SeaMonkey

Well clab, tell me, what would you consider a good simulation of the logistical model for a grand strategical game? I consider the WaW model, so far, to be the best. Give me an alternative to contemplate in comparison to what's been offered to the gaming world presently, I'm interested.

Titan, "Conquest of the Aegean", Panther's new release of their Airborne Assault engine. This is truly a remarkable continuous time game, cutting edge features for wargamers. Some of the aspects of future enhancements are awaiting PC upgrades as the present day processors are not fast enough to crunch the possibilities. Check it out .....Matrixgames.com

Excuse my digression Puny, but I long for some operational maneuver and combat. WaW, although fun, with a superb logistical model is alas, devoid. HttR is getting a little long in the tooth and provides no more challenge. Still awaiting the CotA release. "Shattered Union" supposedly supports the "Rock, Paper, Scissors" principle, with a nonlinear campaign mode. Even The Force is allowed a moment of amusement. By the way "Merry Christmas" to all....and to all a good night.

Well has anyone played it? Seems like a good distraction while we are awaiting SC2. Is the AI decent? Does it really fit the mold of Panzer General?

Thanks for the insight guys. Now tell us about the intelligence disclosure. It is pretty much like SC1, where you only know how much of each type unit your opponent has deployed or is there something more?

Well FoxDrake I hope your happy now! I sit in awe that a developer the caliber of HC would even acknowledge much less reply to such a shortsighted post that you opened this thread with. Now, you realize that you have just touched the pinnacle of hypocrisy, that through your inconsiderate post, catalizing HC's response, you have contributed to the delay of SC2. On behalf of the whole SC forum, our humble thanks!

I work in a hydrocarbon lab and I definitely can recognize a pet-troll smell.

Good one Well Dressed, but play a human. I always provide many misleading comments about my gameplay in my email scripts when playing PBEM. Heck, sometimes I divulge my true intentions just to add some credence to my propaganda. Sometimes there are clues in my dialogue as to what my next moves are or what I'm researching....sometimes not. You want AI propaganda? That doesn't make sense. Who are the originators of such opinionated behavior? For sure, it will never be an AI.....not if you want real substance in your rhetoric.

I have always been an advocate of introducing features that contribute to "The Search" as that is the compelling aspect of games of this genre. It is also one of the predominant factors in who wins the battle...who gets discovered first. Good suggestions Lars, but probably a little to specific for the abstracted game scale. Still there is some room in the editor to simulate the effect, if not the mechanics. Perhaps a spotting defense value could be introduced for each unit type simulating a % chance of being found, depending on the strength(less than 10 equals a smaller footprint), size(initial footprint), and experience(camouflage ability) of the unit. As far as the actual battle, the air defense and naval defense values of the sub unit in conjunction with the UA values of the Bombers and DD/CA/CV/BB task forces could be configured to give the desired effect. I agree that the naval task forces should be more competent at killing off subs than aircraft.

Given those SM variables, as I recollect, there was some secret prototype, I believe the PP234, based loosely on that Ju87 design... or something to that effect, details are still sketchy. Now this protoype's range was also classified, but again as I remember it, it flew to an accompanying Axis power where a large lizard resided. Rumor has it, that training exercises with PP234 against that lizard so confounded the giant beast that it was last seen swimming away from the island inhabitants in sheer pandemonium. And thus the legend of "The Savior of Tokyo" was born.......the PP234.

I have to say these are brilliant ideas and have some credence for actual occurrence. I thought Jersey and I(not the only ones) were at that pinnacle for creation of alternatives, but Edwin's imagination seemingly eclipses us both, well at least mine anyway. The potential rift between France and Britain is a very good twist on reality. For it was not that long ago, say the 19th century, when the Prussians helped some guy named Duke of Wellington defeat a rag tag bunch of French gentlemen under the leadership of some obscure figure named Bonaparte. You don't suppose they(French) would want to return the favor?

