PowerGmbH

No. this is a simple fact. in a Player vs Player Game this is not a problem: Simply everyone shows to be "Friendly" onthis border. The AI doesn't know about that, but maybe ther will come a solution to this one day.

hmm. i understand finally. you can dive trough all exept Destroyers but you can't come to surface on an occupied Sea Field. Now this creates a Problem: In the Global Map Subs would have a Range of 6. Silent mode would be Range 3. Now this means that any Allied "Wall" ( i.e. in the Channel ) wider than 1 Tile, will confront the sub with the Surfacing Problem. Any two ships put one behind the other ( i.e. Channel ) would mean an impossibility to dive trough. So the Silent Range is simply not enough. or is there a solution?

I must say up to now i didn't understand the "silent mode" Really! If i set silent mode and i mouve the Sub trough the "Channel" then a Cruiser that i previousely didnt spot/see ( Fog of War ) Pops up and stops my Sub. so I thought i can dive trough this ship and continue to the Atlantic, but no. nothing to do... my unit is spotted, stopped and the Destroyers come like ****-flies. Wasn't the Silent mode for diving through all ships (exept destroyers) without beeing spotted?

YES: a Hexes SC1 Editor that has full SC2 AI and all these new features would be best. Also Really dont forget the SC1 Simplification that was so grat! Such a SC3 would be "win"!

Engine: Current Synopsis: Units can "swich" position if they have both enough mouvement points Details: often there is simply not enough place to mouve 2 units in a certain defense line. with the "Swich option" the Player can: Attac with Army A click on "Swich with" and then click on an other unit in range i.e. Corps B ( who still has mouving points ), and then the Corps B comes to the Position of Army A while Army A comes to the position of Corps B. The Reason is sometimes ( i.e. Global Map / Pacific Islands? ) there are simply not enough empty Land Squares in the Frontline in order to Attack with Army A, retreat to "empty field", then mouve Corps B to Position of Army A, and then Attack with Corps B. Problems: normally only coding... no real Strategic change

Wow!!!! one of the best prepared sites of the Barbarossa campaign i have ever seen. Retributar: at the beginning maybe look on top on the right side and click "english version"...

Engine: Current Synopsis: Units cut-off from Support can receive each round support (i.e. 5, or 8?), for 1 round from Bomber units (one Unit by bomber), this costs a certain value of MPP. Description: A cut-off Army ( i.e. in Stalingrad...) can be supported by Bombers (even in Rainy time ) if it is within range of the Bomber Unit. So if one clicks on the Bomber Unit and then on a friendly Unit which has Supply BELOW 5, then by clicking, a window opens and asks: do you want to supply this unit for the next round? then the player can click on this and send "Supply" which costs i.e. 5% of the Unit value On the very next round this Unit then has a Supply of i.e.5 instead of 0, during ONE round. Means if one will supply regularly a Cut-off Army ome must have a Bomber unit fully activated only for supply, which then can't do any other bombings. Problems: ?? dont see any

EdwinP: I would not be 100% in favour of: "02.02 No armor, tactical bombers, bombers, or anti-air units and no related research in these areas." Remember: Zeppelines / Blimps played an important role in this time, so a Zeppelin like looking Bomber or so would go well ( maybe without upgrade) Same for special warfare: Gas as weapon was one of the specialities of this war, so instead of rocketery, there could be used this. Armor could also be possible but simply as latest developement upgrade of cavallery. ( means: Cavallery is Standart, Upgrade 1 & 2 keeps beeing cavallery, und Upgrade 3 is i.e. an Armor Unit.)

Guys Remember CHESS: As long as you have the "Unit" in your hand = no Move. If you let it OFF your hand you MOVED Definitely. Every chessplayer knows this. So think (!) before moving and see it similarly with SC2. so for me there is a no-go for simple off-click or on-click, or move-shot-move or so.

Samichlaus: WOW nice work, really. I can confirm you that the official World Map will be really mega fun as soon as it will come out! just wait a little more.

Engine: Current updated Synopsis: Minor Countris can Align politically more independently Design Summary: i.e. Finnland can be at War 100% VS UdSSR while beeing neutral TO Germany. Also Vichy France can be at war VS. Britain, while beeing Neutral TO USA and neutral TO Germany. This Change has BIG consequences on players behavoir to it's minor allies. At least it is "only" one new "#Alignment=" Definition: Possible Ranges [1] to [6] Definition of Range: 1= UK 2= USA 3= USSR 4= Germany 5= Japan 6= Italy #Surrendered to= ;[Range 1 to 6] #Variable Condition= ;[Range 1 to 6] in order to give the "#Variable Condition" a OR option, to check various alignment possibilities, a solution could be to have the check this way: Set the Alignment in this form [1,2,3] meaning: Aligned to Mayor Country 1 OR Mayor Country 2 OR Mayor Country 3. Impossible would be any Mix between Axis and Allies (i.e. [2,6]) Some Consequences to this enhancement: Mayor Parent Country: No changes necessary. Activation Rules: Mayor To Minors: fix set to 100% Activation. Mayor To Mayor: <50% Average, no Player Influence, >50% Average, Player Can set Wars in "War-Map" Minor To Mayor: 1) Activation at 100% TO Parent Mayor: Minors complete Activations automatically set = Parent Mayor 2) Activation at 100% TO Mayor: Minors complete Activations automatically set = Mayor 3) Actiavtion at 100% TO 1,2,3 Mayors: Minors complete Activations automatically set = Mayor 1 OR 2 OR 3 4) Activation < 100% TO Parent Mayor: Minors can be influenced by Both 5) Activation < 100% TO Mayor: Minors can be influenced by Both 6) Activation at 100% VS Parent Mayor: Minors can be influenced by Opposite Mayors 7) Activation at 100% VS Mayor: Minors can be Influenced by Opposite Mayors 8) Actiavtion at 100% VS 1,2,3 Mayors: Minors can be Influenced by Opposite Mayors Mayors Influence Settings Rules: 1) Influence can be absorbed by ennemy Influence (no change) Influence Result TO Mayor Parent= SUM[1,2,3] Own Influences - SUM[4,5,6] Opposite Influences 2) Influence % Result > 0: Influence % TO Mayor Parent Diplo Costs (set i.e. to 75MPP) 1) Minor <100% VS any Opposite Mayor: TO Parent Mayor: 50% TO Mayor: 100% 2) Minor =100% VS any Opposite Mayor: TO Parent Mayor: 25% TO Mayor: 50% War Situation: Minor at war with 1 up to 3 Opposite Mayors: Minor <50% TO Parent Mayor: 1)Parent Mayor can Send MPP, 2)NOT any Mayor Units on Minor Territory allowed 3)Minor Units may move To Mayor Territory and will be Supplied. Minor >50% but <100% TO Parent Mayor: 1)Parent Mayor can Send MPP, 2)Parent Mayor Units on Minor Territory allowed, 3)Mayors Units receive NO supply on Minor Territory 4)Minor Units may move To Mayor Territory and will be Supplied. Minor =100% TO Parent Mayor: 1)Parent Mayor can Send MPP 2)All 3 Mayors can send Units on Minor Territory 3)Full Supply of all 3 Mayors in Minor Territory 4)Minor Units may move To Mayor Territory and will be Supplied. Problems: Programming, completly new Political implications

Honch: how would you describe a reduction? Distance Paris-London or how? reduction similar to the scale of the European part of Global Map?

YOu have time Until July 47 to take berlin & Munich, if I remeber well. No Penalization, still Mayor Vitory!

ehhh all the "old" ideas mentionned in the older thread are allready taken into account, or do i have to write all new?

Has somebody an idea about Websites where i can find information about Action Range/Maximun Range of Fighter / Tac Bomber and Bomer Planes? I mean Historically. I found the Spitfire has an Action Range of 756 km , so this would mean the Spitfire could almost Reach Berlin an come back, but that sounds not soooo realistic, no? The Bombers could almost reach Rome !!! Some Statics on that? Other point is: How dit US Planes do the Way from Newfoundland to Britain? in one shot , or was a Landing in Greenland or on a Carrier needed? Or didnt they fly but come in Boxes with Ships?

