SeaMonkey

Now I know that SC did allow us to explore this WW2 epitaph to a minimal depth, but do you realize with the research categories that will be available to us in SC2 that we can really dwell into the intricacies. With the ability to assign upgrades to the units we wish you'll have the choice of creating multi militia cheap low grade units on a mass scale. .....Or , take some of your highly experienced units and apply multiple tech upgrades, with a high ranking Hq in charge, and produce your "super army group" to ravage your opponents with. Which will you choose?

OK I just read HC's last statements in the designer notes and I'm starting to come around to his way of thinking. Why clutter the map with additional unit types, just leave the airfleets as they are now, with some adjustment. How about combine the naval bomber and tactical bomber applications into one tech enhancement for airfleets, "Dive Bomber Tech." With the achievement of higher levels of this tech, airfleets become more adept at ground and naval attacks, no need for additional units. This tech could be further enhanced with a higher level of "Rocket" research, simulating the advent of efficient air to surface missiles. To step a little further there could be an upgrade for AA tech also to denote deployments of SAMs. With the option to commit AFs to intercept, escort, or surface attack and upgrading of equipment at the discretion of the owning player, AFs can take on their unique roles as each player advocates. Example: you could choose to enhance one AF with upper level jet research to make it more interceptor reliable, another AF with LR tech for escorting, and still another with the upgrades of 'Dive Bomber" tech for surface attack. With the availability to name the units it would be a snap for the owning player to quickly identify which AFs are for which role.

Kumbyah, I think your getting "hate" mixed up with a contempuous recognition of inefficiency. Isolation of Cuba? I think it has something to do with "human rights", not that Americans are devoid of that abuse also as this thread has aptly identified. You have to understand that a lot of things that occurred 30 years ago still impacts our society today, some good, some bad. The exchange of ideas and conclusions of those historical moments hopefully contributes to an improved human situation for the future.

I must say, this is the liveliest this forum has been in a longtime...thanks to our moderators for not locking it as it should have been done. And listen JJ, I was never insinuating you were taking handouts, just possibly your expectations are a little high. Remember I love you like a brother, I know you, nothing you can say or do can erase that fact. Didn't mean for you to feel picked on, my mistake, just trying to empower you and anyone else that feels downtrodden, cause Lord knows, I've been there. All I can say is "Gentleman" this is about unconditional love, love of life, it is the key, find the door and unlock it, dig deep, contemplate what that really means,"unconditional love".

JJ, I understand where you are coming from. I held one job 12 years 1971-1983, got laid off, got reinstated, one year later, got laid off. Found another job at less than half of what I made before. Had to move to Houston, left the house I built, my only one. Worked 3 different jobs in Houston, best one, company went bankrupt. Worked contract, no nothing of benefits, fed my two kids and kept my wife somewhat satisfied, not happy , but satisfied. Sent from coast to coast putting out fires, scrimped and saved, cut up credit cards, wife goes crazy :eek: . I have not held a job for more than 5 years at any one company, no retirement other than what I've put in iras, 401ks, etc,. I pay my own healthcare, I help when I can, I put my kids through college, I take care of my family, friends, I've developed skills to do anything, I have faith in my abilities. I have had many setbacks, stood in unemployment lines countless times. I adjust, I adapt, I compromise, I evolve. But you know what, I don't feel "sold out". I'm not monetarily wealthy, but I'm comfortable, course wife's not I'll probably have to work for someone or something till I die, so what, I've smelled the flowers along the way and whether I have a penny to my name when I die or not, makes no difference, I will die a rich man and you have contributed to that richness, like many others in this forum, and yeah even you Kuni. [ June 14, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Alright, I've had enough. Let me ask you, yeah you, whoever you are. Who promised you the necessities of life? Who told you, you are entitled to anything? You are given the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, emphasis on "pursuit". Did the Pilgrims tell the Indians, "where is my health care, where is my retirement program?" What were our ancestors promised as they headed West to explore, where is your pioneering spirit? You guys have had it too easy, my ass came in this world whipped to begin with, no one promised me anything and just like me, your not entitled to sh*t. Get out there and make something of your life, stop whining, and be optimistic. Above all be thankful for what you do have, cause just around the corner their are people waiting to take it away from you, plan accordingly.