Well since my figures are being quoted, understand that this is the maximum range allowable under ideal conditions. Meant to be for comparison of aircraft types only. In terms of gameplay, the more realistic approach is to apply a 40% operational radius to the range. So .40 X 490 miles for the Ju87B is what the actual mission range would more closely resemble, hence 196 miles. (3.27 SC2 tiles) Weather conditions, ordinance loads, aircraft fuel efficiency, plus other intangibles(maneuvering), not to mention the need to return to base, all have to be accounted for.

My values are as follows: UK and USA are the same=WA, Germany=G, Italy=I. Values are for AF/Bombers. SA, G 2/1, I 2/1, WA 2/2, USSR, 2/1 TA, G 2/1, I 1/1, WA 2/1, USSR. 2/1 NA, G 2/3, I 1/3, WA 2/4, USSR 2/2 RA, G 2/3, I 1/2, WA 2/4, USSR 1/2 CA, all 2/3, except USSR 1/2 UA, G&I 2/2, WA 2/4, USSR 1/2 AA(air attack) G 4/1, I 3/1, WA 4/2, USSR 3/1 For the omitted CAG(carrier) AA value, all at 2, which represents the fighter contingent as well as the supporting task force's TripleA. Pretty close to the proposed normals with one notable exception WA SA value of 2 for the Bomber unit. One word, innovation, the tendency of, the example...the early development of the technique known as "Tedder's Carpet" and the continued application of such concepts, not to mention Lars' reference to the proximity fuse.

Alright, I am going to rethink my values based upon the original definition but take a different approach. Instead of a TO&E perspective, I'm going to approach it from the conceptual orientation of the effects historically recognized from each major WW2 participant. In other words, in relation to each other, how effective were German fighters overall in the role of interceptor, TAC(SA & TA), strategic, naval. Add that to the German ground attack and level bomber effectiveness in each role and that equals to the AF's values. An AF equals approximately 500 to 600 effective aircraft, two thirds of those being oriented to air supremacy. Now bombers, they are 100% oriented to dropping explosive ordinance in a multitude of attack roles. Some nation's designs and doctrines more effective at certain attack roles than others. Same number of aircraft as AFs. What else is there to consider from the historical attack role effectiveness recognized as characteristic of each nations airforces when divided into these two categories?

JJ has a very valid point here. I have all the major aircraft types from all the belligerents used in WW2 in a table format and classed in their different roles/classes. Their armaments, ranges, numbers produced, speeds, payloads, etc, and I'm telling you they cover all the ranges. Let's take Germany for instance, aircraft used for Dive, Torpedo, and Ground Attack. 1. FW190, range 330 miles, max bombs 500lb, 2x20mm cannon and 2x7.9mm mg. 2. HS129B-2, rng 430, mb 770lbs, variety 20mm, 30mm, 37mm cannons, & 2x7.9mm mg. 3. Ju87B,1&2, 490 miles, 1100lb bombs, 3x7.9mm mg. 4. Ju87D-1, 950 miles, 4000lb, 3x7.9mm mg. This is why I split the B and D models in the NA model. UK has ranges of 510 miles(Typhoon) to 1600 miles(Beaufourt Mk1) USA...1100(Dauntless) to 2300(Vultee Vengeance). USSR...475(Sturmovik) to 930(Petlyakov Pe-2) Now if you take the Heinkels(111) and Dorniers(217E) that JJ referred to in his above post and put them in the AF(TAC) category(they are bombers in my list), then you have aircraft ranges of 1200 to 1740 miles respectively. Here is the unfortunate thing, you have two SC2 air units, AFs and Bombers, with a wide variety of ranges and weapons systems, not to mention the ability to accomplish multi-roles. They can both have different ranges and values for a variety of parameters and they can be nation specific. This is why I'm saying this takes careful thought. There has to be a priority basis for allocating the different aircraft types, either the definition that DD and JJ(both different) have given us, or it will be the range parameter, or something else. Just remember the priority parameter will in no way be exact.

The last thing I want to do is confuse this issue, but I have to bring up that we are missing a very important parameter from this list, Air Attack(AA). So DD and Bill, what's the deal? We had this value for all units in SC1, is it defunct in SC2? Don't you think this is an important entry for our air units? If we are examining the air units' values in relation to the TO&E guidelines set forth, I think everyones input would be valuable in ascertaining this parameter.

