SeaMonkey

I've got the 1.04 patch and now looking for the latest 1.16 version, what about it Nup? Soon as you get it ready for DL, I'll be able to start a game with you, either side, take your pick.

Not to be negative, but I did say that anything after GC was getting a bit long in the tooth. Why do you think I was trying to inspire a discussion with the SC3 threads? Seems to me I was the one with most of the ideas when I was looking for some veteran input to help develop some innovation for the next edition. Now to be truthful there was some feedback, but I had to really go reaching for some things and that is not my forte', I like the ideas to flow, come naturally. All this leads me to some conclusions, the primary one being that we've exhausted the slate on ideas for the strategic scale that are consistent with simple gameplay, not to mention the competecy level of the AI when moving forward with additional complications. So now you've got to ask yourself, are we really going to see anything as innovative as we did with the first two releases, SC1 & 2, without deviating from the friendly interface we all have grown to expect?

Not to mention the "National Morale" level which leads me to believe countries will now surrender if a certain level is not maintained. As a major, you will now have to pay particular attention to the NM level of your minors if and when the enemy decides to pressure them. I'm wonder about these new units, especially recon bombers, hello Pacific islands! Shell technology seems to be another interesting aspect, we'll have to see what the WW2 modders can do with this and the new other features. I'm not a big WW1 fan but looking and dreaming of some possibilities the new mechanics bring to our WW2 stage leaves me salivating!

To be precise. Bravo Hubert!

Good ideas JDF2, I kind of like the "20" option as that is about the number of turns per year, so assured, an advance per annum. Perhaps one change would be the catch up multiplier, opponents level minus your current level, so when a player is behind by two tech levels there is an appreciable chance of obtaining the next level(a two multiplier)sooner. If you're only behind by one level then you need to plow ahead with research at the current model times 1 multiplier, it reduces an incentive to wait and keeps the game more competitive as neither side will maintain a large tech level advantage for long.

Not meant to be a slight of your SC abilities JG, which are well known by us veterans, only a recognition of Colin's well earned prowess. Colin's moves mirror a student's attentiveness in the first row of class in the SC auditorium, no matter who the opponent.

I hear you John, loud and clear and by far your take on this "back in the day" was the best approach I've seen yet. How about enabling that link to the discussion algorithm you so eloquently developed? I want to keep that fresh in everyones mind, especially HC. Currently testing Nupremal's mod, once again, level 5 techs occurred before 1942, once for Germans, anti-tank, and the other the Japanese IW. This is with 1 chit max at 150 MPPs per chit. When these two early aggressor nations get these kind of advances this soon, it really is a game breaker and completely sends even a well balanced scenario awry.

And Hubert, if you happen to get to the loops display on the strategic map, how about a zoom feature for one level like we have on the war map? Thanks.

I've read about the extraordinary efforts to repair naval vessels when in urgent need, ie. CV "Yorktown" for the battle of Midway, but in SC many times naval vessels that are reduced in strength sit out the rest of the conflict in some isolated port. The current SC mechanic mimics what occurred for the "Yorktown" incident, but does not truly simulate the way usual naval repairs are implimented. So...to incorporate the well known human ingenuity and improvisation trait into the equation, how about allowing naval vessels to repair in their country of origin homeports at a one strength per turn allocation up to say a max of 5, maybe 8(editor defined). At this slower, more efficient rate the cost in MPPs would be reduced, say to 5% of the build cost(editable again), and would be activated to automatically occur every turn(MPPs reduction until maxed) by a right click menu option, attached to the campaign designer's designated ports(in the editor) for this feature.

Excellent motivational inspiration, prize money!

An obvious display of your SC mastery, Colin.:cool:

Sorry JJR, Kurt is up next, although I guess I could go with you on the opposite side, that is if you can put up with my slow play.

Well Pace, it doesn't work everytime, but if you examine the CTVs, you'll be able to ascertain what unit and tech you need to concentrate on for the counter. Of course Cat had a good suggestion, down to instincts, "Fight or Flight", might be advisable to buy some time.

