SeaMonkey

Now remember when an enemy unit is entrenched to first reduce the entrenchment before attacking with your heavy units. Bombers, SF, get two levels reduced at a time. But...yes..there is a downside, especially if the de-entrenching units are teched up and reinforcements are most expensive to bring the units strength back. In a case like this, I like to keep some cheap corps around, unteched, just to attack the enemy and reduce the entrenchments and then use the heavy hitters with experience. Think of it like this, 5 MPPs for a step of corps strength vs 25 for a good(teched) air unit.

Now, in conjunction with the out of supply feature, we're going to need some visual help for the players to find their units that are currently under 5/50% supply. So how about on the strategic map(as well as the regular one), the units / urban /ports that are cutoff, <5/50% have their symbol / icon or the tile they occupy show a red tint?

I've thought about that Bill and I agree, but then we have islands to deal with and the way SC allows negation of enemy ZoCs at the beginning of the player turn is kind of a problem on the small maps, not to mention the HQs as a logistical base. Surrounding and cutting off a unit from supply shouldn't be easily accomplished and so the tile configuration of needing 8 units to finish the task works well IMO, but the presence of an HQ ruins this situation. Even strategic bombing can't get it done if the HQ occupies the urban/port tile as it recovers 1/10% per turn. We need some kind of mechanism to negate the HQ logistics and "a last to pass through" tile feature that makes it necessary for the owning player to re-establish the LoC once enemy movements have turned over ownership of the tiles, especially at sea.

What SC really needs is an accurate supply model, this is the #1 priority. Now I know that will involve a code rewrite and I'm not sure that Hubert can incorporate something that complicated into the expansion, so what we need is some good ideas. So, everyone, put on your thinking caps and let's come up with some viable ideas to incorporate a supply network into the current engine, something that the AI and Hubert can cope with. SC desparately needs an LoC system that works.

How about allowing naval units to build some experience? Presently, it is totally impossible to gain any experience with naval units during gameplay, without opening up the editor.

Sure would be nice if we could get some unit designations on the counters, like the old board games, and especially the experience level would be very helpful in ascertaining unit prowess at a glance. Every saved "click" is a step in the direction of gameplay promotion.

Life is good in the SC realm!:cool:

Thanks Mr. H for the reply, I was hoping I'd caught the expansion in the "nothing is really finalized" phase and of course I'll patiently await developments. This part is almost as much fun as playing the game. Any tidbits about ways you are leaning, like any hope for a supply/morale/readiness erosion feature for cutoff units, even with an HQ present? It's always nice to know, and catalyzes discussion, without being binding of course, on the many ways the SC road may lead us. I also want to extend my appreciation for your attention, as well as Bill's and the Betas, to this expansion, it was just what I was hoping for. Now later on down the road let the guys have a little leeway in discussing the game with us users, relax the NDA a little and let them fire up an AAR for a few turns so we'll get an example of gameplay. Heck...I might as well shut up, I know I can count on you, after all.... you are "The Man", just guard against success spoiling you, we'll need more SC down the path of life.

Anybody want to comment on the features of artillery in the Global Gold(SCGGC) campaigns, strategy, tactics, upgrades, etc.? I'm assuming that now if you use the ports and urban anti-air upgrade with an occupying unit that has a tech AA upgrade you can have an effective anti-air umbrella for all types of air attacks?

Good assessment Bob and I concur with most everything you said, but I always thought SC was about strategic positioning, although obviously you must be flexible enough to react to your opponent's moves, just make sure those reactions are based on consequential developments. No doubt USSR is key for the Axis and I've just about wholely come to the conclusion that denial of MR pact and advanced deployments for a late Summer, early Fall, 1940 invasion is most advantageous. Of course if the Allies allow a Sealion, I'm also going to be prepared for that eventuality, just give me an opening, BAM! Then the picture changes to the Med with an eye towards a ME thrust into the Caucasus. Ahh...the Nippon perspective, my favorite, been working on a little change for the future, but acquiring the SRA and an outer defensive perimeter has always been the focus in the past. What do you think? With the new AA slot for ground units, I'd like to see the air game get a little more flexible(cut back the build limits), maybe with fighters getting the FB research slot for ground attack enhancement, and of course all air gaining double-strike option, fewer units that can perform more diversified missions. I mean, after all, they are the fastest, most reactive unit in the game. Doesn't make sense, if Tanks & Mech. get two, you know air should probably get three, sans bombers(with "heavy" option), which take a little more attention with heavy ordinance and fuel for long range missions.

So Colin you touched on "recon" features in the $25 thread, can you elaborate more with the actual specifics of the action and how in works? Like, do aircraft get to perform the recon mission and a strike sorti also, dual actions in one turn?

So, since paras are subject to intercept, how about recon missions? Any change in the supply rules other than minimum OoS unit has AP=1? What scenarios have units with the combined IW and AT with the extra research slot occupied by anti-air? Any campaigns with double strike attacks for all air units, other than the usual Bombers, CAGs(CV) and fighter intercepts? Inquiring minds want to know!

How could any self respecting SCer not go for this. I'm assuming that the Brute Force campaign is Big Al's origination and with help from Hubert, Bill and the betas, this scenario alone is worth $25, the map is awesome, perfect size without being overwhelming. Heck...the "what ifs" are icing on the cake, bonus scenarios, and the middle campaigns make for great, challenging, quick contests that emphasize combat and timely completions. "SC.....gotta luv it!":)

So Jolly, what was the basic differences of SCG vs SC2 that challenged your previous SC technique? And...since I'm kind of in the school that the Axis momentum usually provides them the advantage of experience and tech to carry the day, what should you have done differently as the Axis guide?

