviously, there are things Hubert is set on not changing and others he may adjust based on player feedback. Rather than get defensive, just summarize the changes being made in response to our comments and try to channel our discussions toward the final release. Btw, Dave Barry would agree that "Hubert and the Beta Boys" is a great name for a band.

How about a minimum strength before units are allowed to be disbanded, say 3 or 4, when they become combat ineffective anyway? This would definitely prevent the wholesale conversion of healthy units. As you point out, this is a very "gamey" tactic that defeats the historical setups provided. Players should learn to deal with the situation and take care when deciding what to build.

Do you seriously expect to beat Russia in a 1-year demo of the 1940 scenario? As happened historically, Germany has to build up forces and prepare for a major campaign. If you don't secure the resources of the Low Countries and France, you won't be able to build up enough forces and you'd leave your western flank open. If you do, it takes time to complete and then transfer forces east. Also, your Balkan flank may need to be secured. These are realistic considerations. What value is there to "beating the game" if Russia were to fall too easily? Same for the beat-Italy strategy that Hubert is fixing. WWII was a tough war. Let's keep it that way in the game.

"End of the war" meaning defeat of all other major powers? Since I haven't seen victory conditions defined anywhere, I assume this is the only option and the scenarios simply alter the starting conditions. If true, then SC does not have victory conditions based on total resources controlled at a point in time or some other combination of resources, units and MPPs. So, we can't really play a 1 or 2 or 3-year scenario for just the early or middle war? Recommend the start conditions for each scenario provide a benchmark for determining victory on those dates so players can either declare a winner or continue to the next benchmark. Other games provide something like this. If this is already the case with SC, then great. If not, please add this to the ToDo list for a future enhancement.

All quiet on the western front today. Since there seems to be a revised beta out there being playtested, perhaps we could get an update on seeing a revised demo released soon? Maybe a with another 1-year scenario thrown in, like 1941? Sure would be a shame to ring in the 61st anniversary of Operation Barbarossa TOMORROW without being able to play it on SC.

So why are French roads lined with trees? Because the Germans like to march in the shade! OK, OK, I won't quit my day job ...

Jorgen's sprites look really good. The subs need some customizing, but that's easy. I'm wondering why some unit types have multiple sprites for showing upgrades while others do not, like the fleets and subs. Maybe Hubert can expand the sprites to include ship upgrades, so we can add dots and/or different silhouettes?

Thanks Hubert. Obviously there's a lot to consider in the game market today which most of us don't fully understand or appreciate. So follow your priorities. Get SC up and running first and then let us know what your next strategic command decision is. :cool:

To paraphrase from the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, "OF COURSE IT'S AN INTERSETING IDEA!" LOL There's great potential for SC as a TOAW-like game engine where players can define their own game parameters and generate scenarios. Besides, I really don't want to endlessly pursue PTO, ETO2, PTO2, Advanced ETO Gold!, etc. Marketing pre$$ure may dictate otherwise, but FWIW I'd like to see Hubert and Battlefront move SC in a game engine direction rather than new game production. Straha indicates that mine is not the only voice in the wilderness here, so maybe we can make a difference. Thanks. Btw, there IS an open-source game development code called Xconq out there which I've been messing around with for several months. You can edit the code itself in C/C++ if you want to, but only need to create scenario files with unit definitions and various tables to actually create and play games. So when I suggest various parameters could be tweaked, it's from some experience in defining these myself for a 3R-type game I'm working on. Anyway, this is just a shameless plug for Xconq which will soon release v7.5. SC has the AI and politics beat hands-down, so there's no real competition, but Xconq provides an interesting benchmark for comparison.

Ideally, shore bombardment and air bombardment should be much less effective (-30% ?) if there are no ground units adjacent to the target hex, ie, no spotters to direct fire. Ground units offshore on transports waiting to land could count as spotters. Now that sounds real "tactical", but would address some of the concerns here. Whether Hubert can code in combat modifiers based on the presence of adjacent ground units is another issue, but should be possible. I wouldn't want to get rid of shore bombardment completely, but agree it needs to be toned down some. I also get a kick out of ground units inflicting counter-damage on fleets at sea during bombardments, like that's going to really happen. Ground units should not be able to attack naval units at sea, only in port. Another related issue is air attacks on naval units at sea. Carrier air should have an advantage over ground-based air, based on training and doctrine. They're different. Likewise, carrier air attacks on ground units should be at a disadvantage. Not sure what Hubert has in the guts of his combat code, but this is something to consider.

What??? With research and some luck, I'm sure we could see level 2 jet fighters by 1915. :eek: Seriously, I'd like to see a full function game editor some day like TOAW provides. I've commented before on the robust features of SC and its AI. If we could have a map editor, some sort of events editor for politics and diplomacy, the ability to define any type of unit we want (like airborne units and air transports), and the ability to define resources, etc, then the SC game engine could be used for WWI, American civil war, or whatever. None of this will be possible with the current editor, but there's a lot of potential for later. First things first, WHERE'S THE GAME???