SeaMonkey

The more I play, the more I appreciate this outstanding campaign. Another thing I noticed, Al, is that you've given a lot of ports supply 8 with adjoining towns/cities that are at 5 supply. You realize that with HQs in proximity of the 8 supply ports the player can get 10 supply? I'm fine with it, but it is a bit different then most of the other designed campaigns. I was wondering what your rationale was for this decision?

Three words Al, cover, escort and erode.

Sure Al, come on over, just be careful, this place is loaded with weapons. I would suggest a very large white flag on your amphib.

Good point Mike. I'm wondering whether you could break up the USA into one major with numerous minors that are cooperative?

Good for you, Yolo, you've restoreth my faith in the left coast. Anytime you get tired of that nonsense feel free to call Texas your home, we'll welcome you with open arms. Just beware though, there's a place here where left coasters(politicians) dwell, our capital, "Moscow on the Colorado":eek:, avoid the place, we're in the process to get the rightful capital, San Antonio, declared as the bastion of freedom.:cool: The place where the Alamo resides.

Overtures were made by Churchill to deploy a Royal Airforce contingent into the Caucasus to assist the Red Army, now of course Stalin rejected it, or perhaps a better term would be "ignored", but again, SC being a "what if" dictates Stalin isn't running this show, the players are, so how about the DE? Now besides this, doesn't it seem appropriate that there should be some flexibility in dealing with the "Persian" acquisition. It should be another "optional" decision to cede Persia to the USSR or leave it in the hands of the conquering nation, in this case, one or both of the western Allies, with the subsequent establishing of a lend lease convoy route in which USA can extend MPPs directly to USSR and/or allow for an enhancement of MPPs to the UK. The reality of the situation is historically the UK depended upon Persian oil to the tune of 8.4 million tons to assist its war effort. Further, wouldn't it also be in the realm of historical possibilities(in fact it happened) that an additional lend lease convoy also be set up into Vladivostok? This will give a little more naval fluidity to the game where the USA can activate, to varying degrees, MPP allocations to ether or both routes at the players discretion.

OK, I can't resist any longer. Yolo, "it's not your fault", obviously you're just a product of your environment, there seems to be a real deficiency of long term planning in your region of the country. My suggestion, "MOVE"!

Actually Marc I think you have superb timing, especially if the Soviets have outrun supply, and I'm assuming that you've saved MPPs(they're plenty expensive at level 4) to reform those Panzers you will lose in Al's turn. So, you'll be able to redeploy before good campaigning weather returns and can trade territory until then, excellent maneuver.

Yes, I agree, the actual AA unit should affect all attacking air units, but I believe that will be up to the campaign designer to implement, that is why I advised you to examine the combat target values.

I'm glad this is just a game, the turning point will be bloody.

Check out the applicable CTVs, air defense and attack(AD, AA), bomber defense & attack(BD, BA), and lastly strategic attack(SA), they are separate. My understanding is the anti-air levels from tech upgrades applied to cities, ports & resources defend against SA, strategic attack, what bombers do(high level). Anti-air as applied to units would increase their AA, AD parameters mostly applicable to TAC and Fighter attacks(low level).

Perhaps you could increase the chance of damage from stormy seas to simulate the wear and tear you've astutely referred to. I think at this time Mike, you're probably the best person to manipulate the many parameters available in SC to produce a more accurate naval model, I applaud your effort. Actually, I believe it is pretty easy to damage ships in port with CV and TAC strikes in the present set up. As soon as Hubert and Bill design in a more flexible tech upgrades application, campaign designers will have the tools to not only customize the tech selections, but also the connected CTVs with liberalizations & limitations of the slot designations and levels. Then we'll really see a more sophisticated interaction of the "rocks, paper, scissors" effect and here's hoping the AI will be able to deal with it. One last thing I would like you to experiment with in your testing, try examining the effect, both ground and naval, of increasing the strikes of TAC to 2, with perhaps a balanced decrease in the number of builds allowed for the unit, same for fighter escort. My observations have been less air units to deal with, more multiple functions, and the players optioning to deploy air elements(operating) much more often to a wide variety of theaters.

