SeaMonkey

Crap Hubert! Through all these postings for SC3 ideas I kind of completely blew off the AI considerations, my bad. I know how important an AI is to SC, it has to be competent, to a degree, so now I'm going to have to rethink things and keep that in the back of my head. Possibly you could comment when we start discussing things that you'd naturally recognize as an unfriendly AI feature, guidance helps moves things in a more pragmatic way.:cool:

Port at 0, there is no control by either party, its an open port. Naval strategy to enter a body of water whos entrance is enemy controlled, reduce the port to 0. Carriers, bombers, artillery and rockets work well for that task.

Ahhh a blast from the past, welcome back Kuni, did you bring Rambo with you? Exactly right Kuni, diplomacy is really the axiom that evolves the equation, but I would like to see it involve unit deployments among other things. A large deployment of combat units on ones border has a way of getting your attention, perhaps being antagonistic as well as humbling. Could depend on your own(major) military position or your secretive agreements with the neutral nation being exposed to strong arm tactics, all add to the unknown levels. Aesopo.....agreed, especially the zoom feature and as far as the unit interactions, just wait, that layer will be the biggest departure from our present notions of SC. No longer will there be one or two strike parameters as the amount of combat will be AP driven, saving APs, going to other units, coming back and using the remainder APs later. Just remember there are gormet versions of "Beer & Pretzels"

Don't try and reinvent the wheel, this game reminds me of SC, follow that example!

Outstanding suggestions Wushuki, Days of Decisions scenario, I really like it, but you know the historical advocates will not be so cozy with the idea as you and I. Your post makes me think like the original Risk game in which each player takes an army and places it on the map and the placement continues in sequence until all the countries are taken. I'm thinking of a modification where each player, and SC3 must be optional multiplayers per side, selects a unit in sequence known to the other players so that the opportunity to counter is possible, research remains secretive. After the first player, the next player gets 2 selections, everyone else one and on the next round the third player gets two selections and so on and so forth until all forces have been filled out to the pre-approved deployment levels.

This is probably not the appropriate thread but I'd like to know how many Allied players actually commit the UK to the Battle of France? Here's where I'm going, since France does not survive the Summer of 40 in most games, it is not unusual for the UK to only assist with peripheral units like air and naval and not risk land units like the BEF. What I'm proposing is there should be some mechanism, likely a diplomatic hit to the Allied cause, if there isn't a ground commitment to the continent by UK forces. Like at least a Tank, Army and Corps with HQ support, subject to a variable diplomatic adjustment to the other minor/majors leanings not fully involved. Maybe a VP(victory point)condition if France survives beyond the historical surrender date or some other Summer dateline of 1940. Think about this, potential allies/adversaries witness the alliance of France and UK as lip service and the UK commitment to potential future allies as just that. Seems like a big hit to take to your diplomatic prowess?

That's it Nup, USA is not 100%, better put Algeria back into the UK camp. Not a big deal, but at this stage with the Spanish campaign going on, UK is the only major in position to assist Algeria. Historically appropriate I might add.

Yep Nup, that's it. Gibraltar Allied controlled, Algerian Navy Allied but cannot transit the Straits.

Yes, remember, I'm playing a hotseat controlling both sides, testing the variables. There's more, but I'm only highlighting the significant things I've observed. I've got saves and notes, your mod is under the microscope.

Or......adopt John DF2's scenario of advancement. GGWaW had a decent research progression also and a more realistic build queue(pay as you go, upgrade along the way, delaying), I might add.

You guys are on it! Exactly right Big Al, there must be pros and cons, the decision should never be clear cut and Bill.....well convince Hubert,... your FoW scenario is spot on, but we really need to re-examine the whole SC naval scene for disclosure and chance engagements not to mention different mission oreintations. But that'll come later, I'd like to try the SoP demo........anyone??? feedback from using the seazones, perhaps in addition to a tile/hex format? One thing I'd like to add is some doctrinal decisions at the beginning of the game for each belligerent to follow, or emphasize, perhaps having an effect on selective research programs they'd like to initiate.

This is the obvious thread for posting your ideas regarding FoW, and to some extent decision events can have that effect also. Somehow we need to create a condition that has somewhat of a neutralizing factor for our hindsight knowledge of WW2 if we want to simulate the apprehension that the political and military leaders must have felt. Among other ideas, I want to throw something out there that has the possibility of changing the initiative, kind of like the bump up of units' morale and readiness when a nation has performed successful invasions. This will be a bit different though, remember the VPs inherent in the capture of locations proposed in the 1st layer thread? Could that be linked to an initiative change and what exactly would the effect be? Do you ever find yourself growing tiresome of the SC early game, you know...Poland, Denmark, LC, Norway, France, USSR, etc. How about the Germans always going first? What if a player could change the order by gaining the initiative, have two turns in a row or at least a second limited turn. How about select a commander's Army Group to receive the extra offensive incentive, purchased with MPPs, sort of an offensive chit, something at a player's discretion to use when he wants, dependant on other layers, interactive. Think about it!

The Italians DoWed them after they conquered Tunisia, remember I couldn't DoW Vichy with the Axis and now the Germans are moving through Spain. So presently Algeria is Allied, Germans have taken Madrid but Spain fights on with a UK contingent and the Italians are having a rough time taking Algeria with the Allied navies actively engaged in the Med.....all except for the Algerian navy which appeared upon the Italian DoW. I moved the Algerian Navy out into the Atlantic, reinforced them, but now unable to re-enter the Med, they are stopped at Gibraltar.:confused:

Hey Nup, what's the deal, Algerian navy can move into the Atlantic, but not back into the Med through Straits of Gibraltar?

