Desert Dave

Oh my, the... LOWLY... EM, eh? Willie & Joe? where ever did you go? :confused: Hey, here's a thought... an old, old idea, probably updated many myriad times... and just lately, was that Mark Twain? Kurt Vonnegut Jr?... anyway, What you do - You take all the idiot politicians clamoring for a Young One's spirit & blood, And you take ALL the whip-smart, march-about officers, and You put them in this... tiny Arena. Sawdust on the floor. Trap doors closed over tight... well, They'll just have to get used to it, just like the riff-raff & cake-eating hoi polloi, right? No cowardly weapons. No killer Technology. No SMGs or Laser Blades, no propaganda or dearly idiot Crusades. No talk talk talk from the squawking chickenhawks, no, no nothin'... merely some... mouth-muscle and what passes for grit. So. Go! Brave warriors! Go for it! And leave the rest of the plain folks alone. Let these pause, at ease, equipoised, to pare rare flowers... for a delicate Orient vase. Or gather driftwood for a rousing Sea-side fire. Let them make something utterly New... out of the grace of an occasional heart's desire. Let them kiss the Maiden or the Lamb or the lost little darling... or even... the scabrous horn of The Beast... but, Never, never! I say! ...the a**... of the clean-kneed Elites.

One of the finest philosophical sentiments I have read on the forum thus far. So much contained in this, so much eternally relevant... it always comes down to this, there is no pretending otherwise... each individual soldier and what they are able to summon in the way of a personal courage. The real Romance! Never mind! the ones are... fearing, and equally un-needed, equally un-heeded, the ones supposed... fearless... at the outset of the Knight's Journey... The Prophetess, with an ancient secret -- gifted, or, denied... that candle-flame burns-burns O notice if you dare... the drip drip drip of annealing wax on the freely offered soul... the kneeling Knight allows it, stoic at the first, and at the last, or... not, there is no compromise... here is the counter-hex! IF... IF, you know how, and when, and where... to properly use it... And at the finish of the long winding road... that other enclosing, Self disclosing form, the answer to a careful and serious prayer... the Damsel, no longer distressed -- reaching, smiling, eyes like wildfires at night... and ever beckoning, sure it's so, since Time began... manna-drenched flowers falling to the ground all around, and melody from lyres & lutes exuberant but bittersweet too and... nearly everyone... fair satisfied... A terrible task -- dispatched with reluctant aplomb... an Honor dutifully done, a Dignity maintained, the beautiful Truth of... honest contest, and... honest success... 'tis decently restrained, but a'times O so sorely required... know this, here is your plainest of songs... this Tribe survives... and the Heroes... suddenly retiring and shy, quieting... quiet... And so the Tale is otherwise told, gathered from the whirl of seasonal winds... behold! there is... Peace... a fresh promise alive like abounding Lions... lull, tho' full of treacherous grace... in this our sun-slowed Savannah Land...

This could be problematical if it is MERELY based on economic power, though - could very well be that you are not actually advocating this. If you approached the problem as A3R did, with diplomatic points mostly accrued according to how large the economy of each participant, then the MOMENTUM that the Axis attains in the early war years would "pile up" to such an extent that they could "muscle" almost any country toward their inane nihilistic (... NON Nietzschian, BTW) viewpoint. :eek: Perhaps better to base diplomatic power on a combination of 5 or 6 factors: 1) current economy, 2) recent historical influence (... as the "compelling Romance" of the British Empire), 3) victories and defeats in KEY AREAS, such as Egypt, Malta, Convoy-War in N Atlantic, or Ukraine, and 4) purely RANDOM events, which would reflect those hard to quantify factors such as Royal marriages and personality of whimsical diplomats, and the like, 5) Historical influence, as the British had in Iraq and 6) there could be even more factors, some of which would be "hidden" from the game-player, so that you might have surprises and sudden reversals of fortune. No doubt that Economic Power is real and daunting, but we wouldn't want the Axis to have too much at the outset, where they could cajole & coerce to the extent that the Allies are mostly shut out from ANY effective diplomatic influence.

