SeaMonkey

If this is your first PBEM, you'll need to start a game in PBEM mode, end the turn(don't "play" the turn) and the folder will be created in the "multiplayer" file. Then you can play for real.

In a short brief, the corral technique is focussed on making the subs run into your naval vessels which means you have to have a lot of assets available, in other words, you can surround them and they cannot get away. If the subs are in proximity of land, the land tiles are part of the "fence", now go round'em up or at least herd them into your spotting assets. Remember assets include transports and the cheapest transports are corps, or if a mod, garrisons, anti-tank, etc. Imagine these as decoys on your convoy routes and of course mixing in some of the points Ludi makes the sub war a lot less painful.

Someone needs to train Bluestew in the fine art of "the corral" technique.

Now this goes to show exactly what I'm referring to as x has obviously misunderstood my whole presentation. I'm not talking, haven't been talking about a specific unit for the aa feature, it is an upgrade. Thing is you have to create a slot for it and you only have 3 slots available for tech upgrade categories, that is why you need to join the IW and AT into heavy weapons. Now I'm open to another way to get this done, just remember this aa upgrade needs to be applicable to ports, cities, villages, etc. as well as land units and I'd just as soon it would be separated from the NW tech for naval surface units also, how about NW, ASW, and AA? The idea is to create another parameter of interaction between attacking and defending units and if we move into a more contemporary setting then obviously we'll need to represent surface to air missiles as they are a very effective defense against air units. It is absolutely inexcusable for anti-air to not be an effective counter against ground attacking fighter and TAC SC air units in this game, what a monumental oversight! This all goes along with a further expansion of air unit capabilities also as you will be able to customize your air units more thoroughly. Imagine you build a bomber, now you can choose, do you want it to be strategically oriented or more tactically capable of supporting ground units like interdicting the defenders logistical tail. You have the three upgradeable categories, SB, GS(ground support) and LR. OK ...you want some fighter bombers.....anybody ever heard of those...well they are not in SC. You build fighters with advanced air for the air superiority role and you can allocate some of the group to GS, and then there is LR also. Choices for the players....you guys like choices?:confused: Now don't get me wrong, the GS provision is not as effective for bombers as it would be for fighter-bombers, which in turn would not be as effective as the TAC is now in the GS mission, but all of them would be subject to be shot down by the aa upgradeable, ground unit tech category. Am I clear now...can we see the light? You think there is a problem with the double strike feature applied to air units even though is represents the nature of their reactivity vs ground units, ask yourself, which units are the fastest responders? Who's faster, Tanks(which have twin attacks) or fighter planes? Trick question.....Duhhhh??? You think when you use your fighter-bombers in the ground support role and they take some massive losses from a high teched AA ground unit you're going to choose to initiate the second strike and take a chance of losing the unit? This is not space science, we're not replacing someone's brain here, surely you SC veterans can visualize this feature interaction? And lastly....someone tell me this is not a realistic representation of WW2 warfare....please!

Crap! Here it is a month later and finally I get someone to share my vision for a better SC. Isn't it funny that there are no comments to this suggestion that I have laid out in detail? Could it be that no one has a viable basis for refute because it makes too much sense? Well at least David has signed on somewhat to the "movement", his WiF mod seems to play out very well, but it remains for Hubert to create our slot and make the adjustments to the air units. Silence.....my old friend!

So you think that the logistical supply dumps that HQs represent should be cheap? I won't mention the pool of army, corps combat assets, like combat engineers, anti-tank, artillery, anti-air, special assault, recon, etc., etc. units that are available with the HQ support parameter that "attachment" simulates.:confused: Yeah...all that stuff should be cheap...and the government should provide me free housing, transportation, education, health care, food, and above all entertainment for my entire life, and my love ones too. Shouldn't cost me a dime. After all...I'm entitled...to cheap HQs!

