SeaMonkey

OK guys I've been away for awhile so excuse me if this has been brought up. Since I'm indisposed currently and got a quick moment on my daughter's laptop I wanted to throw this out there for applicability. I've been reading up on viable "what ifs" of WW2 and a question comes to mind about creating a scenario that deals with the preWW2 diplomatic and military situation in Europe with the SC2 editor. The premise is, what if Austria had not been annexed in 1938, and what if the Sudetenland/Czech absorption had not occurred. Does the SC2 editor give the user the ability to create a scenario for a pre Sept 1939 beginning?

I've been thinking about this some more. Even though we are willing to try out the new tile concept, it seems the legacy with hexes is hard to shrug off. Simply they work. In lieu of the grid system, which is ideal, hexes seem preferable over tiles. Now what about the combat model and the so called "frontal quagmire" problem? Remember the name of this game is Blitzkrieg. Let's take a history lesson. Operations of WW2 frontal penetrations of prepared defenses usually involved a concentrated attack by massed infantry/artillery formations, followed by the mech. forces, ...usually,and I use that term loosely. Well it seems there is a movement afoot to somehow derail the omnipotency of the air forces as being unrealistic, so thats out to complete the penetration. We don't have an artillery unit to contribute firepower to the two attacking armies that are supposed to make the penetration (in the case of hexes). So how do we accomplish it? A realistic suggestion please! Anyone,...hello? Okay SeaMonkey...what have you got? If the two attacking armies have not moved into the attacking hexes(SC1 blitz attack) isn't it reasonable to conclude they may have been making assault preparations in that immobile turn for the attack next turn. Should they be perhaps granted a combat bonus for doing so? Like an assault bonus? And perhaps if an Engineering unit or Para unit(dropped behind the lines) is in the vicinity(adjacent hex) could/should an additional combat bonus be applied to the attack of the two armies/corps. Would this finally be enough combat power to open up the defense for the blitz of the mechanized forces and break our stalemate, simulating WW2 operations? Well,... would it? Disclaimer: in no way is this meant to imply that this type of attack should be successful in the face of a prepared defense in depth.

Actually I want to put forth the premise of "Perfect". In my "Perfect" all things being consistent and symmetrical, a grid system is the best choice presenting a "Perfect" circle of movement. Unfortunately "Perfect" only exists in my mind and the real world is asymmetrical and inconsistent. So no matter what system we end up with I'm just going to imagine in an abstract way that its circular and "Perfect".

Great example Exel, thanks. Now would you like to show us the dynamics of the combat comparison. Don't get me wrong here guys, I'm a hex based wargamer from the 60s, but HttR has opened my eyes to other possibilities.

If you guys really want to see how an innovative wargame system works and the power that the CPU potential has to make it easy, try Panther's, "Highway to the Reich", you can thank me later.........Les are you out there?....would you like to comment?

Edwin I understand that this is good for H to H play, but the poor AI is going to be a little overwhelmed if this option is selected, perhaps we should leave this for the editor.

One more time KDG forget distant measurements, draw up a bunch of squares and calculate the amount of APs it takes to get from point A to point B using different routes. APs is the basis for measurement.

Sombra you are right. But you must agree that this group craves more. Even if the mechanics stay the same, the decision making process alone will double the time of a move as I currently see it. This is what this crowd wants, a more in depth SC experience, there is a consequence to that. There will always be SC1, it is time to move on and trust the "creator".

Edwin, have you ever fiddled with the TOAW event engine? That's what we're looking for.

KDG think abstractly, this is not about specific distant measurement, its about moving from point A to point B.

Thanks Bill for the prompt reply, my enthusiasm is growing with every post. Keep pouring it on that Editor.

Hey I'm reminded by another thread, are unit builds going to be immediate, or are we going to have to wait say a year or two for a carrier, a BB, a strat., bomber wing, etc. etc.?

It all works out the same, no matter how you move, diagonal, in line, in conjunction, as long as the diagonal move costs 2 APs.

Check out the stickied FAQ thread in SC1 forum under mods, JP/Darrel, there are a lot of good custom campaigns at SC HQ.

This is a job for the editor and hopefully you will trust your opponent to not look at your deployments prior to the DoW. [ April 15, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Bill, will there be a reduction in accumulated unit experience for upgrades that are applied(like reinforcements currently)? If not, then do you think units should be immobile for a certain period of time to simulate training/familiarization with the new equipment? Also will elite replacements be available at perhaps a greater cost to bring units up to strength without a significant loss in experience? This could be abstracted by allowing only a couple levels of increased strength without a greater MPP cost, but keeping the unit immobile for a certain time allotment to simulate the increased training period.

This whole thread is irrelevent.......because SC2 has an editor. Did you guys lose your glasses....become blind or just suddenly become incoherent....READ what Bill(pzgndr) said.

Either way, Night and John got it right, maybe both as additional airstrikes are called in.

A. 5 B. 8 C. 10 D. 6 E. 10(editor)

I would like to see an expanded(the whole map) of the Mediterranean theater of WW2, on the divisional scale.

With a flexible editor and icon modifications I'm sure you can make an artillery unit from the Rocket.

Thanks Bill, but I was thinking in reference to custom scenarios, not the default ones. I see that is yet to be determined?

Kuni, think defense in depth or your going to get "Blitzkrieged".

Cheesehead, its just a matter of mathematics, something computers excel at. The old days we processed the moves and needed an integer value to define our moves for board games, CPU can handle fractions easily. Remember the equation for calculating the hypotenuse of a triangle (x2+y2=z2). This configuration will open up some new and different moves/attacks with mechanization making a greater contribution to the game, hence the name "Blitzkrieg".

Look guys we have discussed this at length, remember this is an abstracted game. I agree air units should not eliminate ground units in a tactical sense. This is a strategic game, think of your destroyed units as disrupted, disorganized, dispersed entities, ineffectual in further combat tasks. They are making their way back to home base to be reorganized into effective combat units, ie. you must rebuild them. I believe the game represents this accurately.