SeaMonkey

Right on, Wolfpack, great suggestion.

Just to add, I was reading the nonfiction book "Unbroken" and was surprised to find out that operational losses of B24s were much greater than combat losses. Now with that in mind, I have a feeling accidents were more predominant than combat losses across the board for most aircraft models. Someone ought to research that.:cool:

True, but if you deploy in proximity to an enemy unit = no upgrade.

Great job on the research, Hubert. Now, how about that implementation of upgrades to units in the Q, of course with the resulting delay and additional cost, always at the owning player's discretion. Too much for the AI? I know....we're never satified!

Thanks Kuni, nice of you to share. So when will you be visiting the Ardennes?

Dang it Bill, you've seemed to scared the poor boy off! I don't suppose you'd care to hear about any of my ideas, like "Decades of Decisions" and the "Tree of Belligerency"?

Really now? Us long time SCers wouldn't expect anything less. Label me "spoiled"!

Agreed Shark, Tech advances and the Build Q have always been weak features of SC. Adequate for play, but with lots of room for improvement. Perhaps the evolution of these features are too detrimental to the AI's performance?:confused:

Hey Luke, this is how you pull it off in SC. First deny MR pact to get a better deployment option. Take France down ASAP, usually by Summer 40. Immediately transfer the required forces East and setup one turn for the invasion, usually no later than September 40. Now, you DoW USSR and take what you can get until Spring 41 with the idea to optimize your Barbarossa massive invasion jump off deployments for 41. I call it the preBarby Escapade as all it does it get your forces into a better position to force the surrender of Leningrad and Moscow by Autumn of 41.

How about I make this simple. With the benefit of hindsight, what have we found? Yep, the Axis probably could have won the war and the probabilities are higher than they were for a loss.

Ivanov brings up an excellent point of conquered nations sending contingents to fight with the other alliance. It should be an automatic decision event for the side that has lost a minor or major constituent to invest MPPs and be given armed forces representing the vanquished. This should probable occur intermittently throughout the game as more and more of the population of conquered nations exit their homeland to fight for the cause of freedom. Of course in the case of WW2 this probably would not ring true for the Soviet Union to a large extent, as most of their occupied populace would have sided with the Axis given a considerate chance.

I would advise Hubert to pick up a copy of Panzer Corps and examine the dynamics of movement and combat. I prefer the the SC model on predicted casualties but the ability to perform combined attacks and deselect and reselect units is paramount to the new SC. Currently, I'm reading a book "Cry Havoc", which is a study of the rearmament race proceeding after WW1 which actually leads into the WW2 conflict, irregardless of leadership. I'm of the opinion the new SC should be based upon this theorem and begin in the early 20th Century after WW1 has concluded.

Good summary on the Med possibilities, but you failed to mention the invasion of Spain and subsequent occupation of Gibraltar as an Axis option. Known as "Operation Sphinx" put forth by Admiral Erik Raeder in the early part of WW2, the plan has the unique condition of closing the front door of the Med to the RN and really allows the Italians to get things cranked up in the MidEast prior to Barbarossa. With Germany's help, the Axis can set up a southern threat to the Caucasus and enhance the inevitable invasion of the USSR, not to mention the east - west squeeze on Turkey. Looking forward to your review of the East deployments with and without the MR pact.

I would propose that any new versions of SC have an algorithm that allows a player to somewhat control his NM level. Since MPPs represent, in a way, the wealth of a nation, then any reserve of MPPs kept in the "National Treasury" from turn to turn has a beneficial effect on the NM level. The advantage of a balance of "Guns and Butter". It would also serve as an incentive to invest more heavily into IT and PT in order to maximize the MPP reserve as well as prompt your opponent to perhaps think more seriously about a strategic bombing campaign.

Yeah, good luck with that! I used to think the same thing, now.... forty years later, it has only gotten worse, expotentially so. Look around you.....notice the distractions of convoluted complications perpetrated by the "powers that be"? The justifications of tier upon tier of unnecessary rules and regulations built on the facade to "make things better". One more straw......OK two more, it's for the greater good.....and what finally happens to the camel's back.:eek:

Come on guys, really, the 39 campaign? Don't you get a little sick of the same old opening, down goes Poland, down goes LC, Denmark, Norway, France etc. etc.....same old cookie cutter approach as the axis build the momentum of MPPs and experience that is the killer. Crap...I know what happened in WW2, I've studied it and read about it till I've got very little else to examine, let's embark upon something else, something that is within the realm of late 20s to 40s, the time of empire building and a World truly at war. How.??.. we have decision events, so thoughtfully devised by Hubert, we have a bartering medium, MPPs, we have research and diplomacy and we begin in the early 30s or late 20s. We answer the decision events as either the Axis or the Allies, we invest in research and/or build a military, and we can sway our potential allies with diplomacy all with the allocation of MPPs we have. Every game different, every game has new beginnings, different strategies and alliances, that is true diversification, infinite variables, a global sandbox of the era of World War based upon the SC foundation.

Well it seems I'm out voted, kind of what I figured and found, but in the interest of spurring further Allied research I'm trying to play the devil's advocate. Actually I'm not expecting anymore patches or work on Global, so..... as I said before, you want an even game with the default campaigns, better pick the "Axis High Tide".

Agreed HR, UK and France focus feed right into the Axis strength, not a brilliant move! I was thinking more on the lines of an Iberian peninsula assault supported from NA, while always keeping the threats alive from ME, Egypt/Libya, UK and of course you've got to have the Reds still alive and kicking, all in 43. Stay on the perimeter, chip away!

Perhaps I'm off base here, but one glaringly obvious thing that the Allies have is a mega amount of carrier aviation. Now think about that, this little map we have with global and the fact the CAGs can have a 4 tile strike range and double strikes besides that. OK, so you get some good advanced air and cover your CVs with fighters, they're fricken cheap, putting both the RN and USN together and just look at the coastlines the Axis have to cover, a plethora of opportunistic invasion spots with many small nation capitals in range of CAGs. Heck...what do I know....but it seems to me you can do a lot of feints, lots of diversions and just pile in anywhere the opportunity happens to pull off the main thrust, all covered with mega Allied CAGs and fighters. I haven't even included the TAC and SAC the Amis have available especially with IT and PT maxed. Allied commanders, you have to be patient.

Excellent move into Spain CH, what a maneuver to get Burgos, great staging point for the assault on Madrid. How many APs do those Panzers have, that was a pretty decent thrust all the way to Burgos in one turn?

"double post"..........technology:rolleyes:

At this point, we'll need to see how the new features interact from the WW1 version, especially NM, and the anti-air tech slot for ground units before any changes are made. I'm of the opinion that the next thing to consider is giving all air units double strikes along with the armor, since all of these are "fast movers". We'll also need the ability to deselect a unit and reselect it later(same turn) if APs remain so that a combined arms scheme can be set up.

You should have placed two files into the Campaign folder, make sure you opened up the custom DL and had the "file" and the "CGN" separated.

Beautifully done abukede.:cool:

I know everyone likes to go for the kill when the opportunity presents itself, I do myself sometimes, but when faced with greatly experienced enemy units, I usually try to attrite them for a few turns as their next turn replacement cycle reduces their experience level and readiness. This is where the numbers game helps out, you can rotate your units back out of harms way and hit those experienced enemies over and over, eroding their and the nearby supporting units' experience and strength levels to where they are reactive to your moves instead of vice versa, thereby arresting the initiative. In other words, take an enemy local, and reduce the strength of all the enemy units in that vicinity with advantageous attacks rather than kill that one or two and suffer the consequences of your over extension in the next turn.