The "auto" mode leaves the game AI in complete control of assigning units to the command of that HQ. The "auto-assist" mode allows the player to set the attachments manually and if the player fails to fulfill the capacity of that HQ's attachment level will automatically assign the additional attachments. The "manual" mode is for complete player control to attach units to the HQ, no AI assistance. Left click the HQ and observe the green and blue highlighted units, the green are the attached units, the blue are the units the can be attached but are not presently attached. Move the cursor to one of the green units and right click, the menu will allow an attach or unattach action, choose your decision. If the HQ is maxed out you will have to unassign an attachment before you can attach another unit.

Totally in agreement with you Ludi, but the give and take that is the SC system does a pretty decent job. Obviously there are shortcomings and historically this has been the weakest parameter of the SC engine, but I'm sure......if....and that's a BIG IF.. Hubert does decide to follow through with the creation of a new SC3 engine he'll pay particular attention to this part of the game model. All the games, both board and PC platforms, are usually lacking in simulating the naval-air aspects of WW2 to a realistic degree that I have played over the years save one, "The Hunt for Red October". Now to be accurate tHfRO, was a contemporary type boardgame but when coupled with the "Red Storm Rising" game engine did a pretty good job of representing the search dynamics that are a very essential part on any naval game engine. Perhaps it would be relevant to review those operational features of both RSR & HRO for the new game engine as I'm sure they will have to go through the necessary modifications to create a decent AI opponent. Needless to say, IMO, the most important detail of the engine will be the "pass through" mechanism.

Just my opinion, but when testing scenarios for balance in the h vs h mode, I've found that playing a hotseat against yourself is the best way to examine the various options available at that game turn moment. If the observations are to be extensive, then multiple reloads usually reveal any indiscretions the play balance as you explore the various outcomes. I realize that this concise focus on play balance consumes a lot of the player's time but it does seem to offer some of the best unbiased conclusions of how the game will eventually play out, especially if you are a veteran of the gameplay dynamics.

I'll agree that if indeed you get some early advances in intel it can be very helpful, but like most other scripted strategies in SC, I don't believe there is a foolproof "key" to winning. Just the fact that the entire technological system in based on variables precludes any tech category from being a/the "key" for success and mixed with the almost limitless variation of actions in the SC engine it's difficult to adhere to a cookie-cutter philosophy. Then again if you are talking exclusively in reference to the AI as being your opponent I'm sure eventually a pattern of action could be deduced that would be considered typical. That's when you uncover the ultimate satisfaction from SC and play against a human where the variables approach infinity.

x.....settle.....cannot you read a bit of sarcasm in my postings.....subtle they may be, hopefully. Bugs...bugs...bugs...are not they just simple adversities that must be overcome? Aren't your nightly REMs saturated with maneuvering to quish the injustice of the AI?:confused: Mine are filled with double strike CVs circling around my head, attacking....escorting....and intercepting my obvious delusion that land based fighters are more effective than CAGs. One thing....all SC CAGs come from the Top Gun school and according to Iceman and Maverick are worth at least four land based fighters for everyone that is carrier borne.:cool:

Yeh buddy, playing the EVIL, the USA and Japan both off loaded numerous times through Seoul with the efficiency running 10%. I had....or so I thought, isolated the area while the Reds worked over the Korean peninsula, but to no avail as the battle for Korea raged on for months. Eventually it took nearly 75% of the entire USSR airforce to bring the place to its knees. Experienced, double strike CVs of both the Japanese and US navies kept the battle even for a long time and consumed all, save one, USSR AF fighters, but the end finally came. Now without any NW upgrades my Red TACs are having hell trying to subdue rampaging shore bombardments by both enemy navies. Someone knew what they were doing when they programmed this AI! I still don't have the huevos to select the +2 setting, going at 1.5 and intermediate.

I've done this Hawaiian thing and I must say its smart to take out Christmas Island also as the USA will station Bombers there and commence incessant sorties. My invasion occurred with the surprise attack and it wasn't long before my opponent showed up with subs and raised havoc with my stationed Kido Butai which eventually caused me to abandon the vicinity of IJN. I just can't wait till those deadly double strike CVs turn up with advanced aircraft flying from their decks and decimate my slow reacting Zeros who have pilots that like to stay in bed half the day. This beautiful island is a treacherous graveyard of Japanese assets, it's like the Sirens to Ulysses' ears.

