SeaMonkey

I'm thinking that with the Changsha position properly supported and maybe an additional engineer, coupled with an appropriate amount of lendlease MPPs from USA, the Chinese situation would be more at the discretion of the players. I would like to see the USA be forced to pay more attention to the Pacific arena as there seems to be a habit of the Allied player to put off action in this theater to concentrate on Europe. Now of course this is historical, but I would like to have some tough decisions for the USA in regards to China continuing the effort, as was also historical.

Ideally I believe the Japanese should have to take 3 years to complete the Chinese surrender, that would make it in the Autumn of 42. Obviously the USA would be in it by then and would have forces available to make life difficult for the Japanese in the Pacific. Solely at the players' choice, Axis choose to concentrate on China, opening for Allies in the Pacific, but Japanese can gamble Allies concentrate on Europe, so have a little more time. All about consequence of decision making, Axis and Allies.

Let's see, first the Chinese walked all over the Japanese, now the other way around? A semblance of that happened in Al's campaign, Brute Force, the Japs knocked the Chinese out early and I for one thought that there would be great benefit for the Axis. Actually it turned out different, no MPPs of any significance, something like 38 per turn and massive partisans that have to be managed, a real damper on Japanese expansion. Perhaps there is something there to be learned?

I would have used the rolleyes icon if I had wanted to be sarcastic! Your initial sentence got it right, I was agreeing, don't read in more than necessary and remember I'm a simpleton.

Ahhh... the wisdom of Glabro! It has always been a trade off, trading some simplification for accuracy and this is SC3, it has to have more. You want simplification to the nth SC degree, there is SC1, the original, but for a greater degree of realism you step up W&W SC2 and then on to Global, so SC3 has to be more. For the AI, there are the default mechanisms, the basics from the past SCs, the AI can manage them, you give the AI some additional feature cheats. Yes, they have to be advantageous if you want a competitive AI, don't fool yourself, the technology is not there yet for a learning AI. So, for SC3 you have the underlying LoC and the single icon/hex container that allows a certain accumulation of units. They move and fight as one or the player detaches organizations at his whim. He can choose the defaults arrangements as the AI does, or he can create his own task groups for the missions at hand. It doesn't have to be complicated, it just presents the players with the freedom to choose. After all isn't that what the Creator has allowed us, nothing more, nothing less, what all free men covet.

Yolo, as a person with "plenty of money", I feel your pain. Be patient, back off, take a deep breath and collect yourself, this can be resolved. Go to page 6 of the threads and examine "License intalling problems" thread(yes, no "s") by CSS, this should help orient you. Martin, ala "Moon" can be a bit defensive and a little impatient with us mentally challenged folks, but he has a good heart and really wants to help. He's just on a unique level other than ourselves, and he's had to put up with a plethora of BS from us battlefront people for over a decade. That in itself should have put him in the "Cookoo's Nest", but he has persevered and you should too, you will be rewarded. Endeavor to persevere, for everything else....there is MasterCard!

I can definitely agree with Al's premise, but I think he missed my meaning. Sure, naval bombardment was ineffective, especially early, largely due to inaccuracy, inexperience and a proper doctrine(like land fire control parties). That does not preclude the potential, as the firepower of naval vessels can be a devastating weapon. So, couple the ability to Naval Warfare levels and allow the naval units to build experience through the practice of shore bombardments. Now I'm not saying for them to become all powerful, but perhaps the dynamics we are witnessing now should be available later if a player concentrates on orchestrating such an ability.

I like that Al, landbased air is the trump card for naval vessels, as well as CAGs. However, I do believe the de-entrenchment characteristic for naval bombardment is an accurate portrayal of real events. Consider it heavy artillery, even the 5 inch Destroyer guns are equal to 127 mm, surpassing the predominant 105s of most field batteries.

How about something a little more innovative than just "stacking"? Like my original thread, DoD, "density of deployment" each hex/tile has a limit of forces that can reside there, kind of like a bucket. The dod is set by the designer, each hex modifiable, globally set for terrain types. Depending on the types of units accumulated there the hex displays certain characteristics of defense and attack along with the terrain bonuses. A much more realistic approach than "stacking".

