SeaMonkey

The white highlighted outline, means in range for "escort", the orange highlight means in range for intercepts. Remember intercepts work from the "spotting" range, not the attack / escort range. What is the spotting range of the Italian fighters, is the proper mission selected, auto / intercept?

Yeah, I get it Al, but after pulling off the attack so many times in PT and now in Global, it's getting a bit long in the tooth. Besides, it takes too long to get the KB back into a suitable deployment to invest into the SRA attacks. Further, if you really examine the PH attack, you understand that it was not that consequential to the overall unfolding of the war as far as military operations. Now if Nagumo would have launched a third / fourth attack on the base facilities, then we might have something. How about incorporating that "what if" into the strategy?

Bill, eventually oil as a major coveted resource is going to have to be addressed. Anyone that believes that war does not revolve around this one asset is surely "missing the boat". As food, shelter, and ammunition are represented by the supply aspects of SC, the ability to move air, naval and motorized assets around the map without a reference to energy allocations is a gross step in the wrong direction. I know the fossil fuel parameter is not totally ignored by the engine, but unfortunately the implimentation of the fuel characteristics to drive the war engine are approached in a way that just seems comical in retrospect to the enormity of the historical consequences. Are we looking for a solution, a further complication of the SC engine to track "fuel" as the units are pushed around the map? What are some suggestions?

Again, the mechanism is there. What keeps units from reinforcing? Low supply, right? So, if their supply is reduced through strategic attack on the facilities they are deployed within, ie ports / cities, then they will be unable to reinforce to a degree. Here's my reasoning, what a loss in combat strength represents is men and machines incapicitated in the enemy attack, and then in the ensuing friendly turn a brief respite in combat occurs allowing some of those machines to be repaired and some of the injured to be patched up and returned to the fight. Now who's going to tell me that's not a reasonable assessment? One thing I will stand with is it is pretty tough to reduce both a port and a city in one turn and that is one reason I'm an advocate for double strike bombers. I also think ground units attacking those facilities should also have a strategic attack value to further erode the supply levels. Shouldn't be that tough to institute with this SC engine.

You don't have to use 8 units, you just have to clear out the enemy ZoCs. If you deploy units 1 tile away from the target tile, leave a 1 tile buffer, you can cut off the enemy unit and then use bombers to reduce supplies. The one problem with small maps like the default campaign is this tactic is a little more difficult and that's why I like Nup's campaign, plenty of room for maneuver options. The mechanism is there for the player to use. Oh, and BTW, Stalingrad was supplied by the Luftwaffe for a couple of months, albeit inadequately.

Agree with both wlape3 and Colin. MPPs for operation of drop capability should be tied to infrastructure technology just like transports by sea, air and rail.

Nice to hear Bill. How about something that could be prompted by game conditions? For example: say France falls and the Japanese move south and capture Nanning with forces next to the French Indochina border, these actions initiate a decision event for the Axis player. "Would you like to issue a letter of demand for occupation of and cooperation from FIC, with the possible consequence of an ABDA (America, British, Dutch, Australia) embargo?" The resulting "yes" would incur a trade embargo reducing the MPP take for Japan and a belligerence escalation from the Allied majors, UK and USA. The affirmative response would also intiate a DE for the Allied player. For instance, "Japanese demands for FIC cooperation can be somewhat countered by force deployments in Malaya and DEI, X MMPs for X turns for a UK bomber unit in Singapore(UK MPPs) and an additional ground unit(Marines, Armor, etc)) for the Philippines (USA MPPs), available in X turns." I'm thinking if these types of dialogue can be set up by DEs, somewhat on the lines of History but allowing for different player reactions, an alternative unfolding could be examined by the game components with the culmination of warfare, ie "Days of Decisions", prewar diplomacy.

I'm wondering if it would be possible to activate a decision event for the opposing player by the answer of the phasing player's decision? In this manner the scenario designer could initiate a diplomatic dialogue between sides.

Big Al has got it right, his mod is sandwiched in between the default and Nupremal's scenarios, a very good one representing that middle kingdom. Geofighter, I've got a problem with that script you bring up, the Italians attacking Greece. I like it, but because Albania is only one tile, and starting off there is only one Italian corps there, it does not represent the Order of Battle for that campaign. If the player is going to be presented with the "surprise" of a DoW, then I believe the Italian corps should be exchanged for at least an Italian army to represent the reinforcements that would have occurred on that front before initiating the attack. Other than that I'm fine with it, it's really historically accurate as Hitler was surprised by the Italian move.

Hey IR, good to see you back. Rambo needs a lesson, getting a little cocky with his 7 wins in a row, he'll think he's the San Antonio Spurs before to long. Too bad you missed out on the tourney, would've been a good place to sharpen your SC skills. Global is where it's at currently for SC, but WW1 seems to have some features we all asked for way back in SC1, like retreats, and of course the modding community is going strong. If you're still into grand strategy wargames, this is the place, nothing beats SC, likely never will as long as Hubert hangs in there and with Bill as his apprentice, who knows, there's still a lot more to come.

As far as SC, the latest is always the greatest. There are demos from every release. Just think of each SC as a step up in complication. SC1, simple, intuitive, rapid fire turns. Global, a substantial investment in learning the features, although still very user friendly, not a grognard's escapade, but a very decent AI and outstanding PBEM mechanics. Its like the old "middle of the road" AH and SPI boardgames without the tedious movement of the pieces.

The function is nonessential, don't use it. Look canuck you can manage your units without the "N" key. Access the Strategic Map, see the blinking icons? Those are units that haven't moved yet. Break the map down into theaters, move from one to another, finish moving with one nation then proceed to the next, the icons are different for each nation. This is not a big deal! You can do it!

This is a nice feature, like Colin says, it can be explained in rational terms as acceptable to relieve a commander of his duties and replace him with a more competent one. Personally, I don't use it that much, but on occasion it can be most helpful with a troublesome situation, for a little extra edge, sometimes just enough to turn the tide.

Bill, are you going to put this baby on the WW1 release?

This is an old problem that has been intermittent in the past, one I'm paranoid about because it has shut down plenty of SC turns, usually at the end when cycling through units that haven't moved. What a pain it is in PBEM. I just don't use the feature anymore. I've tried it a couple of times in GC without a problem but it's just not worth it, I'm always thinking about it whenever I hit the next "N", making it a jinx. Don't do it!

You did it! I knew it could be done with this awesome editor Hubert has created and the equally innovative minds we have lurking here. I'm sure glad you guys funnel your thought processes into SC.....otherwise ...y'all could be dangerous.

I understand about the playability and balance, Al, and you should be commended for your excellent mod, I'm just trying to help make it better with viable historical what-ifs for additional options, both sides. We can argue all day long about whether they did this or if I do that, this would happen, so let's work backwards. We know from documentation that eventually USSR would declare war on Germany, and I believe eventually that the USA and Japan were coming to blows also with or without PH, they both knew it. Historically Japan had two options, either relinquish its grip on China or go to war to obtain the raw materials of the SRA and yes, like your friend says, Japan fully recognized that meant war with UK and USA. What we know from hindsight is that option one means Japan would lose face and the fabric, beliefs and cultural determination instilled in the populace would not allow that to happen, in essence the Japanese also believed in their own manifest destiny. The West failed to grasp that so that left only option 2. Just like it is advantageous for Germany to strike USSR early before they, in their turn attack, it is likewise for Japan to commit before UK and USA can reinforce their forward bases, these are the catalysts for the conflict. The Japanese oil reserves are depleting very quickly, ie MPP reduction, when the full Allied embargo and asset seizure occurs after the occupation of FIC, get it? The Nipponese are in decline from that moment forward and must initiate the seizure of SRA, especially DEI, or become inconsequential, the clock is ticking. Now how you simulate that with the SC engine is something I'm sure a lot more people in the beta testing ranks know about than I do. I just know if the Japanese player wants to win he must secure the DEI and SRA and not leave the Philippines astride his lines of communications as likewise for the UK base at Singapore. The fact remains that the Allies did not go to war over Japan's seizure of FIC. Would they have if Japan took DEI? Can Japan take DEI without staging in Borneo, the Celebes? Surely UK would have gone to war over Borneo or Malaya, but what about USA? The USN 3rd naval build cycle was not due for completion until 1943 when parity shifts in the Pacific to USA. IMO, any move further into the SRA after FIC occupation activates UK bringing more assets into the region. Any attack on British assets in the SRA or moves against DEI compels USA to move forward to the Philippines and Guam and also in joint resolutions to build up southwestern and western Pacific UK colonies. The Japanese player will not win if he allows the USA to project further power into the Philippines, anywhere westward of the Hawaiian Islands, and so the conflict begins, as it did, with Japan as the aggressor, at a time of their choosing.

