SeaMonkey

New upgrade???? W & W is passe'. Get ready for WW2 ala WW1. 2 strike armored forces are now the norm, except, perhaps, Italian and Japanese variety, depending upon what scenario you are playing. You have to bomb down the efficiency/supply of both the city and the port, if there is one, otherwise a 5 / 50% city will be able to reinforce to 8, a 4/40 to 7, a 3/30 to 6, and on until there is always one /10% which can reinforce to 4. GM, notice that strategic bombers have 2 strikes also, again depending, what do you think they might be proficient at? That's it.... they diminish supply, they reduce supply with strategic attack and guess what happens if you vanquish an enemy unit that is under 5 supply? That's right! They can't rejuvenate at the lower MPP cost, they have to completely rebuild from scratch, like new units. Now have you got some ideas about how to play more efficiently?

Typical self-gratifying female, now you know why they garnish the "female canine" moniker. Don't worry...all will be forgotten shortly, just like it never happened and we'll all go back to being lovey-dovey. Pretty sure she (if "she" is) is just pulling your string, xwood, living up to "her" pseudonym. Bet "she's" American too, and as unbelievable it is they're influencing the rest of the World.:eek: Guess Who knew what they were singing about!:cool:

So Al, were you able to expand your map a little more with the WW1 engine or is it basically the same dimensions as it was with the Global edition?

"(and hard to work out what is and isn't fair)." An interesting premise Bill, I'm thinking this could be accomodated with an optional mode, "ignore losses". Could be applicable to ground attacks also if the defending player wishes to avoid a retreat. In an "ignore losses" mode, recon bombers would abort the mission if suffering over 50% losses, otherwise it would complete its mission. Same with ground attacks where a defender wishes to not retreat when suffering greater than 50% losses. Perhaps something to consider for a future patch feature or variant.

Well while all you pitiful humans are practicing self-indulgence, I'm going to forego a couple of SC global turns an go over to my son's house and till up a garden, ultimately to help stave off world hunger!:cool:

Thanks Bill and I must say I like where this recon feature is going, it just needs some additional modifications. We should now be able to use the "Ctrl-left click" mechanism to denote waypoints for the aircraft's flight path and since this now uses a strike we should also be able to rebase on the return flight within range. Does the intercept just cause strength losses or will it cause a premature end to the recon mission in light of a negative combat result?

So the new recon rule is you have to fly aircraft to a target tile and all adjacent tiles, as well as the target tile, are revealed in clear weather? Does this count as a strike? Can the old spotting rule be enacted? What about the tiles of the aircraft's path? Can we use the "Ctrl, left click" feature to designate a different path for the return flight?

As an addendum to the above post, what happens when a searching vessel sets a "search"/waypoint on top of an enemy vessel and it is revealed? ....Anyone..? It seems one or the other will suffer a displacement to another tile. How about we treat that as a surprise contact and the one suffering the most damage is displaced to another tile that may have another enemy vessel on it and so the action replicates again and again until the vessel finds an unoccupied tile? Si?

Works just like the sub features, two modes. Why have hunt and silent? If you're not in "silent", then you're in "hunt" mode, so just one choice on the menu. If you park your warship on a convoy line then it is raiding, stay away from them if you don't want to expend supplies. Now for the surface game, the new mode is "evade" for warships, this is treated like an action of avoidance, like when surface vessels zig-zag and there are fewer action points available, like when a sub goes "silent" and dives. Obviously, naval vessels in "evade" or "silent" cover less distance, but in the other mode they are hellbent for action. Opposing vessels not in evade or silent mode run into each other and stop just like the SC naval feature works now, no pass throughs. So...how does one acquire a silent or evading naval vessel? From now on we use the "Ctrl"-left click mechanism to initiate a "search", like setting a waypoint and it costs an additional AP cause you're searching and that is a deliberate action that takes time and you have more APs cause your in "hellbent" for action mode. If you happen to set a "waypoint"/search on top of, or adjacent to an enemy vessel, whether in either mode(the enemy), that enemy naval vessel is revealed and you may initiate an attack, otherwise the two opposing naval vessels "pass-through" each other. The search now looks like a current waypoint movement with multiple search tasks set by the owning player, as many as the naval vessel has APs to conduct them. We need a search aid now for when multiple warships are searching for an enemy vessel(s), so we don't cover the same sea tile twice. I propose that a dotted, imposed line show the search path of each vessel until the player ends his turn so to illuminate the tiles that have been searched, the waypoint/searched tile has a small "s" on it. One more thing. Since our SC naval icons are actually task groups, I propose that all vessels with ASW level 1 be allowed to reveal "silent" subs also with this search mechanism. That is all!:eek:

Good luck with that, Colin! I've been asking for the "pass-through" feature for all naval units for years now. It doesn't seem that it would be that difficult to incorporate with the current engine as we already have a unit coded to perform that exact maneuver, the Sub, the "silent" option. Here's how it works, whenever a unit is found with the current setup, it will have the option to go over to silent mode, for surface vessels we'll call it the "evade" feature. The unit can now pass through all surrounding enemy units at a reduce AP rate and try to escape, but at the end of the move it automatically returns to the regular non-evade mode. This will allow enemy units to try and relocate it and you setup a running battle type of naval scheme, closer to reality. Imagine now that when an enemy unit is found and tries to escape there will be a battle of maneuver on the high seas as combating units locate, attack, retire, reacquire each other until one side escapes or is vanquished. And Colin, sub vs sub combat occurred in the WW2 seascape with over 50 subs losses because of enemy sub actions. So historically we should have sub vs sub combat, another thing that could be improved upon.