To carry this further here are my proposed values for NA. Mind you, the philosophy is Fighters and Bombers, not exclusively fighters for AFs. As it is now, all are AFs/Bmbr= 2/4 Germany AF/Bmbr=3/3, because they have the Ju87B in the AF group and the D model in the Bmbrs. Italy 2/3, USSR 2/2 UK/USA 2/4, the bombers have the greatest allocation of naval attack aircraft and the doctrine to apply them. To my knowledge the WAs fighter types(AFs) weren't tremendously successful at disabling naval vessels. Maybe the Mosquito or Hurricane, or perhaps the P-38 had some measure of success. The Black Widow and Tempest didn't turn up until 1944.

John, I am considering these values only as a starting consensus for the historical "Fall Weiss" campaign. For customs, like we will be creating, all original values are off. We could have any TO&E we can dream up for the two types, but for the historical beginning i have changed my perspective for SC2 to Fighters(AFs) and Bombers. That's as simple as I can be.

I understand your perspective perfectly John, as it was mine for SC. What I'm trying to do is create a new philosophy for SC2 air units, forgetting about the way SC1 Strategic Bombers should have operated. As DD and Bill have stated, there are no more strategic bombers, just bombers, that includes those 4 engine behemoths. Our difference is the allocation of the different aircraft types to essentially only two categories, AFs and Bombers. I view AFs as predominately fighter types, shorter ranges, lighter payloads mixed in with ground attack aircraft and yes some dive bombers like the Ju87B. Their attack values dictated by bombloads, weapon calibres, rapid firing cannon and rockets. On the other hand Bombers are everything else. Longer range(Ju87D) ground attack aircraft, dive and torpedo bombers, two, three and four engine level bombers. There are other things to consider, such as doctrine, air force philosophy and organization and interaction with other armed services. These intangibles make the values nation specific. For example; UA attack, I believe UK/USA bombers would have the highest(4)since they are traditional maritime powers that fought the German submarine menace in WW1. Even though the experience wasn't so air oriented they have a propensity for doing it. Another, since we have carrier attack CA, I believe again that the UK/USA CAGs should have the highest attack value 4, which they probably would never use, but there is this CV thing that carrier pilots have for their opponents' CVs. The WA(western allies) naval pilots receive more intense training in attacking naval vessels, there is more orientation to this doctrine than what we see from the Axis. Sure there are some Axis, specifically German pilots, that are very good at dive bombing naval vessels, but what are their numbers when faced with the numbers the WAs field. And how many WA pilots have at least some naval training, like navigating in open waters, compared to Axis pilots. Its like we have always discussed the Axis are land powers, the WA naval. The values should respect these historical details even though we have to be abstract.

Since we are talking about initial historical configurations, I'm going to use the most effective airforce at the time, the Luftwaffe, for my orientation. In 1939 around September, the Luftwaffe contained approximately 3000 aircraft of all types. In SC (Fall Weiss) we had 3 AFs, which is 1000 per AF. According to my sources, 1125 single-engine fighters of which 870 were serviceable, 194 twin-e fighters-141 serviceable, 384 dive-bomber/ground attack aircraft-267 serviceable, and 1213 bombers of which 1014 were serviceable. There were also 552 transports. I'm looking for affirmation here, DD. Are transports represented by the Bomber unit in SC2? So in essence if you are taking into account the true effectiveness of the attack values, only 2292 aircraft were available that could make attacks and a thousand of those were fighter types. Anyone want to comment on the effectiveness of strafing(fighter attacks) on the target types represented in SC2? So my math simply states that there were 1281 true attacking type aircraft able to deliver explosive ordinance represented in SC as 3 AFs. Are we beginning to form a picture of how those aircraft and types are divided into our new SC2 AF and Bomber units. It seems to me Germany will begin with 2 AFs and 2 Bombers, representing approximately 500-600 aircraft each. My mind is now comparing that number to the CAG number. I am also getting a picture of what AFs and Bombers should represent as far as aircraft types.

