SeaMonkey

Sheesh!! It never fails to amaze me, how so called facts are really nothing but overblown opinions...a different perspective. Live with it guys, we are all different, let's please have a little mutual respect for each others' points of view. Ok we can all sight the data, crunch the numbers, but there is always the ambiguity of the reporters' agenda, and unless those reporters are some specie other than Homo Sapiens, we cannot hope for an unbiased factual representation. So just remember the editor is the key to your opinion, the default scenarios are nothing but a basis for more discovery. In the end, we will have a consensus for balanced historical scenarios for you league players. Don't worry if you don't design scenarios, there will be plenty of others who will, examine TOAW. The fun is in the path to discovery and the satisfaction in the conclusion to the effort. Be happy we have a designer who has bestowed us with an effort worthy of our interaction, a tool of creation. I for one am grateful, Thanks HC.

You know guys Liam has a point here, and yes I know we have discussed it to death in earlier threads, but this oil thing is a very significant parameter for WW2 simulations. Now I'm not going to advocate micromanagement, but something simple, perhaps an oil factor tied to any unit motorized/mechanical type APs. Each SC oilwell icon could have an AP factor or oil point multiplier. Each time a motorized/mechanical type unit moves beyond.. say one tile it uses an AP oil point. This would only be for units like naval vessels, aircraft, and the motorized ground forces. It would all be mathematically computed by the game engine and a small screen data box would tell you how much you potentially use by the acting unit and how much you have remaining for the rest of the turn. It would dictate to each player which campaigns/battles would get the priority of fuel supplies and add some relevance to SC oil resources. When you're out, its back to the horse drawn artillery and foot infantry maneuvers.

Agreed Bill, sub surface combat effectiveness is indeed questionable. The surprise combat factor is really what I was looking for, and that should be when running either mode, silent(submerged) or surface, accidental encounter, or sniper mode. By the way, if we choose to move our subs in silent mode, will the movement allowance(AP) be less than running on the surface?

Thanks Blashy When you receive an auto retreat would you please respond as to the dynamics. Well the Royal Navy did have their subs monitor convoy routes as that is where they were most likely to catch a Uboat unawheres. Lying in wait to ambush was the sub's forte'. Since you can run silent, and sub movement is not as great as surface vessels, I don't believe that SC2 would degrade into a sub vs sub naval slugfest. Well I have been wrong before , maybe our forum members could interject their thoughts.

This is a wonderful turn of events, thanks Blashy for your contribution. I'm sure I'm not speaking for only myself when I say, us SC lovers appreciate your dedication of time, a most valuable commodity. Without violating the NDA, could you elaborate on the SC2 retreat mechanism? I'm assuming that with a moral factor in play for combat units, that this may be a triggering factor for retreats. Can you give us an example of how a combat sequence may proceed, using a variety of units, that concludes with an enemy retreat? And hopefully, can you answer affirmative to the question of sub vs sub combat, can it be accomplished?

You know this might be a compelling scale for SC2. Think about it in a tactical sense. If each unit can have a range parameter like artillery, perhaps a city scenario could be set up. Of course line of sight might be a problem for direct firing weapons, but indirect guns and mortars could be represented. Air assets could come from remote bases, plus heavier artillery assets with zero movement capabilities could be represented also. Ammo/supply might be problematic, there would have to be some abstract generalities, but it might be possible with this editor. I know this isn't exactly the question you asked, but obviously the editor will be fully capable of providing the conditions you asked for.