My older bones tell me we're looking at April, especially if we get that WW2 campaign. Balancing takes time, it's by far the most time consuming after the code and bug squashing.

Hey HC, you and xwood going to post up an AAR?

Is the HQ adjacent to a port tile, land connected? Does the port have at least 5 supply? Only SF(marines) can embark from beach tiles without being adjacent to a port tile that is in a supply 5 minimum, all others must use a port.

Yep, feels like Deja Vu, back to the roots of SC, SC1 the European Campaign......with way more features. gotta luv it!:cool:

Nup is aware of the problem and I have directed him to this thread. We've been playing and testing and I've had loop problems with the capetown loop that resides off Perth. Thanks for ironing this thing out CH. Probably be a good idea if you'd join the beta team, I'm sure we'd all benefit.

Did I ever mention that SC developers, campaign designers, beta-testers and players have better comprehension skills than your average human?

Damn it Hubert, you're good! You too Bill!

Xwood, I commend your enthusiasm and always enjoy hearing about the new version, please continue to update us with your game vs Happycat. Hubert, why not allow an AAR from xwood and happycat? We don't need screenshots unless you approve. I know from following WitE development that the AARs surely conjure up lots of attention from the fan base. Of course, that might be a problem, since AARs incite a lot of questions also. Come on HC....you need to loosen up in your old age!

This is a real problem when aircraft are grounded by weather and then in the ensuing opponent turn ground units can attack them. I'm sure that more times than not, and in the likelihood of a week turn, that air units would find a window of opportunity to fly away if ground units threatened their deployment. Perhaps with a one strength loss for operational losses due to the calamity of the imminent threat, air units should automatically relocate in proximity of a friendly city tile within X number of tiles when they find themselves next to an enemy ground unit. Or maybe allow the automatic redeployment after the initial attack of one enemy ground unit, but never allowing multiple attacks from enemy ground units in a single turn on the same air unit.

So Big Al, have you convinced Hubert to release your campaign with the WW1 version? Come on Bill & Hubert, I'm soliciting "professional" assistance for Big Al's campaign and inclusion in the WW1 release. If it takes longer for the "gold", IMO that's OK, we all have plenty of great SC campaigns to play until the release date. Please consider one "official" WW2 scenario for the WW1 SC version.:cool: Just asking! "Officially"

Tiles, Hexes, grids, whatever, the main consideration here is that you don't want to detract from the game mechanics, whatever is conducive to further feature development is what should be the grail. SC is not for everyone. If you have a deficiency is space / shape relationship then perhaps you should look somewhere else for your gaming pleasure. You're just not smart enough for SC!

Am I missing something here? Can you not bomb down the supply level of fortifications?

Loosely, this is how it works: The oil resource = x number of fuel points multiplied by your "infrastructure" technology level, this accounts for synthetics and refining. The oil resource must be connected to your occupied territory or you can receive "fuel points" from convoys. New units will be purchased as integral motorized and armored which when moving expend a fuel point per turn. All others are allowed to move the base APs set by the designer for animal / foot movement, no fuel point expenditure. HQ attachments now signify the use of the Army Group motor pool and allow the usual foot units to move further at a cost of 1 fuel point per unit per turn. Air units use 1 fuel point per action, which means fighters can use up to 3 fuel points per turn, 2 intercepts and one escort/attack. You better have fuel points in reserve for your opponent's turn or....no intercepts. Naval units will now use 1 fuel point per movement and if not moving (on patrol) and they are not in or adjacent to a 5 or greater supply port. And of course CAG actions require an additional fuel point per usage. Think about using those gigantic naval groups at sea now and how about the importance of those island ports for basing at no fuel point required. All tracked by the game engine and displayed on the primary screen of SC combat and movement, like a counter, you watch as the fuel is used up by your actions.

Sorry Kuni, IMO there are examples of units in fortified areas that held out for weeks, Brest-Litovsk, Corregidor, etc and that is why you need to reduce the supply that allows the reinforcement, it simulates "siege". A few guys with stockpiled ammo, in improved positions, advanced weaponry and the inclination can hold off a lot of combatants, ie 300 Spartans, can fight like ten their number. I can see your argument and in a way I do agree about cut off units being imperiled, I just want to see the CTVs that will allow the attacker to do the job in an expeditious manner if he so wishes to take the casualties.

I'm with you on this one JDF2. Motorization should be a part of the origination of the unit, no upgrades, no research. If you choose to "motorize / mechanize" a unit, you allocate internal transport, it should be a unit you buy. Now we could use the HQ attachment feature to enhance unit transport by use of the "motor pool", something that was done all the time, the transport is an attached asset allocated by the parent HQ. To me, level 0 motors is foot / animal transport, an AP of 1, anything above that and you're dealing with mechanical transport and the use of "fuel" is required.