SeaMonkey

Didn't I say that?:confused: Must be an echo!:eek:

Well since I'm here, this is a perfectly good example of why the carbon unit infestation of this planet is becoming increasingly "common senseless".

And I must say, "convincingly so"!:cool:

Nope! I meant prosecution, your stated investigative conclusion of the data deemed the test BS.

Can I assume the same for the tests that say I'm not? Or perhaps this is another case of selective prosecution?

Not often that I get someone to concur that I'm perfect, scored 0:cool:

Uh Oh! Now you've done it Hubert. Do you realize how many strategic questions that post has the potential to generate? I'm resisting.........you need to be programming...fixing...playtesting..:cool: I'm remembering that.

Thanks Bill, I can relate to that "nickel", playtesting and adjusting scripts is very involved and I for one appreciate your efforts. As soon as SCG is out send me your campaign if in need of some playtesting. I'm going to try and get more SC time in, even if its against the AI, I didn't really get to play the Pac version as much as I would have liked. Finally got around to DLing 1.03 the other day after Rambo resigned and Bill101, I like the changes you made to get the outer islands into the game. Just started a mirror Z against the AI this weekend, had a little time....finally. You know Hubert you could really liven up this forum with a little disclosure of those campaigns that will be released with Global, just ignore all our suggestions, plenty of time for adustments later. They would be fun to discuss, create some excitement till release.

Bill is your ATR going to be an "official" campaign release with SC Global? I hope so, this is an excellent scenario and the AI gives a pretty decent account of itself in the French invasion. You've been tweaking this baby for what....like about three years now? For all you SCers, this is a great solitaire scenario and not having played it since the WaW version(I didn't get PDE) I'm looking forward to a revisit.

Exactly my meaning C66, except new campaigns with the theater maps, not global formats. We just want those diplomatic, build limits, scripts and convoys that abstract the other areas, but the combat occurs in the region of emphasis. Imagine with the new map definitions and terrain we'll get a little more detail and maneuvering room but still the game mechanics of the grand strategic scale. In essence these will all be new campaigns based on the best examples of the old. Wouldn't it be great if we could get some linkage? Think about it! You start off with say, Fall Weiss and Western Europe and if your successful you can pick another campaign to enter with resources defined by your level of success or failure for the next map and campaign. Panzer General, except on the GS scale with a lot more features.:cool:

Good idea Kuni! I believe alot of people might look into doing those campaigns if there was some incentive, perhaps even collaboration from Fury. The scripts and the artwork can be time consuming, not to mention playtesting, its a tough go if you have other interests and demands upon your time, more a labor of love and the feedback is not a big factor of fulfillment. I think SC as it is now requires a campaign team to get the ones with global characteristics done well.

Ooops, wrong game, AI can't be competent and handle these complexities. Try "Bitter Glory" or perhaps "Storm Over the Pacific", maybe HOI, but SC is not the game for this level of detail, although we have discussed owner defined convoy routes and road and rail expansion. It takes long enough to do a world campaign as it is now, let's see what Hubert comes up with in the Global edition and go from there, but I'm afraid the AI is the defining limit as most people play that way.

Good point Wushuki! Alright, then how about SC Global tackles the kind of campaigns it really excels at, the large theater type ones. Things like Barbarossa and of course Overlord. How about something like "Torch" with all the southern theater around the Med.? Maybe a Southwest Pacific scenario from northern Australia to the Philippines. How about something with the Chinese and Russians pitted against the Japanese? And since we are getting to "what ifs" how about a "Plan Z" emphasizing naval warfare in the Atlantic and Western European theater. Of course Fall Weiss and Gelb. Another idea would be a Japanese insurgency into India, Burma...... and the Germans coming from Iraq, Iran to meet them, Operation Orient and the Indian Ocean? I mean .... after all this is a World War 2 game.

It might be a bit difficult to include all the scenarios from all the releases, but maybe a few of the favorites could be updated. Care to vote on the most popular campaigns?

No worries John, we'll get another game going when SC Global comes out. As you know I haven't had a lot of time to play. Thanks for the game, learned alot and Vypuero's mod hopefully benefitted from your feedback, its a great campaign.

Ha, you better hope he doesn't have a high level of HB tech to go with that LR, it'll be bad enough on your IJN if his TAC comes up with NW3 also, not to mention those USN subs in the advanced stages. LR5 means he's seeing you first, not a good situation.

Thanks mc, but I'm only one entity of many that have contributed ideas and doctrinal vision to SC over the 7 years of its existance. I am humbled by the thought of so many interacting to get this game to its present stage, but I appreciate your recognition and I'm glad you share my clarity. Still, dissenting views are just as valuable as they help define the limits of HC's concepts and are always thought provoking as to catalyze new and refreshing byproducts. No one's opinion is without merit, there is always something positive dwelling in the depths of the human imagination.

Sorry guys, the SC representation of terrain in the area encompassed by an SC global tile is adequate as is. Obviously the terrain icon only shows the predominant terrain of the tile and not the little nuances of different topography that every tile possesses, for real. You have to believe that the subordinate commanders in the vicinity would use the local terrain to the best of the attacking or defending force's benefit, you're just directing the overall strategy as the Supreme Commander. Don't forget that you have the option to use HQs with varying values to conduct your operations, perhaps the lower valued commanders don't use the terrain as efficiently as the higher valued ones? This suggestion has merit for smaller scale games, but not this global one, although for the operational campaigns ev is right on and perhaps Hubert would consider it an option in the editor.

Obviously taken in the literal sense of the situation teuton is right, but I've always tried to think in terms of the units representing a command structure, not the whole organization dictated by the size of the unit. Its ridiculous to think an entire mechanized corps(SC tank group) could do an amphibious landing at once. I rationalize it by thinking that only a few echelons, task forces, from that SC tank group "command structure" are actually pulling off the invasion, the rest are awaiting to reinforce, remember the timelines represented by SC turns. Its not outlandish to think an army could eventually be landed in a week, two weeks, a month. Now for the amphibious limitations. I've always been a proponent of only corps size units being elligible to make amphibious landings. You could add engineers and special forces to that mix and if you think about it the greatest restriction to amphibious operations is the availability of landing craft. So, I propose that to simulate the building of landing craft, training and amphibious doctrine be correlated to the level of "Amphibious Tech" and the level attained dictates the number of active amphibious units a country may have on the water at any one time. So if Germany starts out as level one amphib tech, they are only allowed one amphib unit active,"on the water" at any one time. If your amphib tech level is five you get 5 amphib units on the water simultaneously. So now you can restrict certain countries to a realistic amphib doctrine unless they wish to pay the price to develop the capacity.

Just for reference Bill, I'm talking about Nupremal's World campaign in SC PT. I've gotten to the point that I watch the previous turn just to re-orient myself and to be specific, from the time I turn on my PC to the time of sending out the completed PBEM turn with all belligerents at war. I'm not playing the AI, this is PBEM, DLing turns and completing them one at a time. Sure they can go faster if things are clicking, no too much down time between consecutive turns, but mostly, late in the game, an hour, longer with an interruption or two.

Sealion is a matter of whether your opponent will allow it. If your opponent decides to follow other escapades instead of protecting the British Isles then your opportunity will unfold, but you have to be ready. Actually Sealion preparation does not have to inhibit your effort in USSR, it is in actuality an enhancement. You are building your FJs and TAC units and later if your opponent adequately fortifies the UK then you can modify your plan(there is a window of opportunity) to incorporate the Barbarossa option. The idea for all strategic plans is to build in flexibility as just as sure that the Sun will come up tomorrow your plan will go awry.

Thanks arado.................... well.................how about it guys?????/ Colin, Rambo, Bill, Teuten...etc, etc.... do we have a consensus here?

Agreed, Engineers should be allocated as an upgrade just like AA, art, AT, etc. This gets back to my original suggestion of attaching assets to units, exactly the way it was done IRL. The base units, armies, corps, and mechanized units should be upgradeable with the simulation of attaching battalion size assets to these formations. This was actually the way it was done and engineers were a part of that scenario. Attached engineering assets would provide for many of the functions already listed but also help their parent units cope with inclement moving conditions, like mud, swamps, jungle, crossing rivers, rough terrain, etc.

And the Special Forces and Engineers? Any comments?

I would like to further incite a movement for the elimination of anti-air and anti-tank units for the global game. If anything they should be upgradeables to the base units. In fact you could combine the anti-tank, art., and anti-air into the IW tech for infantry units and expand the available slot to amphibs so now infantry units could have IW, mobility, and Amphibious tech upgrades, no need for special units, except perhaps Engineers. To tell you the truth, I'm ready to get back to simplifications, seems like some other people are too.