SeaMonkey

I know exactly what you are saying Liam, and I agree. The one thing we have that the participants in WW2 didn't have is hindsight and the gameplay environment of definitions that is SC2. In order to simulate the unknown, although there will always be some calculated actions, we want to have a larger window of variability. This neutralizes, for the most part, any compelling measures dictated by the game mechanics. Now we have an historical simulation of what the original combatants felt not knowing the path future actions will take. Only problem is you will have some very ahistorical games albeit within the confines of the WW2 atmosphere.

Exactly Blashy, good to see the heart of an SC Knight. Give it up guys, these random features bring out the best in players by spurring them to improvisation. If you can't hack it....well your just a vassal, a pawn in the shadows of SC greatness. Knights......you know who you are...take a bow, for it is you that can cut through the chaos of variability...persevering and grasping the victory from the throes of defeat. I salute you.

Weather is fine in SC2...and out here in the Coastal Bend also. Structured vision serves only to limit the possibilities, adaptation and innovation got us to where we are now. Now let's hear someone say, "Its no better than living in the caves. It was better a millenium ago, a century, 20 years, last month, yesterday." Sheesh

Agree DT, the final historical configurations should be the basis for the SC2 victory conditions. You do better than historical Germans did in the allotted time you gain degrees of success. You cause the demise of Axis powers earlier than historical, Allied victory condition is met. All that remains is the definition of marginal, moderate and decisive conditions for each side worth 1, 2, 3, points in ladder play.

For the record, out of 1029 submarine losses of the 5 major belligerents, 66 of those were from other subs. That's about 6.4% of the losses due to submarine actions.

The problem is not that subs give or take to much damage in an engagement. The fact of the matter is they have no chance to get away once they've been located. Assuming the hunters are numerous, at least 4, they can keep the sub corralled with surprise contact, limiting the sub's movement until it is finally dispatched to Davy Jones Locker. What is needed is a way for subs to evade this naval roundup. Perhaps if they go silent they should be able to move there alloted number of tiles irregardless of surprise contact and have a chance to escape. This feature would definitely enhance the search and destroy, cat and mouse, sub vs CA scenario.

Rolend, you are from another planet. Good Post

That's funny I never alt-tab, just hit "Esc", one finger, 1 click on the tool bar for the cycle.

Hey Bill you forgot to mention the most adequate air forces the USA can deploy also. Talk about an enhancement of firepower, use those babies before attacking with ground troops and who's going to stick around long. Rommel noticed those Eagles.

dispalor, I've read your posts, most refreshing. There is much wisdom in your words.

Look, USA fielded 3.5 million personnel in the Med/European theater. A lot of that was support in keeping with the vast logistical efforts the USA was capable of. What the USA contingent needs to be historical is firepower and mobility. Max readiness, supply, and good morale, if not excellent morale. One of the most neglected parts of this equation is the American artillery, it was simply kickass, the firepower I referred to. You know how to represent that capability.

Here! Here! An appropriate oratory Mr. Fenton, I applaud your observations. See you pathetic humans, the truth does not evade all of you. There still may be some hope for your species.

Well, maybe not exciting Rambo(a set of double overhead waves coming at you is exciting), but definitely enthralling. Now be a good Rambo and go take your chill pill, or better yet drink a silver bullet or two. That is your brand as I remember it?

Simple, no retreat once an enemy unit is unveiled. Option at that point is for combat only, no further movement.

My thoughts exactly Lars. I'm against any side specific tech categories. This tech would largely favor Allies as Italy and Germany will probably never build carriers.

Sorry Rolend, I hadn't recognized any other intelligence inhabiting this planet, not that these humans have a lot. My mistaken oversight, please accept my apology. By the way what it the basis of the Rolend specie?

I'm OK with that explanation, but when my UK bombers were intercepted over a French snowy tile by a German AF in a snowy tile, 4 tiles(all of them snowy) away.....well???? I'm listening.

Same here Blashy. You know, it never fails, one man's garbage is another's treasure. You humans are such silly creatures!

Maybe its a matter of just trying to find a target. Constant maneuvering above and below the "soup", ground units better camo. Air is thicker when its cold, more friction, not to mention ice build up on aircraft making them heavier. Course you could argue that cold air has a higher oxygen content, so engines run more efficiently. Go figure, it just seems a bit inconsistent that my Allied aircraft(carriers also) only have half range on attack, but German AFs have 4 tile range, attack out to sea, or intercept on land during snow turns.

Wait a minute, isn't that what much of the war was about, the accumulation and application of tech advances faster than your enemy? :eek: Maybe I just imagined that....yeah, must have been a dream.

That's just it Exel, you can transfer the weapon systems to the minors, train them to use them, but how do you motivate them to fight in a cause that they may deem as questionable? The Germans(Axis tech leader) are not going to install every little detail for the efficient use of their equipment, especially those intangibles. Historically the Axis minors weren't all that keen to fight. They didn't have that Prussian military heritage, that doctrinal attitude of efficiency, that commitment to "the cause". Goebbels did a pretty good job on the German people, not to mention Hitler's oratories, many, not all, were dedicated to a greater Germany. Kind of hard to reflect that in the tech levels. That dedication to getting better, militarily. The Germans and their partners did not share the cooperative training/experience and combat doctines the way the Allies did. I'll agree that some minor's combat formations exhibited some level 2 attributes, but generally speaking they didn't perform above level 1. Of course this is a game of "what ifs".

That's just it Exel, you can transfer the weapon systems to the minors, train them to use them, but how do you motivate them to fight in a cause that they may deem as questionable? The Germans(Axis tech leader) are not going to install every little detail for the efficient use of their equipment, especially those intangibles. Historically the Axis minors weren't all that keen to fight. They didn't have that Prussian military heritage, that doctrinal attitude of efficiency, that commitment to "the cause". Goebbels did a pretty good job on the German people, not to mention Hitler's oratories, many, not all, were dedicated to a greater Germany. Kind of hard to reflect that in the tech levels. That dedication to getting better, militarily. The Germans and their partners did not share the cooperative training/experience and combat doctines the way the Allies did. I'll agree that some minor's combat formations exhibited some level 2 attributes, but generally speaking they didn't perform above level 1. Of course this is a game of "what ifs".

Look guys, at this point, I believe it's still a little early to conclude this tech system is broken. Some refinement, yes, but let us try to refrain from premature conclusions. John has offered a better algorithm, IMO. Blashy has pointed out some categories of neglect and yes Sombra has a decent observation of the players' focus on certain techs. Some of this focus is due to player response to tried and true methods to obtain victory. Are we sure that the abandonment of certain tech experimentation is appropriate at this early stage? Are people compelled to winning and giving up on neglected techs because of a bad luck experience with the initial experimentation? Could there still exist the possibility they could counter the status quo tech strategy with more of a commitment to the road less traveled? Frankly, I don't know the answers...yet. The fog will clear eventually and modifications will take place. I like some of these ideas, if I was to add one of my own, I'd say let's turn Rockets into artillery, make it cheaper to research and build, then see how good it does at countering IW/HT.

Not to mention, that now, Rockets are transportable.

Kind of hard to argue against the logic of this feature!