Hubert Cater

Good ideas guys and while any extras are not likely to make the final cut before release, as the good news is that what we've got now is working quite nicely, I can always add stuff in as needed/applicable/desirable down the road

I'll definitely second this and happily add that Bill did an excellent job putting together this manual for you guys. A fantastic read

Nice!

Hey Edwin, Correct, a few things were found missing in the original AI script notes, I've added an AI level flag now as well , but with a little creativity you might be able to get what you are after in terms of grand strategy. For example, here is a sample script of an Allied invasion of France: ; UK prepares to attack France: { #NAME= UK Build Up Amphibious - Brest (D-Day) #POPUP= #FLAG= 1 #TYPE= 1 #COUNTRY_ID= 1 #TRIGGER= 100 #LEVEL= 0 #PLAN_ID= 2 #SIZE= 4 #LENGTH= 1 ; Brest #GOAL_POSITION= 59,18 #DATE= 1943/01/01 #STEAL= 0 ; Set friendly positions: ; 1st Line - London #FRIENDLY_POSITION= 64,15 ; Set variable conditions: ; 1st Line - UK politically aligned with Allies and not surrendered #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 1 [2] [100] [0] ; Set tactical conditions: ; 1st Line - London not tactically threatened (dummy condition) #TACTICAL_CONDITION= 64,15 [3] ; Set activate position: ; 1st Line - 20 Allied units in England #ACTIVATE_POSITION= 64,15 [7,7] [20,20] [2] ; Set dummy cancel position (single neutral unit at position 0,0). This is not possible as no ; unit can occupy tile 0,0 so event will not be cancelled due to #CONDITION_POSITION #CANCEL_POSITION= 0,0 [0,0] [1,1] [0] } A similar script exists but tailored for the US and so in this way both scripts will be ACTIVATED whenever there are 20 Allied units in the UK. Subsequent scripts also exist that check for the success of the invasion, i.e. capture of key cities and ports and handle the Sea Transport of follow up units. In general, the use of #ACTIVATE_CONDITION can be extended to coordinate between various fronts as well. For example, you could write related scripts for the USSR to do something specific whenever the Allies launch D-Day or even add in scripts for the Allies to do an earlier limited size invasion depending on the situation on the Soviet front, i.e. relieve pressure etc. You can also tailor the events with the #CANCEL_CONDITION so in the end the good news is that there are many options

Just to clarify on the length of data transfers Bill mentioned, this is once you complete your turn and not for each individual move. Individual moves are virutally identical in terms of data transfer length as they were in SC1. In general the amount of final data being transferred at the end of your turn (including the extra data on first turn synchronization) has now doubled (approx. 500K for the larger campaigns) and so it is will naturally feel a bit longer to complete the transfer than in SC1 via dialup. Cable/DSL etc., will of course be very quick.

Planned demo is for before release

Hey Edwin, I'm still making some tweaks to the AI sub raiding and counter raiding routines so nothing final to report just yet.

Yes, HQs are now assigned by priority and by plan size with each plan only having 1 HQ followed by extra assignments when there are no other plans to assign to... and well so far much better

On a final note and just to follow up on what I had posted here, essentially what we are all looking for in terms of game balance is not to stifle innovation or alternate strategies but to rather encourange them while at the same time simply make sure they are not fool proof win everytime strategies, i.e. there must be the appropriate consequences for each and every action. That being said, we all know that each strategy has its risks and rewards and to consider that next time since we have all seen how an innocent post on how a particular strategy happened to work out well (and I am sure Blashy had a lot of fun playing that game since his risks paid off) can be blown completely out of proportion as to how the game will play each and everytime.