JJ: Actually, if you go back and check the postings from last Spring, you will find that Hubert had mentioned that he was actively considering this idea long before anyone else wondered if it was even feasible. As occasionally happens -- extended game-play, and/or dedicated collected-interest will cause a reconsideration of an original concept. I believe that is the case in this particular instance, though I am sure that some ideas are truly new to the forum. For instance, your idea for having partial access to resources is a good one. Other board-games such as A3R have used this concept, in that you would have varying degrees of committment by the Minor nations, depending on diplomatic pressure, self interest, or plain old strong-arm coercion. This would work wonderfully for SC2, and a superior example would be Sweden. If Germany receives some of that precious Ore by finagle or fiat, then perhaps they would be far less inclined to invade the country and simply take it, yes? If we do get a more complex (... and event-driven model!... I have long campaigned for MORE special events) for SC2, then the amount of Machiavellian scheming and subterfuge (... in order to dominate world markets or simply re-define the existing political landscape) could be amazing. Amazing I say! :cool: In any event, kudos to you for introducing another aspect of game-play, which would ultimately lead to deeper and more exciting game-play. As for Vichy: very few living persons, especially Americans, have the remotest idea of how they might react to a sudden catastrophe, such as the total collapse of a government and its military defense force. Historians may try for subjective analysis, but in general, most comments will more truly reflect the hopes & fears & prejudices of the individual who is expressing an opinion. Very normal to PROJECT one's own angst and apprehension onto a present or previous incident. Gathering myths, and illusions on a Cave wall serve a distinct purpose, but they are not "history." My own feeling is that much of the criticism of France has more to do with CURRENT Realpolitik than anything else. France occasionally suffers through re-evaluations and recriminations concerning Vichy, in much that same way that the USA does in terms of the (... apparently) never-resolved, never-ending Civil War, etc.

Trouble is, if you allow some engineer unit to construct more fortifications, then it will be even more difficult to get ashore than it already is. :eek: I have advocated the use of a "marine" unit which could attack from off-shore (... solving the stacking issue, assuming this will not be changed in SC2) with some kind of first attack bonus. It would then move ashore if successful (... along with Air and shore bombardment), but would remain in the shallows at reduced strength if not successful. Well, you would have the opportunity to attack from several sea hexes at once, which would increase the chances of success. However, if all the units are reduced too much, you would have the delicate problem of choosing which one to land, and which to leave vulnerable to air or naval attack. Presumably you wouldn't undertake a major invasion (... and this would have the great effect of reducing small "nuisance" invasions) UNLESS you first insured Air supremacy and adequate naval support. Naturally the marine unit would cost more and would be a major effort only undertaken by those countries that had good and sufficient reasons for invading in the first place. Perhaps there might even be some research category so that you would better model the improved training and the Higgins type landing craft. :cool: Germany and Russia would likely not invest so heavily in "marine" capable units, unless they wished to conduct a small side show in the Baltic or Black seas. The amphib problem is not so severe that it cannot be easily solved in a future game.

Two excellent ideas Mr Bill, somewhat similar to the 3R and A3R economic models. As a long-time player and admirer of that particular game, I don't believe you could go far wrong in adapting some variation of their most successful features. How about this? Separate the city values from the industrial values. Assuming a somewhat larger map for SC2, you could then use the city values for manpower alone (... so that you would have a restraint on the size of any one countrie's armed forces) and have factory icons mostly (... or, only) representing the industrial (MPP) output. Of course, these factories and resource hexes (... ore & oil, etc) would be of much HIGHER value, say - in the range of 20-50 MPP each, which would incidentally serve to make the strategic bombing potentially more devastating. It's another topic for discussion, but in this event you would have to pay for specific Anti-Aircraft upgrades for each industrial icon. I surely agree that some mechanism is needed to more closely model the growth factors, especially in regard to USA and Russia. 3R had the variable growth ratios, and so in SC2 we might consider a way to represent "investment" in infrastructure and actual expansion of industry and/or better machine tooling. This could be limited to the home country which would limit the extent of any planned expansions. One other way to modify factory output would be to put a number on its *EFFICIENCY* (... whether this might take the form of invisible computer ops, or some factor that might be manipulated by the player could be optional). For example, you could say that all Ruhr valley or Great Lakes industries operate at 90% +, whereas captured industry in Poland or borrowed industry in Rumania would be in the 40-70% range. This would also serve the purpose of toning down those captured resources. :cool: For this idea, you could also allow a research category called something like - "Improved Organizational Techniques," or some such. I realize some will assail this as too much micro management, but really, it would merely require a few seconds consideration at various intervals in the game. I don't mind the plunder, though I would advocate that it be less than it is, since this fairly represents "momentum" or "initiative." Not all MPPs need be considered merely material in nature. It could be a kind of psychological impetus (... values of "resources" being immaterial as well as material). Anyway, just a few thoughts on this issue. No doubt there are many other possibilities.

You could still keep the face-value of the unit as 10 (... that way it wouldn't be so easily destroyed in an immediate counter-attack) BUT you could reduce the combat values of attack & defense so that it would not pack quite so much punch. However, allow it have a "surpise" bonus, as with any invading units, and it would yet retain the SHOCK value, more fairly representing the actual impact of these elite units. :cool: The Para would still be vulnerable, since the player or AI would likely target it for fast retaliation (... since, presumbaby it would - and should cost more MPPS to construct). I am very much in favor of including the Airborne unit in any future game, if for no other reason than military romance . It is surely debatable whether the unit itself should be so powerful, but you cannot quibble over its essential value in attacking fortresses (... as in Belgium) and island redoubts (... as Crete, possibly Malta). If someone wants to try and use it merely as a glorified recon unit, "zone-controller" or behind the lines HQ/Air Fleet buster, then they will have to risk the consequences - annihilation of a very expensive unit.

