SeaMonkey

Its like what Immer said. Its also your chance to beat that "cheatin" AI.

Have not seen these questions or reference in game manual. Since a HQ has a command value am I to assume that this is the supply value also or is it 10? Does the HQ have the ability to supply more units than the 5 it can command? Does the location (friendly or unfriendly country) have any consequence on the supply value of HQ? When reinforcing unit next to high value command HQ with much (4) experience is it safe to assume that the unit reinforcing loses less experience than if it is not next to HQ (in the command structure). Is the effect(loss) on unit readiness the same whether I operate or move it?Hey! Hubert! What about the rocket transportation ability (it has none).

Who won the war? We all did. I must say its rejuvinating to have such an international perspective on a gaming forum with many intelligent opinions. I'm an American but not so shortsighted that I don't recognize that really we are a world community. No one does anything without an impact, however indirectly, on everyone else. We are all responsible for each other but our diversification is the engine of our improvement. Didn't someone say "If we're all thinking alike, someone's not thinking". Keep the "line in the sky" open.

Hit Norway first, take Sweden if possible. This will require HQ. Pull out, feint or produce diversion in Spain/Portugal. Use corps to occupy some strategic assets, you will write these guys off. If/When opponent bights nail Britanny. Use your carriers to spot any opposing airfleets and takem out with your best pilots.

It was always my contention to assume that "Rockets" represent artillery while playing. All I'm saying is, let the icon/tech function logically as what it represents. I understand abstraction as a general reresentation of a concept "nes pas"?

and that's another point, anti-air tech should be extended to the ground units somewhat, not just when they occupy strategic assets.

allright, I'm not quite at a conclusion on this but have been thinking about it quite a bit. The only element of the "combined arms team" missing in SC is artillery. Yes , it is unrealistic to incorporate it givin the scale. But to enhance the strategic options maybe it should be added in the form of the rocket icon/role. Perhaps the first level should have a range of 2 and a cheaper MPP. 2nd level greater range (3) but still cheap. 3rd level same range more mobility to represent mobile artillery. 4th level, now we are into the reality of the v-2, greater range, expensive, not very mobile but operational, devastating firepower when massed, etc. 5th level Ok use your imagination, this is the what-if. All should be transportable, varying MPP cost and possibly some benefit enhancement from gun-laying radar tech value. Ok, get after it.

Hi all, great game Hubert, excellent application of KISS principles. I know its early, but I would like to get the forum to think about viable enhancements. Now let's go easy on Hubert he deserves a break. For SC longevity we want to keep the "Easy to Learn, Hard to Master" environment that Hubert so eloquently set up. To increase the strategic option variables will add to the complexity without detering the playability. Rockets in a more traditional artillery role for the first few upgrades, AA radar for units as well as resources, GunLay Radar to enhance the artillery role of land units/rockets are just a few that could be easily incorporated into the game mechanics. What do we do about this Hvy Bomber thing? OK paras are a bit of a stretch but maybe. I'll be back after playing both sides at Expert +2