SeaMonkey

Thanks Mav, your still dangerous, but you can be my wingman anytime. And your right, there will never be complete, unabashed cooperation, but during wartime, things are a bit different and the roadblocks to info-share fall rapidly, especially when the consequences are dire.

Thanks Mav, your still dangerous, but you can be my wingman anytime. And your right, there will never be complete, unabashed cooperation, but during wartime, things are a bit different and the roadblocks to info-share fall rapidly, especially when the consequences are dire.

I have to say I agree that CW participants should include UK tech levels. Now for Axis partners, I believe they should somehow run behind the German levels to some extent, this should include a catchup equation for Italy also, though not to the extent of the USA / UK one. What I'm proposing is in addition to the normal catchup tech algorithm currently in place for opponents' tech levels. For USA and UK this additional variable multiplier should allow for short interims between different levels of tech for these two sides. I know this would allow them to work in tandem on obtaining different levels, but it may be just what the gameplay needs to tweak the balance. The same, at a lessor extent, could also apply to Italy as Germany's "tech partner", but could never achieve the same level(always at least one behind) of the Axis tech leader. My suggestion for the remaining Axis minors is that they be allowed a tech level two behind the Axis tech leader.

I have to say I agree that CW participants should include UK tech levels. Now for Axis partners, I believe they should somehow run behind the German levels to some extent, this should include a catchup equation for Italy also, though not to the extent of the USA / UK one. What I'm proposing is in addition to the normal catchup tech algorithm currently in place for opponents' tech levels. For USA and UK this additional variable multiplier should allow for short interims between different levels of tech for these two sides. I know this would allow them to work in tandem on obtaining different levels, but it may be just what the gameplay needs to tweak the balance. The same, at a lessor extent, could also apply to Italy as Germany's "tech partner", but could never achieve the same level(always at least one behind) of the Axis tech leader. My suggestion for the remaining Axis minors is that they be allowed a tech level two behind the Axis tech leader.

Thanks Rolend, I wasn't sure, but I replayed it again, sure enough, and there is no LR level 2 for his AF. Now I did notice something else, I have a sub(I'm Axis) caught out in the Kattegat side of Denmark unable to return to the Baltic. Denmark is still neutral. Shouldn't I be able to traverse the Belts with a sub and return to Kiel and the Baltic? Anyone???

Agree Rolend, my assessment exactly, but everyone has their own perspectives, and aesopo's is different than ours. So..... what? I'm definitely not disappointed in SC2 and I would venture to say that most of us(I beat the editor drum bigtime) got exactly, well maybe not exactly, but close to what we asked for in the old SC1 forums, aesopo not withstanding.

Reading the manual, it says strike range and spotting of AFs and Bombers(air units) are halved in snowy areas. Shouldn't that also apply to enemy intercepts, intercept range should be halved if in snowy areas? Well my UK HBs just got intercepted by a German AF four tiles away in all snowy tiles. Now there was no damage, mind you, but it seems this is a little inconsistent. Anyone else notice this? A feature or a bug? Move if appropriate, my opponent has the save. Agmemnon, did you notice this on your replay?

Sorry Pandemic, don't agree. JJ has already stated the case for Franco's alignment and I concur. If Canaris had not been so forthcoming and perhaps with intelligence reaching Franco of German troops massing on the Pyrenees, it could have been a different story. There's nothing wrong with this model other than what Blashy has refered to, chit neutralization. Franco wanted attention in the form of resources for Spain, to build his administration. Sure he wanted to be on the winning side, but at the time of this diplomacy, what was the winning side? If he(Franco) had been wooed by Axis presents and Raeder had convinced Hitler to support Op. Phoenix, the winning side may have been different.

And that temperature.....perhaps assisted in getting their nickname Those Devils in Baggy Pants.

Uhh... Liam that was the Screaming Eagles(101st) on BoB. But you still got to love those All Americans, the only truly droppable combat unit USA still has, excluding SFs.

What I would like to see as far as carriers are concerned, is that the first 5 strength points of reinforcement be at a more significantly lowered MPP cost, representing the CAG replacements.

JJ, that picture was private property of the Enquirer, also evidence in the Duke LaCrosse rape case. I'd be watching out for those "Black Helicopters" if I was you. All in All though ..... a good likeness.

Wargamer since 1966 Not really from this planet, but Texas is home, currently. Undiscovered Species, amphibious in nature.

