SeaMonkey

They do...level 4, you just have to campout awhile. By the way...welcome to the forum. Ohhh! One other thought, subs will have the ability to "run silent" rendering them undetectable. I believe that was what you were after?

"And then the biMonthly turns were set up as phases, which also helped -- two months (one turn) of HiCom often saw a lot more action than two months (two turns) of SC." Perfectly exemplified JJ. In the context of an SC turn, 1 week to 1 month, is more than enough time for WW2 combat formations to embroil themselves in all types of military maneuvers and repeating such maneuvers more than once I might add. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm willing to wait for however long it takes HC to rewrite the SC2 code to include such game mechanics. So what's the alternative....SC3?

At first glimpse, I'd say you have a good handle on the situation JJ. Still I need to contemplate it more. I'm kind of thinking on the lines of the Allies DoWing USSR, like prompted from a "Berlin Crisis" type situation. I like your timeline better, as 48 seems way to late. Then again the Korean 'Police Action" heats up in 49, possibly another trigger for the European continuation, but again to late. It seems to me this scenario is a foregone conclusion to maintain an uninterrupted pace from the cessation of hostilities with the Axis, just a shuffling of forces. A small breather would seem appropriate, at least until we can contrive some catalytic circumstances. Heck, I don't know, its more than I can invent with the current SC editor, I've got to get my hands on that SC2 editor, what a beaut. it will be.

You guys, this is one of the best hypothetical continuations of WW2 ever contemplated. But instead of a continuation, I believe it should be addressed in a scenario all its own. Think about it, we have the data from the end of WW2, configurations of deployments and technical levels of all sides. Not much disparity there, the facts are the facts. Ok, we can discuss the usual opinions of all belligerent's dispositions, but there's not much deviation as the historical facts are common knowledge, perhaps minimal spin, we can listen to any hypothesis. Main problem IMO, is the atomic bomb, we have somewhat discussed the idiosyncracies of its deployment. Do we choose to disregard it for a viable scenario? Truly, I am not sure of the implications. This is a most compelling question. The overwhelming Allied airpower dictates that it should be a parameter in the continuation of the hostilities. Everyone's opinions have been duly noted. In the essence of fair play and a balanced scenario, a viable "what if", we need some strict confirmation of the impact of its use. How do we model this? I'm open to reasonable suggestions and I've heard the possabilities put forth, but I'm still a bit uncomfortable that the SC2 editor will be able to accomplish the effects. Maybe we need some comments from the developers/testers to guide us along this unknown road to some conclusion? I, for one, agree this proposal could lead us into a classic custom campaign for SC2, and I standby to contribute, its just tough elaborating on it until we are familiar with the SC2 editor.

I understand Blashy, but the outright purchase of an advancement does not solve the problem of the ineffectiveness of certain tech categories in relation to the game mechanics. There has to be some randomness also, some intangibles of discovery. Think about it. Tech procurement is a process, driven by your investment, as you elude to. But for every process comes the vague possibilities that invite innovation, the byproducts. Vast empires of manufacturing and production have sprung up by the necessities that byproducts dictate...a further use of the hereto thought of as a waste or immaterial. My industry is a prime example, the fractionation of hydrocarbons and the reassembly, from the original use of fuel to....well use your imagination. With the development of tech "byproducts" you essentially produce a game of "what ifs" in the Game of "what ifs". You see it is nothing but a logical deduction from the realities of life, it is how it is, how it was, and how it will be.

On the mark, John C. As you have already expressed and as many of us concur, the use of unit action points should have the dynamics of choice. Move then attack or vice versa, or some combination of the two. Probably the single most important feature for a game of this scale.

Right on the money JJ, nothing to add to the facts and the basic realities of SC's Rocket usage. But now for the abstract. John H, you are right on too! In a separation from the rational, I believe they can also fill that role of artillery. Just imagine that they are the howitzers, guns, and rocket tubes we are all familiar with. They bombard basically at range, their traditional role. When you get a tech upgrade, they become more effective and extend their range, ignore the fact of the scale that SC hexes represent. Think of them as "in battery" at certain ranges in the same hex as your attacking units, the farther from the front line your deployment, the less susceptable to counter battery they are, with a corresponding loss of effectiveness. Ever notice how the AI's AFs go after them with a vengeance, does that replicate the reality of the WW2 battle field? They dig the enemy out of entrenchments, they keep the combat units disrupted, reducing their effectiveness, but above all they cause casualties, the mother of which they were known as on any battlefield throughout history. Yep, SC Rockets truly operate as battlefield artillery, albeit in an abstract manner. I won't even mention their role as coastal fortified guns, just don't let any of your naval assets get within range. One drawback........ahemmmm, Hubert are you listening? They are not transportable.

Hey now you guys need to try some paintball antics. I'm telling you with a bunch of players on each side with lots of foliage and fortifications makes for great fun. Them damn things are pretty accurate too, and I won't tell you about getting hit, especially at close range, you can examine those welts yourself.

Ha Ha !!!, those were the days JJ, that decade of innocence, the fifties. Wonder we're not dead already, what with all that lead we consumed, well at least we got an excuse for being idiots. I mean we used to blow up our plastic models with cherry bombs, class A explosives, then proceed to reassemble the pieces. My Dad used to hand me one and light it and say "Son throw that thing into that ditch over there"......KA! BLAM!!, like a bolt of lightning in the sky. It was most awesome at night. Sure am glad all the lawyers and politicians are protecting us from all that fun, we were....are ...just so stupid, we never knew(know) what's good for us. I sure enjoy all this complication they have instilled into our lives, hope they all feel secure now......now that they have led us down the path of righteousness.

This reminds me of my first wargame. I guess you could say it was in the NA Desert,....actually the sandbox. We set up our plastic army men in various stages of entrenchments and with a distance limitation, went after each others forces with BB guns, alternating shots. I was almost always a winner,.... still am a deadly shot.

Exactly Edwin, it should be a tech tree. While I agree the primary tech advancement should be definitive, ie. you know when you will get it(95% probability), I also believe that other advancements should exist in a more random atmosphere and not always be known. I mean isn't this the way it happens in real life?

So Rambo, How many times have you thrown your clubs into the lake and then had to retrieve them.........retire / unretire?

This is essentially what the US and USSR do in WaW until they are activated. The question is, what are the limitations? Will the US and USSR be able to significantly increase they're military forces and/or technical capabilities before becoming active? My opinion would run along the lines that until the historic entry dates, the US and USSR would be somewhat limited in their endeavors, the trade off as Edwin's comment suggests should correspond to their actual historical levels, with little "wiggle" room. Now after their DoW dates(historical) then things could potentially ratchet up significantly.

I have to agree with Blashy, but not to that extreme. Believe me this tech problem is not limited to SC, but also resides in WaW. Perhaps there are models of a balance of tech categories, but I have not played them. The problem is not with the tech feature itself, but with the narrowed, coreographed actions that the game manipulates the players into, the cookie-cutter actions. There always seems to be a good variety of technical categories for investment choices, but unfortunately some seem to get no activity due to their insignificance when prosecuting the "winning" strategy. I realize that this may be due to the limited scope of players thinking outside "the box" and an unwillingness to deviate from tried and true policy. Perhaps the "rocks-paper-scissor" concept needs some expansion, maybe into a realm of interactive intangibles, where certain technical accomplishments develop unit attributes in a way not previously comprehended. For an example, the development of radar leads to not only a disclosure advantage, but enhances the soft attack factor of infantry armies and corps due to the acquisition of the proximity fuse for their artillery shells. Now I no this is not a new thought as it has been proposed by other forum members before, but since it was touched on, I threw it out there again. [ June 10, 2005, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Whooooo, DD, looks like you've bitten off a little more than you can chew? Thanks HC for the response, I'm overwhelmed. Never thought we'd see smaller scale scenarios as official releases. Never was there a doubt, this will be an awesome game.

What the hell!!!! HC is this a hint that there will be official SC2 scenarios that are on a smaller scale than the original SC version? Can you say North Africa? Uhhhh.....can I see a little closer of that Cherbourg setup or perhaps Le Havre...detail those fortifications/infrastructure? And ...and could there be a link to the operational and strategic scale? If those icons represent units, we're talking battalion/regiment scale. Ahh Oh! Just thought of something. HC if this scale is going to viable, we're going to need some roads, with the corresponding movement enhancements. Maybe you'd better leave this scale alone. Belay that request!!! If operational movement will be limited from city to town(or surrounding tiles), allowable only when enemy ZoC tiles do not interrupt the paths, then we have our abstract roads. What a brain fart. Can you tell, I haven't been playing SC. [ June 06, 2005, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

No Erik, he didn't miss it, Rambo just has bouts of dementia, forgetting that I informed him of this, not only in this forum but another, awhile back........ring a bell, brother Rambo? Now about that hijacking, any chance you guys will Woooo away HC for SC3?