Okay, here are my initial starting values for a generic CAG(carrier) attacks. SA and TA at 1..all nations. NA at 4 for Allies, 3 for Axis. RA = 2 for everyone, reason for 2 is unlike SA and TA targets most strategical resources can't run for cover. CA is 4(Allies), it is essentially a naval target, so 3 for the Axis also. UA, even though this is a naval target, subs are not bound by the two dimensions the ocean surface plane represents, they can dive, the third dimension to evade attack, they are also usually smaller, therefor 3 for Allies, 2 for Axis.

So what is our numerical range of numbering the effectiveness of each attack type....one to four, should it be expanded, we don't have the luxury of knowing the other gameunits' values. I'm beginning to think that this process is an exercise in futility without SC2 mechanics fully appreciated.

Well gentlemen in light of Dave's answer that each nation can have different values and costs and in the interest of historical accuracy, at least initially, we may have to enter values for each nations' AF, CAG, and Bombers. I didn't want to complicate this issue, but I believe it maybe necessary. I would think with the plethora of knowledge gracing this forum we could come up with a workable solution. Let's start simple, something that is generic with all aircraft roles(combat) taken into account, the CAG. So, am I right in assuming the carrier unit in SC2 represents two carriers,3.. 4 anyone? So two(start basis) CAGs, somewhere around 120 combat aircraft for the middle ground, say 40 of each type, but torpedo bombers having dual capability to carry bombs and perhaps fighters a lesser payload of dropable ordinance? I'm thinking out loud here! Maybe 80 true bombing type aircraft and 40 with the lesser ability. USA with bigger carriers, more, UK middle, USSR/Axis excl.Japan a little less, theoretically? Doctrine effectiveness, definitely UK/USA, to a lesser extent USSR/Axis. The reason I picked CAGs other than their TO&E was a basis to compare the other air units to, as far as numbers and roles. I believe we should also think about air defense of the units as that predicates their effective interaction with each other(intercepts). I know this is not simple, but if we take the time now and form a logical deduction to these important values there will be less bitching in the end and everyone will follow the reasoning to the concluded values. Maybe I should exclude myself from this process , I'm doomed to the scientific method .

This is a very good discussion, very relevant to SC2 playability, and very important. Its going to take some thought. Perhaps we should examine some TO&E prospects for each class, not just types but numbers too. We are are going to have to agree on some generalities and some abstracts as all nations airforces were not organized the same and didn't adhere to the same doctrines and aircraft types. DD and Bill, we are at somewhat of a loss as to what variables the SC2 editor will allow us in the creation of values for each different nationalities airforces, depending on those differences stated above as well as others. For example could UK's bombers have different values then say the USSR's bombers? Can the costs be different for each nation's purchase. The idea is to be as historically accurate as possible initially, and then let the guiding hand of the player proceed with enhancements generally along their playing personna. If all bombers are required the same values, especially range, then this might be a solidifying bases to start from,(defining the TO&E). Anyway, I am going to have to examine some of my historical reference data to obtain some orientation to back the values I suggest. This is way to important to post without adequate contemplation.

What, I think, we need to define is exactly what each group of air units contain. If we can agree on specific definitions then the allocation of combat factors will be much easier. Now each unit could be a mix of similar aircraft types, while specifically targeting a certain type as the predominant species. Take the carrier air group(CAG) for example, generally an equal allocation of dive and torpedo bombers with an equal number fighter contingent, specializing in naval/sub attack, but with an air and land attack value as well. Their weak point? Probably attacking ground units in the early war years, but expanding in later years. So what is our predominant class of aircraft for the AF. My opinion would be mostly single and dual engine fighters, FBs, and light ground attack aircraft with shorter ranges initially. Now don't forget their reconnaissance abilities as sometimes those longer range aircraft could be fitted with weapons systems, just like fighters could carry light bombs at times. This group(AFs) would excel in air attack(interception) with equal abilities at naval/sub and ground attack, to a lesser extent a strategic attack value. Now the Strategic bombers, (ie. transports also). Heavier bomb loads of the two and four engine variety give it good strategic attack and land attack values(combat units). Some potential success at naval engagements and with their inherent fighter escorts(excluding AFs) and armor/aa weapon systems some decent ability to defend themselves. Once we have some agreeable definitions it will be easy to assign the combat values.....yes?