Wachtmeister (or, "Sergeant"... better, one who is excelled in "watching over any mis-steps"): You are quite right to call me out on this one; at times I get carried away with my own fleeting conceit. If you will re-read my original post, I said that MOST of the empiricists are rather restricted in spiritual practise. I specifically did not intend to lump all of the traditional adherents of "scientific method" into one foul category. If you are NOT one of those who have disdain for "mystical" adventures, then, fine & dandy all around. In fact, I greatly admire many of them, to include Einstein naturally, and the starfish-hurling Loren Eiseley and the bongo-banging Richard Feynman (... sp?). There is another... whom I cannot remember at the moment -- the biologist who questioned the great GAPS in the Evolutionary record (... who also loved baseball)? Anyway, I was suggesting that I have little "faith" in the pronouncements of these scientists, since the exisiting Theories will undoubtedly be up for review, oh, any day now. Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper are two who have addressed this issue far better than I ever could. No, I mean to say that - ever since Science split from Philosophy and a "religious" orientation, they have leapt!! over backwards in their strange attempt to ignore, if not denigrate, most of the various methods of "mystical" apprehension. This is, IMHO, a grievous mistake. Hey, Thomas Aquinas even allowed for the "rational" means to perceive and evaluate phenomena (... though, admittedly, this was primarly so that each seeker might better come to know... God). Well, there is not sufficient room on the whole forum board compleat, so to revisit all of the arguments pro & con concerning Science V.S. Religion. Suffice it to say that I personally am delighted that Science does indeed satisfy specific needs, such as better dental care and truer formulae for applied medicines, etc. Nonetheless, it is utterly incapable of explaining (... or easing INNATE concerns about) anything that is "metaphysical." Given that every human being is in some fashion concerned for his personal Soul, and given that each will rarely consult a Scientist at any great transitional moment, such as approaching death (... this is, and always will be the province of the priest, shaman, curandero and otherwise mystically inclined), then I would simply repeat -- "Science" is mainly incapable of mollifying fears or... keenly exciting a sheer Joy -- in being alive! Your field has an interesting background. The Egyptians were searching for the "black powder residue" (... out of the minerals silver & gold)of their cherished god Osiris, and so they called this process -- Khemeia... the Arab culture latter added the "al" and thus: "Al-Khemeia" or, alchemy. And certainly you must adhere to currently accepted "rules of order." There are indeed some matters of force & flow and INVISIBLE conflict that are pretty reliable. For now. I too was trained in scientific method, albeit in one of the "soft sciences," namely: Psychology. My off-hand remarks were more directly aimed at those such as BF Skinner and the ad-exec Watson, who ignorantly supposed that all humans are some "pliable clay" that might be fashioned (... overtly or covertly, as politics might dictate)into any old odd contortion. Here, I gleefully scoff. Where is the Will? The Spark. The Breath. The Impetus. The First Cause? Etc. Anyway, I am very glad that we have well trained and dedicated Chemists. Else, I would have to make do with unholy and ancient remedy, such as applying some horridly odorous root-confecture to my swollen jaw. I am in no way critical of commonly achieved advances for so-called Civilization. I AM aghast at the extremes that these may take, in the name of "progress." Very true that Mr Science is asking, no, imploring! to remain neutral, just as Mr Technology. The fact that weapons of mass destruction sit brooding and eerie-eyed on the back-shelf, doesn't mean they will NOT be used. Mutually Assured Destruction is a human conceit... and a constant temptation. The fire-bombing of various European and Asian cities during WW2 is sufficient evidence that humans WILL attempt, as hapless Prometheus, to adroitly USE whatever dread device comes to hand. They are occasionally O woeful! over this satanic assumption, but of course. They might even consult a therapist or a trusted lover or a minister. Nonetheless, the bombs continue to arc earthward in ever more precise annihilations. Of people. Of animals. WW2 was the FIRST time that civilians were considered fair game... in the name of "reducing morale." "Collateral damage" is the deranged rhetoric we now will usually hear... spewing befouleth from the grim and mirthless mouth. This is nothing less than a truly insane "game." The election promises made -- that Science & Technology WILL be considerately employed... does not seem to prevent... very much mindless mayhem, true?

A demonstration should have been enough, agreed. These kinds of discussions usually come down to personal morality... and/or, direct contact with veterans who have actually lived through the historical "reality." My father was one of those who island-hopped all across the Pacific... and had been slated to arrive in the initial invasion of the Japanese home island. Interestingly, I NEVER heard him express an opinion one way or another about Truman's tremendously difficult choice of how to "demonstrate" the effectiveness of the new doomsday weapon. I won't even guess at his reasons for electing not to do so. But, I knew this much -- he was genuinely Stoic, in the Classic tradition (...ie, NOT so much brusquely impervious to Life's "slings & arrows," but -- more religiously oriented, Nature preserving, and dutifully honor-bound, so to preserve the little human dignity & decency which might be occasionally mustered, if not sustained) and he NEVER talked blithely about surreal and soul-rousing War experiences -- at all, nor did he EVER wear any combat ribbons. This was a lesson I learned and will highly value to my dying day. As for the "monster-movies" which resulted from the Atomic attacks... this is no surprise if you happen to believe in the Collective Unconscious, as I most assuredly do. The Human Experiment was rightly "spooked" by the potential disaster so immediate and treacherous to hand (... fearing, with good reason, the Tyrants who will often arise... in ANY society, totalitarian OR democratic), and expressed itself quite deliberately in any number of movies (... which can be the very best reflection of a common mythic dialogue), as you have disclosed. The so-called Collective Unconscious (... explored most diligently and poetically by Carl Jung) is a sure and insightful promise... of ALL that we will eventually realize. What we now experience. Have experienced. Will experience. It COULD be more amazing than it is. That fault lies not in the easily breathing ether, but in... we. One needn't be a superstitious lout to know how PERFECTLY the intricacies of the World, known and un-known, constantly bang about and delicately interact. The empirical scientists should be ashamed (... I surely would be if I were such a rigid and spirit-less sort of person, as most of these science-cultists very apparently are) at the astounding PAUCITY of their pitiful conjectures. Too bad that so many world leaders are shy to individuate and confront "shadowed" and "prismatic" aspects of their VERY OWN nature. You wish to confront The Beast? Stare into a mirror for a good long time, keep the mind empty... be not disturbed by ANY incidental stimulus... soon enough... you will see. If these childish (... NOT child-like) leaders would in fact, and in deed, deliberate and contemplate... as a steep and faithful habit, and recognize their bellicose posturing for what it truly is, then there would be less "projection of Evil," and more self understanding... ipso facto, and presto!... fewer sense-less conflicts in the exteriorly perceived ILLUSION that is mighty blindly termed - The Real World. [ January 24, 2003, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

Well, the Albuquerque SteamRoller Factory, Inc, could only produce so many of those old war horses each month... no assembly line, and all the various bits & pieces and cylinders & rollers had to be carried here and there to be finely finished by hand.

Actually, I WOULD like to see some convoys on the map, provided the ocean is enlarged and some other method is used, such as ASW (... in the form of destroyers) and right-click commands for "run silent" and "convoy duty," etc. My idea is this: keep the current schematic of having convoy "lanes" that are invisible, so that these might be attacked by raiders (... to include surface ships), BUT **ADD the following: every once in while, perhaps 3-4 months, there would be a random flagship convoy ship that would represent, oh, 50-150 MPPs. These would originate in the USA or Canada (... or, in South America... example - oil from Venezuala) and have a specific trajectory. One might go to Murmansk, and one might go through the Med to Alexandria or Malta (... as Torch) and one might go from NY to Liverpool (... this, so that the parents of the Beatles might be sufficiently nourished, and thus and presto! Rock & Roll will eventually have it's mop-top day, etc... well, we don't actually need pop-up boxes to explain all that, we can simply assume... ) Anyway, the Axis player would have to be alert and anticipating these random "special convoys." This would require that they at least pay attention to historical realities... or, they could disregard, and flood the underground factories with new Panther orders, as they pleased. Now, this would also provide for Lend Lease and USA's assistance BEFORE their entry, satisfying those who would ask for better implementation of USA's industrial might. Again: let's have on-board convoys! This would greatly expand the Battle of the Atlantic and allow even more suspense, since the cat & mouse U-boat wars would (... and should, IMO) become the CRITICAL factor that they actually were. :cool:

Sounds like the epitaph for almost all established churches, and/or less significant cults. These well-meaning experiments in earthly Utopia, are based almost exclusively on the charisma and spirit of the original founder, yes? [... the principle reason why the Germans had so much success was... SHOCK!... whether it was the eerily keening Stukas or the hard practised elan of the panzer commanders and fierce grenadiers, the whole world huddled... was shocked! not merely the WWI-era French doctrinaires... ] BTW JJ, are you a Savant? I have read a lot of History (... this was even one-half of my dual major in college) and I have the devil's own time trying to keep up with your comprehensive posts on... well, EVERYTHING! As for the Roman Empire... without it, you would NOT have the Catholic Church. The one became the other. Now, many have supposed that was a bad thing. Or, anyway, the principle reason for all those horrible wars of the 17th-20th centuries. But I see it a little differently. My idea is that WITHOUT the ameliorating influence of the church, you would have had even more destructive and Self-aggrandizing activities. Recall that no-one even signed their names to art works until the time of the Dutch masters, such as Breughel the Elder. Before then it was always "Anonymous" who created inspired Art. Philosphy was Religion and religion philosophy until roughly the time of the Renaissance. The trust-structure was rent by empirical Science (... which, when you think about it, is little more than a FAITH-based cult) and the compelling need for rationales to justify a new age of commercial and industrial "progress." I am suggesting that we are now dutifully trudging a narrowly proscribed path (... Technology as god and savior) that is purely ARBITRARY. It exists, along with mostly selfish motivations, only because the humans will not, apparently, DREAM or IMAGINE anything better or more sublime. By this I mean... more, ah... enlightened and righteous (this word intended with non-specific meaning). We could tame the Unconscious/Demons/Ancient Spirit if we would only dare to. This is dangerous (RE: Nietzsche's remark that to contend with "Monsters" invites the possiblity that you will become a monster yourself... :eek: ) and might very well lead to personal annihilation. This hasn't deterred the genuine seekers such as Buddha or Christ or Lao Tzu... but, for whatever reasons, there are fewer and fewer and fewer risk-takers these days. Where the penalty for failure is... death. However, as with cinema auteurs and celebrities and philosophers and science pioneers, it seems we are too easily seduced by false prophets and almighty obeisance to Icons... and Mammon most especially. Too bad, but very evident, at least to me. Well, we have to make do with what we have, no matter how paltry or uninspired. [ January 16, 2003, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

