SeaMonkey

Oh and Dave, while you were away, myself, among others discussed the apparent inequality of Landbased vs carrier based aviation strikes and CTVs, although you've added a very interesting wrinkle of the defficiencies in UK naval air operations. My contention is that LB air should have 2 strikes also, toning down their CTVs appropriately, giving them greater flexible, with their mobility in mind. What is important is to not make them too deadly vs land targets as well as naval units, and because now they have greater flexibity, two strikes, you could limit the number of them for each countries build Q. Again thinking about the situation, if you retained the single strike fighters, then escorting wouldn't be such a big deal also, where TAC usually doesn't receive any losses due to enemy intercepts.

This brings up an interesting thoughts for Global, perhaps actuating a decision event. Let's say that after the initiation of war between Germany and UK / France or perhaps at some % belligerency level, the Germans are presented with a question or two. At some % reduction in MPP level, Germany can pursue the uboat plan and if successful in raiding for a certain number of UK MPPs per turn over a certain time period, UK would become, temporarily, a non-belligerent, a cease fire so to speak. Further, let's say the Kriegsmarine declines the offer for the uboat plan, the next popup, worded simularly, asks the German player if they would like to follow the Z-plan. Of course the option can be to ignore both, answering "No", but wouldn't it open up some great possibilities for the BoA?

Hey JJR, I just got a notification for a Dell laptop, 3 GB RAM, 250 Gig HD, 15" screen, Win7 for $499. Is that cheap enough?

Yep... we'll be awaiting your entry into the Global forum with more great ideas? You will be amongst us with the purchase......right?

Ahhh SC1:), the demo is still available...I think? Anyway it was a basic boardgame adaptation, no diplomacy, basic units, fewer upgrades, very few triggers a "rock, paper, scissors" approach...done very well. The eyecandy was minimal, the decisions very cut and dry and it became a game with a predetermined repetious sequence of unfolding action, because the variations were more restricted. If you wanted to win, the path was apparent and the Axis had the edge and a bidding system developed for the "Fall Weiss" scenario. Ooooh but there was that editor...ehhhhh JJ. Simple, yet elegant enough to interject that variation into user made campaigns and so the game kept going and we railed for scripts.......and more. Boy ...did we ever get it! Get it Snow?:cool:

JJ is right, we did have that long discussion of competing ideologies in that WW2 technical setting. That's kind of what Muzzy Lane did with "Making History" although I'm of the opinion the SC platform is more applicable as the wargame model. Now with Global we might finally get it, hopefully, if Hubert has tweaked the belligerency aspects. Diplomacy is fine as it was but just didn't have enough variation and I for one hardly ever made investments to any significant degree, mostly to counter my opponent. I don't want to think about the inhumane details that war represents, the word itself is enough to conjure up extreme visions of horror and tragedy, ruins the game, I want to dwell in that realm of human competition, war being the sport. I know what it really is! This is SC, our escape from reality. Perhaps with some additional diplomacy/belligerency patches we'll get the ability to have some different alliances, some better use possibilities from conquered territories where we deal with the vanquished in more humane ways than was historical. I want to see a struggle of democracy, fascism, communism, imperialism, etc., to rule the world or at least an unsteady peace of tolerant coexistance. In my SC world the innocent don't get hurt!

Have to admit AZG, it was a refreshing surprise to see the IJN grouped and aggressive, much like humans do. I figured after I won the first game as Japan against the AI, when the game initially came out, that the USA(Allies) would have a walk in the park, so I never played them against the Japanese AI. This first game is an eye opener, great job Hubert, Bill, and Betas, it almost "Feels like the first Time" I ever played SC. Now I just need to clear some gaming time away from my busy schedule, you know how it is this time of year.:cool:

