SeaMonkey

And I might add, subs should be able to attack one another.

I believe that if you'd like to taste a similar environment of this pending release, try Nupremal's mod in the Global version of SC.

Ha! Why would I pay for a feature I already have? For security from cheating? Who cares, it's just a game, if this is the worst thing that ever happens I'll be damn lucky! The consequence of the risk level is insignificant. Ever hear of cost effectiveness? Yeah I know ......a lost philosophy of fiscal responsibility.

Is the hardcopy CD, which I haven't ordered yet, going to be updated with this campaign on it?

Let's see how it works out on "Panzer Corps" first, before we ask Hubert to spend resources on this feature.

I just want to mention that any predeployment, fixed postion for nonbelligerents, represents an exploit for the attacker when the neutral nation joins, ie France and RN beating up on the Italian navy the turn Italy joins. My opinion is that all nonbelligerents have their naval forces(and perhaps land forces as well) in the build Q in which case they can be deployed at the owning player's discretion. If he predeploys, then he is subject to attack, otherwise, he can avoid any gamey moves by his opponent. It takes away a surprise element, but PH attack should be scripted anyway, anything else seems unrealistic as only the first time a campaign is played the whereabouts of enemy units will be unknown. This might not be a bad idea for land forces as well. Think about it, when a DoW is declared there should be only enough defending forces for a local border defense and then the owning player can deploy from a build Q the forces he has decided to hold in reserve. When we see the "X prepares for War" warning, that would be the time the build Q deployment would be available either to deploy or to hold in reserve, dependent upon the owning player's decisions.

That is great to hear, Hubert!

Right you are Dave, the old memory banks needed a little defrag, but I remember the Immer connection. So Hubert, can the Betas expand on some of the campaign highlights? Like has anyone tried an early UK landing in the LC, or Denmark? How about a Rome Gambit or the French and RN assault of Italian naval assets. Any comments on Baltic busting and my favorite, the early Barbarossa or Sealion time?

I don't know what game y'all are playing, but Paras are one of my most effective units, their threat probability is very high. I use them exclusively for invasions like Sealion and to complete envelopments in early Barbarossa assaults, as we all know that logistics is the key for any sustained military action. Later they are always helpful squashing any partisan activity that may pop up. They are always sitting behind my lines prepped for any occasion where you might need a last minute attack to vanquish a defender that is barely holding on. All in all a very flexible unit with high mobility, just don't send them out on suicide missions, make sure help is only the next turn away.

Eloquently said with focus on the facts, and great to hear from our old fellow SC brethren Desert Dave, alias Elmer Etwas.:cool: Good wishes, great health and may God bless:), as I know how tough it is to conjure up the old gaming passions............................but you know we can always ask for more!

You know.... this is a tough one. On one hand, the large scale is great for maneuver but a bear to manage when all the belligerents are in, especially without a "save" option during a PBEM turn. For the current Global SC scale, things are much smoother with less tasks and turn completion can be prosecuted expeditiously.

How about, current unit morale = previous unit morale + NM / 2

I think NM is an excellent addition to the game as it is a gauge of how you and your opponent are doing in the present situation. If the game ends prematurely the winner can be assessed immediately. It allows emphasis on goals, objectives, replicates the population's morale on the home front, all viable entities in war time. Perhaps it needs to be tuned a tad, add a propaganda element through intel tech or the diplomatic leanings of a variuos minors to your cause. There seems to be no small enhancement to the game engine through this parameter and definitely adds a level of realism to the simulation. I'm looking forward to it in the following SC editions.

Ha! You think increasing experience in land units is tough, try getting naval units some, totally an impossibility with the current game engine. What we really need is an ability to "train" units to increase their experience before going to battle, at least to perhaps 1 to two medal levels.:cool: If you overstrength a unit that has 2 medals, there is at least a chance of getting them higher, otherwise, it can't be done. Bill...Hubert???? What about it?

And for some of us sitting on the sidelines, how about wetting our appetite with some additional features planned for the WW2 release, like units, tech, scripts, etc. With the look of the big map, this will be cutting edge blitzkrieg maneuvering for the grand strategy scale.