Ok, in fairness let me be equally clear that all I know for sure is that his game did not have the consumable diplomatic chits option turned on and that this alone can make a big difference as outlined above. But even with that being said, each game is different and it is quite possible that there were other factors involved as mentioned by myself and by Blashy. Keep in mind that this game was under FoW and this time around FoW can be much more limiting as spotting ranges for Air units are halved during Mud/Rain turns so we may not have been getting the full disposition of units on the map. Also, and as Blashy had mentioned, the game not only depends on your strategy but that of your opponents. For example he mentioned that he had heavily invested in diplomacy and this was not immediately noticed by his opponent. As a result he had limited units but so did his opponent because he did not notice his join percentages dropping in turn affecting his overall MPP collection. In fairness, this could also be possible with the default diplomatic settings and I don't necessarily think this should be a reflection of any sort of weakness in the game overall. Rather just the particular outcome of a certain game between Blashy and his opponent. The thing is... you could still heavily invest in diplomacy and this is still with the default settings and produce a similar result but how often would this happen and at what risk to the overall grand strategy? With SC2 there are more strategies to try but are they necessarily the winning strategy and will it work everytime? Maybe, maybe not but again this depends on your style of play and the style of play of your opponent. Think SC1 here... there are many gambits and some pay off and some do not and those that don't can end the game quickly, i.e. a failed Sea Lion for example. Again to put things into perspective, and using another example from SC1, you could easily disband your entire French army correct? So, if someone from the original beta team posted a screenshot showing the entire French front line abandoned to pursue a particular strategy of building French Air Fleets in the hopes they would become Free French and in turn help turn the tide in a later year using an air strategy based from the UK... would this necessarily be a weakness in the game or just an interesting strategy that might have actually worked a few times? Now, granted, is it such a good idea to post something along these lines when no one else outside of the beta team really knows what is going on? Perhaps not, but whether we like it or not the game as it did with SC1 can allow you to do all kinds of things (just to clarify this point, there are many more checks and balances and cause and effects this time around but alternate strategies are still possible, you just have to weigh out the risks) but some may not necessarily be a winning strategy each and every time. Either way, test games such as Blashy's are a good thing and very much needed as we want to make sure the game is not broken and can withstand some expected out of the box strategies. If not we will all hear about it and then this is entirely different sort of complaint like why didn't you guys try this or that, true? Unfortunately there is only so much time in the day for me to get things done and with much higher priority items on my list I would encourage you to hold out for the demo so you can see just exactly what we are talking about and judge for yourself [ February 25, 2006, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

Night, I can only reiterate that Blashy's game WAS NOT based on the default settings and thus MUST be taken out of context for how the final game does/will play. For that I would STRONGLY suggest re-reviewing the AARs posted by Bill and Dave as these are based on the actual default settings that will ship with the game. Also, please remember that since the testers have the full editor at their disposal THEY CAN make significant changes to the game play (that stray from the outline I have set for the default game) and this can produce some wild results as evidenced by Blashy's thread. To put this into perspective, and this is of course NOT something I wanted to completely give away until the game is released (surprise is good), a few simple changes made in the editor can greatly change how the default game plays. For example, with respect to diplomacy, in the default game diplomacy jumps have intentionally been left small with limited diplomatic chits for each major to apply. They are also consumable (by default) which means once a diplomatic chit has been expended it is gone and must be repurchased for further diplomatic effect. Now why so limiting? Well as you can see from Blashy's thread, if it is not, games can become much more skewed (from the historical norm) and much more dependant on diplomatic results. To quickly surmise, I AM NOT shipping the game where diplomacy (as based on the default settings) will be the major factor in deciding the war since in my personal opinion it never was. Yes there were some diplomatic actions here and there but it never threw any major curveballs and truth be told the default settings have only (for the most part) been criticized by the testers as being too limiting. For a further explanation on diplomacy, in the end it is quite simply a matter of cause and effect... the cause being that if you spend a large amount of your MPPs on diplomacy then the inevitable effect will be that you will have much less MPPs left over to purchase units for the map. Yes, the default settings allow you to take some risks (and yes they may pan out) but in the end it could be at the serious cost of something else like being properly prepared for the Eastern front. As a player that is a choice you have to make, just like many other choices that require much more delicate balance than it did in SC1, like pursuing a naval/sub strategy as Axis or pursuing North Africa versus a historical Barbarossa, and each choice comes at potentially a much higher cost for other strategies than it did in SC1. Again this is a much different game than it was in SC1 and don't be surprised if it is much harder to get things done as Axis as was the case historically. Now with respect to Blashy's game, I can't say I know all the settings he chose but I do know that he definitely was not playing with consumable diplomatic chits. As mentioned this can have a great effect as YOU KNOW whatever chits you apply will always be there no matter how many diplomatic hits you achieve. This may also change your strategy and it looked like his game was mostly based on a diplomatic strategy where he spent literally half of his MPP income pursuing diplomatic results. Diplomatic effects on a major country can give you desirable results, i.e. if Germany pursues a diplomatic game against the USSR and successfully lowers their join percentage it can have the effect of lowering the Soviet per turn MPP (note that join percentage is linked to MPP collection) and this is what appeared to happen in his game and thus the limited number of units for each side as shown by his screenshots. Now is this the default game? Nope. But is it possible to set up the game to your personal preference and just to see how it might play out? Yes. Remember, as mentioned before, with SC1 the game was pretty much as is, meaning the editing capability was very limited and what you got (in terms of info) in pre-release beta AARs accurately reflected the final product. Whereas wrt SC2, since everyone in testing has full access to change whatever settings they like, some of the AAR reports may highlight, granted, some interesting possibilities, but not necessarily the default game play. Now, in mentioning the editor, and what you can or cannot do, I or anyone else in the beta team are definitely not HIDING BEHIND it, it is just a reminder of how powerful it is and how unlike SC1 you can literally change whatever you like. Yes, words are powerful, and perhaps the words chosen do not express that idea carefully enough, but either way, you gotta ask yourself, would you rather have a powerful editor or not? I can always scrap it but I think that might dissapoint a few people With all that being said, something else that I think is still a learning curve for each of us on the beta team is that our words, screenshots etc., can go a long way in driving various opinions and/or *conclusion jumping* with respect to the game. We all have to remember that you guys don't see what we see on a daily basis and we may forget that whenever we try out something new, i.e. a new setting in the editor that strays from the many default games we have been playing, and think we have had a pretty interesting result to share that it might not garner the desired audience reaction. As a result, threads have sometimes spun out of control because I personally think we all forget the context of what is actually happening, i.e. we forget that you take our words as gold (just a reminder here that I am the only spokesperson deserving of the honour of "words of gold" ) and you forget that some of this is just simple outside the box testing that may not reflect the final product. In the end, all I can ask is for everyone's renewed patience and faith that we have a pretty special game here. Again, for this you DO NOT have to believe me or any of the beta testers for that matter as there will be a demo to showcase what we got. Also, as the game IS NOW truly near to completion I will be working on an entirely new batch of screenshots that will be hopefully posted soon. Hubert [ February 25, 2006, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

Ok guys, if it settles things down and if anyone needs to point fingers at someone it might as well be me... after all I am the only one coding and missing apparent deadlines. That being said, the good news is that we are now finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel and it honestly won't be much longer until everyone has the chance to take a good look at the game and see what it has to offer. To comment on this thread I'd just like to say that on the development side we are all working hard and that includes Blashy, Dave, Bill and myself... and so if any one of us can be forgiven for becoming *slightly* attached to this project we would much appreciate it. Remember most of us have been at work on this for a few years now and if it seems a little personal at times (we are only human) that's probably because it is Granted this thread started off with a game that was outside the historical norm and I think this led to some *conclusion jumping* and because of that I'd just like to remind everyone that this was simply a game that highlighted what is possible and not necessarily what the default game will have to offer. Also, please keep in mind that the game is being tested on many levels, and with the editor (remember it is much more powerful than in SC1 enabling testers to make pretty much as many changes as they like) each of our testers can go outside the box and test things to how they see fit as well as to see how it might play out. Note, this is just to say that the game is not only being tested along the default parameters but outside of the defaults as well as we want to make sure the game holds up for potential customizations as well... think long haul . Now as far as the tone of this thread, I'll admit that there are many great points but I question the delivery of some of the posts. Also, for those (not mentioning names here but you know who you are) who are well known for stirring up trouble in the past don't necessarily be surprised if you actually have something concrete to say and find it is not warmly received. Like it or not past posting history can play a large part in how you are received and this is even in the best of times and/or when you have the best intentions. I think that pretty much covers it and if you guys can keep it civil just long enough I might actually have enough time to wrapping this game up sooner rather than later Hubert