The hand-writing on the wall is weakly sputtering neon, not a child-prophet's crayon creation, and if you sidle up close... it says: Buy this neo-widget! No matter it is overpriced, overhyped, under-engineered and without the remotest value to the average human. After all, making more garbage is our business, our only business! Yeah, the newest new-age will be akin to the movie Blade Runner where the millions teem & moil down in them mean-streets, and the Corp-Cops send out squads of hit-robots, who will execute immediate judgement upon all the bawling and dispossessed. Or, if out in the desert where I am, then it might be more like Mad Max and it will be every grubbing Oil-cowboy for themselves... still got my black & gold '57 Ford Fairlane convertible... maybe I should be proactive and convert it to wind power?... or, Just enough people will sicken and then quicken and take back the lost America from all the glib and soul-less cost accountants. ... but first, more than half the brainwashed population has to vote, otherwise we abandon little-d democracy to the self-annointed tyrants and the glad-handers and the silken-fingered influence peddlers O yea, indeed and verily... :eek: [ January 15, 2003, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Immer Etwas ]

I would agree. There is a lot to be said for contemplation, whether within the realm of Eastern Zen traditions, or chess, or war-games. :cool: Frenetic activity can be a kind of "high," but it can also quickly lapse into mere physical dexterity. That is fine when you are piloting a sleek cigarette-boat from the Bahamas to Key West... in a slowly building hurricane, but not so much fun if you are playing a war-game.

If you are playing the original '39 scenario, then you will need to land an invasion force on the east side of Alexandria. This will allow the city to be surrounded (... and incidentally, capture the Suez Canal so that no units will arrive from around the Cape) and you can then prevent the occupying forces from reninforcing beyond size 5. It usually takes several turns to eliminate the garrison unit. And advance planning. Depending on the difficulty level you are playing, the Royal Navy has to be neutralized or eliminated. An Italian HQ along with Air Fleet would certainly help. The added advantage is that you can then proceed from there to conquering Iraq, which will make Italy a major factor in the game's outcome. Otherwise, I would suggest trying Bill Macon's '39 mod, since it adds a Brit HQ and armor unit (... reduced - you will have to spend MPPs to make them full sized and desert-ready) into the mix. I have found that this actually makes the Med campaign quite fun and interesting to play. You may or may not need to dispatch Rommel and the Afrika Korps, depending on how quickly you wish to succeed there. In general, IMHO, the Med Theatre can be very decisive in any eventual Axis victory. :cool:

So far. My feeling is this: if Zapp or anyone else wants to have a separate ladder or league or tournament, fine by me. This is a free and open forum. I only started this thread with the hopes that a COMMON CONSENSUS might be reached. Zapp seems to be indicating that he won't participate here (... said he hadn't read, why should he bother?) and that he will only use "his rules." My way or the highway, eh? Yet, at the same time, warns that he will not have enough time to sufficiently maintain a detailed and comprehensive site for his own ladder? :confused: Look, I still think a common site should be established, but I think someone more popular and less....ummm, iconoclastic than I am should be acting as organizing principle. I therefore bow out, as of now, and suggest that one of the others, perhaps 82ndReady or Hueristic or anyone else with time and interest should take over here. So. Whoever wishes to do that, please start another thread. As long as it is a common site with rules and specific parameters reached by CONSENSUS, I will support it and participate, and I am sure many others will also. :cool: This whole thing doesn't need to degenerate into a popularity contest or some settling of old disputes and disagreements, does it?