If I don't get tech advances, I just build units, sometimes the whole allotment, except for BBs and CVs. What's good about the randomness is you're guided to a different unit mix. If you're getting aircraft techs you build an air heavy Order of Battle, Naval Warfare, goes with both air and naval, IW and HT, go with the ground pounders. It all works out, you get what the game and your opponent gives you and orient your strategies accordingly. What's wrong with that?:confused:

The way I've handled this in the past is by allowing the novice player to stay close in the competitive race, advising him of particular maneuvers to counter my play. That's of course if I'm in the advantage. I also telegraph my moves and strategies to him so that he may learn of the different avenues of approach from the other side, and discuss my motives for the different gaming logics. It doesn't take long for them to start to pick up the peculiarities of SC and become competitve on their own. It can also be very gratifying when I tell a player exactly what I'm going to do and then pull it off in spite of their efforts. Like when I warned Rambo I was going to do Sealion from the very start of the game and eventually blew him off the British Isles as he chose to ignore me turn after turn.:eek: So my vote is that it is unnecessary to include a gaming hedge for your opponents when you can accomplish it by your method of play.

He intends to talk you to death!

Essentially it is SC2. Other than the obvious map changes and a plethora of Decision Events, the units and mechanics are what we have been accustomed to over the past years. There are of course the custom made scenarios which I can't speak highly enough about, how well they have evolved. The betas have made sure the generic campaigns are immersive and balanced. The main campaign plays fast in relation to its size vs the old SC1 European theater, but as I stated there is more player involvement with the SC2 platform. Its kind of hard to express the "feel" this Global Campaign has, it is such a finely tuned piece of software, devoid of the game killing bugs you get a lot of in today's PC gaming market. Being able to recreate the combat and to a degree the diplomatic atmosphere of this most titanic struggle in man's history is no small achievement, and Hubert has done a magnificent job of molding these sophisticated elements into a simple system that produces the "flavor". Its the little things, the blockade mechanics, the sub vs convoy routines, the loops, the coordination of majors and minors on a grander scale. In short, GC really pushes your competency level at handling the SC mechanics as the strategic planning taxes your mental abilities to subvert chaos. Gotta Luv it!:cool:

You must be new to SC! This reminds me of some posts back in the SC1 days. Do you want to take it from here John...aka JDF2? Consistent with the SC series, inconsistent tech advances....."Its in the Game".

japinard, as I remember it, you're one of our SC1 souls. Since you're here, I have the feeling that little someone inside of you is calling out, are you listening?:confused: When you read a compelling book, do you put it down before you've finished the last chapter?

JJR, remember.....code of the West, "no matter how fast the gun, there's always someone faster".

So .., is this one "it", Big Al? And Hubert, will the new patch be compatible with existing games in 1.03? I might just DL to take a look at the map and playing pieces.

Belay that Big Al, unit density seems to be the primary factor for slow AI & Human play. Of course, if you've interjected too many partisan creations(the actual units) in the game then you'll need the troops to control them, its a fine line.

Currently the mini map is probably to small to show the loops, especially for the large map configurations, but how about the strategic map? Hubert, would it be too difficult to use letters, or numbers for that matter, really I don't care, just some designation to denote the loops on the strategic map? I would suggest they be color coded for the country/alliance that can use them, if exclusive, if not, use generic white for all parties usage. On the strategic map they would look something like this, color coded," A->"(arrow to show direction of the transfer, origination) and on the other end "<-A" for the destination. Easy to see on the strategic map, not too large as to commit clutter, but just enough for the players to get a quick reference for where things are arranged and where they lead. This would really help out our novice players as they don't always realize the strategic importance of these locations. So....how about it? An easy transition, or better for SC3?

Nice job Big Al, as soon as I get a little deeper into Nup's mod, I'll start a mirror of your variant against the AI. Your suggested settings for experienced players are?

Hey Nup, did you fix the DE that diverted UK Lendlease to USSR? I chose to divert but the convoy never set up. Sabot, did you extract the file? After you've extracted the file you then have to separate the two files that are inside the extracted one, use Windows Explorer and place them both in the campaign folder separately, then it'll show up.