SeaMonkey

Here's the deal guys, this thread is just like the atomic bomb option and any others that promote the "Hope" manifestation. If you are the God of SC you should win 90+% of the time, but there should always be that small % chance that even a novice could knock you off. No matter how far the game has eroded into "no chance" to win, there could always be that fractional opportunity that if the right elements just happen to combine, then the game can become a contest again. Isn't this how it is in real life, that one lucky punch in the championship fight, that one ricochet football to Franco Harris and he runs for the touchdown, and what do you tell yourself when you lay out the bucks for that lotto ticket. The game mechanics should take advantage of human nature, if its a game for the ages,... and we know SC is perched upon that precipice.

Cheesehead without taking out all the fun of experimenting, use your Med forces, additional French armies/air/hq(?) and UK air to DoW Italy before they enter and occupy Rome on the first turn of DoW. There is of course a % chance it will fail and be careful about making moves that enhance Italy's readiness. Its a game breaker for the Allies if it fails.

I have done this with a pad and pen numerous times as I have learned this lesson well about multi-tasking. How about the "Wargaming Option". That is before you do your turn you can confer at "The Wargaming Conference" by trying out your moves prior to actually doing them. With the built in randomness of the combat results, you can never be truly sure how things would come out but you can get back on track as far as a basic idea of what you want to do. Presently you can do this using the editor and setting up an experimental scenario based on present game dispositions.

We have all touched on this in past threads, now let's get definitive. To add to the complexity of comtemplation, replayability and for us to have an endless discussion about the idiosyncracies of, I would like to propose the new randomly available research category known as "The Armed Force Doctrine". Being only known by the developer, various levels of the basic research categories should randomly(%)open this category to the player for additional MPP investment. The choices for this randomly accessed category could be something like "Naval-air Doctrine", Combined Arms Doctrine", Ground Force Mobilty Doctrine, Air defense Doctrine, etc. etc. For example: When a player reaches AA level 2 in addition to level 2 Gunlaying Radar and Rockets level 2, the reporting screen has a % chance to enact the "Air Defense Doctrine" for potential investing. Acquiring a level in this specific doctrine would have certain benefits to certain unit types and resource hexes and may require additional investing MPPs for deployment. Of course all this is random and known only to the developer(HC in this instant)to be figured out by the players....us. This will create an almost endless stream of theories, conjectures and conclusions for discussion as well as contributing to the infinite level of replayablity......all for SC2.

Affirmative that pzgndr. KISS = SC. Let it remain so.

Aptly pronounced JJ. It has indeed been the newcomers that have infused life into this forum even though they are rehashing old points with a different perspective, still interesting. I'm sure although HC has numerous notes to refer to, the prevalent issues, none the less, need to be brought to the fore front as he tweaks the mechanics of SC2. In which case I would like to take this opportunity to ask, since I'm being pummeled with Axis naval air and I have level 5 AA research, that the air defense of my ground units, cities, industrial complexes, etc. be enabled to take advantage of that level and at least one Axis naval airplane should be shot down. Currently the Axis naval air are batting a thousand over a 6 month period causing hundreds of thousands of US casualties without the loss of a single jet. Something is wrong!

In reply to pzgndr artillery points. I agree the weapons themselves did not appreciably change although firing rates of large caliber tubes improved. With the introduction of a more mobile doctrine (SP art.) it was the use of artillery that made great strides in WW2. Patterns, firing rates, effectiveness(u mentioned proximity fuse) and communications, not to mention the advent of effective counter battery fire all increased the lethality of artillery and its domineering effect on the WW2 battlefield, hence the casualty %. I've got a few ideas of how to incorporate it into the soft, and yes... even the hard attack values and also as a research tool, many have been mentioned, but to disregard the evolution of artillery's contribution to a wargame as SC is turning a blind eye toward reality.

How about activate all the countries, dividing them up to give equal MPPs per turn to each side. Then with the editor give each player the same force mix or a MPP amount to build, allowing them a free setup of the units. Save the scenario and send it to the opposition for their free deployment, save and start a war that last 2 years, one with the most MPPs/per turn at the end is winner. [ March 26, 2004, 11:01 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Thank you JJ for that cold shower of reality, I couldn't have said it better myself.....I am honored to call you Brother.

Well said JJ and I'm in total agreement. Naval vessels are such fragile things. Think of it, one small insignificant aircraft with an optimally placed piece of ordnance and "BOOM" the whole damn thing goes down. We all know it, I don't need to sight examples, or do I? Okay have it your way....hmmmm, the RN lost roughly 1/3 of their operational naval assets in WW2 and they were on the winning side (278/885). 77 by aircraft and get this 23+ by accidents. So much for this thread's credibility. We so often post what we would like to see done better in SC2 or what could have been in SC1, we sometimes forget how well HC got things right. Just a reminder!

Liam, Sorry you did not look closer. Of course this is an operational scale game in which the AI is very active against you and as your delegated sub-commander, hence the RAM. The map is a grid scale, imagine all the pixels with coordinates. One of the complaints is there is no campaign mode and hopefully that is being addressed. In the works is "Crete", "Battles from the Bulge", "Normandy" and then we turn East. The game flows very well with lots of units and optionally reduced micromangement and has a tactical feel with painfully realistic order delays. You really feel like a battlefield commander (Corps level is the highest), but if its not your cup of tea, sorry you missed it, to each his own.

