SeaMonkey

I have done the same for my male relatives in the past, but after a short time they all return to the graphic intense games, CoD, Halo, etc., only an occassional return to SC at my insistence......and bribery!

I believe the cost increase is appropriate and I agree with Amona, increasing anti-air tech should equate with greater air-attack factors for units displaying the upgrade. In other words, things get bloodier on the battlefield.

I would hope in the next installment of SC, ie SC3, that the players can direct which target(strategic or combat unit) has mission priority with the secondary only having a chance of collateral damage.

Many years ago I used to play an SPI modern naval-air game called "Sixth Fleet" which had a unique attack then move feature. The player would have to pre-position his units in the move phase for attack the next turn. If the moving player intersected with an enemy unit, the move was halted and on the ensuing next turn the enemy would have the option of the first attack and then could move away. This mode of "attack then move" might work for naval units as they usually require greater maneuver time to obtain an advantageous attack position, but for air units there might be a case for a different sequence. I like to think of surface and subsurface naval units as being slow and two dimensional, like ground units, but air has the high ground and rules the third dimension, of course with consequences. Air may not have the resilience of naval and ground units but they move so much faster that they should almost always have the initiative of first attack with relation to the two dimensional combat units.

How about a different perspective Hubert? Ships that move by the owning player's devices represent "patrolling", hunting type of operations rather that transitting(loops) actions. I understand that naval vessels that are moving to a different theater would exercise some appropriate caution, but it would not be the same kind of dedicated grid type seaching that patrolling vessels would use. Hence, transitting vessels travel further, faster, than patrolling, recon mission oriented ones.

Sure, France wiil fall! Been this way since 2002, SC1. Wouldn't it be nice if France could decide to build some extra ground forces instead of the Maginot? France always surrenders, getting kind of old after 11 years, but that is history, nothing you can do KK except delay and make it as costly as possible. Every invasion has its slight variations, but normally put the Fr. Tanks in Paris, tech up and allow to entrench to maximum and waste the Fr military falling back to disallow the Germans access to tiles adjacent to the city.

IMO, BB you have come to the most logical conclusion, purchase GC + AoD and you'll be up to the current SC standards of play.

I couldn,t have said it better so myself, Mike. Hopefully a lot of other SC'ers share our game philosophy. I do hope SC3's amphibious model represents this real life event more appropriately and it seems there will be a transport mode able to transit to amphibious operations before an attack. Sounds like a good question for the Matrix forum to see if we could get a little more insight into the mechanics. And Mike, why have you not been a poster over at Matrix? Now is the opportune moment to present many of your great ideas.

Mike, partisans are a great tool to train your forces on. Allow them to spawn and then use the units you wish to build experience with to take them out. If you allow the ownership tile(origination spot) color to remain the same as the partisans then they will not spawn again. So weaken them with ground units(kill with air) or allow them to move off and then don't take ownership of those tiles that have changed color.

The silence obviously confirms your conclusion!

But, you will learn!

Ahhh, since we have some players here, the question that always beckons in my mind but has yet to be answered is; does the 150MPP/diplo-chit investment in these two majors(USA & USSR) ever pay off at delaying their entry to a significance that allows the Axis to gain an advantage. I have tried it once without success!

The thing about Vichy is eventually you must fight the USSR, so this one event precludes a successful campaign "going South". Now don't get me wrong, against the AI, you can pull it off, but against a knowledgeable human opponent, forget it. It would be nice if there was some way to avoid conflict with the Soviets, but with the present setup, it's just not possible. What an idiotic decision Hitler made to take on the USSR when he had yet to vanquish the UK. You would think as a role player in SC and examining the "what ifs" of WW2, we could dispense with such a stupid decision.

I like that experiment, but don't some of your people have to expose themselves to come to my two that reside behind protection to achieve the occupation?

Mike, aren't you assuming that the larger attacking force has accurately assessed and located all the defending sources assets? And I'm not saying the attackers "should" take more casualties, just that there is a chance, and a very real chance according to history. Do a little experiment, take a definite area and deploy a number of upright devices in that area and in the same size area deploy five times as much. Now, take a big ball and roll it though the small deployment and then take a small ball and roll it through the large deployment, which area sustains more toppled devices?

Oh yeah, SC3 discussions are occurring in the Matrix and Slitherine forums.

Have you thought about the density of men and equipment of a division vs army, Mike? Seems to me with a larger concentration of material there would be a greater possibilty of damage, more casualties with an army deployment, whereas a division would be better able to disperse throughout a tile since it has a smaller "footprint".

In this day and age, no one should be surprised that "things" take longer. After all this is the age of "compliance", the era of 10,000 laws and be sure, you're probably breaking one of them and someone may be watching.:eek: Be....bery..bery careful!

It would be realistic if the player could construct a supply model for the various theaters that would operate automatically. Originating from a fully operational "industrial center" in the major country and radiating out through the LoC, subject to interception, to be deposited in a theater located HQ of designation which distributes them through its command system. Simple?:eek: Right?

Thanks guys, see you over at the Matrix/Slitherine forums. Now get to work on SC3!

Congratulations Hubert, you're joining the "strategic" professionals and yes BF was good for the interim, but let's face it, BF's forte' is Combat Mission. I'll be awaiting with baited breath for some details of the naval - air model, please share or allow your developers to communicate with the forum. I'll be expecting a lively discourse. Thanks for SC3!

Looks like Fury is going with Lordz! Hopefully the support from the guys that do PzC will take SC to a new level. The screen shots are not all that attractive but I'm sure the mechanics will be "cutting edge" for a strategic level game and the graphics are probably just "place holders" for testing the base features. With all the strategic level experience in the Slitherine group, there's no doubt SC3 will be an amazing move forward for us wargamers. This is a good thing!:cool:

So the third tech slot stays empty and the fulfillment of a realistic presentation goes awry! Perhaps for SC3 we should see a CTV variable based upon the player's choice of ordnance load for the prescribed mission? Since the SC air units are somewhat generic, using a pull down menu as the current fighters use, a player selects a ctv for the type of target sortie. In this manner, bombers(fighter-bombers also) could execute numerous types of attack, ie. naval, strategic or ground, depending on the player's choice and each delivery tactic as well as ordinance could be researched for efficiency upgrades of their CTVs.

Sure do appreciate your innovative thought process Mike. You and Al have done some extensive stretching of the SC editing features.

No need to fret numdydar, Big Al did do something with the liberal use of the "evasion" feature. A valuable addition to the realism of the naval model.:cool: Too bad AoD didn't see the obvious enhancement the Al had already made viable with the first BF. Oh well, I'm really anticipating SC3's naval aspects. And by the way Al, how about giving medium and strategic bombers a naval tech upgrade? Another AoD failure! Limit NW to two levels, start Mediums at ctv NA & CA "1"(able to get to 3 with upgrades) and Strategics at 0 able to get to 2. And make the NW upgrades very expensive for both units, more so for strategics to simulate late war guided munitions. What do you think?