Well ken, we are in the process of determining just exactly what we want. :cool: Here is how I envision part of this. When a player sends in an entry e-mail for this first tournament, they will include at least 3 items: a) Self rating. Somewhere on a 1-10 scale to start, with 10 being... "Quite Confident," and 1 being... "mostly in it for fun," etc. Details can be elaborated later. But, certainly, the ratings will change according to tournament victories and defeats. **Or, alternatively, if the board prefers, some sort of League type results. Bid for playing the Axis. If you prefer to play the Allies, then you will bid "0." Otherwise, any bid from 1 to 1000-or-so would provide each of the 3 Allied countries that many addditional MPPs to start. Obviously, this could be used for research or favored units. IMO, this is better than trying to add research or IT advantages to the Allies in a mod. **After a tournament or two there will be a "break-even" figure established. In other words, the average # of MPPs that would make the game 50-50. This # would continually be adjusted after each tournament. Eventually we will attain some sort of approximate "gold standard." And so, the pairings would be made according to who would bid the most for Axis. If everyone bids "0" then the brackets would be made ONLY on the basis of self-ratings. If everyone rates themselves a "5" for instance, then the bracket pairings would be purely random. So, it will ultimately be a combination of ratings (... for seeding purposes) and bids to play the Axis and finally, pure random choice. c) Willingness to participate in an on-board AAR, so that one (... at least; could be more, depending on demand) game in each round is a FEATURED game. This would be optional, so that those who do not care to write or comment could refrain. However, IMO, the sem-final and final rounds would have to be posted for all to share in the championship matches if they cared to. 82ndReady has adroitly answered the question I posed, and this is the way that we will eventually reach a "commonly desired" tournament or league or ladder, etc, so that there will be maximum participation. My comments as outlined above are NOT the final say. That is yet to be determined. Though, I would agree that there needs be some "final authority," but, for now let's just guage the general interest and in what particular direction we would like to go, yes?

To overcome inertia, I propose a one week discussion period - deadline noon Sunday, January 19th. My experience suggests that little is actually accomplished unless a specific time period is designated. Should the decision to establish some sort of competiton be in the affirmative, seems like we could get something going by the first week of February. :cool: I am presuming a site will be found or created to host the ongoing competition and ratings system. IIRC, Otto & CvM have indicated a willingness to allow their site to be used. Still true? Also, we need to determine if enough members would be willing to participate. This thread should help to determine that. So. To start off, let's address the following 6 questions. Any and all responses should be kept to the topic at hand, yes? 1) What format? Tournaments, League, Ladder or something other? 2) What ratings system? Numerical, ie 1-100, or Military, ie Private to General, or... ? 3) What game scenario? Original? Mod? 4) How much time allowed for each game? A week? 10 days? 5) What rules should be enacted (... and enforced)? 6) How to settle disputes? We WILL have some kind of organized competition IF we begin asking, and answering these kinds of questions. And, it should NOT be an arbitrary decision. Rather, based on forum consensus. I am merely acting as TEMPORARY Organizing Principle. ANYONE can volunteer to do whatever they are willing and able to do. Some already have, such as 82ndReady and JJ and Comrade Trapp and Jim Boggs, etc. Undoubtedly there are others. Well, time to decide.