Well now its Oct 43 and I wanted to give some reflection on the other image, the Japanese AI. Got to admit Bill, you've done an excellent job with the AI as far as the Chinese are concerned as they are rapidly crumbling under the relentless assault of Japanese armies backed by 6 HQs. Kunming has fallen along with Chungking and my Chinese are hold up in the valley leading to Lanchow just as Sian has fallen. The Japanese have sustained very few casualties and I'm not sure how long the Nationalists can hold out. It may become paramount for the USA Air Forces's long range strategic bombers to enter the fray although I'm trying hard not to make that committment. The Communists are still in even though the Japanese have applied undue pressure on them also, kind of a sideline campaign as numerous times I have tried to bait the AI to pay more attention to the Commies. So far, withstanding a few isolated transgressions, the Japanese AI has concentrated on disposing of the Nationalists. The Japs have also run the UK out of Burma, although presently the UK led Indians are beginning to get their act together. I would say at this point we have a stalemate even though I don't think that will last for long........"The British are Coming"! The Japanese have expanded pretty much as they did historically, I didn't put up much resistance, mostly ran for the hills and tried to preserve my meager starting forces. If I had to critique anything in the initial battle strokes it would be the failure of the Japanese to jump on the oil supplies of Borneo, and Sarawak right away and get that MPP boost. Now for the key situation, the USA involvement. Just as historical I nipped at Guadalcanal and pretty much ran the Japs out of the Solomons, also taking Tarawa in the Gilberts, both for jumping off platforms later. Mainly though USA embarked upon research, IT and PT first, NW and LR secondary apart from one focussed purchase and that was a bunch of CVs. Why would I buy a bunch of CVs when the USA has already so many in the build Q? Well...one reason, when I start coming back at the islands I will need plenty of floating airbases to vanquish the garrisons and I'll use my TAC attacks from those pristine carriers, no upgrades to them, they will have the singular purpose of ground support for my amphibious forces. So my plan is coming together and I have built all the SBs, all the TACs and all the carriers and I'm just now embarking upon that cycle of amphibians. Yep...my ground pounders are in a sequential mode of embarking and assaulting where I'm constantly landing and transporting ground units all over the central Pacific. So where's the IJN you might ask? Well guess what comes along about June 43, one year after the historical Midway battle here comes the Kido Butai straight down the old slot.....no not the Solomons one. The SC slot, that open ocean between the Solomons and the Marshalls and Gilberts, deployed right in the middle with mucho BBs, Cas and DDs in support, not to mention accompanying subs, as I remember about three. I have to admit, I was surprised, but that doesn't mean I wasn't ready as I had TACs in Bougainville, and SBs in Guadalcanal and a group in Funafuti, all with HQ support. These landbased air units were backed by three carrier groups staging in the New Hebrides and Fiji and on they came from Truk surprising my initial screen of Australian and USN destroyers with a couple of Cas supporting, subs were lurking on the periphery. It was a thing of beauty and blood as the IJN BBs sliced into my forward echelons sinking 2 DDs and a CA, and then the KB sprang to glory with DDs screening, sinking two of my subs, a couple more DDs and my last remaining cruiser screen while disclosing a couple of BBs I had waiting east of Tarawa. But now it was my turn.......ohhh the carnage! With all air assets at the reigns the USA forces went on the attack, it went on for 3 turns, back and forth and finally after losing a couple more BBs and lighter assets all of the KB went to visit Davy Jones and then the mopping up started with most all of the IJN initial task force sunk and I didn't lose a single CV, close.... but no USN CV met the ocean bottom. Now I have returned all forces to Pearl for repairs and upgrades as USA has LR4, NW3, SB3, advanced air3, PT4, IT3, ASW1, AdvSubs2 and many Marines are deploying on the West Coast. I did have to rebuild some DDs and subs for screening, but now a vast armada is coming together and there's not much IJN left to counter this effort. The USN is heading west and Hell is coming with it!

Informative post LGB, welcome to "the forum", if your first post is any indication of future posts, then we will again add more dimension to an already very astute legion of historians.

I'm with the crowd on reducing naval spotting of all aircraft, but especially land based. My reasoning is that since the sea areas are reduced in perspective to land regions the sea areas should eat up more spotting abilities as someone suggested earlier. In fact, I'm getting to the point where I think all spotting needs to be reduced somewhat to enhance the FoW features, and especially for the global version. Further it is my contention that to increase "the search" naval features, the CVs should be the SC units with the greatest recon abilities on the sea. If the ability to provide good reconnaissance at sea is left to the CV task forces, you'll see more use of single CV groups cruising the oceans. If you take a CV unit and just provide it with LR then you could rationalize a CVE group, maybe add some ASW and DD escorts and you have a "convoy duty" task force. I believe it will add some dynamics and variable strategies to the game. Because of the reduced map proportions the disclosure aspects of Global SC should be greatly reduced, IMO.