I guess what I'm trying to say Mike is, the naval model is not about sinking, but about neutralizing the threat. What do players do when their naval assets are reduced to minimal strength or are presented with the likelihood of that? What happened to the RN, when they evacuated the CW contingent from Greece? I'm not going to debate historical happenings with representing them in SC, what is important, as SC is really about "what ifs", is giving the players the mechanism to do something else with the limitations of the era. You said it yourself, the Tirpitz was done in by a selective process, the technology was there, just because its implimentation was unique, doesn't mean the players shouldn't be able "to find a way". What I'm thinking we should witness, is at the end game, both sides ports are filled with damaged naval TFs, with them unable or unwilling to reinforce because of the MPP cost.

I'm in agreement with the BBs relative immunity to sinking when coupled with other assets(aircover, AA), but isn't that for the players to exercise during the course of the game? On their own(actually with escort) without AA upgrades they should be just as vulnerable to air attacks as any other naval TF, ie harder to sink. I envision them as being rendered virtually helpless from air attacks allowing other naval units to finish them off. As far as the difference of LB vs CAGs, look at the mechanics, CVs with half the aircraft making double strikes, LBs allowed only one doesn't feel right in my scheme of reality. Have we forgotten what the whole island-hopping strategy in the Pacific was all about, the fast carrier strikes to neutralize what? What was that threat? How to represent it?

Yes I see it now, who DoWed who? As Japan, I'm all over Vladivostok on the entry turn, at least that was the case in former Global games, now that China is a Tiger, I'm not so sure I will be able to commit the forces. We're just getting into the Summer of 41 with the most advanced mirror, one game the USSR was DoWed August 1940, the other, they're still out. Both have Japan in trouble in China, excepting the third game, Al's BF, where Japan is rolling. I'm kind of overwhelmed with 6 turns to do, taking notes, and running models, but I'm learning a lot about GOLD, it's the best yet, these AARs are most helpful.

Whoa! Haven't been there yet, thanks for the heads up, I'll keep the place garrisoned. I'm assuming this is late game antics?

Were you teched at GA 1 or 2 and IW2? And how about the Chinese infantry, any level of IW? I've come close a couple of times, but still no cigar, so I set up a model and found only when I had higher level ground attack and IW could I take the place. The investment in MPPs far outshadows the benefits from reducing the Changsha position, it's a pitfall for the Japanese player, IMO.:eek:

As far as I know, it's a default function, no setting selection required. Possibly something is missing from the DL, try and re-install if the problem persists. I've had no problems running on Vista. I created a "game" folder separate from the "program" one and I put all games there on installation.

Confirmation exists in both choices, top red button "end turn", bottom red button, "end game".

And, susceptibility to air attacks, not the CV type but LB air. How do you propose to handle that scenario? I might add, it is exceedingly difficult to acquire additional experience for naval vessels other than what they begin with. It'll be very interesting to see what you conclude with.

Ah ha! That explains it, "reduced the Chinese army on multiple occasions", should have relieved that army with a fresh formation from an adjacent tile, you'd never have reduced the position.

Don't forget Mike that experience medals allow for a more effective unit and one that is more resilient also.

I thought maybe that might be the case, a calculated risk, and after all it is a little later in the game. I've made this mistake early and things didn't turn out good, lost or damaged carriers are a burden the UK cannot bare in the early years. And besides, now that I think about it, you've pretty much destroyed the Axis navy, get ready to set the hook!

How in the world did you lose the Changsha position with China at level 2 IW? The only way I've seen it done is with Japan at ground attack = 2 and IW = 2 when China is still at IW = 1 or less.

Good ideas here, especially the sub rebuild program. On the port thing, I would think you'd have to restrict that to ports that have the capability to raise and refurbish sunk vessels, 100% efficiency / 10 supply type.