SuperTed

Okay, who let in the reviewer?! I thought Straha was on security duty. Sheesh! Chris, if you'd like to do PBEM, just let me know. It really makes a difference.

Bill, Hubert has said he is willing to consider patches and upgrades in the form of SC2. Beyond that, I don't know what jis specific plans are. At this point, he may not either. I agree that it is less trouble to avoid house rules and that is the way I prefer to play. However, I am guessing, based on the idea's I've seen, there are a lot of people that would like to tinker with the game by trying different rule sets. I think it would nice to have the rules out there, giving players the option of using all, some, or none of them.

Aloid, I think CMBB is gonna rock!

Sheff, You may want to follow this to get ideas for rules.

A few technical difficulties are preventing me from getting the next scenarios out the door. Things should be resolved in a couple days.

Bill, Point well taken. I agree that there are some cumbersome ideas, but I am just throwing out some potential issues for consideration. Many players will prefer to play SC as it is, without the headache of having extra rules applied. However, I am sure there are others who would like to try some different approaches and have some house rules in place to assure they and their opponents are on the same page. Also, these are issues that should probably be addressed before a ladder is established. I would sure hate to see a ladder turn into "the gamiest player wins" situation. I believe it would be a first in the history of ladder play.

CVM, A few posts up, you said: "But still in some cases u should be able to just declare war on 1 country, of course other countries can declare war on you then....(sic)" I assumed you meant a player could declare war on one nation without dragging that nation's allies into the conflict. Is my assumption incorrect?

CVM, I knew Finland was coming. I could feel it. Anyway, Finland cannot declare war on anybody, so it seems to be a moot point.

CVM, Do you have an example from WWII when a DoW on an active participant did not automatically result in the above "friends and enemies" formula?

CVM, Actually, in every case a player declares war on one country. Just assume the declaration is followed by the counter-declarations.

Need said "game engine" to know what is still gamey, and what Hubert has tweeked to counter it. Don't ya know! Shouldn't the diplomatic hit come in the form of other Neutrals siding with your enemy? I still say DOW and invasion should happen any time, unless the tweeks are to weak. Aloid</font>

CVM, The truth is that would not be historically accurate. The alliances were designed for mutual assistance. So, the enemy of my friend is my enemy and the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Great stuff, guys! Allow me to clarify one point. The idea of this thread is to identify potential points of contention between players and develop some rules that could be used to address these. The rules would have to work within the game engine. I am not asking for proposals on how to change the engine itself (there are plenty of those elsewhere in the forum ). Rather, I am suggesting that we work together within the system to give players options for how they would like to play. Here are a couple ideas for you to consider: 1) DoWs must be made at the end of a player's turn, after all movement, combat, and MPP expenditures have been made. 2) A previously neutral country is allowed one turn where neither side may cross their borders. 3) If a country wishes to violate #2, they must purchase a corps and sea transport it to their enemy. This unit would remain at sea, to be destroyed by the enemy. The cost of this unit represents the diplomatic hit of treachery. 4) #3 never applies to the use of a seaborne invasion on a neutral country. So, a same-turn land invasion of Sweden is okay (at a price), but a same-turn sea invasion is not. The assumption behind all these rules is that the players trust each other to implement them fairly. For potential ladder play, it is suggested that all saved game files be saved by both players. This will allow a judge to check for rules infractions, if needed. What do you think?

Otto, Here are some places to check for free chat rooms: Beseen ParaChat! ChatRoomWeb Good luck!

CVM, That is a great start! What would you suggest to prevent that?

Now that thoughts are turning to playing entire campaigns against other humans, it would be a good idea to get some ground rules in place. Some players will likely have no problem playing a wide open style with no restrictions, but others will want to tweak the gameplay with rules to suit their personal tastes. If players know what the gamey strategies and game limitations are, they can discuss what rules they'd like to use, if any. I suggest starting the ball rolling by listing the gamey strategies and rules suggestions below.

Valadictum, Nope. I checked...

What's that you say? You like mods? Well, Scipio has more at WarfareHQ. I think you'll like these. Get yourself over to CMHQ right away to get the details!

Well, the official word has come: Gary Kump is back in the saddle again and has big plans for CM Outpost! Get the details at CMHQ.

CN, You really don't want to know. :eek:

CN, It's Hubert and the Beta Boys! Sheesh!

C18, First, read this. Second, disengage the "Caps Lock" key. Shouting causes orders to be delayed.

Hubert, That's what I suspected.

CVM, Thank you. Your heart is definitely in the right place. Unfortunately, as Bill mentioned, it's not as easy as that. I am sure Hubert will find a way to make SC fly and give it the security it needs.

DD, I tried your suggestion, but I found it very hard to play when I got bombed. Once I get rid of the hangover, I'll try again...