Being able to "deselect" and then "reselect" a unit as long as APs exist.

Make sure you're using your skin thickening cream and pass some over to Bill too. Have ya'll decided on a third yet? If ya'll think your armor is strong enough you may want to throw out some design decisions that have been particularly controversial for forum input and then head for the fox holes!:eek:

Now I haven't played SOE, but I'm aware of, and I want to remind everyone of the availability of Brest and Cherbourg as a final bastion for UK units on the continent. Many times I've used those cities to lure in German units to be bombarded by sea and air while maintaining further potential transporting of units in the UK. Depending on how the Axis player manipulates the situation, as the initiative is theirs, the Allied player can cause some delaying actions as far as other Axis endeavors. At worst, the Allied player can retreat the BEF in a delaying action into these ports to be transported back to the Island and the Axis player better be careful how he handles the situation.

I'm still on 1.00, but I believe retreats are more a function of morale and readiness, as well as strength. I've seen units that are 4 or 5 strength retreat when an attack is initiated, probably because they were at one or two strength last turn and were only able to reinforce to a limited degree because of low supply. I can't be totally sure, but most likely their morale and readiness were in the single digit range.

Better yet, since the elligible unit will have to be in the illuminated tiles of the movement of the initially selected unit, let the mouse pointer activate a shading of any unit available for the swap, then the hotkey.

Hi Hubert, I'll admit I haven't put a lot of thought into this, but let's say that you select a unit and the usual tiles for the potential move are highlighted as currently. Would the game engine also be able to calculate friendly units that would be elligible to move into the selected unit's tile and border illuminate them like the current fighter intercept/escort, HQ support status mode? If so, then all we need is a second sequence operation, like a right click for the elligible unit(both units selected) and hit the hotkey and the swap occurs. Of course, I'm open to suggestions of greater efficiency.

mathius, I have the two files compressed, you'll need to put them in the campaigns folder and unzip them and then I believe you may be able to work on the map. Not sure it will work in Gold, but did in Global. Give me your email address and I'll send them along.

No doubt an ominous situation. Brings to mind Me 262s with Kesselring support.

My pleasure. OK, how about this one; two units not adjacent that can reach each other's tile with their current AP value. Candidates for the "swap move"?

Hard to forget the pinnacle of the game, Barbarossa, but I see the choice is there, can't say it's viable unless the Soviets could be held off until 42. Hmmm, perhaps a diplomatic investment and a defensive focus in the East could be the recipe. Perhaps I need to rethink the strategy.

:)Yep, I see your logic, the pointer is already in the vicinity of the unit when selected, less action from the player with the hot key next and then the destination tile. I'm convinced!:cool:

Hmmm, this is not a single action that is always available, not sure about the applicability of a hot key?:confused:

Hey Pz62, it's a pretty easy move, just make sure you have an amphib available to jump on the eastern port/city at the DoW and follow up with an HQ plus a couple of land units, all those MPPs will be yours.:cool: There are other possibilities but in my book this is the most economical and of course in H to H be ready for your opponent's wrench.

Well how about it forum, anyone out there able to launch a successful SL if the UK focuses on home defense? I used to pride myself on this campaign, but lately, it's a "no go" with Gold, unless, like I said, the UK player makes some dumb moves. Not saying that I don't agree that SL should be very difficult, it just seems exceedingly harder than it was before and just maybe everyone has adjusted to the strategy.

Actually Al the big maps are not the problem, it's the number of units to move. I've disciplined myself to use the strategic map instead of scrolling. Usually the units exists in clusters and since the unmoved ones blink it's easy to zero right to them from the strategic map. A little scrolling gives you orientation in the area of interest and then you make your moves and back to the strategic map for the next theater. Tedious clicking on many units is the true nemesis of the game, that is why I don't play the mega games like WiTP and others that have hundreds of units.

Whatever happened to the fall back position in Canada? Used to be a choice of Egypt also. Currently in Gold, I don't believe the German player can launch a successful Sealion in 1940 unless the UK makes some serious errors, like forays into Scandanavia, Middle East, or an all out defense of France.