SeaMonkey

Excellent Al, at least you have corrected a deficiency that still resides in the default campaign. Bill, Hubert....are you listening?

Although I tend to agree with the comments here, I think it's mostly because I'm an Axis player, but the times I have played as the Allies, patience is the key. As JG has alluded to, it's very important to take your time, pick your battles carefully and use diversionary tactics. The big deal in my mind is the accumulation of experience and of course the ability to outstrip the Allies in tech investments early. This is where the Axis create their momentum, they have easy battles at first(unit experience escalation), using their plunder to tech up and since they start earlier they have a chance/time advantage for hits. Allies are just holding on, very little they can do in tech investing as they are fighting losing battles in a withdrawing environment and that is where Allied players get carried away, sucked into over commitment, and the balance just degenerates from here. Discipline my Allied comrades, discipline.

Well maybe JG, a better battle for France would assist the European theater and perhaps with the new National Morale factor that would affect Axis MPP accumulations, small nips and bites of the Axis pie could eventually erode their readiness and momentum.

Sorry abukede, I didn't mean to pull all them out, leave a threat on his flank, say Verdun and Metz, a couple more in the trenches to ruin his supply if he advances and take the rest to Paris. Ahhhh.....Paree'..... is so nice in the Springtime!

Operate those Maginot Frogs out of there and form a ring around Paris!

You're preaching to the choir kalkwerk2!

Yeah, I hear you about supply. One of the last games I played had a Jap HQ in some little town in Burma which I had completely surrounded with British(Indian) and Chinese units along with a couple of HQs in support. Turn after turn you could only get a couple of attacking units with supply at 5 because of the terrain AP cost of 3, tropical mountains. Air was largely ineffective as it rained all the time. Attack after attack would only yield a couple of strength hits to the Jap HQ while all my units took triple the amount of damage with the growing experience level of the enemy HQ and he could fully reinforce every time. You can't even bomb the supply level down with the rain and the HQ replacement status, an impregnable position.:mad: Somethings wrong!

Last few times I played, I'd always refuse M-R Pact. A DE could dissuade this type of activity with the loss of USSR MPP transfers, or just grease the German palm with some trade MPPs from USSR at the beginning to go away if the Reds reach a certain belligerency level. Why not just have a number of DEs to shape a player's strategy from the initial game turn. These could actually go back in time with decisions like create the Z-Plan which if chosen would cull the beginning air and armor available. Diplomatic DEs could create a different alliance potential, a whole new foundation for first turn dynamics could be formed with "Days of Decisions" before the first turn deployments. You roll the dice, you get a different force mix.

Exactly how the Axis gain the tech advantage, forcing the Allies to buy ground and air units. I would suggest the ground unit purchase, especially for USSR, keeping a vast reserve in the Q (don't deploy them right away). Once you're comfortable with your force mix in the Q, tech the priorities, heavy weapons, anti air, and wait, you have the advantage of interior lines and flexible deployments. How about it......did we get the ability to tech units that are still in the Q or do we have to still deploy them first?

This is a huge advantage to launch Barbarossa early. As Axis you can get some advanced staging areas for the Summer 41 campaign if you'll kickoff the invasion in late August, early September 40 and keep fighting through the Winter.

I agree in a way as the Axis momentum is hard to stop once it gets rolling. Hint: For rapid, conclusive games, skipping all the early stuff, try the "Axis High Tide" campaign, both parties start off more even, with a number of preliminary goals the Allies have to complete since they are more offensively oriented, and still the Axis have a number of offensive electives also. Offensive = More Fun!

abukede, cease with the teasing and get back to work......err....I mean playing, "we ain't makin no progress with you flappin your gums". Seriously though, I think I speak for the entire forum, we appreciate your effort........"whip crack"....back to work...now!

I agree with some better unit counters in the NATO tradition, perhaps with the names on them, no one does that. Actually back in the SC1 days there was more modding, jbunnel was one of the best, but as usual Hubert saw the writing on the wall and made the adjustments. Now, like you said, the sprites are very well done, better the emphasis goes into gameplay, besides, I believe a mix is the best, units in the NATO tradition, air and sea sprites.