Rockets are like artillery, they have to be cultivated. It takes time and attentiveness to get them into a format that they are useful, but when you get them there they can be devastating. Here's how that happens, obviously you have to make the purchase and invest into research. Once built a deployment of opportunity is a must, something like in Sicily for attacks upon Malta is an example of a good choice. HQ support helps but is not a must. Now every turn they must be used for an attack, the longer range they have the more opportunities for deployment, but eventually you may have to protect them, especially against air attacks from double strike CVs. Here's the kicker, they're vulnerable and the support they will need from other unit types to keep them safe requires a greater investment than most players are willing to make. Of course if you had double strike fighters and TAC, perhaps anti-air defense, then they may be worth the effort and could be used to set some nice little traps for your opponents as they are a nuisance weapon.

We've still got a lot of testing to do before the first patch, time to explore.

C1 has got it....forgettaboutit, concentrate on Barbarossa if UK player didn't allow Sealion. Later when things may be looking good in USSR(get started early) buy the Rockets and research them. Put them in Sicily and have at it, builds great experience and when you get a chance supplement them with an HQ and then a high experienced TAC from the East Front, Malta will melt away and Africa will be open. In the historical campaign.....Africa is a trap until at least 42.

I would like to see a strategic attack feature for ground units. Perhaps for Paras and special forces only, although I think there is an argument for other land units attacking resources to result in a diminished efficiency and supply level. Like when naval units bombard a resource with a land unit occupying and there is a chance for that unit to take a strength hit. Yeah ...I know...I asked for this before....but humans have short memories.

Hey Bill, how many bombers are available to the Allies by the Summer of 1940(without MPP purchase)? It seems to me my opponent has two deployed into Southern England pretty soon after the fall of France when Brest becomes operational. How many strikes is that on the port per turn? My math says 4, so that means four fighters needed to intercept and if somehow they get a TAC or fighter into the mix....well??? Perhaps your right, I need more practice, need to try some more aggressive strategies with the German Uboats. I'll give it a shot.

Yeah right, Brest as a naval bastion, forget it, double strike carriers will kill anything there and double strike bombers will not only spot but reduce the port to zilch efficiency. You'll need to park 8 fighters in range to intercept the strikes and research anti-air to the highest level. Or just hope for rain and storms when you need to port something.

And don't forget the operational scale also, regiments and battalions are viable with this engine too, although probably not its strong suit. I love loading up the smaller theaters, like North Africa, D-Day, Bulge, etc. and playing them in a day or two, nice for a hotseat against my son or nephew. It promotes family time......or togetherness:p, ....heh, heh...sometimes conflict!

Can't say I disagree with the possibility of that premise. What I was referring to is more or less today's functioning system as a culmination of "the plan".

Actually that makes alot of sense since you would travel more evasively(zig-zag) if you were aware that enemy vessels may be about. I would make the naval vessel's APs be the diagonal number of tiles that one screen encompasses, that way if they start at the extreme left of the screen you could view the end of their movement at the far right of the screen without scrolling.

I'm playing from the other side against the Allied AI and so far, other than some minor engine inconsistencies(bugs) the AI has given a good account of itself, especially into 1942. We'll see, as I put together an EVIL fleet, how the navy vs navy model plays out.

As usual I believe Bill(pzgndr) has the right concept. There is no other way, that I'm aware of, that simulates the unknown occurrences that unfolded as the world continued down the path of conflict. How can you, as each of us is blessed with hindsight, create that air of apprehension that the leaders must have felt as this cataclysmic event continued on to conclusion, its just totally impossible, unless you have a time machine to go back an observe the anguish, we can only imagine. The variants, the branching paths of the decision events, the variables of the combat results, all serve to create that feeling and still only scratch the surface.

So Snow, assuming that is true, would you say, or could it have been that the "elite" saw fit to completely intertwine the world economies so as to make war economically inconceivable due to a domino collapse of "the system"?