Excellent idea zapp, and I would absolutely favor this approach. I would allow one more level for AI play. Or, simply make Expert and each level below it approximately 20% or so less in terms of amount of plunder that you can receive. This would provide a truer challenge for the Axis player I am thinking, and align the overall game a little better, since many seem to agree that the plunder allows Germany to succeed all too quickly (... yet, it wouldn't prevent them from conquering Poland and Low Countries and France right away). :cool:

Jollyguy, how do you manage this for the '39 scenario, since we cannot edit unless a country is "activated?" Do you mean to say, for another, later scenario? But... you have mentioned Russian/USA readiness, so I guess I am... :confused:

But then, this outcome sounds realistic and historical, since the German juggernaut did exactly that, yes? How they managed it, whether due to organization or deception or superior tactics or plain old battlefield luck, doesn't really matter. But, as it was indeed done, we are left with trying to find a way to "model" an outcome that is based on more than a few factors that are intangible and nigh impossible to re-create. The extra advances and experience are in line with actual Prussian/German achievements, IMO. The difficulty is trying to give BOTH sides an accurate OOB and capability. The question remains: can you somehow allow the early German blitzkreig, and still halt the mean grey & black machine somewhere around Moscow and/or Stalingrad? I believe you can, and am also experimenting with Bill's scenario in order to provide some suggestions so that we might finally have the most balanced '39 scenario... from the Axis perspective, at least, since that is the agonizing issue. I would encourage others who are trying Bill's scenario to provide comments AND suggestions.

Jim, Bill, Heuristic, Les, 82nd, Konstatin, JJ, CvM, Brian (... and all future posters/players): Thanks for the enthusiastic and informed responses. This idea will take some certain time to organize, and fine-tune, and there will be many others who will be interested, I am sure. I don't know what exact form it will take, but I am guessing that we WILL have some kind of tournament and establish, either before or after, a general ranking system. There are many "models" out there to look at, and eventually some CONSENSUS might be reached. Whether there is money involved or not, or some sort of reward, I don't know. I am guessing that most, if not all players would participate anyway, since the friendly competition is of primary importance. As mentioned,I am hardly the computer techno expert, so others who are more experienced will have to advise and consent on those matters. At the least, we should have some very definitive guidelines and tournament rules. Note: I am NOT presuming that I am "in charge." There is simply too much to do, and I have limitations on my available time (... then again, who doesn't?). ANYONE who can spare some time and expertise is encouraged to post here or in another thread or in shared e-mail, concerning possible tournament and rated play. At some point the momentum will become actuality, yes? :cool:

Jim, You are being quite gracious about this, but I'm not so sure that my specific name on the tournament would greatly recommend it. :eek: After all, many, many others have been playing around with this idea for some time, so the credit belongs with them as much or more than with me.

Seems like you truly would need that 3rd party moderator, for the kinds of reasons that you have stated. 82ndReady has some really good ideas about it already, so perhaps he is the one to organize the project? My feeling is that this idea CAN work, and I would be willing to spend personal time to help out... please realize that I may not be the best choice, since my knowledge of computer workings is not very good... in fact, is highly suspect, so, perhaps there are enough computer whizzes to get it set up. Otherwise, I would do what I could with what spare knowledge I possess.

1) This I'm not sure of, someone more familiar with technical issues will have to help out here. 2) Why not? But, perhaps a separate forum/thread would work best, depends on what the moderators would recommend. 3) I thought about this, and agree with your premise that it would be nigh impossible to establish truly accurate ratings. However, my guess is that MOST players would be fairly straight with their ratings, since they wouldn't care to be annihilated in the first round. As for sand-bagging, you would find that the bell curve would be normal, in that just as many players would over-rate, as under-rate, so in a large enough tournament it would mostly equalize competition. Mainly, I wanted to get the process started since we have probably have many months before SC2 is announced (... Please!) and features debated. 4) I'm not clear on monetary prizes either, and would defer to those in the know. I sure wouldn't mind it! Heuristic: The parameters were 16 participants on the board. When I rated myself #9, I am honestly saying that I would be in the middle of that particular pack, with every good intention of moving on up! Bill: Sorry, I didn't intend to place any bulls eye, but my personal opinion is that you would have to be in upper seeding level. True enough, a general A,B,C,D sytem sounds good. Just as in computer rankings of college football teams, this general rating could rise or fall depending on tournament performances.