Suggestion: Simplyfy AA, AT and Artillery !!! Synopsis: all land Units can Upgrade with ONE (Armor maybe with two) of the Features: AA, AT or Artillery Summary: In the Same way a Army can Upgrade Motorization or Inf-Weapons, this same Army can Upgrade with ONE of the Features: Artillery OR Anti Air. Same for Corps and so on. The Upgrade may look similar to the little Number of i.e. Motorization. THe Upgrade may cost similar to a Anti Air Unit. THe Reaction of a AA Upgraded Corps is similar to a Actual AA Unit: When a Bomber/Fighter Attacs it Reacts... Similar would be the Upgrade for a Army with Artilley Bataillons "inside". Why have a whole Bunch of units if at least most of these Units (AA,AT,Artillery) where grouped "inside" the Armys and Corps Divisions. Contra: Maybe someone likes too much this units... Contra: Please, Please Hubert Simplify this Units...

Funks: great idea!! would be nice to Post this Carrier-Plane Idea into the Scenario design Challenge Tread! i even would forward the idea that up to 2 Planes can simply "hop" on the Carrier which behaves like moving a Supply = 50% City. But how about HQ boost? what about if the Carrier is sunk by 2 lucky Sub's? would be not so funny to see gone 3 (!) decisive Units even if it was realistic historically (midway...)

My proposal would be: open the Skripts in the editor, and really carefully read the example on top, then read the skript itself. Normally they explain themselves. or which skript in fact seems chinese for you?

Yes the HOME PORT Building should be a Rule for Ships in the Production List. The Rule that the ports shall stay occupied and there shall be decided before where to place is realistic but i would say really difficult outcome for a player...

The Pacific alone is too easy for US Player... If you want the Pacific alone interisting you should give poor Japan some 10 extra Carriers )) and china should surrender on 1.12.41 hehe... It's notz for nothing the Allies plan was: "Germany First"

Ludi: Well taken Historically Axis Powers didn't have a chance of winning or even holding back US Capacities. see: http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm So if the game shall be balanced the Axis power needs a lot of pushings, else it appears to be the simple Historical outcome...not so fun.

I do not know much about TK army, but i found out that the Flagship of the Turkish fleet was called "Yavuz" a middle class Cruiser. Also TK had some 15 Submarines in the Black Sea.

to 2: TheBases in Newfoundland that US used where part of the "Destroyers for Bases" program, in which UK "leased" for 99 Years some bases From UK-Guyana via Bermudas up to Canada in exchange for 50 (mostly) usless old US-Destroyers. i.e. you can change this by Annex Skipt of the Canadian Port in the "Case-White/Fall Weiss" Game. to 3: Historically not unrealisitc. dont forget that Portugal also had some Colony "Timor" in Asiatic Waters as well as "Macau" and Colonies in Africa. So If the Allies would respect their own UN-Resolutions they should not interfere in colonies duties of surrendered countries. See also Vichy France which was recognized officially by USA and which colonies (Martinique/Guadeloupe i.e. ) belonged officially to Vichy, EVEN IN WESTERN Hemisphere territory ! (not forget about the interisting History of the French Carrier "Bearn" that carried the Gold from Surrendered Franch Central Bank inside, and was stationed in Martinique(!), and the attempt of UK to seize (rob!) this Gold and PAY whith this gold the "Supply for Cash" US Sellings..., while US warned Axis NOT to do the same (rob the gold), but US could NOT afford to march into the island. Interisting no? Long story short: Historically almost every dirty land/resource taking activities where possible, but not allways realized when other solutions where somehow "less" dirty...no matter if Axis or Allies activities.

Thanks for the ideas. Specially US Navy around the Chinese Sea. All in All the reaction of i.e Spain getting Axis when US Navy comes around Gibraltar is reason enough for Allies Player not to do so. In case of China, historically US-Navy was fprced by UN to patrol the Chinese Sea in 1937 until 41. but a blockade is not wished, so there should be added consequences if US-Navy is too active there, maybe USSR % down or SOuth american Nations Up ( i.e. Argentinia turns towards Axis cause to American Imperialism Activities in Chinese Sea.)

Here I think is a very nice Issue on PORTS: Editor: Current SYNOPSIS: Ports capturing by Land Units Design Summary: if a Port is surrounded by Ennemy Units ( Ennemy Territory ), and has Supply of 5, this ennemy LAND Units CAN Attac the Port when no ships are inside. The Land Units-Attac has the same consequences as an Strategic Bombardement. The Port Falls then into the atackers hands as soon as the Port has a Supply = 0. Example: Scapa Flow Port in GB, or Greek Port in Crete-Island Problems: Programming that Land units may Attack Strategically a Sea Field. Problems2: ?