SeaMonkey

And this will work for editor generated cities/industrial centers as well? Could this path(supply) also be traced across sea tiles if a port is available/created?

I'm thinking......thinking about this........OK here's my thought. There should be a randomizing factor to limit spotting in the overlap area of contesting airfleets' range. The side that has air superiority based on the number, tech level, experience and strength of the competing airfleets should get the benefit of the spotting feature in the overlap range zone while the other side is denied spotting in the overlap zone. This should be calculated each turn and there should be a randomizing chance factor so as not to be to definitive of the proximity of opposing airfleets.

I'm in agreement with you Edwin, not that it carries any clout. My abstractly constructed mind says this is as good as a simulation of commando raids we'll get out of any SC version. Maybe not detailed realism, but in the spirit of SC, its good enough for me, how about for YOU! :eek:

Believe me I have been on the receiving end as have you guys, but its still a fun game even when I lose, but again I don't capitulate, I fight to the end. The single thing, if there is one, to fix SC air game is to allow the ground units the AA research tech advance and disallow its bonus to resource based airfleets when defending unless they are attacked directly. But unfortunately its not going to happen, so be cool Kuni, it'll be fixed in SC2, enjoy the game for what it is and think "good thoughts" and receive good karma.

Does this mean we are going to have Diplomatic Chits in SC2? I don't remember seeing that feature itemized, did I miss it?

Interesting DD, we have met again, you say a 389 Pontiac eh, 65 you say! Where do you find the leaded gasoline(additives) or have you rebuilt with hardened valve/valve seats? I'm a little more contemporary, a pair of 86 and 87 Turbo Regals, the 86 is a Grand National, the 87 a white Turbo T. Never the less American Muscle = lots of fun. [ May 10, 2004, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

And as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong, using the editor you will be able to create a city on map that could be an abstract representation of an off map city, thus giving it the ability to be an alternate capital?

ev, would you concur that the proximity of the Engineer unit would negate the extra movement cost? Turn time = 1 week minimum.

Like I said Edwin, we need the event editor ala TOAW. The "if", "then" scenario could be configured to deliver a reward for a certain accomplishment.

Some people say caviar tastes great, some people say its to salty. I've never tasted caviar, would I like to? Perhaps. But it seems to be a little time consuming to find caviar around here and lord knows its a trifle expensive for my resources. Still it might be OK but some people say it needs a cracker to help the taste out. Now I'm going to have to try it with a cracker too, but what brand should I search for to try it with? You know it seems that with my limited resources (time and money) maybe I should just stick with peanut butter, I know it tastes good and its that way with all types of bread and crackers, then I'll have more time and money to try out some other things. But someday when I have lots of time and money, I'm going to try out caviar. [ May 09, 2004, 01:01 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

"In general, I would say this... so long as you are having a great deal of FUN, and fairly closely replicating the difficulties that Britain had in fending off the U-boot menace, then the game succeeds in providing a pretty doggone good Battle of the Atlantic." True I submit.

ev, Check your history books, Jan. 1945, 1rst Allied Airborne Army,....for corps size I believe it was 18th Airborne Corps, 101rst, 82nd and 17th AB divisions.

Matrix's "Battlefields" has a unique concept that I think would work equally well for SC2. For multiplayer games, say 3 against 3, you would have a supreme commander and two subordinates. The 2 subs would forward their moves to the supreme who would approve/process the turn to be sent to the opposition supreme commander who would in turn send to his subs for their appropriate deployments/moves and then back and forth and on and on.

My main concern is not the spotting range, but the attacking range that aircraft will exhibit. If the air has a range of 5 tiles over land = 250 miles, then they will have a range of 750 miles over sea if tiles are considered 3X land scale. That is a grossly unrealistic use of my abstractly deviant mind no matter how far I push it. :eek:

Only one problem DD. Air will have different APs for movement across land compared with movement across sea tiles that are considered abstractly larger. This(movement cost) needs to be coded into the tiles themselves.

