SeaMonkey

Tried it with settings of 1 exp and 1 bonus for the Allies, not finished, but as Wachtmeister said the Allies are being held at bay with minimum Axis troops. I left the west completely alone and concentrated on USSR, and it won't be long and they will be gonners, so the West will die later. The early going was interesting, but the AI is just too predictable.

Tried it with settings of 1 exp and 1 bonus for the Allies, not finished, but as Wachtmeister said the Allies are being held at bay with minimum Axis troops. I left the west completely alone and concentrated on USSR, and it won't be long and they will be gonners, so the West will die later. The early going was interesting, but the AI is just too predictable.

"Always with the negative waves, Moriarty, always with the negative waves..." Uhh "Kelly's Heroes" Pooh! whooh! Bill, that was not a negative comment, you jest of course. Alright, I will admit to a pessimistic-optimistic philosophy, ie. I prepare for the worst and hope for the best. Eventually SC2 will grace us with its masterpiece of features. I'm not expecting a stupendous, the end all of mechanics, strategic game; but a greatly flexible editor is all I wish. I have no doubt that Hubert will succeed. Therefor I am willing to wait, the need for instant gratification does not reside in my soul. I prefer to savor the moment of creation/realization/enlightenment for the time of this dimension passes swiftly. I will capture the moment into the depth of my eternal energy, never to be relinquished, to be pondered and appreciated for all of infinity. SLAP! SLAP! oh! Ouch! Ok! reality beckons.....see what happens when you exchange rambles with Shaka.....tangents of fruition.

Fair enough Shaka, I see your point, but I still endeavor to create the condition, however abstracted, that accomplishes the mechanics of the tactical battlefield within the (scale)realm of SC. I'm not agreeing with you that they are separate, but inter-related, actually a result of the Blitzkrieg effect, ie. broken, disrupted units. The condition I describe above is not just for the attacker as I wish to also simulate the environment for the defender too. The idea has ambiguous possibilities as we are trying to simulate a condition that encompasses a large time period where many effects are possible. A successful Blitzkrieg should also realize that it will eventually run out of steam, or be contained to a certain extent(its own logistics), ie. the effect of re-emerging units setting up rear guard operations, as well as the meandering around of disoriented soldiers on a mass scale forming haphazard defenses(remember the B of the Bulge). Its like I have said before, a truly great strategic game captures the essence of the operational and tactical scales as well, albeit abstractly.

"If you let that cadre unit fight again, you are having the same effect as your "additional attack ... or overrun"." Shaka you are implying that this is a voluntary decision of the owning player, when in actuality it is not,.... forgive me if I misunderstood. Now true to your point there will be restrictions on replacements/reinforcements for "broken" SC2 units. I have been a proponent of units being moved to a cadre box for replenishment, but like I said before I'm trying to capture the tactical battlefield, abstractly, in the game mechanics. In a weeks worth of fighting(SC gameturn) a unit could be subjected to numerous attacks as it retreats from the battlefield not necessarily at its option. The idea is to simulate the use of fast moving armored and motorized forces to move through a collapsed front, making deep penetrations and engage retreating disrupted units to finally eliminate them. Imagine several experienced, HQ supported SC armies coupled with air and rocket support breaking an opponents front lines, units retreat or destroyed. Sitting just behind these assaulting armies are the mechanized forces available to move through the opening with additional air and artillery(rocket) support, killing surviving, reappearing units as well as enemy HQs and support forces (air/rocket). Does this sound like the "Blitz" that we are familiar with in WW2? [ January 10, 2005, 01:53 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

As a handyman and remodeler I can safely say that the finish work takes the longest. I'm thinking Fall 2005. Spend your time with SC customs, HoI2 and GGWaW, or perhaps AGW......what do you say Bill?