Nice to hear david, for free, who could complain. By the way, I've been playing PGF as a warm up to PC and I'm struck by the incessant way your opponent swamps the objectives with units, concentric ring upon ring. It gets pretty boring going from one packed in goal to another. Hopefully, PC will have some objectives like exiting off the map edge or hexes that are separated from cities where automatic placements occur, maybe a strategic bridge or two. What say you, of course don't violate the ND?

I have no doubt you're right abukede, it was easy to see from the map in SC WW1 that this would be the definitive version for the new SC platform, like the original was 9 long years ago. And, just think, once this version is available to us users, the tweaking will again go into high gear with at least one more patch as the true fleshing out of the campaign always comes from the many, not to say you Betas didn't do an excellent job. Looking forward to enjoying the fruits from everyones labor, ...Thanks!

Been with this game for almost 9 years, a couple months is nothing, and I guarantee that based on past history, it will be worth it. Take your time Hubert, Bill, and the Betas, don't release until you have a consensus on quality.

Shark, don't forget in the new WW2 model, anti-aircraft is now an upgrade slot, along with HW and of course the old motorization enhancement. This should change the ground unit vs air unit dynamics. It's things like this, the more depth that SC evolves into, that likely is causing a delay with the new WW2 campaign, but it will be worth it. Everyone needs to remember that if you value a challenging AI, then you'll need to be very careful about what complications you suggest for SC incorporation as the CPU opponent does not possess deductive reasoning skills.

Exactly Sharkman, a perfectly good example of why we need that underlying layer of the "lines of communication" for logistical and operational movements. The entire game needs to be rewritten with this as the beginning foundation.

Take your time Beta Bunnies, get it right, I won't have time to play any wargames until August vacation.

An excellent point xwood! Perhaps there should be a % chance that when you get an advance a popup occurs saying "Your developmental investment did not end in a successfully practical design", losing your chit investments and a resulting % MPPs(of the original)added back to your pool for a reinvestment if the player so chooses.

Although I agree, as has been the case in the past, with JDF & Kuni, there is still a hint of strategy in the tech game. There is of course the tech catch up feature and the intelligence parameter to aid technological advancements. Depending on your game posturing you can use both of those in varying degrees, but still there is always the chance that your endeavors will lag severely. Something along the lines on what JDF has detailed in the past would be more appropriate and I'll interject the GG's World at War is an example of a better advancement system as well as the build Q that would enhance the SC experience.

Thanks Hubert, Ludi had some great suggestions. It's this kind of recourse that has brought SC to the state it is now, far superior to the "others" in this scale.

What I have suggested in the past is that the players should have an option. First you can port your vessel(task force) in a homeport(10 supply / 100 efficiency) and they will recover MPP free a strength point a turn, no player action required. The other possibility, ie Yorktown's astonishing repairs at PH before Midway, the player can invest the MPPs to bring it back to full strength in one turn at their discretion.

If I was Hubert, I'd incorporate Bill, Kurt, and Al, etc., to produce an expansion of Global to the SC WW1 engine and charge $20 for the DL, with consumers needing the SC WW1 base for activation. Now that the editor has become so complicated, especially with NM and scripting, Hubert's interaction is necessary, but let these excellent designers mentioned above colloborate for all the tedium of set up. Now remember guys, we need plenty of room for maneuver and low unit density to facillitate play, so units that have multiple actions will be the order of the day.

In the 50s it was shotgun shell hulls and tennis balls against the neighbor, later, green army men and BB guns. Early 60s brought along Stratego, Risk, MBs Broadside and Dogfight and then one day at Gulfgate shopping center in Houston at a hobby shop, there was AH's D-Day. That was 1966 and I stayed up all night punching out the counters and learning the rules, played the first game through against myself by sunrise, the Allies won. Its only gotten better at 60.