Good point Nup and I intended to connect friction through the various other levels, terrain and weather for example. Think about the wear and tear on a unit moving through mountaneous terrain in a snow storm(not on a road), what do you think :confused:....add a couple degrees of friction? Now combine that with an enemy unit who's TO&E exerts an active Zone of Control(ZoC), various firefights occur as your unit moves, of course unless your intel is good enough to disclose their deployment (or your unit's footprint is small or has a special TO&E or perhaps greater experience than the enemy unit, etc., etc.) allowing you to avoid contact. Now compare that to them sitting the turn out in an urban area of increased amenities. Get it......?? ..."friction".:cool: This new SC3 in going to be highyl interactive with the layers combining to cause different variable effects.

Ahhh, now we're talking Zinfandel, can't really say I like those type of grapes;), but you're on to something, "design a unit". I'll submit to you that a battalion should be the basic building block and as you add the different types to the combat group it takes on the characteristics of the collective CTVs. For instance, you wish to create an assault unit, you add some battalions of assault guns, combat engineers, perhaps some special forces, some heavy artillery, depending on the target, some heavy weapon battalions and you now have a proper mix of elements to perform the task. You highlight the unit with support from an elligible HQ and additional assets are available for the battle, all in one battle group designed by the player for the specific mission at hand and then give it your customized label/name. Can you imagine that now those single tiles/hexes deployments won't be a problem, depending on the type of terrain and support mechanism available remembering there will be limitations.

I'm concluding, hopefully accurately, that the foundation of a new SC will start with the map grid. In keeping with the present format, we'll stick with the concept of tiles, two types, land and water. My vision for the inherent editable values for those tiles should be VPs (victory points) and MPP values so that any tile used to create a map could have an incentive for a player to possess. Now what about movement, the map is the basis for location and SC units will have to move through it, so I'm proposing that there should also be a "friction" value. What I mean is there is a cost for movement through each and every tile, again editable. Your naval and land units move and expend fuel, their weapon systems will be subject to deteriation, their human occupants get tired, become less efficient from the grind, its the physics of warfare. The resistance to force is "friction" and is in additon to combat damage, so every "tile" will have a friction value coded into it. The friction value will erode a unit's efficiency, morale, strength, and supply status as it moves from one location to another and in absence of a high supply proximity, to a lesser extent, deteriate as it remains stationary. What else for the first layer? We have VP, MPP, and Friction for the campaign creators' tools, before we move to the terrain layer or weather layer, what are the additional features to be coded into the SC3 foundation?

Understandable, no promises necessary, just the inclination of pursuit, it'll be fun and thought provoking. If you don't mind, I'd like to keep it in the open, that thing about more heads are better than two and I know we'll get substantial contributions from the forum. Now I have miniscule knowledge of Eiffel, or programming for that matter, but I remember you saying something about the different layers of SC and how the processors slow down by computing the complicated algorithms associated with the supply, communication, terrain, weather, etc layers that are incorporated into SC. Is that a correct assumption? If so, then we'll want to emphasize minimization of those layers and make more editable features inherent into each layer. For instance the initial building platform is the map, defined by the tiles, hexes, coordinates, whatever, representing the 3 dimensional playing surface(air, surface=sea & land, and the submarine realm, interspace). What else should be considered for the foundation, the initial layer?

Of course Hubert, it would be my pleasure and I was just poking around with generalized statements to see if the World's best developer was receptive to a new SC vision. It seems you are, as I'd hoped. So let me gather my thoughts, some of this stuff you've heard before, perhaps a little guidance would help. I intend on initially examining the foundation of a good wargame, my thoughts are that will encompass the units and the map(pieces and playground), your thoughts? Am I on the right track? Oh.....again....sorry for taking this thread off...I'll start another..I mean.... are we serious here Hubert? Are you sure you want to embark upon this new path?:confused: I mean, I'd rather play than post, with my limited gaming time. If this is it for SC...I'm OK with just playing, love the game!:cool:

My apologies Barry, didn't mean to take this "off topic", but your posting underlines what I have been thinking about for a new SC. Sorry Hubert this SC gig is up, SC needs to evolve, not necessarily radically, but a new foundation needs to be laid and its got to be flexible for the initial layers to display the needed dynamics for gameplay. There's a lot of good things that have come out of this run of version two of SC and I'm not advocating dismissing any of those features, but its time for an SC3 and it needs to be built from the ground up. I've got lots of ideas as I'm sure everyone else has also, but a little revision of the current engine is not going to carry this legacy any further. Its time to start anew!

You must edit sequential turns to simultaneous turns.

I think we're going to need some deep adjustments to the code, especially for unit interaction, time for....."design" a unit and an editor that has additional flexibility.:cool: That ought to get you started!

That IS the idea, to get some human competition, but I'd like to get a little further with this examination, at least getting USA and USSR actively engaged. I'll need to get your latest update first as I'm playing an older version, the one with the Vichy problem. I also started an AI mirror with Big Al's Brute Force and with the storm season taking a breather, I've got some things to catch up on, so maybe by August. The MJO is starting an upward motion in the EAtl and the Cape Verde season will be starting soon, still a lot of energy out in The Gulf and Caribbean also, this recess won't last long.

Maybe you're right, but I've been practicing SC for like what.?.7-8 years, I can't remember.:confused: Thing is, I'm playing against myself, Hotseat, trying different moves, strategies, decisions, saving each turn, going back to get the best performance from each side, that's how I check for balance. Granted....I'll never be able to model all the possibilities, but I'm trying to give each side a fair shake and the Allies just seem overpowering.......its seems....presently....but I'm playing on.....just passing on whims, you've obviously got a lot more experience at this mod than I.:cool:

Yeah I got you, dislike too much micromanagement. I haven't tested the settings,.......:confused: so I guess when those air units display "strike/intercept = 1/0", we'll still get an intercept?