Ah Ha! An opportunity looms. Remember my suggestion about the random re-appearance of an eliminated ground unit due to local battlefield reorganization/recovery. The excellent point jahuu has made adds credibility to such a feature. Perhaps the reappearance feature should be connected by the algorithm ratio of the type of participating units in the battle. The more direct fire weaponry(infantry and tanks) involved in the battle the less chance an eliminated unit has to recover. The more indirect firepower from aerial, naval, and rocket bombardment the greater the chance of revival. Then again maybe the attacking player should be rewarded by conducting a more balanced "combined arms" configuration that precludes the recovery of the eliminated unit. The reappearance feature should only apply to infantry, paratroops, engineers, and to a lesser degree armored/motorized units. The re-emerging unit should suffer an automatic elimination if an enemy unit conducts an additional attack on that unit after reappearing or an infantry or armored unit moves adjacent to it, simulating an overrun. As Bill has stated this simulation is somewhat represented by the "retreat" feature in SC2, but this could be an enhancement of that effect and adds a tactical flavor to the SC battlefield.

Am in agreement with Exel. Tank development results in a lot more than just the improved armored aspect. Even though we have discussed this before it is well worth rehashing and I would offer that Exel's suggestion should be further expanded. I would like to see a more tiered technology tree where more than one advancement in anyone tech category contributes to the final advancement of the unit enhancements. For example; let's use "Advanced Tanks" as the benefitting unit, advancements in "Gun", "Mobility", and "Armor" would lend to improvements in combat/action/movement values. In this manner players would be encouraged to distribute their tech investments rather than concentrating in any one technology although that option is still available. Advancements in "Gun" technology would further enhance other unit types also, like infantry(artillery), naval(deck guns) and perhaps to a lesser degree air fleets(cannon firing aircraft). In other words, rather than increasing the maximum strength of an enhanced unit, increase its combat/movement/spotting etc. values against the appropriate target types. [ January 07, 2005, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

stahlwolf, your text faults are trivial, not to worry, the idea is conveyed...that is what's important, though I'm glad that you endeavor to be correct. Believe me there are plenty of Americans that absolutely butcher the language and they have no excuse since it is their native tongue. Some cannot even present an intelligible thought, but we love them anyway and strive to help the ones that wish it. Your attentiveness to the language exhibits a certain amount of respect for the culture and is appreciated.

stahlwolf, your text faults are trivial, not to worry, the idea is conveyed...that is what's important, though I'm glad that you endeavor to be correct. Believe me there are plenty of Americans that absolutely butcher the language and they have no excuse since it is their native tongue. Some cannot even present an intelligible thought, but we love them anyway and strive to help the ones that wish it. Your attentiveness to the language exhibits a certain amount of respect for the culture and is appreciated.

Interesting premise Stahlwolf. Are you recommending an experience player take the Axis side with the most difficult settings? I'll have to give a try, maybe this weekend.

Interesting premise Stahlwolf. Are you recommending an experience player take the Axis side with the most difficult settings? I'll have to give a try, maybe this weekend.

And let us not forget that strategic bombers were also used against naval targets, although somewhat ineffective, the application is never the less viable.

CT, I have to agree with Desaix, preliminarily of course, with the disbanding of the French naval units. I believe players should not be allowed to disband naval units as it didn't really happen in history. As far as the connection between Iraq and USSR, you can color the hexes in between gray, thus making it necessary for Allied units to at least deploy to the region, simulating the necessary link for supply upgrade. One other comment, since there will again be a "quiet time" for the Axis build up to Barbarossa, which I believe is the greatest contribution to Axis dominance(imbalance), why not increase USSR readiness to around 50%.

Got it CT, thanks. I'll give the France theater a good going over.

Fair enough Bill, the retreat feature does model my proposal to a certain extent. On the other hand, when we are looking at SC2 turns that are a minimum of one week, it seems that the reality of the battlefield dictates that there should be a chance for an eliminated unit to get its act together, locally. The cluttering of the battlefield is one of my concerns, but that concern could lend credence to the use of fast moving, deep penetrations of armored and motorized units to further provide for the elimination(2nd attack) of reorganizing units in the flavor of Blitzkrieg operations. I especially like my proposal when applied to units eliminated by air operations, where disruption was usually short lived. Then again I'm trusting that HC and yourself with DD will provide us with the abstract feature representing this battlefield condition in some other manor. Simply speaking my MO is that a great strategic game is about the modeling of the other scales, operational and tactical, with realistic abstractions that do not add to the player's work load and creates a randomization of replay.

never fear LD, that little anomaly has been corrected for SC2.