Gentlemen, In terms of the fronts I believe those screen shots were under Fog of War so we might not have been getting the full picture. That being said, keep in mind that there are many more options for game play than there were in SC1 as well as game settings... and from the looks of it, this game was not *entirely* based on the default settings that will ship with the game. Also, everyone plays differently and I think Blashy's posts just highlight that there is a lot of flexibility for customized games (and strategies) which in the end is a good thing as you can certainly set the game to be as historical or ahistorical (as Blashy has shown) as you like.

Correct

Great observations Edwin... I think you are pretty much getting the basics of the scripts down nicely. I'm still a little swamped but when I get a better chance I can comment on some of your outstanding questions over the next little while.

A checksum scheme is now used to verify that the first turn you have received from your opponent (via E-Mail/Network) corresponds to a campaign on your system. If not, then a warning message is popped up.

Since the AI planning events are read in listed order an easy way to add variability is to use the alternate #TYPE and #TRIGGER values. For example, I could set a possible Sea Lion plan for the AI to pursue as a one time event of #TYPE=0 with a #TRIGGER=50. What this means is that if all other control '#' factors are satisfied then there is a 50% chance that the Sea Lion plan will take place. Since it is a #TYPE=0 the plan will only be read once and if the #TRIGGER fails the plan will not be executed. In order to make sure the AI still does something you simply set the subsequently listed plan to have a #TRIGGER=100, meaning this plan will be executed 100% of the time. By tweaking the various condition values and/or requirement dates the script gives you lots of flexibility towards AI planning. In fact all scripts use the #TYPE and #TRIGGER scheme for this very purpose.

Ok guys I really don't have the time for this... Ike, Rleete, Kuni your posts are a perfect example of what Yogi has asserted and what I have recently agreed to... so I am asking you nicely to cool off. Locking this one up as well.