Well, it is what it is, perhaps FIC should be on its own, a minor not tied to France, where it can be swayed by Axis diplomacy and not at the mercy of a Vichy script. The SRA = Southern Resource Area, especially DEI, Borneo, Burma, where the oil was. The only reason Malaya and the Philippines were a part of the SRA strategy was flank and communication security as well as staging areas, the real target was DEI. This was the only reason to go to war, the raw materials from these areas offset the embargoes inflicted by the Allied powers. There was a "school of thought" that had American appeasement set to Japanese concessions in China, withdrawal, but the IJA had too much invested and were firmly entrenched in Japanese politics, the IJN would have relinquished had they been in a more politically powerful position, my opinion of course. The "what if" goes like this, IJN in control, removal, albeit slowly from China with emphasis of taking European colonies from German conquered powers, Dutch and French. Eventual clash with UK over Burma and Malaya and of course the finality of having to remove the Philippine threat by making USA declare war, no PH. You have to remember the rather hypocritical USA political viewpoint of the Far East, the Administration wanting to get involved, but the public took a dim view of Americans going in harms way to preserve the European colonial aspirations, never mind those of the USA. America represented "moral" clarity with respect to China with its advocacy of the "Open Door" policy sometimes clashing with European interests. IMO it would have been a while before USA declared war on Japan, there would be a need for an "incident" and only after forward bases in the Philppines, Guam, and some of the UK colonies were built up to necessitate military power projection on to the Japanes lines of communication from the SRA. It's your mod, I'm just trying to interject additional strategic variables, SC thrives on multiple paths of execution.

I'm OK with that, it's only reasonable that UK and France would go to war with Japan on a FIC DoW admist USA escalation. Yeah I knew about Siam, but before I can get to Bangkok, UK puts a bomber there and with my units at low supply(because FIC has gone neutral on Vichy event) its tough to get the city back. I'm not sure this is a viable strategy(it may be foolish) but how will I know if I can't play it out? It turns out that the early Barbarossa works very well as it allows a prepositioning of Axis forces for a more efficient 1941 Summer of activities in USSR. Just make sure the consequences of the early Japanese actions in the SRA are concurrent with historical precedence, embargo and belligerency.

Exactly, I'm DoWing FIC early 40 and it has surrendered before the Germans get anywhere close to Paris. The Japanese are moving on Thailand, about ready for their surrender and Vichy is declared. All Japanese units staging in FIC for SRA and Thai attack disappear, no relocation, Scotty has beamed them up! Its like, adios MoFo, we ain't attacking anybody, SeaMonkey, in fact, we're going on vacation never to found again, good luck with your fricken war! Needless to say this completely screws up my Japanese timetable for the whole war, I now have to go back and retake FIC and then restage new troops for the SRA invasion. I'm OK with any hits to readiness and Japanese MPPs for the FIC incursion, as it was historically, the Allies completely embargoed Japan when they announced the Franco-Japanese protectorate of FIC. This was after Vichy occurred, but it was the IJN's conclusion that moving south was the only logical alternative to the IJA's sphere of emphasis in China and possible escalation with the USSR. Even before the European conflict, Japan has secured Hainan and the Spratlys in the S.China Sea and was making opening moves to threaten the whole of the SRA in hopes the Allied powers would relinquish control without war. Let's face it Al, the Europeans and Americans were in no position to directly threaten Japanese moves into the SRA, all they could do was sabre rattle, use diplomacy, and terminate trade agreements which caused even a more determined IJN to move south and secure the oil. The IJN recognized it early and so does General SeaMonkey and we want to "get'r done" as quickly as possible. Why put off the inevitable? The whole Axis "what-if" to win the war is a tight timetable, early SRA and early Barbarossa.

That "advisor" feature would be a mighty nice addition, especially for our novice players, or those with little historical background, might catalyze some thoughts into lessons of the past and how they apply to the future. Unfortunately our lawyer, "vulture culture" would jump on Hubert right away with a law suit if he were to link up some historical enhancements for profit, so likely you'll have to continue your own research. Think about it a little more sc and you'll eventually see how the Japanese need to proceed, examine the map, contemplate the possibilities, and use the historical lessons to guide you, your clarity will increase.

Wait a minute Al, I don't give a "Flying Fickle Finger of Fate" about what the Yanks think, I have to create the "Greater Co-prosperity Sphere". FIC is the best staging area for the SRA and unlike those Tojo cronies from the past, I'm not waiting around, the IJN needs that oil. Historically if it hadn't been for the IJA, the IJN would have moved faster into the SRA, like I'm going to do.:cool: What? You're going to penalize me because I'm a better decision maker, sounds like socialism to me. Just because I'm smarter, willing to make the sacrifices, and just dog on better looking, and people like me, you're not going to allow me to be successful. There's something ordainly wrong about that hypothesis!:mad:

Did you fix the FIC Vichy problem where, if Japan has taken FIC and the Vichy DE is responded to "yes", all Japanese units in FIC disappear?

How about our deselect feature for units that still have APs to reselect later and finish their move? Hubert, Bill?

I'm with JJR all the way on this one, bombers are awesome, especially if we get a third tech category for SC WW1. Even in the mods I play, Al's and Nup's, where bombers have only a single strike, I buy, I tech and I selectively use. Think about this Oso, when do rebuilds not occur for your opponent?:cool: