SeaMonkey

Thanks Al for taking the time to post a well thought out explanation. I have a little bit of difference of opinion but testing will be the key to iron out the reality of play. IMO, with naval-air being in its infancy at the time period of WW2, I would think that defense against land based air forces of the size represented in SC would mandate a player to immediately tech up his surface forces(being largely defenseless) due to the enormous potential losses from attack. I guess the difference in yours and mine perspective is I see AAA technology as more of a doctrine instead of an ordinance issue, although the development of ordinance was important. I just believe that tactics, task force configuration, and the technique of usage would be better represented by the levels attained by research. In short, I want players to feel compelled, right away, to invest in AAA tech, not only if they own a large naval contingent, but also for the devastating ground attack possibilities that the "high ground" artillery represents.

Big Al, can you comment on the combat relationship for naval-air battles? IMO, SC Pac and GC both had bombers and TAC taking too much damage from warships. Now with the addition of the AAA tech slot, assuming you have that research parameter included in the surface force menu, are air forces able to damage naval assets to the degree they actually did in WW2 without a large damage return at the lower AAA tech level?

Usually I just ignore the minors and I usually deny the M-R pact, although I've accomplished early barby either way. The minors, Hungary, Romania, and lastly Bulgaria join on their own, in which case they are used(Romanians) for surrounding Odessa and the rest to take up garrison duties in the West ie. France, LC, Italy, and Denmark. I leave Bock and one fighter in France for intercepts. A few times, I remember Yugo also joining, but that is probably from the DE of the Allied player. Oh yeah, sometimes I evacuate Africa, except for Tripoli(HQ & armor), all Italians come home (for June 41 Barby), the Regia Aero is a fire brigade(ftr, TAC, and Bombers), opting for Barby or threats, as needed. Joggle my memory some more, I won't hold anything back, it all goes on the table for "GOLD". I've done this same strategy with other mods, Nupremal's and Big Al's, and it works in varying degrees of success.

Sure Hubert, that's a prerequisite, as is Denmark and the LC. Here's how things unfold. Immediately build the two FJs before 1940 after Poland surrenders, no research, then build the second TAC. What I'm doing is preparing for Sealion if UK defends in France or tries something elsewhere. France usually goes down by August at the latest, usually a lot sooner, maybe April. I've also built additionally two more Panzer Groups for a total of 4 by the time early Barby kicks off, usually by September, but it doesn't matter as the Winter of 40-41 is used to maneuver forces into jump off positions for the thaw in 1941. Most times, you can have a Kharkov, Kursk, Smolensk deployment line for the real attack initiated in June 41. From here it's a piece of cake, walk right into Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad and on. By then the Axis have all the minors in, Italy helps with an Army Group and Germany is bringing down almost 500 MPPs by the end of the Summer 41. Then, if you want, send the Japs in from the east, because Zhukov and his attending units have all been transfered trying to stem the Axis tide in the west, game over. You really don't need any research, but it's helpful to get LR and HT and the last AT bump for the three TACs you deploy for the June 41 attack. Even if you do Sealion, there's still sufficient forces to initiate this scheme, just not quite as effectively. My fix, is get the USA in as early as possible and ramp them up with the UK to get at France ASAP cause it's only a matter of time and USSR will fold. I have never lost with this strategy. I have given it to my opponents who have initiated it unchallenged by my Allies also. I don't really know what else to do to counter this, it's like a sure thing. Someone....anyone out there..prove me wrong....I want to be wrong!

As soon as this goes out, I'm going into test mode. The early Barby(summer/autumn40) completely negates a possible Allied victory. I just had another opponent dropout in 1941 because of the early Barbarossa and for the life of me, I've taken the Allied side and have been unable to win against this gambit. Let's face it, USSR is the key in the historical campaign and the Reds don't stand a chance against this early German blitz, much less with the Nips closing in from the east also. GC is busted!:eek:

Hey Martin, do you have any idea how large (MB) the "Gold" release will be...ballpark?

Mid December is approaching. Are we still on schedule for the "GOLD" release?

Sorry, just to be accurate, it was Gamelin's Dyle-Breda plan that rushed the Allies best formations into Belgium to supposedly meet the main German thrust. "Best laid plans":rolleyes:

If you really want to get "outside the box", there is no problem with a better French defense, make it more dependent on a greater UK committment, not just the BEF. In fact this could have happened without that committment, if only the Allies hadn't rushed into Belgium with their very best troops at the moment of the neutrality violation. Think..... if France and Britain would have kept a mobile reserve and not reacted so quickly, with seemingly a paranoia to reach the defensive line of the Demer. OK .... so now we have stalemate. Want to go further outside that historical box? There were meetings, admittedly after France fell, but none the less, high level diplomatic talks between Germany and USSR of an alliance. Remember the totalitarian governments of the time, the majors, Japan, USSR, Germany and Italy. Sure we have to get rid of certain biases, Hitler would need to be extinguished as almost did occur and probably would have, had a western stalemate developed. There is so much more, especially on a global scale that could have been different, just read "Cry Havoc", you'll get ideas.