Can't we just apply an abstract thought tothis process. 1. Imagine that all sea tiles are larger(in area/distance) than land tiles apply the appropriate multiplication factor X2, X3 to movement cost per sea tile for units traversing, sea and air. 2. Apply the appropriate division factor to unit's APs when traversing sea tiles. 3. There must be some mechanism (search)or randomizing factor to allow units the possibility of not spotting each other

Stalingrod Take a walk on the "wild side" "Highway to the Reich" It has no semblance to SC except for the beauty of the user interface. Gaze into the future of wargaming.

Cool down Kuni, all is well, things will work out. I must remind you though I SS Panzer Corps (1 & 12 SS Pz Div.)+ II SS Panzer Corps (2 & 9 SS Pz Div.) = 6th SS Panzer Army, Dec. 16th 1944. OK yeah there were some volksgrenadiers and a fallshirmjager division to fill out the infantry contingent.

I understand that retreats are realistic, but I agree with Edwin and DD, its not appropriate at this scale. I'm kind of hesistant on this issue of being for or against. But I'm thinking I'll see a cluttered battlefield and these retreating units could hinder breakthroughs, unless they lose their ZoCs. Now I'm as guilty as the rest of us, but I must state that we need be mindful of the AI competence when providing for many decisions.

Does this mean SC2 = The New Testament

Perhaps, Shaka, we could have both. Since the Tank Group in SC1 represented both infantry and tanks, abstractly thinking this is a tank heavy group. The motorized infantry unit could represent pure infantry mobilized by truck transport only, affording it more APs. Now for the mechanized infantry unit, abundantly armored infantry with some tanks....can you say panzergrenadier. Maybe 1 less AP than the mot.infantry and on par with the Tank Group, perhaps an additional 1 tank defense and soft defense value. Sure would be nice to see a unit counter with a halftrack and/or a truck icon. Seems appropriate for a game named "SC2 Blitzkrieg".

"Wow Bill" are you sure "total choice", that covers a lot of ground. We're going to have to change your name to "Wild Bill".

Now Moon don't get me wrong and by all means Bill has done a magnificent job answering our questions, and lord knows we want to keep HC focused on development.......But,....now this doesn't have to be carved in stone, a loose approximation is adequate....when might we expect say some new screenshots or some material to orient ourselves to where the "Team" is at? If there is some particular touchy spot or design hangup perhaps the forum could help with ideas that are more focused on the matters at hand than our usual forage into all sorts of different concepts. Does this sound like a logical request or is it shameless begging?

Bill, I would like to see something like an additional entrenchment level for a tile from the use of engineering capabilities. Example: a regular city could advance to a level 5 entrenchment for occupying units with an engineer adjacent for say...6 months, clear terrain to 3, woods to 4, etc. Maybe a max enhancement level per hex of 2 for a years worth of engineering effort to an overall max of 8. Then only capital cities and fortifications would be elligible for entrenchment level 8. I was hoping for additional capabilities for the Engineering unit, like say allow a unit to operate to a tile adjacent to an engineering unit that is adjacent to a city to simulate the extension of a rail head. Of course the Egr. unit will have to be stationary for the time it takes to extend the RR 25 miles = tile distance and once it is gone ???

This is a very good observation and suggestion JJ. Let's examine it with reality in mind. How do most units get upgraded, in the field and at home training/reorg. bases? Usually not all the equipment is replaced all at once, but phased in. Losses are made up with upgraded replacements, some is exchanged, and other units are completely reorganized or created with the new equipment/training/doctrine. Not trying to complicate the issue, but when will a unit's upgrades pass it over the threshold of having combat enhancements due to the new equipment...> 50% equipped? With CPU power you could probably simulate this effect(mixed equipment TO&E) in the programming but my feeling is it will be an all or nothing decision. I would like to see the option in the subunit menu to either upgrade the unit completely or choose replacements at the old tech level(only the previous tech level eligible?)paying the appropriate MPPs. Now if your using "elite" replacements from a pool of already trained personnel(on the new tech level) then your MPP cost will be greater but your experience loss will be diminished. It seems to me the "right click" unit submenu will be almost doubled with user selections. Any comments Bill?