Uhhh...Lars, remember anything about Mulberries? Level 4 Amphib Tech takes their creation into account. :cool:

No, it didn't happen. Remember...as depicted by an amphibious assault.....not an unloading against a nonhostile environment. I have that scenario at level 4 and 5, you have the ability to assault with larger formations. To be realistic, you need to establish facilities to deal with combat units' heavy equipment. Corps, supported with air, naval, and paratroop operations capture port facilities. You are then able to land the larger formations with their equipment. You know I'm right.

A good point Lars, who is going to lead the charge....er landing? The answer is both, and here is where I have a problem with UK and USA having different tech development schemes. In reality, UK and USA shared much of their technology and so in keeping with the parameters of a WW2 simulation they should have a cooperative tech system. After USA enters, there should be a factor that deals with keeping USA and UK developments roughly the same, a level difference at the most. I realize that some adjustment will need to be addressed for balance, but IMO, this presents the game with an increase in credibility. And Lars, to address my point, when was there ever a landing that put more than a corps of humanity on a beach within a 50 mile diameter(SC tile) as depicted by an amphibious assault?

I think Rolend is right in the neighborhood here with these suggestions, but we need a little refinement. The idea is create an abstract of amphibious type levels. As levels increase so does the ability to efficiently prosecute an amphibious landing. Simple efficiency could be defined as a quicker, larger landing with the accompanying increase in firepower and movement off the beaches. 0 level, Corps/Hq units only, the ready phase(1 turn), 5 tiles max and waiting to land one turn, no movement after landing, only attack. 2 turns at sea = decrease in morale and readiness. Level 1. Corps/hq units only, 6 tiles max, ready phase, no waiting to land, no movement off beachhead, only attack. level 2, Corps/hq only, 7 tiles, ready phase, no landing waiting, movement off beach allowed. level 3, corps/hq only, 8 tiles, ready phase, no waiting, after landing movement. level 4, all units, 9 tiles, ready phase, no waiting, post landing movement. level 5, all units, 10 tiles, load and land same turn, post landing movement.

Anybody out there read "Fox on the Rhine"?

Got to agree with Rolend, Blashy. More must have techs accent replayability. Besides, motorization is expensive and blitzkrieg is about movement and attack or some combination of, with a focused force of arms. This variability will only add to the realism of an already great game and add to the strategic contemplation. Doesn't have to be an immediate concern, but later after HC has had a vacation or two, the SC2 evolution can continue.

What about the possibility of some troop and naval loops for the Persian Gulf, separate from the Suez links so the choice could be made. This would give the Allies another avenue of approach for the MidEast and in later games if Iraq and Iran are not Axis, the USSR southern flank could be protected. Perhaps a later patch?

Edwin and Terif are both right. The game engine should track from the beginning the number and types of units that have been encountered. If they haven't been spotted then they are not part of the "Report". The "Intel" level should provide a degree of randomness to reports. Sides with a greater intel level should have more accuracy and more consistency in their reports. A greater intel level allows for a quicker update of intel reports also, accounting for destroyed and disbanded enemy units on a more immediate basis, instead of perhaps a lapse of a few turns when it is low. As it is now, with FoW on, "Reports" provide nothing to the game. I never access them, they are useless except for a quick summation of known deployments.

Only house rule I like is no amphibs larger than corps size. Got to go with Blashy, I like hard build limits.

I'll third that, be a little lacking here without the contributions of different viewpoints for they are never without merit. Don't be gone long, and take the safe path of return.

Possibly contradictory, even a bit hypocritical, definitely misleading ehh,.. DD? I'll attest, those are optional perspectives and no doubt I'm guilty, even if unintended. "ALL of these quotes are from SeaMonkey, A well-meaning, I am convinced, and Learned, intelligent human:" vs. "These 3 quotes don't... QUITE, jive," So much for learned and intelligent. Seems I'm guilty of neither. All in all though, in Chris G instance, I'll be an advocate that the appropriate action has been taken, as you have been an eloquent contributer of. Nice to know, we're on the same side.

Whoa!!! Wait a minute guys. Now I'm not an advocate of any type of "ism" when it is pursued to the extreme, but there is such a thing as freedom of expression. I don't adhere to anything as vial as what Chris G has implied, if indeed he is implying that the Holocaust is a hoax, I'm on the record it is a despicable act of denial. But he has a right to say it, perhaps not in this forum though. The Ads can decide. If our vote counts for anything, then I too agree this venom can be spewed elsewhere. I would first ask that he not reiterate the implication again or at least clarify his statement with a rational discussion. Diplomacy and civility first, a little friendly persuasion second, tightening of the "rack" third, and then???? Well we hold that as an alternative option always on the table.