Rambonehead stop living in the past. Go with the future of wargames, HttR. Go to Battle HQ after you get the game and play TCP a guy named "Yakstock", he'll drum you like a stepchild and you'll like it. Better make sure you got a good graphics card and plenty of RAM though, hope you didn't scrimp on your PC purchase.

Ahhh Yes, Edwin! Thanks for bringing up that lost, very relevant thought from way back. The expedience of your post makes this discussion largely immaterial, back to lurk mode.

I won't argue Shaka, faced with reality, your right. From a game perspective,....well let's skew reality for the sake of playabilty for I believe that contributes to the game's longevity. I will disagree about the contribution of the population. A properly organized, competent group of people could inspire an infrastructure improvement(to the level in SC), even in the face of strategic assault. I'll sight history(WW2) for my example(Germany's 1944 war production). If incorporated, there would have to be a high price(MPP) for the purchase and maintaining of the "Engineer" unit. As far as the halfing of attacking values, I was aware, but rationalized , that being for the funneling effect of the attacking forces. Why could not the defending forces also improve positions on their side of the river/coast as well as take advantage of the terrain?

We all know this scale doesn't support specialized units. But I have to agree with Shaka and Pochenko. Engineers would add playability and fortifications should have an intrinsic value of entrenchment for friendly occupying troops. Which brings me to another point. Why shouldn't units defending behind rivers be allowed the additional defensive bonus of at least some entrenchment? I'm suggesting that all nations should have an inclusive ability to repair infrastructure without the proximity of an engineer unit(can't the population contribute). But in addition to that, the unique engineering unit would be useful for certain tasks, ie. time expedience for entrenchment(level enhancement)and/or infrastructure repair, attack bonus, countering river bonus or entrenchments, etc. add yours here............

Okay Liam, now you've done it. I never surrender, currently Oak is battling to get ashore in Canada and my meager US troops are being battered by hoards of Nazi CVs. It is sometime in the summer of 1944 and we've been playing this game for 6 months. I lost USSR eons ago but "We shall never give in", "Give me liberty or give me death", "I have not yet begun to fight", if I had any ships left "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead" add other masochistic sayings here!.........

Surface and U-boat fleets would fight upon occupying the same hex. And let us not forget that the opposing naval forces should have to pass a disclosure test based upon proximity, tech levels, weather conditions, and number of adjacent/in range other forces as well as the their own values before actual combat initiates (there is a chance at this scale for them to miss each other in the same hex). See we don't really need a larger Atlantic.

Shaka! I resent being refered to as a predecessor. Sounds like some kind of Dinosaur...like a Predasaurus, such a dastardly beast, running around doing drugs and drinking, flipping peace signs, and just basically being unaccountable to anything. Good thing they raised the age limit on them things.

Shaka! I resent being refered to as a predecessor. Sounds like some kind of Dinosaur...like a Predasaurus, such a dastardly beast, running around doing drugs and drinking, flipping peace signs, and just basically being unaccountable to anything. Good thing they raised the age limit on them things.

Shaka, Its Gary Grigsby's World at War. Check out the matrix website, kinda looks like Axis vs Allies, no hexes. My money's on SC2. Right Guys! Guys?

Such reminiscing JJ,... and come to think of it that's when we discovered Balogna flavored Moonshine, the good ole days, when we were 18.

Comrade! You ....you...Patriot! Of course you should be allowed to drink, but your ancestors (that be me and JJ) screwed it up for ya by being irresponsible when the drinking age was 18. Never fear. You shall pay your dues and come back to us. Banish those negative vibes and be anticipating some fine Texas white lightening (hint: Moonshine)(when your 21), for your beloved SeaMonkey will assuredly have the Still percolating away by then. Now quell those belligerent thoughts, wipe that tear away, keep a stiff upper lip ......Semper Fi.

Comrade! You ....you...Patriot! Of course you should be allowed to drink, but your ancestors (that be me and JJ) screwed it up for ya by being irresponsible when the drinking age was 18. Never fear. You shall pay your dues and come back to us. Banish those negative vibes and be anticipating some fine Texas white lightening (hint: Moonshine)(when your 21), for your beloved SeaMonkey will assuredly have the Still percolating away by then. Now quell those belligerent thoughts, wipe that tear away, keep a stiff upper lip ......Semper Fi.

Uhhh, .....you don't mean to tell me BF has an agenda? Please say "It ain't so"! Do we want more wargames? Will the State compel our programmers to create great wargames like SC? Or do we want those creations to be rewarded and hopefully spur more innovations. So what system of economics should we embrace? Could it be Sata........Capitalism?

Uhhh, .....you don't mean to tell me BF has an agenda? Please say "It ain't so"! Do we want more wargames? Will the State compel our programmers to create great wargames like SC? Or do we want those creations to be rewarded and hopefully spur more innovations. So what system of economics should we embrace? Could it be Sata........Capitalism?