Yea, right, tell that to the "Battling Bastards of Bastogne". No, really, air supply as a last resort to extend the life of a formation that is surrounded is what I'm proposing, with a chance for rescue from outside forces. Still there needs to be that slow deteriation of supply with the combat consequences for a unit(s) that are without a traceable path to a supply source(in the home country), other than an HQ and a cut off port/city. I wonder how long the Sixth Army could have survived in Stalingrad without the Luftwaffe's constant resupply efforts as compared to when the final surrender came in Feb.43, maybe one or two SC turns?

Now come on Big Al, you know what I'm talking about, in the turn sequence where the tiles change possession. If the sequencing player doesn't have enough units to force the repossession of a tile from an enemy army, the ZoC is blocked for Command & Control(supply) computations and the unit is considered surrounded. Now we'll have a purpose to institute an air supply mission from our bomber groups, something that was done frequently in WW2, even at this scale, an added dimension to SC realism.

Hubert, I'm wondering if it would be possible to incorporate a new ZoC rule? Since armies are the largest formation on the map and they do reflect the infantry characteristic of "holding ground", what if they could negate a smaller enemy unit's ZoC when in conflict for possession of the same tile(unoccupied)? Now, it would be much easier to cut-off enemy units or force the other side to bring additional reinforcements(two enemy units exerting possession of the same tile would cancel the friendly army's), returning to the present scheme. In addition to a new supply model, this added feature would bring additional strategic and tactical depth(think in conjunction with paradrops) without being to laborious on the AI or the player and provide more significance to retreats.

Jon, just sit tight, we're all awaiting GOLD and then the gaming will begin in earnest. I've been working on the Allies, it's high time these guys became competitive, the Axis are a cakewalk to play. In the mean time, go over to Matrix and get "Unity of Command" and check out their supply model, something Hubert and Bill need to sample. It's only $30, makes you wonder about the reasoning for $25 GOLD, of course SC is so much more.

Simply, here's the deal. You see from the above sample that Germany has parity with the Allies, one research tree vs three. Obvously, splitting an equal number of MPPs between 3 research trees leads to much more ineffectiveness than concentrating on one, plus Germany can start earlier, in which case another imbalancing effect, experience, is introduced. Now because experience allows for over-strengthening of units, the already imbalance of the campaign is escalated further. I'm not going to tell you how easy it is to have a jump off deployment of Smolensk-Kharkov to initiate Barbarossa in the spring of 41, by DoWing USSR at the end of the Summer 40.

1. Only home country resources for IT multiplier. 2. This is one of the reasons the Axis get an advantage throughout the game, so of course, elite unit development is very advantageous. 3. Not necessarily fight, but delay, keep in mind there is a cycle of rejuvenation for destroyed units if they're in supply >=5. Roadblock after roadblock until the counter moment presents itself. 4. Dependent upon the UK committments, opportunity has to be evaluated as the game unfolds. You'll need airborne and TAC to pull it off, with the necessary long range upgrades.

OK Rambo...I want the game, buy it for me:p....on second thought, I'll buy it myself...but you make a donation to the USO and DAV in my name...OK?

Don't thank me Gorgin, Moon is the "enlightening" one!

OK guys, let us in on some AARs, don't have to be detailed, just summarize if you don't have the time, but of course elaboration is appreciated.

I've gotten to the point that I really appreciate a campaign like "High Tide" for immediate combat immersion and the fewer number of turns for completion, and it seems pretty well balanced, good for tournaments. I'm wondering if perhaps the same could be expected from the new 1943 campaign "The Last Democracy", can the designer comment?

I'd assumed that other than Big Al's "Brute Force" that all the new campaigns would be based upon the original Global map scale, with perhaps some minor changes to resources, cities, etc. and of course the beginning alliances and deployments. Am I wrong? I would love a variety of new map scales for each campaign. Oh...please Mr.H..tell me that is the case.

So it seems, if I'm scanning the campaign descriptions correctly, the only map that will be different from the current Global offering is Big Al's campaign, the last one on the list?

Now Martin I must applaud your less then condescending tone for our masses, obviously you realize the many products of our current education system have not been given the tools for critical thinking. It's really not their fault as they are left to resolve the deductive reasoning faculties on their own, some succeed, some don't! What is really the question, is this by design?:confused:

Does the bundle contain the Global 1.06 patch or will that have to be applied after receiving the both CDs?

Yea, you're right about that Shark, the island nations are a bit cluttered at times. I had proposed awhile back to give units more customization through the use of tech upgrades / slots and of course I'm an advocate of the double strike air units therefor reducing the unit density on the map. With the smaller world maps, unit density becomes a real problem and you lose the tactical flavor of maneuver.

All you got to do Shark is keep some units in the build Q that are ready to deploy. It's pretty tough for the enemy to reduce all your urban areas to less than 5/50 to disallow deployment. I always keep my reserves for every major in this configuration and I do it early so they're ready throughout the game, especially if invasion is imminent.