JJ, there is always room for you in my local. In fact the Lone Star State would be honored to offer her hospitality. But I must chastise you, NJ may not be our most sparkling state, but she is ours none the less and deserves more respect than an idle reference of "hate". And I've spent much time in Roselle and Linden. [ June 11, 2004, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

From the WW2 encyclopedia: France preWar tank speeds in mph FCM 21, 15.5 tons = 11 mph (slowest) Somua 35S, 19.5 tons = 29 mph (fastest) Germany preWar Pz 1A/IIC, 5.4/8.9 = 23/25 1939 Pz IVD, 20 = 25 1940 Pz IIIG, 20.3 = 25 1941 Pz IIIJ, 22.3 = 25 1942 Pz IV F2, 23.6 = 25 1943 Pz VG, 44.8 = 29 1942-44 Pz VI I/II, 55/69.7 = 24/24 Italy PW L3, 3.2 = 26 1940 M11/39, 11 = 21 1940 M13/40, 14 = 20 UK 1939 Matilda II, 26.5 = 15 1941 Crusader I/II & Valentine, 19.0&17.5 = 27&15 1942 Churchill VII, 40 = 12.5 1943 Cromwell IV, 27.5 = 32 1944 Comet, 35 = 29 USA 1941 M3 Stuart/M3A1 Lee, 12.2/26.8 = 36/26 1942 M4A3 Sherman, 31 = 25 1944 M4A3 (76mm), 31.7 = 25 1945 M26 Pershing, 46 = 30 USSR PW-42 KV1, 47 = 17.5 1940-42 T34, 34 = 34 1944 T34/85, 32 = 34 1944 IS2, 46 = 23 one other interesting fact is operational radius on a tank of fuel, varied from Tiger 1 a paltry 65 miles before refueling to the T34 Model 42 of 250 miles. Most are in the 100-150 mile radius.

JJ, that's the problem, the people look to the government to do everything. What did people use to do when there wasn't any government. They banded together and protected and gave and took care of their own in a local format. We are responsible for letting the government become a centralized beauracracy by wanting them to protect us from everything. IMO, the government is to protect us from other foreign organizations which wish to subject us or to tenure our demise. That's it, nothing more. You see when you give the kind of power to a few individuals like we have, it usually promotes corruption, look around the world, look at these governments, its everywhere. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. When you look another man in the eye and charge him with doing right or wrong you can usually get a response, one way or the other, it will be settled here and now. With that kind of responsibility in the local environment don't you think people are more apt to conduct themselves in a responsible manner, responsible to each other. We have become too removed from each other, putting the burden of our responsibilities on someone else, the government, it is not the answer. We are.

Look I dont give a rat's a** about political affiliations, I'm with you JJ, it needs an overhaul. But one thing I charge everyone on this forum with, is take responsiblity for yourself, don't blame someone or something for your situations. You, well most of you, are free to choose. Make your choices and live with them, good or bad, you are responsible, take your medicine like a man and don't go snivelling away that someone else is at fault for your life's inadequacies. If we weren't given a brain and the ability to reason ourselves out of extenuating circumstances, we'd all still be living in caves, running after rabbits to feed ourselves with. Nuff said!!! [ June 11, 2004, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Uhhh, ev, they way I read it AT tech increases the tank attack(potentially) of only infantry units. This is a rock, scissors, paper syndrome. In other words a level 5 HT research SA value would be negated by a level 5 AT research HD value. Or a 5 AT HA value will be negated by a 5 HT SD value. We're talking tanks vs infantry and vice versa. But I do see your point of AT research represents larger gun calibers and HT research equates to better armor protection. [ June 11, 2004, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Well let's see BochiW, where I live, 70% of our poor are obese. Most have at least 2 television sets and a stereo, not to mention the VCR or DVD players. All(90%) possess at least one vehicle and 47% own their own home. Now tell me how that stacks up to the poor in the rest of the world. Now down here in S. Texas we've got a mass of foreigners doing everything up to and including illegal activities just to get in this country. Does that sound like we've got it wrong?

"For sc2 i would support the different modes of spotting limits. total camouflage should only be possible in cities." How about wooded and mountainous terrain? Perhaps swamps also?

Kuni, I'm a little disappointed in you. Is this the kind of political rhetoric you were greeted with when you posted of the unfortunate demise of one of your beloved political dignitaries? I remember feeling remorse when you posted of her tragic death at that shopping mall. I'm sure I wouldn't have agreed with her political position, but never the less a tragic loss to us all, especially if it meant something to you.

Very well stated Retributar, I applaud you. What SC is IMO is a strategic level game with an operational level of combat between units. There is a certain flavor of tactical level, like entrenchment and Tank Groups being able to ignore ZoCs, but largely combat is operational in scope and handled very appealingly.

About time you chimed in Shaka, I'm getting tired of defending the old threads on this, appreciate the help. "Why were Air units in WWII not used in massed attacks against a specific target to destroy them?" How about they were more effective on targets of opportunity? OK, then how about it was impractical because they were thought to be more effective at interdiction and strategic targets. Don't like that one either? Alright I'm going way out on the limb here and say that they were used in massed attacks. Now to back peddle, the jabos were used in groups flying air support of ground units that were quickly on the move. In fact entire tactical groups were attached to corps units and especially effective in the 3rd Army's(USA) advance across France. In an abstract game as SC this operational success can only be represented by air units pounding the hell out of the enemy ground units, breaking up their counter-attacks and rendering them largely combat ineffective, ie. in SC abstract terms "eliminated". So what say ye?

Same reason you didn't pick absolutelyworthless.

One small addition, IIRC, the portion of the Pz Lehr division that was subjected to the majority of the carpet bombing were elements of the 901 or 902 Panzergrenadier regiment. What that means is it was largely the infantry element that was subjected to the attack.

"But I have enough units where it does not affect what I am doing in the south. In the south so far my biggest enemy is the distance to cover." Curry....U dah Man!!!

Curry,...stop messin around(Leningrad), put your armor and air together and send a mailed fist for the map edge, cutting USSR in half, game...set...match!

"Karkov surrounded and the two southern mines behind the southern river are taken. He does not defend the southern river line. That is a key mistake in Papa Smurfs thinking." OMG eight ball in the side pocket, 15 turns may have been a grossly exaggerated over estimate on my part. :confused:

"Perhaps too if the anti-aircraft-capability in these units were stronger too...they may have suffered less." Exactly what I've been saying eons ago when this debate started. Simply allow combat units the enhanced AA capability that research affords them. ie increase their AD with each advance in AA research and give them a somewhat more diminished air-attack capability as the level reaches 5.

Look guys, I believe y'all have brought up some valid points and I'm inclined to go with the idea that air shouldn't simply destroy a groung unit. But you have to remember on this scale and SC being the abstraction it is, you can't represent every combat effect specifically, you must think in terms of generalities. Air power may be a bit too omnipotent in SC, but it is a very formidable force never the less. Think of all the interdiction of supplies, mobile 3d artillery, restriction of movement, not to mention the disruption of communications that air power represents to the combat infrastructure and I have to agree that HC generally got its effect pretty close. Perhaps it does need a small tweaking and I believe we will see this in SC2, but be careful how far this is evolved as it will have a tremendous effect on gameplay which so far has been pretty accurate on this abstracted strategic scale.

One more thing, in Operation Cobra the Panzer Lehr division was carpet bombed into "ineffectiveness". So much for the historical premise that air units can't render ground units "ineffective".

Ok, for the sake of posterity, I'll say this one more time. Units should not be considered as destroyed, ie. when did corps or army size units ever really get completely destroyed? Someone always survives, so the remnants are just returned for rebuilding and reorganizing requiring MPPs. Since there will be force pool limits, the units rendered "ineffective" should be returned to the rebuilding cadre to be re-established at a later date by the owning player. This should also require a reduction in the man pool levels of the owning player based upon the population potential available to him in this time period. [ June 09, 2004, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]