Understandable DD, after reviewing the map again, it seemed apparent why you chose El Agheila, makes sense. I kind of anticipated your response and was doing some research on the proper links necessary to provide an offensively inclined supply net. I had forgotten about the SC supply rule regarding the second HQ, perhaps we can get HC to amend that rule, perhaps it is to late or there are other consequences not immediately apparent to the game mechanics. What with the bigger map, it may be an appropriate change for HQ supply model. Anyway, you are correct, Benghazi is to close to Tobruk and with only Tripoli as the supply point it leaves an approximate 600 mile vacancy without El Agheila. Come to think of it, its still about 400 miles from Tripoli to El Agheila, isn't that kind of far to support offensive actions in Tripolitania? Now I know there were not historical combat actions of any consequence in Tripolitania, but it does present a potential as one of Rommel's first orders was to provide defensive positions in the Beurat area awaiting the arrival of 15th Panzer. Obviously as this is our favorite theater and it was somewhat neglected in SC1, we are looking for a better balance, something to enhance combat operations in the area. Personally I always thought the theater provided a potential area to pressure the UK into peace negotiations before Barbarossa, if the Axis(Hitler) had paid more attention. Ok, so more of my nonsense. Since there will be some 5 supply point towns that will suffer due to the "Malta" effect, maybe we should have more of them, Sirte for example(the actual 6 weeks training ground for the original AK deployment). The Axis will need to neutralize the Malta effect anyway to be successful and in conjunction with El Agheila(also a 5) give some credence for offensive operations in that area and bridge that 400 mile gap. Then Benghazi as a 10 along with Tobruk to support the Gazala area "Cauldron " battles. That still leaves a rather long gap to Alexandria(a 10) from Tobruk, maybe a 5 somewhere in between, like Sidi Barrani or Mersa Matruh as the stepping stone for this most significant lead up to the real prize, Suez Canal(Port Said) and Cairo, and the gateway to the ME. In fact I believe that Mersa Matruh was an actual railhead from the Alexandria/Suez area and may warrant a higher supply value. Even though the historical postions for these map points are known, a slight modification of their locations is always at the designer's discretion to make game mechanics work. Well as usual I may be over complicating a rather simple fix you have already worked out and of course there is always that most powerful editor. I'll try to suppress those historical urges in the future :cool: .

Ok DD, I'm going to think aloud here and I may be way off base, not knowing the mechanisms that guide SC2 gameplay, please excuse my nonsense. IMO, there should be a need for at least two Axis HQs for a viable supply link in NA(one Italian, one German). Three would be better and represent the committment necessary for success that the Axis never made. This link should become tenacious as the Axis reach out towards Mechili and provide a necessary capitulation of any Allied forces garrisoning Benghazi, to re-establish a good supply base for continuing offensive operations towards and past Tobruk. Again as the Axis reach out to Mersa Matruh and El Alamein the supply line should become almost untenable without the third Axis HQ and definitely dictate a storming of Tobruk and perhaps Bardia could provide some degree of supply if it is captured(to make things work), again not sure of the SC2 supply features. Next would be Alexandria and so forth and so on, I know you know what I mean. The whole idea, using SC1 supply mechanics, is to simulate that devoid of offensive operations that occurred in WW2 desert actions when the supply lines became extended. You know, ole HC did a pretty good job of it in SC1 and the HQs' supply parameters made it very realistic and simple. Love those KISS principles :cool: .

Ok I got it DD on that El Agheila thing, though I'm not sure I'm in agreement. There should be a base and fortifications, but IMO, the port facility should be at Tripoli, representing the long Axis supply line. Most of the heavy equipment(reinforcements, replacements, supplies) for the Panzer Armee came through Tripoli. Benghazi and Tobruk are obviously other considerations(minor port facilities) when conquered and fully repaired or enhanced(engineers?) and should represent supply depots at minimum. As far as that expertise thing :confused: , can't say I qualify there, but I most definitely will help, and the Lord knows I always have an opinion , long as you realize what its worth. It would be my honor to assist you . bradtap@aol.com

Dave, I was not refering to your NA scenario as I understand why El Agheila will be used as an Axis base of operations for the smaller scale. Being a big fan of AH's Afrika Korps and SPI's Panzer Armee Afrika, it goes without saying that El Agheila represents the Axis entry point and the Tripoli connection for those maps. I was looking at the large, full scale SC2 map in the new screenshots which starts with USA in the west and the Caspian Sea in the east. This is where I noticed the El Agheila configuration and was assuming it was a shot from the SC scale we are most commonly familiar with. Sorry for jumping to conclusions, just trying to help out. By the way, since the Med and in particularly NA is my favorite WW2 theater, I would be glad to contribute any historical data to your scenario if you feel lacking in any arena. Not that I would have all the answers, just a pretty decent library of reference materials. :cool:

And Hubert, not trying to be presumptuous, but on the large SC2 strategic map it looks as if El Agheila area is presented as a large city. Wouldn't that be better/more historically represented as Benghazi, a little further north, up the coast and a small port facility also?