I like some of these ideas Cantona, if you'd like to try them out in a game setting, Slitherine has a game with these features, Military History Commander WW2 that just saw a new upgrade. While not SC, it was produced by an old SC player from way back, zappsweden, known as firepowerjohan over at Slitherine, so it has some of the features that old time players of SC have wished for, especially hexes. Now I haven't played the new version, but I was always of the opinion that Hubert has done a better job with SC over the years and I continue to be a loyal advocate of SC because overall I think it's better. With that said there are some appealing aspects to CEAW as it used to be known as, so I would be interested in anyone that can make a comparison with the new version vs SC's current state. I'm never adverse to the incorporation of other's ideas into an overall scheme of improvement into the cutting edge that SC is.

Entirely respectful of your opinion Shark and indeed perhaps it is I who has a skewed concept of where SC should go. I agree with your consensus on multi-player and of course this could be an optional feature to pursue the pre-hostility campaign. You know, this entire prewar maneuvering could be handled by a set of DEs serving to orient the initial positions for combat beginnings. Things like the Japs passing on Manchuria/China and double teaming USSR with Germany or the Japanese again forsaking the PH attack to just expand throughout the DEI and British far east possessions without a USA reaction. Lot's of different starting positions and times for initiating hostilities. But...not to forget, SC is primarely a wargame and that means conflict, and like the name says, I want to be the Strategic Commander, no H, no M, no S, no Church, no FDR, it's all about me.. me ..me.., just give ME the historical context for the decision making, and I promise this is the only part of my life I'll be selfish about.

Whoa, Shark, you are way too locked into history. Here's some history for you, why do you think France allowed Germany to waltz back into the Rhineland? Simply, they really didn't have the political will to stop them and GB was not at all in step with France at this point. You need to examine the Eco-political structure that reigned during this era. GB and France were no where armed enough to do anything to stop the move into Sudentenland and they knew it, the Luftwaffe struck fear into everyones hearts as visions of ariel bombs loomed in their heads! Poland...ohh please...they just as well could have been an Axis ally, complicit to the move east into USSR. So many things could have been different. Just dwell into the idiosyncracies of the political underpinnings of the time. Anytime between 1938 and 1943, conditions were ripe for warfare, most everyone thought it would not be until 1942...........see how "thoughts" conjure up misconclusions, open up your imagination!:cool: SC is a game to explore the what-ifs, we've been shackled to history almost ten years now, you can play all the pre-releases if you want more history. My mind beckons for the unknown, I'm an explorer, a pioneer of initiative, innovation and improvisation, I need more than "Germany attacks Poland, Sept. 1, 1939", how boring, been there done that!

Not at all Shark, if the starting parameters are configured properly in an historical context, you'll have the totalitarian regimes arming first with a slowly escalating belligerency level accumulating as the Democracies join in the arms race later. The key will be when is the moment of balance, the tipping point, when the Democracies finally bite the bullet and institute a war setting at which point it will be wise for the Axis player to start hostilities or otherwise be overtaken. Only Japan, Germany, Italy, or the USSR will be able to initiate a DoW at which point things will rapidly degenerate in to a full blown World War.

I sympathize wolfe, but I've got to go with Shark. Big Al has the right size map, although I could warm up to Nupremal's if we had the multiplayer option, 3 on the Axis side, 3 on the Allied. Minimum requirements for Global 2. Multiplayer, LoC/S substructure, combat-movement per PzCorps, and of course the prewar armament race of the 1920s & 30s so that the beginning game conditions can always be different. Prewar would be based upon a dynamic model of Alliances/Diplomacy, Belligerency/NM and the resulting procurements of arms and research based on the accumulation of MPPs from the first two.

How about entering into negotiations? For instance......say I would like to distribute some SC versions to my relatives for Christmas, or purchase multiple copies for "posterities sake", can I enter a bid that might be accepted, anonamously of course!

And... with that said, I am entering this thread! Now...Hubert...does that above statement still hold true?:confused:

Something like that has been proposed before, years ago, by Bill(pzgndr) with the use of a mobile supply source. So far, Hubert has not found a way to adequately accomodate the feature into SC. It's really a tough call as it adds additional complication, but I still remain a proponent for a realistic LoC program. It adds a dimension the AI would have to contend with and I'm sure there will be additional tasks players will have to deal with, but it is so important to the application of a good wargame representing WW2. I know Hubert has put a lot of thought into it(LoC) and I trust someday he and others will arrive at a solution, but I'm afraid it will be a completely different scheme than what SC models now and that means a lot of rewritten code.

That's not a problem Rab! You move a cav unit, or any other for that matter, too far into enemy territory, I'll eliminate it next turn. One turn "out of supply" just simulates a commando, partisan, recon in force raid, easily neutralized the next turn and I'll thank you for the kill.

I've actually modeled these parameters in a mod I made of N.Africa and the Eastern Med, where ships and aircraft could move 25 tiles or whatever the max was in WaW. It worked quite well, as units could sorti from base and back in one turn.

Thing is, it doesn't matter as long as an HQ is available because even at supply source 0 and HQ will provide 5 supply. At the SC scale it is important to remember that not all the road and rail infrastructure can be represented, even trails were a source of the supply network in WW2. I'm completely OK with having to cut off all tiles by ZoCs or enemy units as long as the ultimate supply of the surrounded unit goes to zero in which case morale and readiness drops to zero resulting in the unit surrendering. Even a unit surrounded that has a high experience rating can survive for an unlimited amount of time in certain terrain as it gains additional experience from the ineffective attacks of the surrounding units. It actually becomes stronger and is able to fight off all attacks with no strength reductions. I've seen a unit of the AI that has 7 metals because of this, no matter the supply level, try and reduce a unit with that much experience, it's fantasy land.