For something to digest (mostly for Edwin ) while we get there... here is the latest AI planning notes hot off the presses: ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; PLAN SCRIPT (Handle AI Planning) ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; USAGE: ; ; Basic structure of an AI planning event: ; { ; #NAME= Event name (this will be shown as a selectable event under an options menu within the game) ; #POPUP= Event popup text (this will be displayed when the event occurs) ; #FLAG= Will this be a default event for the campaign? (values range [0, 1]; True= 1; False= 0) ; #TYPE= With all other factors satisfied will this be a (values range [0, 2]): ; A) Single check regardless if trigger is satisfied= 0 ; Multiple check until trigger is satisfied= 1 ; C) Reoccuring check until end of game= 2 ; #COUNTRY_ID= Country ID associated with this event ; #TRIGGER= Trigger percentage that the event will occur (values range [0, 100]) ; #PLAN_ID= What type of plan will this be? (See PLAN_ID_CONSTANTS below) ; #SIZE= How many units should be assigned to this plan? ; #LENGTH= How many game turns (Axis or Allied) should pass before the plan is finalized and/or cancelled? ; #GOAL_POSITION= What is the map position that is the object of this plan? ; #DATE= Date that must be satisfied (in game) for event to occur (format yyyy/mm/dd) ; #STEAL= Set priority by stealing units from other plans (values range [0, 1]; True= 1; False= 0) ; #FRIENDLY_POSITION= Positions that must be under friendly control in order for event to occur ; #VARIABLE_CONDITION= Under what variable conditions will this event occur ; Format: country_id [political_alignment] [min_activation%] [surrendered_flag] ; #TACTICAL_CONDITION= Tactical map position (resource) that currently MUST NOT be threatened for event to ; occur, i.e. plan owner should have tactical advantage over this position ; Format: x,y [tactical_flag] ; #CONDITION_POSITION= Condition positions that will serve to CANCEL the event. ; Looks at distance as well as a selected number of Axis/Allied units as specified by 'alignment' flag ; Format: x,y [min_range, max_range] [min_units, max_units] [alignment] ; } ; ; EXAMPLE: ; ; Sample event for Germany preparing to attack Benelux: ; { ; #NAME= Germany Prepares For War With Benelux ; #POPUP= ; #FLAG= 1 ; #TYPE= 2 ; #COUNTRY_ID= 5 ; #TRIGGER= 100 ; #PLAN_ID= 1 ; #SIZE= 8 ; #LENGTH= 3 ; Set goal position of Brussels ; #GOAL_POSITION= 70,16 ; #DATE= 1940/01/01 ; Set top priority for this plan and use any necessary units from other plans (except Garrison) ; #STEAL= 1 ; ; Set friendly positions: ; 1st Line - Berlin ; 2nd Line - Frankfurt ; 3rd Line - Essen ; #FRIENDLY_POSITION= 82,16 ; #FRIENDLY_POSITION= 75,17 ; #FRIENDLY_POSITION= 74,16 ; ; Set variable conditions: ; 1st Line - Poland politically aligned with Allies and surrendered ; 2nd Line - Benelux politically aligned with Allies and not surrendered ; #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 33 [2] [100] [1] ; #VARIABLE_CONDITION= 12 [2] [0] [0] ; ; Set tactical conditions: ; 1st Line - Berlin not tactically threatened ; #TACTICAL_CONDITION= 82,16 [0] ; ; Set dummy condition position (single neutral unit at position 0,0). This is not possible as no ; unit can occupy tile 0,0 so event will not be cancelled due to #CONDITION_POSITION: ; #CONDITION_POSITION= 0,0 [0,0] [1,1] [0] ; } ; ; ; NOTES: ; ; Each event must be preceded by a '{' and end with a '}' ; ; Plan identity is determined by #COUNTRY_ID, #PLAN_ID, and #GOAL_POSITION. A country can only have a ; single plan based on this criteria and will be assigned the first valid plan regardless of duplicate ; script entries (even if the remaining control '#' values are different). ; Note: This will also allow you to set up a variety of plans with the same identity but different ; control '#' parameters where the first 'event' satisfied will be the fist plan assigned (for added variability). ; ; Once the number of turns passed has reached the #LENGTH value for any of the BUILD_UP plans they are ; automatically switched to an applicable OFFENSIVE, AMPHIBIOUS or SEA_TRANSPORT plan. For example, a ; BUILD_UP_AMPHIBIOUS plan that has a #LENGTH= 3 will (after 3 AI turns) automatically become an AMPHIBIOUS plan. ; Note: All successfully converted BUILD_UP plans are given a new #LENGTH value of 5 turns to complete their task. ; ; #GOAL_POSITION - This must be either a Port, City, Capital or Fortress unless it is a #PLAN_ID= GARRISON event. ; More than one #GOAL_POSITION can be set but only for GARRISON plans. If more than one #GOAL_POSITION is set for ; the alternative plans only the first one will be read. ; ; #FRIENDLY_POSITION - This must refer to a land tile. ; ; GARRISON - This plan does not consider #SIZE (always 1 unit). GARRISON plans are only cancelled either by ; condition failure or #LENGTH has been surpassed. ; Note: If you would like a repeating GARRISON plan you can always set it to be #TYPE= 2 with a #LENGTH= 1 and in ; this case it will be constantly reassigned so long as all control '#' parameters are satisfied ; ; BUILD_UP_OFFENSIVE, BUILD_UP_AMPHIBIOUS, BUILD_UP_SEA_TRANSPORT - Thesse plan must have be able to satisfy the ; #SIZE requirement otherwise they will not be assigned. ; Note: BUILD_UP_AMPHIBIOUS or BUILD_UP_SEA_TRANSPORT plans will only be assigned to fully activated countries. ; ; BUILD_UP_OFFENSIVE - Once this plan is successfully converted to an OFFENSIVE plan the game engine will ; automatically declare war once if the goal position still refers to a currently inactive country. ; Note: This plan may also be cancelled (prematurely) and reassessed if the goal position refers ; to a recently activated country (i.e. through diplomacy, events, opponent's declaration of war etc.) ; ; Internally the game engine automatically assigns OFFENSIVE and DEFENSIVE plans depending on the current tactical ; situation. In this case the plan keeps track of several tactical rations. A CANCEL_RATIO is assigned that is ; 1/2 of the plan's START_RATIO. If the CANCEL_RATIO is met then the plan is cancelled and reassessed. ; For example, a CANCEL_RATIO= 1 and a #PLAN_ID= OFFENSIVE would mean that the plan would be cancelled ; if we ever reached a tactical situation of 1-to-1. Meaning tactically the current offensive presence must ; remain greater than the current defensive presence of your opponent. For DEFENSIVE plans a lower CANCEL_RATIO ; value such as CANCEL_RATIO= .5 would mean that the plan's defensive presence is now 2-to-1 in comparison to the ; presence of enemy offensive units. Subsequently this plan would now be cancelled in favor of a new OFFENSIVE ; plan (automatically handled by the game engine). See CURRENT_RATIO formulas below for more details. ; ; The CURRENT_RATIO forumals: ; OFFENSIVE, BUILD_UP_OFFENSIVE, BUILD_UP_AMPHIBIOUS, BUILD_UP_SEA_TRANSPORT -> ; current ratio := tactical defense / tactical attack (threat) ; ; DEFENSIVE -> current ratio := tactical attack (threat) / tactical_defense ; ; A unit's tactical value is calculated as follows: ; LAND/AIR (ATTACK) = (SA + TA + AA + BA) / 4 * unit.readiness / 100 + unit.experience ; LAND/AIR (DEFENSE) = (SD + TD + AD + BD) / 4 * unit.readiness / 100 + unit.experience ; NAVAL (ATTACK) = (NA + CA + UA) / 3 * unit.readiness / 100 + unit.experience ; NAVAL (DEFENSE) = (ND + CD + UD) / 3 * unit.readiness / 100 + unit.experience ; ; Mapwise, the tactical situation is assessed for each unit and resource based on each offensive/defensive unit ; within a 5 tile range (8 tiles for naval units) and by the tactical attack/tactical defense values divided by ; their distance. Note, air units are assessed if they are within general strike range of a unit or resource. ; For AI units the planning and tactical assessments can be determined by selecting an AI unit and then pressing ; the tilde ('~') key. General AI info can be also accessed at any time by pressing the tilde key when nothing ; else is selected. ; Note: This can also be viewed during FoW so don't check unless you really want to know what the AI is up to! ; ; More than one #VARIABLE_CONDITION can be set. Under #VARIABLE_CONDITION you can also list countries ; that have not yet fully entered the war. For example by listing an activation % less than 100% you ; are providing a check where the #VARIABLE_CONDITION country must meet a minimum activation % (but is ; not yet at 100%) in order for the event to occur. To check for a fully activated country simply ; list the activation % at 100%. Each #VARIABLE_CONDITION line will be read using AND logic. ; ; More than one #FRIENDLY_POSITION can be set. #FRIENDLY_POSITION refers to the current side associated with ; this plan. Each #TACTICAL_CONDITION will be read using AND logic. ; ; More than one #TACTICAL_CONDITION can be set. #TACTICAL_CONDITION refers to the current side, i.e. ; country associated with this plan having tactical superiority over the specified map