Dern it DD, I was hopen that my weather related skills would give me the upperhand in SC global, what with my studies of Madden-Julian oscillation, La Nina, and El Nino I was about to predict some Global norming patterns. Maybe get a grant, heck ...I just want my gubbermant check too!:confused:

Isn't it refreshing to see the multitude of strategies and the interaction across a variety of map areas that Nupremal's mod created. See what your missing Terif!

Another past discussion eluded to the use of engineers in a capacity similar to SeaBees, providing HQ like supply and they would also need that Special Forces ability to conduct amphibious landings. Perhaps the cost of the enginner unit should rise as appropriate to its additional abilities or cost MPPs for their selected mission.

All I can offer you a234 is that since SC turns are week(s) long the operating aircraft, in cooperation with the new airfield's communications, coordinate the rebasing and find that little window(of decent weather) in the turn's time period to pull off the mission. For rebasing there is no enemy factor involved like in combat missions which rely on the interaction of the opposing forces, hence "the window" is at the convenience of the operating aircraft.

Rambo, I was once told by a Digital Goddess much wiser than I that you should never buy the "top end" computer and I think that's good advice for just about anything. So I always buy just the 2nd tier level and as far as the hardware, I've not been disappointed.

SC is about variable strategies with combined arms, why would we want to restrict anything that was viable. I ask you...do we have subs that hunt subs nowadays?

Rambo....you we're a "johnny come lately"......what with your "I can beat anyone with the Axis" statement. remember?????......you joined the SC camp...let's get it straight!:mad:

Fricken H2O temp of 58 around here......gonna be spring before I get any waves!

Now we're talking, just like the old days.

Too much hoping and praying, I'm going for Sealion!

Another transgression of the SC naval model brought to the developer's attention a few times in the past. Every major belligerent suffered sub losses from enemy sub operations, whether ambushed or not there is historical context for sub vs sub engagements and it should be "in the game". For the bean counters, total losses from submarine attacks accounted for 66 subs, 5 UK, 1 USA, 21 German, 14 Italy, and 25 Japan.

Probably by now the progress of development has moved beyond incorporation of these suggestions for the naval mechanics of Global SC, although since we've discussed the multiple, variable convoy lanes before, I guess there could be a chance for them. I try and work with an adaptation of existing features, one, like ludi loves, the teleportation feature, but you've got to lose that definition and think of the feature in more abstract terms, like dispersion......I like that better. What that does is just serve to simulate an action that was a characteristic of naval warfare, the contact and loss of, enemy vessels. The SC sea tile represents not only an area of global water but also a tactical battlefield, it is dual purpose. You locate enemy forces in the global grid (lat. & long.), but once found your units maneuver on a tactical orientation doing battle with the enemy where sightings are variable in affirmation. Think of the collection of tiles as the gameboard for something like a game of "Battleship".:cool: Get it? Can you make the abstract transition...or is it too much? I detest tunnel vision, come on, you guys are better than that. Its a game within "the Game". What we want to do is use that dispersion feature for the variables in naval actions, smokescreens, evasive maneuver, subs diving and sneaking away, missed salvos, etc. etc. Now another questionable action of SC naval operations is of course what Rambo states as "ramming" and that occurs in the strategic orientation of the SC seascape, when your units run into each other disclosing their positions. Potentially this is another use for the "dispersion " feature in conjuction with my often suggested "pass through" mechanic. Indeed with those two actions coordinating opposing task forces interaction, we have an environment that will support the greater movement rates for our SC naval icons. Imagine it, you can base the final lockdown of an enemy's location to experience of the units, NW level, Intel, whatever, but you have at least a simulation of "the search" and maneuvering combat that naval warfare represents. Ludi, remember, many Generals liken the maneuver of land mechanized units in the desert to those of ships on the ocean, so if the land unit interactions of SC units is fitting, then a somewhat similar concept can be applied to the SC naval units. And yes......don't forget KISS, let's use what HC gives us, open up your minds and think!

