SeaMonkey

Its in the game, (SC2) that is

Okay Mark I can see you have bought into the concept of plunder, we just have a definition problem. Remember SC uses abstracted features to simulate the real life occurrences. So imagine "create" eguates to "Buy", "purchase", "barter", etc.

SoS!

This has been addressed before. Conclusion was to allow carrier strength to only drop to 5 for damage of its CAG through air combat only. IE it would take direct attack of AF, naval, land forces to reduce the carrier further.

Totally agree and I believe the features will be available for your proposal and you will probably be able to modify them to your liking with the editor. :cool:

Bloodstar the MPPs cost is in the game for strategic bombing, the output returns slowly 1 MPP per turn. Retributar this is abstracted in IT tech investment.

"But at least I got you on the "quibbling" side instead of the "get rid of it" side." Well what about it Mark alias bloodstar? You dah man Lars.....High Five

The next game genre is "Grand Strategic-Operational-Tactical Command", GSOTC for short. A game with a world map to be played much as SC now, or WiF, or even territorial like HoI/WaW. Turn based at the strategic level, but when a battle occurs of extreme importance, the players have the option to conduct it on the tactical level. The strategic hex is selected the forces(OOB) deployed and "VOILA" the terrain in grid map format appears and you conduct the battle with the HttR engine in RTS format....least amount of micromanagement. The orders are issued by each player and the AI directed forces carry them out with no additional player interaction if desired. Orders can be amended, with delays, the players may micromanage if they wish, but at the end the winner takes control of the hex/territory. Back to the strategic scale until the next momentous battle.

Seriously Mark, do you really believe that the conquering hoards never fleeced the population of vanquished nations for things like coin/art collections, precious metals/jewelry, their land/crops, stocks and bonds, any valuable possessions at all? Do an historical search...I think you'll find the concept of "plunder" has long legs.

Alright if "plunder" shouldn't exist then strike it from the dictionary! We'll call it "semi-immediate compensation".

Well thanks Retributar,...Ahem...I feel like I just got out of the local $3.98 Chinese Buffet,"Burp!" where they were serving information. It will take awhile to digest this....anybody got a "Tums".

"So the greed factor is there, getting additional income from the resources is vital for the long term effort. I just feel the on the spot, shot in the arm concept of plunder is unneccesary" I agree Mark, the instant acquisition of plunder MPPs is unrealistic. A thought; Since we all agree there should be some plunder, ie the raiding of the national treasury, commodity possession, etc. shouldn't the available MPP plunder be parcelled out over a period of time, with the initial outlay being greater than the last(subject to randomizer/Edwin policy)? With SC turns at one to four weeks, what is acceptable?

And what was the consensus on "Disbanding"? IMO not realistic, at least for the instantaneous recovery of MPPs. And what about recovery of tech investments also? At least an interim time period before all the MPPs are realized.

Concur completely Bill with your assessment and that is why the Allies should have the diplomatic means to increase their MPP basis either through their efforts or the benelovent ones of their opponents(as you suggest). Since the mechanism was not available in SC1, the Allies had to be innovative, albeit ahistorical. And after all, this is a wargame.

Mark, are you saying that the struggle of the "Haves" and the "Have Nots" is not the basis for historical war occurrences? Greed is a figment of our human imagination?

I'm also thinking that adopting one of Edwin's policies should have a chance of implicating the maximum output availability for resource MPPs allocation from said nation that policy is applied to. Perhaps having ramifications to surrounding or similar political entities under the rule of the conquering alliance. And what about the opponents' MPP output level? Example: Let's say Germany applies Edwin Policy #3 to Poland's surrender terms. The Soviets decide to increase trade with Axis...slight escalation in MPPs for Germany and the UK, being more tolerable of the conditions, reduced MPPs for certain time period. Also USA lendlease is delayed to UK and perhaps Axis minors join earlier. Of course all final MPP enhancements are subject to the randomizer. There could be many variations to this diplomatic model. Imagine the complication to the game mechanics with just a human decision...gone are the days of cookie-cutter strategies.

Outstanding Edwin,.... a decision to be made, a consequence to be paid....... and low to the micromangement proponents. Take a bow!

Heck. just thought of something else. Could it be that the function of plunder should be based on the amount of resource(tiles) MPP basis that each nation/territory possesses?

Thanks JJ, for the confirming post, really not sure sometimes if my ideas are viable are not. There is so much BS swirling around in my "cabeza" and the neuron receptors are interrupted continuously that life has become a "walk in the park", constantly consumed by what feels "right", compelling, but always with a "hint" of doubt. The limited slots available for us in SC2 is sure to stimulate a lot of debate about what was historically possible and what was not.

Chirp! Chirp! This tweaker bird wants to know. Mr. Bill, DD, or Mr. C tell me it is so, the SC2 editor will allow us to allocate the plunder we wish the conquering nation to receive for the vanquished territories? If so, will we also be able to define the randomizer variable that defines the plunder set. If so fellow tweaker birds, put your thinking caps on, accumulate your references, for it will be time to define the worth of defeated nations/territories.

Victor brings up our dilemma of too few minors, perhaps a couple more majors would do for say Japan and China. Now JJ's post can provide us some direction as to what minors will have to be combined, so that we have enough slots to provide for scenario "what ifs". How about two different Balkan coalitions, say Yugo. and Greece as Allied leaning and Rum.,Hung.,and Bulgaria, Axis oriented? What other groupings would be viable?

Edwin, who's to say it won't be possible with the current spec'd SC2 editor? Remember we will have scripted "cause and effect" events available.

Hmmm, this could be a very interesting pre-war maneuvering campaign. Austria and Czechoslovakia would have to be created. How many of you are familiar with this add on for "World in Flames" board game? (DoD)

You guys are of course right, perhaps I used the wrong wording, ie. "war beginning". I was thinking more of a "Days of Decision" type scenario, where the partipants start out with more diplomatic like negotiations, sanctions, tech, and armed doctrine developments, preceeding the "Hot War".

Bill, let's take another hypothetical war beginning. Will the game be able to simulate a possible UK-France reaction to Germany's re-occupying of the Rhineland in March of 1936 in violation of the Versailles Treaty?