SeaMonkey

Since we know that SC2 will allow up to six players, I'm assuming originally that means France, UK, USA, USSR, Italy and Germany. So if we would like to create a custom campaign, is it possible to configure something different, like 3 Axis players against 3 Allied players and if so, since there are 4 original Allied positions, could the one out, be designated to one of the other Allied players instead of the AI? Possible examples: 3 Allied players = WE(western European, France+UK), USSR, USA, makes since if France doesn't last to long. 2 Allied = WP(western powers, UK+USA+France) and the other USSR or France+USSR and UK+USA. Is it possible to perhaps create an additional Allied position of France+China? Now that would still be 3 Allied positions of UK+USA, China+France, and USSR. For the Axis side, well you can imagine the possibilities, like Germany+Italy and Japan. Or perhaps Austria-Hungary and Germany with a third position filled by Japan. Now maybe you think you are the incarnation of Alexander himself, so you take one position against the other 5 players. So HC....what say yee?

Oh...and Night...I never left public school...that will only happen when I slip the earthly bonds of this existence.

Look I understand what y'all are trying to say, and there is something to be said for better training and performance. What I'm saying is the mechanism to accomplish this task is in SC, not exactly as way you have described it, but never the less a means to the same end. You can train your forces with actions against partisans and neutral country forces, other opportunities as mopping up out of supply, low strength unit engagements do exist for you to exploit. Think of it as "live fire" training. Operate the unit from place to place to take advantage of these scenarios = cost more MPPs, upgrade them with better equipment, make sure they are supported by high level HQ with lots of experience, allow them to kill off opposing units. When you examine a unit subjected to this type of exercise, notice the readiness level; isn't readiness a function of morale and training? When a unit with say 108% readiness, high in experience bars, high tech level strength and supported by an HQ with high experience and command level, attacks another unit aren't the results similar to the actions of a real life "elite unit"? Sure its not exactly reality, but its the best representation short of it. This scale(SC) is not about detailed simulations, there are other games that fulfill that parameter, SC has been successful because it is simple, credible, fun and yet has a lot of depth, all through the enormous accomplishment(take a bow HC) of abstraction, we are only asking you to view it from that perspective.

Likewise,accolades Curry, enjoyed the interview, hope more are on the way. Speaking of S&T, I'll bet I have some of those old issues and AH/SPI games in my attic, a bit roach eaten for sure, but one of these days I'll get up there and rummage around.

"Man SeaM you got 650 postings now. Damn guess you are now officially one of the ole 2002 guard." "I'm gonna call the old timer tomorrow." Don't bother, I won't be at home.

Alright for you Kuni....expanding your horizons, I will be awaiting the commentary with optimistic anticipation....Bon Voyage.

Sorry Chris G for my moronic vagueness, but it was my natural inclination to provoke abstract thought in my fellow man. I had assumed you were familiar with the mechanics of SC to the point of an innovative episode of contemplation in the application of its features. I will try to be more definitive in the future, please accept my apology.

Developing.....Perhaps Germany does not re-occupy the Rhineland in 36 in a gesture to reaffirm its commitment to the western European sanctions of the Versailles Treaty with the hope of clandestine support for its USSR forage from France and UK. Germany and Italy also guarantee Turkish neutrality and the USA remains in isolation. Japan quietly begins operations in Manchuria.

Alright JJ this is going to be kind of a stretch, but here goes. Assuming the historical cessation of hostilities between Germany and USSR, with Austria-Hungary's previous surrender to USSR, the Regency Council sets up the "Kingdom of Poland" with Warsaw as the capital but without the Danzig Corridor. The Versailles Treaty allows Germany an influential position over Poland but creates a demilitarized zone on the eastern border with the USSR as appeasement to the Soviets concerns of the puppet "Polnische Wehrmacht". The original (prewar) eastern European nation boundaries and configurations remain as they were before "Fall Weiss" with the exception of Poland being an actual ally of the Axis powers, ie. Germany has absorbed Austria and Czechoslovakia. The stage is set for a German ruse into the "Kingdom" under the auspices of Soviet meddling where the two countries (Germany and the Kingdom of Poland) continue on into the demilitarized zone to attack the USSR and reclaim some of the traditional Polish territory deeded to the Soviets by Treaty of Versailles. Timeline? Do the other minors join? Turks remain neutral. Ok,.. Ok.. I admit I need a little more research, and obviously some more scenario development. It was a spontaneous idea.

With the arrival of the flexible editor of SC2 and the ability to create ahistorical conditions set in the WW2 time period, should we examine this possibility? Imagine that in the aftermath of WW1, that the nation of Poland is not recreated but simply remains as a puppet, the "Grand Duchy of Warsaw", of the USSR in a greatly diminished territorial state. Since we are aware of the great animosity between the Bolsheviks and the Nazis is it presumptuous to assume that war could have occurred between these two empires without the western allies taking action? If indeed this hypothesis is viable what and when would a spark have ignited this conflict? Would it have been of any advantage for the western allies to let them fight it out without intervention when the possibility of the USSR demise would have left the Axis free to strongarm the WA later on? Would the Italians have been active against the Soviets, the Turks? And what would the dispositions of the Axis minors resemble? You are now a high ranking world diplomat in the 1930s, can you shed some light on this evolving European scenario?

Classic JJR retort Take a bow... and Kuni for your instigating statement, you can...errrr.... curtsy.

Thanks Bill....I give up... no offense Chris but you must be a recent graduate of the US public school system. Sorry we let you down.

Bill, thanks for the revelation, and do you happen to know the maximum number of characters allowed for the name?

GM, if you want those things, the editor will allow you to create them.

The feature will be there for SC2 as it was in SC1, its called experience.

All we need is the provisions in SC1 to name your own units with one exception. Remove the "Tank Group", "Corps", "Army" default designations and let us completely change the name so that we may revert to other scales with the creation of custom campaigns.

Do you want to initiate a game when you already know the outcome? SC begins in an accurate, albeit abstracted, historical environment, from there it is up to you and your opponents if the game continues to an historical conclusion.

Good try aesopo, but as you can see this TCP bunch is mired in the Fall Weiss quagmire. I like Fall Weiss too, but its getting a little long in the tooth and I used to enjoy the AARs, but until they get to Barbarossa its pretty much the SoS. I guess I'm just a crabby old man, set in my ways......hmmm sounds like our TCP gang, excepting you of course Kuni, who is just ...how do I say it....GAY!

Just made my point Bill, IRL was there ever an incident with a unit attacking that caused its complete demise, especially at this scale? I can't think of one, anyone else?

Good one With Clusters, even at strength one, carriers would be useful to reduce entrenchment values. Maybe this should be the rule for all units below 3 strength...attacking prohibited.

How about Iceland?

Mark...some would say that strategic bombing wasn't cost effective in WW2....are we that far from reality?

We'll change it...if not.

Hear! Here!...toast to Mark, enjoyed your interaction, but this sounds like a goodbye.....cease and desist....we need you. Maybe Santa will bring you a new CPU.

"Good point on placing a unit on top of a resource... give the player the option to attack the unit or the resource... would that be difficult to implement?" Again Mark, its in the game. Questions. Can you imagine that an MPP investment into IT would be like what you are asking for? Is it possible that left alone for a period a time a resource could recover its full effectiveness and perhaps even exceed its prior output capacity, given the attentiveness of its inherent population? If you concentrate on airpower you can achieve what you are proposing in SC1, although you will probably lose the game. As I remember a city hex(SC1) at or below level 5 cannot function for operation, transport, or unit builds.