SeaMonkey

Well, not sure Liam. What are the alternatives? I do believe most Americans don't care to be a SP, but do you believe one is necessary? We've had two or more in the past and what was that result? Is one better than multiples? The problem is you, and me, and the rest of you homo's out there. We tend to not want to get involved, to be nonconfrontational, when the "touched" members of our specie get a little egotistical. And we all have a degree of ego that drives our opinions about the way things "ought to be". Some of us learn restraint. Then there are those Shepherds with their own agenda and the sheople that follow them for the betterment of the rest of us.....right? So what does one do when one of these visit their principles(and they're suspect of severe injustice) upon your doorstep, your neighborhood? Assimilate, negotiate? Hopefully, but what if its their way or the highway, they are unyielding, and what happens when there is no place left to run? Who stands up? Who makes the decision to wield the sword of justice? Things can get mighty messy for a Superpower. No wonder no one wants to assume the role, as your motives will always be questioned because people are untrustingly fearful of such propensity. Why is that so?

This didn't just happen in stormy weather but in perfect conditions, ie. two ship's passing in the night. Once again, "The Search" has commandeered a couple more forum members. How much longer must we wait to incorporate the true FoW aspects of the naval theater?

Damn, never was a great student of German. Always sat in the second row, right behind that guy with the little mustache and the big derriere'. My French was tres bien, though, that's why I was in the second row.

RC have a little patience, this engine is still in development, there is plenty of time, look at TOAW. SC has the same legs. Some of us are still trying to grasp the mechanics, Hubert is still fine tuning the scripts. I, for one, want to have a full understanding of all the features and how they interact before commiting to "Operation Sphinx". It is no small deed to accomplish a well balanced and entertaining scenario, especially with limitted feedback, and time is by far the most precious commodity.

Agree with that nokx2, DD did an immaculate job, short applause....stay with it Dave! Vector, sorry you are mistaken about the Bulge campaign, the 6th SS Pz army in the north had the primary importance and St.Vith was the bottleneck along with the Elsenborn Ridge.(held up 1 SS Pz Corps) esp.12 ss Hitler Hugend. Bastogne only took on such importance later as Manteuffels(sp) 5th Pz army had greater success. By the way the primary objective was Antwerp with a severe timetable(2 days) to capture the Meuse river bridges.

This gamey play of suicide attacks would relenquish if there was a point system to evaluate victory. The loss of Tiles and Units, not to mention the more apparent objectives, would accumulate victory points for your opponent, making most everything on the map worth something. I have said this before and I hate repeating myself,(dementia phobia), but since SC2 doesn't model all resources necessary for war making, every tile should have some inherent value. OK maybe not all, but at least the ones that are cultivable or have some resource value, like even people living there.

Well Edwin, that puts us halfway there. Maybe a little shove from the forum gets the adoption of the adjacent tile spotting rule for land units. The more I think about it, I come up with only enhancements to gameplay with this reduced land unit spotting. Really brings air recon to the forefront. Might just serve to get them spread out a little more and not so concentrated into those devastating groups. Now you would need some infrastructure tech to reduce their(AFs&Bmbrs) operative moves(MPP cost) around the map to take advantage of that very important recon aspect. As it comes to mind, wasn't the recon role one of the first most important uses of aircraft, like balloons in the Civil War. Think about it, they haven't lost much in that mission's importance even today.

Have to agree Blashy, the operational movement dynamics are too abstract for me.

Demo's out!

Thanks Edwin, you're obviously a catalyst for a lot of these, take a deserved bow. It was understood Moonslayer, and your model is right on. Let's face it, in WW2 knowing the location of your opponents deployments was a dubious proposition, info was very sketchy and technology rudimentary at best. Therefor in the interest of reality, I must line up on the side of widespread FoW, a perennial advocate of "The Search". Remember the original players did not have our benefit of hindsight, so we must push the envelope to somewhat capture that aura of the unknown.

I would also like to see some spotting ajdustment due to terrain. Like swamps and forest -2 and mountainous -1. This is where a lead in intel tech could negate the penalty, ie."eyes on the ground". I also would like ground units to have only a spotting range of one(adjacent tiles only), increasing the importance of air recon and possibly the intel bonus. At 50 miles per tile gamescale, I think this makes more sense.

I'm for anything that will enhance the lesser used parameters of this game, compelling the players to deal with more of the dilemma of their choices. Intel is one of those and spotting is a great way to increase its prowess. I would propose that intel would adjust a spotting factor for each tile. It could be a random percentage based upon the intel advantage or it could be an addition to the spotting factor of a tile. If each unit in the game exerted a factor of disclosure based on its type, strength and proximity then it would be up to the game engine to crunch the numbers to decide whether the location is revealed. This is what computing power is for. As players, we just need to have a clear understanding of the spotting mechanics.

Sorry vector...you are out of line. I don't think anyone posting here cheats in HtH SC. I take offense if this is what you're implying. Take Retributar's advice, let us know, let them defend themselves in this forum, and if they are, hang'em out to dry. To be more specific, I think these gentlemen were offering you a way to rationalize that problem in hopes that it may contribute to the quality of your gameplaying life.