These screenshots are sure instigating a lot of questions in me. I'm wondering what the connection is, if any, to the Diplomacy screenshot and the MPP accumulation screenshot? For instance since Sweden and Norway contribute 100% respectively of the 18 and 15 MPPs to Germany in the Summer turns does this mean they contribute less in other seasonal turns? Does this mean they have been conquered or are 100% leaning towards Germany? Now if these two were leaning only 55% to Germany as Romania is in the Diplomacy screenshot, does this mean they would contribute .55 X 18 and 15 repectively to Germany MPP value in the Summertime? Now I know that pressure is applied through the use of MPPs, but what is the effect from the use of the chits, the 3 that UK has in the screenshot for example? What is the significance of the "Diplomatic Cost = 100 MPP" in the Diplomacy screenshot? Is this the minimum cost for UK to apply pressure or to buy a chit, for Romania or for any country chosen? Now that we have a land connection to Sweden and Norway from Finland, I assume we'll be able to make operational moves between those countries? [ September 28, 2005, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Well actually, I'm not an "Old Man", a very young 54 and getting better. Thanks for the reply Hubert, the game is looking great, I'm sure it will be a big hit throughout the gaming community, hopefully on the lines of TOAW. Here's hoping someday you become a rich "Old Man".... on second thought "Old" is a matter of perspective, and so is "Rich", let's just say we'll all get our just reward, here's hoping its what you wish..........now be careful what you wish for!

Curiosity has been provoked. So....in the Kursk SS(screenshot), I see emplaced AT guns in the Russian fortifications, any significance there or just eye candy. I'm wondering how those 2 infantry and Tank units were spotted on the second Russian row of fortifications....any comment on the mechanism involved? It seems some units of the same side are facing in different directions.....does this have some consequence on combat? Hallelujah!!! Finally some artillery units, with range no doubt. Hope they're transportable. And I see them with upgrades.....DD?, Bill?, Hubert, a comment pretty please. Tell me more......if artillery has range, will our battlewagons, cruisers, etc.? Finally....at least for now, in the NA SS, the large city or base with the 3 10s set in the blue-gray octagons, this is the MPP/supply value? Is it not possible to assign an MPP/supply value to any tile...like clear, or desert, etc.? Sure would be nice to make any tile have some significance to occupy it....would make gamey deployments unproductive. And what about that border line in the El Agheila area, separating the German and Italian units, just a misprint? See....now that'll teach you to excite an Old Man...., my wife knows better.

Good points JJ. And that book would be indeed welcomed, maybe there is one out there we're not aware of. In any case, a great discussion, most entertaining and enlightening. We will see what the SC2 editor can conjure up. Much appreciated, till our next....goodnight, my friend .

Well John, of course I can see your perspective, as the condition was chaotic, who could really tell? The objective? I believe Wilson intervened with the ideology of creating a democratic Russia. In any case at least to overthrow the tyrranical regime of the Bolsheviks and make the world safe for democracy. Now Wilson was not objectional to the use of military force to affect the outcomes of revolutions, I'll site Mexico, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and of course Cuba. Funny thing you mentioned the Czech Legion earlier as I believe the success of that formation in capturing the Trans-Siberian Railway in the face of the Bolsheviks was the catalyst for Wilson's foray. Well I'll guess we'll never know what a 2 or 3 divisional(armies? not necessary) landing in Archangel would have accomplished given a specific order to march to Moscow. With Admiral Kolchak's 100,000 man army of White Russians and General Denikin's Ukrainians pushing to link up with the Czech Legion, just a little nudge from those American divisions might have toppled the Bolsheviks. And what with those 70,000 Japanese being dissuaded by General Grave's troops in the Sunchan Valley(Vladivostok) from fighting the Bolsheviks, only speculation exists to what they could have accomplished. Perhaps no Communist take overs in China or Eastern Europe, no Stalinist terror campaign, no Cold War, and maybe, just maybe, no Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, hence no World War II. OMG :eek: does that mean no SC?

Alright JJ, maybe I was a little out there, I was assuming a fully cooperative alliance, something akin to Germany and Italy. Come to think of it, that wasn't all that cozy either. Finland's nickel was very important, as well as Sweden's iron, no doubt about it. Most of my ideas came from the supposed conversation of Ribbentrop and Molotov at his(Ribbentrop's) home concrete shelter during an air raid and later reflected to Hitler. Again the historical reflections I have read indicated a candor not previously witnessed from Molotov. Perhaps he was acting on his own without Stalin's acquiescence. Now John, I'm not trying to get your redblooded American temper up, for I admire your explanation of the USA incursion into the USSR civil war. But I respectfully disagree. I've read Woodroe Wilson's famous "aide-memoire" of 7-17-1918 and I know you would agree with its ambiguity, it is confusing. Let's face it, together, as Americans, there was ulterior motivation, it was an anti-Bolshevik expedition, simple, yet unofficial. They landed in Aug. 1918 and didn't leave, General Graves and his staff, till April 1920, kind of along time after the end of the war to hang around and protect supplies.....don't you think? I won't mention the Tulgas, Shenkursk, and Romanovka battles, as you are right, a few battalions, a few hundred American casualties, but 200 miles inland...protecting the supplies, right? I'm refering to the Siberian incursion, not the Vladivostok one, that's a whole different can to open. What a lost opportunity.

I understand Blashy, but let's keep this hypothetical scenario in context. Since Uboats never accounted for sinkings of more than 1% of the Atlantic shipping tonnage, even a 5 or 6 fold increase would only account for a likewise ratio of lost shipping. Remember 95% were still getting through and I'm most positive that the Allies would have taken on drastic changes of ASW tactics had Uboats approached that success level. I won't mention the huge ship(Libertys) building program the US had at its disposal. I agree with you they were effective, and coupled with surface raiders and aircraft they may have made a substantial contribution for a looming Sealion(as Liam suggests), but the timing is critical. This success will not last forever, perhaps a few months maximum. Now I don't know where you got the info of only six deployed Uboats at one time. Are you refering to 1939, for in 1940 12 to 15 June, south of Ireland a wolfpack assembled, U47,25, 28,30,32,38,& 51, my math says 7 for the 3 day attack. I'm sure there were others in deployment, and I know I remember seeing wolfpack employments of up to 8 boats in 1942 engagements. As far as the MPP cost for Uboats, I don't think its outlandish. As the Axis, the player can make his choices at the consequence of other theaters. Besides SC2 has an editor and it will provide a completely different strategic platform for exploring these "what ifs". Let's face it SC1 is passe'. I would suggest that GGs WaW could provide some insight into this proposed theory as it has the mechanism to explore it. [ September 25, 2005, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Well Blashy they were effective...ie. early, achieving a 14 to 1 ratio of sinkings to the end of 42. More would have definitely been better, but I'm not sure that without some combined sea operation(in conjunction with aircraft)that they would have had a chance to cripple the gigantic supply lift capability of the USA merchant marine fleet after 42. I'm kind of hoping that this scenario will play out in SC2. Once the Axis have secured Norway and France and using LR research, they may be able to form a naval-air blockade of the British Isles. Of course the Western Allies will counter with ASW and air superiority. I would also like to see a provision for subs to attack each other as that was one of the main missions for Royal Navy submarines, sinking approximately 35 Uboats out of 169 warship sinkings in WW2.

Alright, here is my summarization for this scenario to develop according to my interpretation of the historical facts. In order for Germany to honor USSR's intentions and enter into a loosely stable alliance, they would have to allow Soviet occupation of Dardanelles, Finland, perhaps Sweden eventually and guarantee a right of passage through the western Baltic, either Kattegat or Skagerrak. There may also be some land adjustments to Romania and Bulgaria, ceding to the USSR. In return, Germany would receive a full investment of oil, minerals and subsistence(food) allowance from the Russians and would probably pursue an empire into Africa with Italian assistance. Later I'm sure a Red Army intrusion south to the Persian Gulf and India would develop. And Japan? Well, I'm open to suggestions. Of course this is all based on a full commitment to co-operation between these two historical belligerents, which is mighty farfetched....but not impossible.

Absolutely JJ....I like the presumptions, have often thought along these lines myself. Now as I remember it, Hitler had a paranoia about the USSR invading/bombing the Romanian oil fields as Stalin was very interested in the Balkan area and did annex some territory of Romania(Bessarabia & Bukovina). It was Hitler that convinced the Romanian government to appease Stalin's demands and not fight the Russian invasion. Remember also that Bulgaria and Romania were somewhat at odds, always wary of each others ambitions, not to mention the Hungarian border disputes. I also believe that if Germany and USSR did hook up there would be a further addition to the Alliance....Turkey(USSR interest in the Dardanelles). Turkey would be hard pressed to remain neutral even with continuing pressure by the UK, as she was at risk of imminent invasion with a German-USSR alliance lurking. When I get home, I'll look at some of my reference material for this captivating "what if", but I believe that both Hitler and Stalin actually entertained this enticing alliance at one time or another. As far as India, I believe the Japanese had a greater design on the area than the German-Italian conglomerate. Hitler was more inclined to stay in the European theater and would have aptly been wooed by the Caucasian oil possibilities that Stalin would have offered. One interesting tidbit to support this scenario, I believe it was sometime in 1917 or 1918 that the USA and UK actually landed troops into USSR to support the White Russians against the Bolsheviks. The whole history of the world would have definitely been changed had they prosecuted the expedition to its ends. You see gentlemen the UK and USA have stuck their noses in the world's business from times way back in history. It is their tradition, and it was usually when freedom of trade or regional stability was at risk. So they have been the policemen since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, first the UK as the Sheriff and USA as the Deputy. Now its reversed, but always the same role for both countries....check your history. So you think we're worse off with someone prosecuting the rule of law? [ September 23, 2005, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Thanks DD, Appreciate the greetings, but home is about to be evacuated. Mandatory, no choice now, Rita is a monster. I'm going to run for my life. I'm heading to the "hill and dale" and any mountains I can find to put in between Rita and my loved ones. So long fellow SC brethrens.......I shall return.

Perhaps something simple for intel levels to be tied to would be "Scripts" activations. Certain levels of intel/counter-intel would trigger an active script that defines the % probability of activation and which side needs to reach that level. Once activated, certain effects could then be scripted dependent upon the level of intel/counter-intel attainment. Example: 1.If Axis reach level 1 then "X" effect takes place. 2. Axis level 2 creates "Y" effect etc. Simple...yet completely dependent upon the user editing. [ September 19, 2005, 02:01 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Hubert....fear not!!! You have a following of believers. We trust in your skill....we are patient.....for we have "SEEN THE LIGHT". For us that live in the spiritual....the abstract...material animation is not necessary,...guidance comes from the soul. Take your time and make it great....all good things come from perseverance. And for you instant gratification seekers.....you to will develop the depth.....and you will be thankful. Rejoice that the "Time" is coming.

A truly awesome feature in the making! Thanks for the info DD. So, is there a possibility of revenue sharing, ie enhanced MPPs, for a pro-leaning neutral to contribute to the Major cause? Could it be variable depending on the degree of diplomacy/aggressive actions applied by either side?