SeaMonkey

Try and reduce an HQ in the Burmese highlands that is sitting on a town/city. The incessant rain keeps air out of the equation, then the attacking forces can't get good supply from an adjacent HQ because of terrain penalties, just forget it!:mad: And Shark....please...Bastogne? Think about that relative to the time period of an SC turn, a better example is the German Sixth Army at Stalingrad. Still, there needs to be a steady erosion of supply when a unit is cutoff and remains cutoff from supply. It is a viable tactic, that in reality is used in warfare throughout history and is completely undermined by the current SC engine.:confused:

OK guys, some of this discussion just underscores what I've been saying for years now, and really......I have no doubt the Hubert will eventually incorporate such a feature. We need that underlying communication network, that web of logistics that connects the whole map to each empire. The convoys that are player selected by using waypoints, the kind that enemy interdiction can be opportunistic with and can certainly be modified at the owning players' whim. The kind that have resources flow both ways, what could be more realistic? Anyone out there know of a game that has such a model we might rely on with a foundation for SC?

Nupremal's mod had such a feature, only 1 investment chit per category, but still even then research could be a little too premature. Perhaps coupled with the new patched research model and the one chit limitation we would see a more realistic tech advancement scenario.

Once again,...even though the unit(s) vanishes from the map, if it was a supply >=5 it can be regenerated at reduced cost, ie. it was not eliminated, it was rendered "combat ineffective". Now I know that never happened in reality. And excuse me if things changed for SOE, but as I play global, my amphibs suffer casualties when they land on a vacant tile where the previous enemy unit that has been rendered "combat ineffective" was the occupier or, for that matter, where there wasn't an enemy combat unit but the tile was enemy owned. So....what is the problem now?

My thoughts also!

Excellent thought PR, one that has been expressed before but no less relevant. Hopefully Hubert, Bill & Co. will see the light and code us this ability for a parent or any nation so connected by the LoC to distribute MPPs at the players' discretion.

This segmentation violation has long been an anomaly of the SC series causing CTDs at very rare moments. I've been playing for almost 10 years and I can count the times on both hands, haven't needed the feet yet!

Shark, just to add a little more comfort to the pass-through mechanic even though "The Master" has reassured you, I extensively tested the feature awhile back setting up a custom model through the editor. It worked as designed, passing through all naval types except DDs while in silent mode. I must say that the new developments seem even more realistic and slowly but surely, Hubert and company are getting this most difficult combat arena simulated to a very high degree of accuracy. No doubt, SC is the best there is in grand strategy.:cool:

Now we're talkin! Global Gold with a base LoC.

Eventually I'll get to the WW2 version, but I don't do WW1! No carrier task forces, no fast moving mechanized/armored thrusts with ground support aircraft, no naval air, no large scale amphibious operations. In short, WW1 is three dimensional, I prefer the four dimensions of WW2 and needless to say, WW1 was a World War in name only, that's why they had to fight WW2.

You know guys, on second thought, y'all may be right. I'd forgotten that this pertains to the new larger map, which I haven't played yet. So the distances between supply sources may very well preclude the use of HQs to project supplies to combat troops in as an effective measure that I'm used to on the global map. Guess I didn't think this one through, eventually I'll need to get SC WW1 and play around with the new features, just haven't had enough time with Global and PC taking up my gametime.

So what's the Engineering function for building fortifications? Redundancy!

I kind of agree with ev and vR that the current configuration is not that bad except for the air units. The time relative to an SC turn would allow an air unit to just about circumnavigate the globe as long as there are the connecting support and landing facilities. That's why the Pacific islands and others were so important as staging areas. One thing that always bothered me was that after conquering an island, it takes five turns to get to a 5 supply/50% efficiency level unless you land an HQ and even then you can't operate aircraft in until the facility(town or city) comes to the proper level. IIRC airbases were put into operations a lot quicker than the game models as 5 SC turns could be 2.5 months. So ....as I've proposed before, we need to allow an engineer unit(ala SeaBees) to provide the supporting connective mechanism to extend the LoC and also give the Egr the same capability to amphib from any tile like the "Special Forces" unit. This will bring in more of the map for gameplay purposes as the Engineer unit represents an immediate logistical base. I might also add that for SC3, the stacking of an air unit with a ground unit should be accomodated. In fact, if we want to continue to use the auxiliary units like anti-air, artillery, anti-tank in the regular global game then perhaps they should be accomodated for stacking also with the larger formations to simulate attachments.

Thing is, with the current engine, it takes a group of people to put one of these together, not just one person, not to mention the testing. Anybody attempting one of these mods alone is liable to suffer "burnout" before it's ready and will need a bunch of dedicated SC fans for feedback. Just think how long Hubert, Bill, and the Betas need just to get us a new and improved version.

It's really not the concept that is in question, Hubert is right in the original premise of KISS and thinking about how the AI will deal with the additional complication and the ability to implement it successfully. Simply speaking in the relative comparison of how far a unit can move in comparison to the time of a SC turn, it's not outlandish, what comes into question is the unlimited number of units that can move that distance. Based upon the access of MPPs as the limiting factor sometimes represents an unreasonable situation that a nation would actually possess. Rail and airlift capacity as MPPs represent an instantaneous use of, rather than a reflection of a nation's level of infrastructure built up over time to move units a great distance. So...easy and simply, the number of units available to use strategic movement should be based upon the infrastructure research level in addition to the reduced expenditure of MPPs. Now comes the question of connectivity, especially for air units, represented ....once again...by that LoC, which SC so desperately needs for operations and supply. Think about flying, a wing, a group, a fliegerkorps, whatever, a great distance with some needed refueling stops. The distance to and the needed fuel at each stop is paramount to successfully completing the operation. Fighters can't fly as far as heavy bombers before refueling, but they can be disassembled and sea transported, or taken into flying range by a CV, so each air unit needs an operational range limitation. Without going further, this post is too long already, I think we all can see that to represent "strategic movement" takes some in depth thought before a nice easy solution can be found, not just for Hubert to write but for the AI to effectively use.

I'll respect your opinion CH, but come on, "player could do nothing about", what do you think HQs are for? Optimally placed and used with the knowledge of partisan likelihoods, a player would never be overstretched in supply but one turn. Tell me I'm wrong?

You know Bill, you have done a magnificant job with SC, thanks.

You know Hubert, I kind of knew that, somewhere in the back of my consciousness, that little voice was speaking, but sometimes I don't listen, sorry. It's just that "Time" is always short and I just wanted to reiterate that fact to you, not that you need reminding. As far as hoping, I really don't have much specifically in mind, I just know how good a programmer you are and you have evolved admirably and I'm wary of you sitting on success, like I have:cool:. I'm scared, SC is so good, but it could be better, the best and I want everyone to realize it, that's really what I'm hoping for, but then what?:eek: Actually, I was trying out a new internet connection, so decided to post, and got a bit carried away...........who me????..moi?....nada..banish the thought!

Isn't this kind of an over complication? Think about it, SC1 days, partisans came up randomly, not much you could do with them, that intangible of warfare. Later, players figured out how to "game" the feature. Now, you know where they are and can choose to manage them or not using a special unit that has been created with MPPs or you lose supply/MPPs. Why not just have a DE that asks whether you want to allocate MPPs to "partisan management" or not? Come on, IRL, you really think you can manage partisans that well, the way the game represents them. I like the old random way, make it so it's completely unpredictable. How about we back off a little on "feature creep", simplify a bit, let the unknown factors prevail to recreate that feeling of historical war chaos?

A real dilemma for SC, as groups of units inconjunction with an HQ can hold out forever even though completely cut off. One problem is the inherent recovery rule for ports & towns/cities. In essence they never drop to zero for the supply consideration although they have been bombed to zero the preceding turn. That means in places where it rains (Burma) all the time it's totally impossible to run the enemy out of supplies, not to mention the terrain combat defense bonuses they can draw off of. IMO there needs to be a degradation feature, as well as the rejuvenation feature for supply. If a supply source is cut off, no LoC, then it should immediately go to zero, except for an HQ which replicates a logistical supply dump. When units are cut off they should start to degrade from their previous level of supply per attack/defense unless also they have an HQ in proximity which can supply them for a period of time as they draw from the "logistical dump". Let's say an HQ and units land or are cut off, next turn the HQ goes to 5 supply and the units, using the same terrain tools for calculating supply presently, have the appropriate supply level, max 4 if they are adjacent to HQ and in AP 1 terrain. Now every turn the HQ supply dump will degrade one unless it is resupplied by a captured port that has an established LoC or a friendly naval vessel sits adjacent to it in a sea tile, representing naval transport support. The enemy is free to destroy the naval transport or cut off the port returning the HQ to the degradation cycle. For a unit cut off alone without logistical support(an HQ), whatever supply it had at the previous supply determination is what it has and every defense of its position, or attack, degrades its supply immediately one per combat, incuding air and naval bombardment, in addition to the one per turn degradation without combat. Once they go to zero they should be easily dispersed and no longer exist. This will stop units like high experience air, etc., and HQs holding out forever in rugged terrain under constant attack which is totally unrealistic.

You know as much as I love SC and I know I've said this before, but Hubert it really is time to consider some concrete action on SC3. Just look at the interest PC has generated, the sales, SC can be so much better than PC because of the strategic scale. Hubert, you are on the cusp of the ultimate plunge for SC, you have done all the preliminary work, it's time to embrace your destiny and produce the definitive strategic scale wargame of all time. I have shared many ideas with you, I'm not done, but I'm reaching a point of complacency. Many of our older forum members have gone by the wayside, their enthusiasm capitulated through the many editions, but I know they're still out there, ready.......ready to begin, ready to help. So....do your patches, but heed my words, the community will not wait forever, you will become fat and lazy....Ok....well.... you will become older and with that you will not be able to maintain your passion, I can guarantee you that! The time will pass you by and you'll lose the opportunity, I'm a witness to that fact, listen....I know, it is undeniable.

All my gaming time is now filled with Panzer Corps, a much faster moving game, admittedly without the dynamics of SC strategies. I found that my H to H games with SC have gotten to the point that the time requirement to complete a move prohibits me from playing. Turns take too long on the big maps when all belligerents are in. We need to either simplify, or have a save feature during a turn when life's priorities beckon, like with an AI game.

Reasoning and logic always win out, good job JDF2.

Exactly as Al says, interception is reactive, escort is proactive.

True Hubert, but don't you think it's time to provide some other avenue to gain experience, like...say training ...or raiding, especially for naval vessels. It's almost totally impossible to get experience for surface naval vessels as constant combat losses cause a dilution of any gained experience. Perhaps you could cap it at say 2 max for training and raiding so that at least you could overstrength and have some small chance to build from there. It's either that or some kind of mechanism for allowing experienced replacements as this is one of the disadvantages that the Allies have when confronting the Axis and leads to the "bias" opinion.