Nothing can prevent cheating, one way or another, where's there's a will, there's a way. Best advice I can give you is, "Get over It". This is suppose to be fun, if it causes you unneeded anxiety, play the AI.

Don't y'all get it? If we're arguing about which side is dominant and qualifying our different opinions. Well......what does that mean?

HC, how about just four players, 2 Axis, 2 Allies. Axis=Germans and Italians+minors. Allies=USSR and UK+USA

Bull! kcs, you have not lost. Delay Barbarossa, let USSR join, do not DoW them. Build up your land techs,#1, IW, HT, AT. Buy German and Italian engineers, use them in conjunction and fortify the west. Build two good strong army groups with Manstein and Rommel,or Kesselring. Get them experience in Russia Invest in PT, IT and infrastructure. Garnish some MPPs for operations by 43. Get Spain, take Gibraltar. If you can get the Italians some IW and motor help, take them to NA with the help of the Luftwaffe(HQ support), feint Sealion as a diversion. Now be ready to mass and concentrate your best army groups at a moments notice(Manny/Rommel, have enough MPPs, Supply>5). Screen other areas with forts and corps. If you save Berlin and Rome at game conclusion, You win! [ November 03, 2006, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

I like the luck factors too. Makes the game journeys different everytime. What I would like to see is a slower increase in the land techs, as Kuni alludes to. Now I know this would not benefit Germany, but it would make the minors more viable early, at least. Perhaps allow the IT advantage of Germany to be the same as the USA, 20%. I think this promotes a historical feel as Germany was reluctant to gear up for total war. A 20% parameter for IT tech levels for German investment might provide enough incentive to promote a player's attention. It would also provide for the historical decision of the Nazis to go over to an immediate war footing instead of waiting on Speer's implementation.

Don't get me wrong Edwin, I like this premise, its historical and adds a lot of potential strategic variables. Its just we must create a dilemma for the Axis player with his choices. It should almost be a trade off, sometimes being a really good decision, but with some consequences that could make the decision questionable in other circumstances. I like your connection to intel levels, how about some political ramifications? A Turkish bump to the USSR? Come on JJ, this is your forte', I know you can shed some light.

On the right track Edwin. This plunder or not to plunder option needs some real thought and some finely tuned MPP allocations. Historically you had the "scorched earth" policy, which is kind of contradictory to MPP acquisition. Taking the Liberation course would allow no partisans, higher productivity and supply for the liberators from Ukraine cities and citizens, logically. (the no brainer) Which brings me to my original skepticism on how to handle this "what if" and not upset the balance while satisfing the reasonable, historical characteristics.

What a human catastrophe there was in the Ukraine in WW2. In the context of size, probably the greatest disaster of all, if you broke the WW2 suffering puzzle into pieces. Problem is A234 that if somehow through the game mechanics you could get Ukraine to join Axis it would upset this delicate balance SC2 is so close to achieving. What Axis player wouldn't manipulate the process to get them? Its a no brainer. Another preposterous Hitler blunder.

Hubert has already commented that with all the changes in 1.05, games of 1.04 or earlier will have to be restarted.

Defining the ? max. number per turn. What is that number based on what actually, historically, under the most optimum conditions could be tranfered in a turn(1 week to 1 month)? What is suitable(? max. no.) for gameplay that the Axis should have to prepare for in both areas to disallow that Allied success? We'll all need to apply KISS principles when addressing these questions, don't overly complicate the matter.

Your right Terif it(SC) is foremost a game and we both want the same thing, I too am MP only. No disrespect, we just have a different perspective. I see these areas as diversions for the real thing with the potential to develop into a full scale offensive(the real thing) if your opponent doesn't react properly. I view these avenues as needless expenditures for an overly aggressive Axis to garrison, thus opening himself up in other arenas. So if we want to accomplish the same thing, then we need to set out some definitions for HC and the betas to test. We need to compromise, reality and gameplay, a fine balance. You are the player, I'm the idea man. All of us fall into these two categories one way or another, interacting to a final conclusion that we all can play with. Idea. Add the ability to move ?(max.) number of invading forces per turn to Red Sea and Persian Gulf areas from Atlantic arrows. Question. Can some of the land tiles in these areas be converted to sea to allow ? numbers of invaders per turn? Define the ? max number per turn. Terif? Blashy? Forum? [ October 28, 2006, 11:34 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

TGS, you'll need to reduce the % efficiency of the port and the fortress to as low as possible, thereby restricting the reinforcement potential of the ocuppying force. Use the Bombers first(it has greatest effect to loss ratio) and the AFs second and lastly the naval forces.(replacement MPP priorities). Once the efficiency is to 0 for both or close to it, the AFs and the naval forces take out the occupier and land your amphibs. Usually the German Bomber, 2 to 3 AFs plus the Italian AF, supported by German HQ, is sufficient, but it will take 3 to 5 turns. Remember to cycle(back to port) your naval forces for maximum morale and readiness.