CT, send me the campaign.....bradtap@aol.com. Have you playtested for balance at all? Are there certain aspects of the campaign you are concerned about...imbalance issues?

vveed we have discussed this before. It seems there will still be surprise contact and perhaps certain scripted events would allow units a "surprise" combat bonus on first turn attacks or maybe tied to intellgence tech level.

Don't worry gdpsnake, turns per time period is editable. Just as God intended for us humans..."You are free to choose".

Superb logic, Desechecs....got any other ideas?

Now you all know I'm not in favor of micromanagement but a proponent of "abstracted realism" as SC has so eloquently accomplished, so I'm going to propose another feature that enhances that SC tradition. When a ground unit is completely eliminated there should be some random chance that the unit could reappear in the same or adjacent location at a very low strength, say 1 or 2, in the next turn, sort of the way partisans do. Failing in that, there should also be a randomized MPP addition, say 1 to 10, to the owning players MPP cache in the next turn. The purpose of such a feature is to simulate the ability of units, especially the scale represented in SC, to recover and reorganize into an effective albeit weak force. We all know that units the size of corps or armies could never actually be eliminated, but just get disrupted to the point that they are no longer effective for military operations. This feature could be connected to the "esprit de corps", ie. experience, that the unit possesses or perhaps a higher factor of reappearance if they were eliminated by an air unit....there are other possibilities? Notice that this feature does not contribute to micromanagement, it only requires it be coded and I believe adds a certain randomness to SC playability, not to mention the realistic aspects of combat.

I think a feature like this should be handled more abstractly and depends upon the Intelligence Tech level of the opposing sides as Edwin has alluded to. No doubt you are referring to the the Allied ploy of using the US 3rd Army to distract the Germans during D-Day into believing that the real Allied effort would come with Patton's deployment in the Pas de Calais. Couldn't the same effect be accomplished with the spontaneous appearance of a unit icon with a "?" on it subject to the spotting and intelligence capabilities of the players? I could agree that each side may be able to direct the deployment of such a unit with the appropriate MPP expenditure, but movement should not be allowed as that would most likely unveil the ruse. I'm also of the opinion that only one "ruse" unit per player should be allowed at any one time with the automatic disbanding of the current "on map" unit when the new one is deployed. The ruse unit should also have a build time connected with its activation as such a large scale deception would require time to implement. A good idea that we have discussed before, glad you re-introduced Chris.

From down here in the Tropics where its 34 and snowing, first time in recorded history, so much for global warming......Merry Christmas, Happy New Year to all!!

What I think we have all asked for here is the ability to emphasize a certain armed force action other than what the present HQs allow us. We have flogged this horse before, but its still a good idea. I'll propose that in the essence of SC tradition that we embark upon an abstract presentation of adding extra supplies, unit enhancements of equipment, communications, and intelligence, etc., etc. to operations chosen by the owning player. This abstraction of enhanced combat parameters should cost an additional amount of MPP allocation and should not be immediately available, ie. the turn of MPP investment. This feature could be useful in simulating a surprise attack condition. I like to call it "Asset Attachments", the emphasis on a certain theater for offensive combat operations. The amount of "Attachments" available to the chosen units should be determined by the willingness of MPP expenditure and "National Characteristics", or maybe IT tech level or Oil + Mining resource possessions or something that provides for a maximum definition of the number of "Assets" allowed at any time. But again, I'm thinking that this is a redundant request, since we have HQs and the ability to deploy, operationally our unit OOB and the mechanism to build units with combat enhancements with tech levels. Yeah, maybe we just need one naval and one airforce HQ depending on the attainment of certain conditions.