position. ; Tactical superiority can be fine tuned via the TACTICAL_ID flag. Each #TACTICAL_CONDITION line will ; be read using AND logic. ; ; More than one #CONDITION_POSITION can be set. Distance or range checks will be based on the ; specified x,y position. For example if the x,y position is a coastal tile then range checks will ; be made on sea tiles, otherwise if it is a land tile range checks will be made on land tiles only. ; Each #CONDITION_POSITION line will be read using AND logic. ; ; Use the reference values provided for #COUNTRY_ID and not the country names ; Use the reference values provided for #PLAN_ID and not plan names ; Use the reference values provided for TACTICAL_ID and not tactical names ; Use the reference values provided for POLITICAL ALIGNMENT and not names ; Use the reference values provided for SURRENDER flags and not names ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; COUNTRY ID REFERENCE VALUES ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; UK= 1 ; FRANCE= 2 ; USA= 3 ; USSR= 4 ; GERMANY= 5 ; ITALY= 6 ; ; ALBANIA= 8 ; ALGERIA= 9 ; AUSTRIA= 10 ; BALTIC_STATES= 11 ; BENELUX= 12 ; BULGARIA= 13 ; CANADA= 14 ; CZECHOSLOVAKIA= 15 ; DENMARK= 16 ; EGYPT= 17 ; ESTONIA= 18 ; FINLAND= 19 ; GREECE= 20 ; HUNGARY= 21 ; ICELAND= 22 ; IRAN= 23 ; IRAQ= 24 ; IRELAND= 25 ; JORDAN= 26 ; LIBYA= 27 ; LITHUANIA= 28 ; LUXEMBOURG= 29 ; MOROCCO= 30 ; NETHERLANDS= 31 ; NORWAY= 32 ; POLAND= 33 ; PORTUGAL= 34 ; REPUBLICAN_SPAIN= 35 ; ROMANIA= 36 ; SAUDI_ARABIA= 37 ; SPAIN= 38 ; SWEDEN= 39 ; SWITZERLAND= 40 ; SYRIA= 41 ; TUNISIA= 42 ; TURKEY= 43 ; VICHY_FRANCE= 44 ; YUGOSLAVIA= 45 ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; PLAN ID REFERENCE VALUES ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; GARRISON= 0 ; BUILD_UP_OFFENSIVE= 1 ; BUILD_UP_AMPHIBIOUS= 2 ; BUILD_UP_SEA_TRANSPORT= 3 ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; TACTICAL ID REFERENCE VALUES ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; ANY= 0 ; LAND= 1 ; SEA= 2 ; AIR= 3 ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; POLITICAL ALIGNMENT REFERENCE VALUES ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; NEUTRAL= 0 ; AXIS= 1 ; ALLIED= 2 ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; SURRENDERED FLAG REFERENCE VALUES ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ; ; NOT_SURRENDERED= 0 ; SURRENDERED= 1 ; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Been pretty busy as of late (as you can probably imagine) but I eventually wanted to get back to some of the recent threads/posts. I think Yogi has hit the nail on the head for some of the reasons why threads seem to quickly get out of hand and into the vicious cycle of attack/counter attack. On a more personal level, I too have often wondered would people continue the same discourse in a face to face conversation and I'd like to think they would not. While flaming has become a bit of a sport lately I'd like to remind everyone of the forum rules and to perhaps take a step back empathize a bit before even considering personal attacks. Remember these are our SC2 forums and self moderation would be very much appreciated as we are all very busy over here and would much rather be working SC2 than constantly keeping the forums in check. I'd also like to remind everyone that the Beta testers are volunteers and definitely should be respected as such. Remember these guys have put in countless man hours (of their free time) and have contributed innumerable suggestions that have greatly improved what will be the final game. I trust these guys and I strongly suggest you do as well. Now all this being said, I am always open to healthy/respectful debate, as are our testers, and when threads degenerate as they did in the Why thread I really won't hesitate to lock things up. Let's try and keep things civil and we'll all get there sooner rather than later, deal?

Rare moment when Rambo has the last word... so how about we continue the debate after the game is released? Locking this up...

With SC2 if you deselect the sound option it turns off all sounds including clicks.

With diplomacy they just might

Hehe... unfortunately not at the moment... but who knows down the road?

I had a few pretty good suggestions from Bill and Dave way back when (and not far off from what is being suggested here) and these just might see the light of day some time down the road once the game is wrapped up. Consider these possible enhancement additions