You know for the future you might want to consider getting Hubert to code a greater combat variable for high risk operations like amphibs, paratroops etc., like have a different combat results table. You could minimize the risk as the owning player by taking appropriate actions, like greater intel, amphib, doctrine tech advances, perhaps using experienced units for the operations to hedge your outcome, but still that great variability would serve to create player apprehension. In Nupremal's mod, he has a +-2 combat variable setup and believe me it can get real messy quick when you think you have an advantage and all of a sudden you're faced with a strength loss of 4. It can also go the other way too!

Care to elaborate on some of the new feature incorporations, like tech slots, double strike units, etc.?

Speaking in general about SC ASW technology, I always thought it should be in two aspects, one for destroyers, ie escort, subhunter-killer packs and the other for capital ship escort duty. For the DD groups the ASW tech addition should be relatively inexpensive as you are upgrading the existing surface vessels with new hardware to detect and attack subs. For the CA through CV groups you are actually adding escort, screening vessels and therefor should be a much more expensive endeavor as this would include aircraft ala CVLs/CVEs, subchasers, frigates/corvettes as well as additional DDs. This could easily be represented by splitting the sub attack and defense target values, letting DDs upgrade through ASW tech, and the capital vessels upgrade through the NW tech. It will also allow you to customize your vessels to a more specific degree. Now you can add offensive strength for surface combat with NW while increasing defense for subsurface actions(escorts), costing substantially more. ASW would allow a more offensive trending towards subsurface actions and a lesser degree to defensive systems against subs, costing less. Since we now have the additional anti-air slot for upgrades you see how you can generate a more task oriented fleet for what ever strategic options you have in mind. DDs, ASW(sub attack value enhancement), NW(surface attack, sub defense) and AA(air defense) CA, BB....ASW( expensive, not as effective as DDs), NW(more expensive, sub defense, surface attack & defense), AA(air defense) CV, NW(very expensive adding to defensive values through escort increases), LR as is, AdvAir for air defense through CAP and naval attack values through the CAG upgrade against all surface and subsurface naval vessels.

You want a tough China david? Move on over to Nupremal's mod, an excellent rendition of the world conflict, and the Chinese aspects are the best.

And Hubert, I see you're on line;), define the "proper in game conditions" for a retreat?:confused:

And Canton, don't forget all aircraft should have double strikes, bombers should have a naval attack value also, now that we have anti-air upgradeable naval vessels and ground units.

Thanks for the replies Bill. I see your point xwood, no more can you make those gamey withdrawals or suicide missions with your exhausted troops. Now I'm ready to sample this "Queen" of the battlefield, the new artillery rules, not to mention the AA attachments for ground units. "We've come a long way baby." Thanks to Hubert, Bill and all the Betas, this is obviously the best SC yet.

So the NM value is affected by your unit losses. How does the MPP value of the lost unit(s) equate to the reduction of said NM? What is the equation for determining the % reduction, is it cumulative or is there a % recovery per turn? Does the NM value affect the algoritm for computing the units' specific morale value and hence taken into the combat prowess of the unit?

Good suggestion Bill, but I would alter it just a bit to the "Commonwealth" which would include S.Africans, Australians, Indians, New Zealanders and perhaps even the Poles, Free French also, as well as the Canadians. Make them all have to build in Canada to simulate their need for transport to the operational theaters. Only one problem, perhaps you know of a work-around, it's ludicrous to think that UK - Commonwealth wouldn't share the same research and equipment. And Canton, just because we have the slots available, doesn't mean it's necessary to use them all.

How about we get a slightly different look to the Nato sprites? I propose that we just use the nato symbol, no background or base. The symbol with the appropriate country background color is enough, also to be used in the strength designation, beneath. Now on the left side of the rectangular Nato symbol we get the unit name(user designated) and on the right side the appropriate research level upgrades. On top of the symbol, the organizational size, you know the drill, XXX = Corps, XX division, X brigade, III regiment, II battalion, that's about it. Why obscure the map terrain with these overly enlarged sprites, the terrain has significance, let's see it!:cool: