SeaMonkey

I want a DE so that I can leave the Marco Polo bridge incident to just that, an incident. Designers can run the belligerency level up and make either or both Chinese and Japanese invest in diplomacy or DoW, the choice is for the players.

Oh Boy, the Chinese theater looks fun??? What a stalemate, I believe now as the Japanese, it's time to pull back and bring the enemy to the coast, or better just decide to get out or possibly with a DE to never go into China.:eek:

Yeah, you know, you're right, there are not that many as my recollection thought, maybe just the Italians in the Med is what I was thinking about.

Get those Italian subs in the game Bill, then you'll have a followup to the Regia Aero's efforts!

Just some quick thoughts, #1 I think upgrades for certain items should be very expensive which would delay their usage and set up a quantity vs quality model. Things like aircraft, tanks(mech) and naval vessels should be extreme resource absorbers. Perhaps allowing upgrades only in the owning player's home country would simulate the extended time and cost(operate) for training and distribution although some of that is accounted for in the build Q. As far as naval upgrades, perhaps you could designate only ports having the supply 10/100% as the ones able to do the upgrades. Keep other ports at 5 for normal tasks and limit naval upgrades to vessels that are only strength 10 or above(they would have to visit a 10 supply port to reinforce/repair first and then upgrade) would simulate the time element. #2, a good reason to have a pregame turn for DEs so that a major can decide on its course of war. #3 a good idea Al, but I like the cat and mouse game of sub/surface MPP interdiction, adds another dimension(interspace) to the game. However, I have noticed that your supply of naval vessels in BF is pretty liberal, might want to scale back the number of units a bit. I'll think about this some more later.

I'm beginning to think this Chinese thing is a bit over done. Acknowledging I haven't been extremely careful, but as the Japanese I've lost a couple of Armies and that many corps to Chinese attacks and they haven't even got any IW tech applied.:eek:

Good suggestions PP. but I would offer that the retreat mechanism be based upon the experience level of the unit. If an inexperienced unit suffers an adverse combat result it retreats at a certain strength level 100% of the time, one medal 75%, two 50%, 3 - 25%, 4, no retreat.

Granted xwood, strongarm tactics have a degree of success, but just like the human response to aggressive pressure, "the ultimatum", the amount of effort received can be left wanting. Endearing a nation to help you gains a lot more contribution than demanding their assistance.

True enough CH, the amphib is kind of "out there", but the French naval assets(you're going to lose them anyway) are easily covered by UK fighters and usually airstrikes on naval vessel's by LB air is not that effective without NW tech. Besides, if the Luftwaffe decides to attack the French/RN, they're not bombing your land units. Sure is early to surrender the Med abukede, you know SC is about threat, but with the RN down there in strength Sealion is looking good. Next time don't extend the RegiaN beyond fighter coverage and make those Brit CVs pay.

Can't really argue with that line of reasoning Ivanov. I would think, knowing the historical prowess of the British diplomatic corps, that a designer would allow many more chits to the UK then to the Axis which IMO weren't as proficient at diplomacy. Perhaps as the percent leaning of minor countries to the Allied or Axis side escalated the MPPs representing favored trade would also increase to the appropriate side without the countries actually joining one side or the other? Then there might be a reason for more diplomatic action to acquiring that favoritism and since the Axis are more limited, might incite them to a further use of their resources (ie. diluted MPPs) in that arena. Actually, I like the ratcheting up of USA MPPs to allow them an earlier significant effort, I'm just trying to think of other parameters that lead to the same conclusion with the addition of variability.

Hey, Al, let me be the first to thank you in this thread for your contribution, I love BF and I'm presently playing, the mechanized units are nice, I wish more designers would use them. Anyway, I'll be giving you some feedback in the future, it's just I'm also playing the generic scenarios, not enough time, testing takes a lot of time, so hang in there. One thing though, I'm not playing the AI. If you want me to play the AI, give me some direction, you're the boss, what side, what settings? A particular strategy you wish me to conduct, some features you would like to be focused on? Just remember, time....time....has there ever been a more valuable commodity?

I had forgot about this thread and then started reading again and even though I don't have SOE, I have played all the other SCs, excepting PDE. One thing that strikes me in P to P games is there usually is very little diplomacy as neither player has the MPPs to accomplish what Hubert has set up for us. Some dabbling efforts yes, but a truly focused emphasis on diplomacy, unlikely. So, for thought, I'm pondering, how about some free diplomatic chits for each side to garnish upon the many minors to attract their favors? Obviously, the Allied player would go for USA right off, so maybe some limitations, only one chit application per turn, per major. Maybe have them dealt out over time with DEs, heck ...I don't know ...use your imagination, just something to jump start the diplomacy model and provide additional variations. And if we did get the USA in earlier, WTH....wouldn't that balance out the Axis advantage?

Nice plan CH, and a beautifully executed attack on Paris abukede, don't you just love those FJs? I always have three at this point in the game. Musso coming in early and jumping on the Italian fleet is a good move, but I'm looking at vulnerable German forces along the French coast and wondering where the shore bombardments are? Could you have followed up a destroyed German Corps along the coast with an amphibious diversion targeting perhaps an HQ, disrupting the paradrop, or polishing off another enemy army, just before the surrender? Strategic food for thought!:cool:

Yeah....his old buddy Immer Etwas, grew it!

Yeah, what rjh said, whatever you do, do not, I repeat ...DO NOT... select, click on, the "read offline license from file" button, just paste the .txt (offline license) file into the white entry box below it. You're done!

Not your fault vR, the instructions are a bit misleading. I'm constantly setting up new instrumentation and you'd be surprised how inconcise most user instructions are. It used to not be like this, something to be said about the present human competency level, or could it be there are too many distractions of compliance? Possibly, since most things are made worldwide and distributed in many different languages, something gets lost in the translation, a consequence of our fall from Babel.:eek:

Stephen King already did away with that notion that a clown is something of unassuming humor(It). Be wary of things you used to trust or deflects your attention.

Playing along with GOLD, I have come to a relevation. SC needs to have a separate movement cost for motorized units that applies to terrain and weather effects. So regular units, that rely on foot and animal movement, pay a different cost for entering terrain than motorized units do. It's totally unrealistic that a tank group could enter a mountain tile while an unmotorized army unit could not. Now in turn a unit that is motorized could leave its vehicles behind and occupy such an extreme terrain and thusly pay the consequence of losing some AP(s)(maybe combat power too), kind of complicated, right? So here's the deal, with all the slots open for additional unit types, it's time for SC to do away with the motorized research category and just have a build choice for mechanized/motorized units. In addition, perhaps it's also time to allow an HQ to have the ability to attach a motorized pool to any one(or more) unit(s) within its command radius and if designated unit wishes to enter extreme terrain under inclement weather conditions(mud) then the motor pool returns to the HQ. The attachment takes a turn, the detachment does not. If a purchased unit wishes to enter "extreme" terrain, like motorized infantry, then that unit loses some of its AP status until the owning player moves it back into a condition where he could reattach/upgrade the unit with mobility at a cost of MPPs. Obviously units of a nationality like America where everyone is motorized would have the ability to either attach motor pools or build units that have additional APs according to the designer's whim. Now..... on to the limitations. We've all wanted oil to be a part of the historical limitation it always was with certain countries. So here's the deal, the amount of motorized/mechanized units able to move is dependent upon the number of oil resources under the possession of that owning country in the previous turn that has an efficiency rating > 50%. So now, if the enemy wishes to target oil resources then he will be able to severely limit the ability of his opponent to move his mobile units around. This all might sound a little complicated, but actually it's not much of a change, the dual movement categories for terrain & weather being the big one. We already attach HQs, I always use manual mode, we already build and upgrade units, not to mention the research category, which will no longer be necessary, and lastly we have fuel limitations enter into the mix of strategical decision making.

Someone tell me how to make units use forced march.:confused: Nevermind, I got it, highlight the unit and then use the right panel button, I must be getting old.

Forget it! I ain't drinking y'alls kool-aid:p, "I got this",:eek: figured it out for myself. Go back to sleep Martin!

Got the same error, obviously I'm internet connected as I'm posting this. Tried the manual installation, got the license file, but trying to get the manual file started into the license after clicking "read offline license from file" the little old Windows circle, actually the big circle, just keeps on spinning until I get notification of "program not responding". Kind of a hassle, I'm patient, lead me to the water, I'll drink! Already double checked the code sent from BF.

Exactly right CH, who's got time to fiddle with the editor and balance testing takes way to long with all the variables SC now sports. I hope your right about that inexorable Axis momentum, I'm now concentrating on the Allies, going to make them a force to be reckoned with, if we can just get the Amis into the fight in late 42 early 43 as was historical.

Chinese used to get about 90-100 MPPs per turn, not sure why there would need to be a change, as concentration on IW pretty much evens up the fight, especially if a bump in fighter tech happens. Jap CVs will pay a high price for Chinese intercepts which stops the erosion of the allied forces. I'm sure Al will keep at least a couple of rebuilt formations in the Q to deploy at a moments notice, Chinese reserves always save the day. And guys, thanks for the AAR.

I like the idea of conversion, transport to amphib, there just needs to be some limitations. Transports as they are used now would be fine, perhaps let them reside one turn in the tile they originate in. Then, when arriving at the debarkation tile the exercise of turning them into an amphib occurs on the next turn and the amphib can travel one tile to the assault beach and attack as it occurs presently. In this scenario, the amphib tech would only upgrade the attack and defense level for the amphib unit and not enhance its range. This exercise would need to be tested as deployment configurations are somewhat limited and the intercept ability of the enemy would present a higher risk with the one turn delay near the enemy beaches.

How about coastal/harbor artillery type fortifications, something that can make those damn shore bombarding naval vessels pay! You know, if you stretch your imagination a bit, they could also be a projection of the mine fields that were laid down in coastal waterways