I had almost forgot(not-really) how good it was to have your interaction in the forums DD, just imagine yourself in the grip of an amicable bear hug from this ole SM. You too JJ! Sorely missed both your postings. As you know DD, I'm in your camp, we want "The Search" and I think your suggestions are right on, just remember that poor ole AI is going to suffer with any complications, got to adhere to KISS. Maybe, just maybe, this naval search parameter is better left to our CVs to implement and the naval spotting range be thoroughly reduced for LB aircraft. I know its not historically correct, but it sure would help create the proper effect. Its a tough call!:confused: Can we live with this historical discrepancy at the cost of improving the game mechanics?

After updating to 1.03 I thought I give the old AI a whirl once again to see what Bill and Co. had improved upon. I started a mirror Z about a month ago and am just now getting into the Autumn of 1943, the AI settings were the toughest SC has to offer, Expert +2. As Japan the only other time I've played the AI was when PT was first out, just to get some initial orientation into the mechanics. It was difficult for awhile until I took out the Chinese HQs with Japanese airpower and pretty much ignored the outer islands and other theaters and from there, ie Chinese surrender, it was all downhill for the AI until Japanese victory, a substantial one. So...why deviate from success, I tried essentially the same strategy....almost. This time I played around until capturing the SRA, excluding Burma, and then just left a screen, although I will say, Java, the last area to be conquered in the SRA did put up a tenacious defense, delaying my air deployment into China. Now with all the Oil cranking out my MPPs it was time to focus on China. I decided this time to feint into Changsha with a couple of armies, artillery and one HQ giving the city only token bombing runs when the Chinese threatened my improved positions. Meanwhile concentrating on two thrusts, one to Sian - Lanchow - Changyeh and the other Wuhan - Ichang - Chungking and actually the Changyeh Chinese position was the first to fall, much to my amazement as it is usually the last fallback capital. So now I'm backtracking and Chungking falls from the backdoor thrust coming out of the Lanchow - Sian area and this is where I concentrate all my airpower for the final run at Kunming. Of course the PT AI hasn't just been sitting around, the UK Indian forces were constantly raiding Bangkok and attacking to a penetration all the way to the town of Khon Kain not to mention weather permitting bombing runs on my forces in the Hanoi area. The Chinese were grouped in the area from Changsha to Kweiyang and Kweilin and at one point threaten to cut my forces off by moving all the way south to the coast decimating one of my best armies. Here was the AI Chinese downfall constantly reinforcing and deploying units and resources to the Changsha region which was nowhere close to my focal points of attack. So stupid is as stupid AI does, I take Kunming in a raging downpour, don't even need my air assets and China surrenders, like September 1943. Oh...that's the Nationals, the Commies are still in, hah, but not for long as I turn my forces in their direction and now the British forces in Burma will receive some attention also. You might wonder, what's up with the US of A? Well heck, they did retain New Guinea with the Aussie's help and they did kick me out of the Solomons, but now just this last turn the Japs got anti-air 3 and those US bombers are being led to pay a price for their runs at my forces in the outer islands. Currently almost two years into the conflict, the Soviets are now in and with all the plunder from China, I just maxed out LR and NW tech investments since I only got 1 level in each. Still at IW & AT 1 and advanced aircraft is only a single level also as my focus was anti-air. Not to worried about the Soviets or the Amis just yet as my busy little engineers have been doing mucho improvements in the Manchukuo province. I'll update this conflict a little later on as the issue is still way in doubt what with the USN still unscathed, but my next post will cover the the other side of the mirror.

Well that's a load of crap Puniworth, why don't you fess up...you "lucky" fellow! Kuni is a Swedish WW2 historian with emphasis on the Eastern theater mainly the struggle of the Motherland against the Nazi invasion. He's a big player of GG's WiR, or used to be. Bet your looking forward to the new one, WiE over at Matrix, eh Kuni?:cool: Anyway, I give you fair warning my SC brethren, stay away from this guy unless you want trouble. Him and JJR have the record on banishments.