But Lars, what are those requirements? Furthermore the rise of the theater commander would only take place after you have a certain number of Hqs on the map, maybe 3 minimum, depending on the nation, perhaps 4 for Germany. And who's to say that just because the commander has a high rating to begin with, he would be an able theater commander, a different(randomized) rating, maybe tied to some tech levels, in say Intelligence? Makes sense JPW, but you know, "sensible" items don't always make it to the game.

Wow! I beg off for a little while and what an interesting development, sort of in line with the Air and Naval HQ. I would like to see a more limited scope of this idea, as Lars pointed out, the map might get a little cluttered, although we shall have to see with the bigger map that is promised. Expanding on these great ideas, I would like to see only one theater commander per side, to reflect the national, or co-national emphasis to one area of operations as Edwin suggested. I am for a limited amount of Hqs per side. Here's my deviation: instead of designating a theater commander, perhaps HC could code the random appearance of one tied to his experience and rating, perhaps a summation of all Hqs' experience level. After a certain experience rating has been reached, which could be orchestrated by the owning player to a certain extent, one of his Hqs would become the theater commander. The time and conditions of this attainment level are not definitive to anyone other than the developer, ie. we have to figure it out, sort of like the Siberian transfer. What I'm trying to simulate here is a certain national doctrinal organization level that a side reaches due to the war experience. Perhaps there should be some other subtle requirements for the rise of the theater commander?

KZ, this is already in the game, perhaps not to your degree of effect. An investment in IT, allows for more efficient use of MPPs and strategic bombing has the ability to reduce the MPP asset benefit. The fix of allowing infrastructure bombing when a combat unit occupies the hex/tile should be in SC2, as explained by the developers earlier.

Lots of great ideas here, variations of the same concept. I guess it will be up to HC to determine the most viable avenue of approach. If I believed we had some influence on the final course of action, I would want to organize these considerations into a logically deduced conclusion, but its probably a waste of our time. One thing for sure, the abuse JJ spoke of with Allied CVs attacking Ireland should have no place in SC2, totally illogical, and I have a great imagination when it comes to the abstract. Oh well, back to SC PBEM and WaW.

Me too Edwin, it gives a definitive nature to your governing philosophy, good idea. JJ I agree with Avatar, but not totally, perhaps a randomizer for a mix of both, depending upon the "high" or "low" selection. Now Edwin, I believe there should be further consequences for the "high" selection. What if all major countries are at war? Maybe a diplomatic chit or two, or an inhibited MPP production from the conquered countries' assets? Heck, this reminds me....I had a thought on the use of Diplomatic chits for a side's conquered territories. Depending upon the plunder selection, a conquered country's MPP producing assets could start rather low, say 30%, if high plunder was selected and it was an Axis possession. This could be tailored to the historical alignment for each individual country, depending on the owner. Now if a player wanted the asset production to rise to say 50% for supply and other obvious reasons, then he would need to spend some of his diplomatic prowess in the form of his accumulated chits to hopefully obtain that higher output, not always guaranteed. Further, depending on the size of the conquered country, like USSR, there maybe continuing chit investments needed for the additional assets/regions/ethnical diversity as more territory is possessed? [ May 23, 2005, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

HaH! Redmow, I remember that game...reds against the blues, separated by a few neutrals. Of course the editor will be able to handle it, might require some abstract thought on your part and the competitors, but never the less, doable. Are you planning to add the naval aspects, or a faithful adaptation without?

Machinov, No one is saying "no" to your premise, on the contrary, we all agree. Reread JJ's post, this has been discussed to oblivion and we are expecting SC2 to be remedial. HC is well aware(must I say it again) of the limitations SC1 provided in reference to your post. Visualize the new map configuration, it is tiles, with more avenues for attack and defense. Refer to the supposed new title, not SC2, but "SC Blitzkrieg". Does that have some meaning? Remember SC1 was no slouch game, the evidence speaks for itself, witness the enthusiasm that still pervades this forum. Could we expect anything less from Mr. Cater? You seem to be a veteran of the genre SC was built upon, have you lost your faith? Do you not expect to see improvement, consult the historical progression of the original SC...how many patches were there? Recognize the time element involved from the first official announcement of the second SC to now, I assure you HC, DD, and pzgndr have not been twiddling their thumbs. Need I say more? [ May 22, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Thanks for the kind words JJ, if I've contributed a miniscule percent of what you have then it will have exceeded my expectations. You are ....after all, our "Forum Historian", glad you didn't leave us at 2000......here's hoping for at least another 6K.