SeaMonkey

I would like to see the bomber defense value upgrade from Naval Warfare tech dropped and make it tied to anti-air tech instead. There is a third slot for naval units, what other tech makes sense? Presently TAC and bombers take too much damage attacking ships from the NW upgrade, better to make it dependent on the AA tech upgrade further diluting the use of MPPs

I can't add much to what these guys have declared Colonel as words just don't seem to capture the gratitude that most of us WW2 historians feel towards the sacrifices our "finest fabric" from our society have made. All I can add is that your and our ancestors' legacy will be passed on by us to our succeeding generations, partly in the games we play, partly in the conversations we have with them to try an instill the values that our "finest fabric" have fought for so that we may enjoy the security and freedom we all have. It is a fleeting, and fragile peace that we do not take lightly, my regards to you and your loved ones, and sleep well Colonel knowing if I have anything to do with it..... We will never forget!

I've read a lot of teutenkopf's suggestions and although they have merit I must emphasize that we must beware of "feature creep" as many posters have brought up here and was a major point of masterclaude's posts, you've got to approach each addition with scrutiny. I understand the significance of radar, it was very important, but it has to be incorporated in a way that allows the engine to handle it in a fashion that exemplifies SC, abstracted. IMO its already in there with naval warfare tech, advanced air tech, advanced artillery and rocketry. I've probably missed one....or two! Thing is you create something, you have to have a counter also, and guess what, the AI will have to handle another possibility and you know what that means. Since I don't really play the AI much what bothers me the most is the length of time SC turns now require. I'm not talking the short scenarios, I'm talking the grand campaigns and this global model is going to be the epitome of SC, requiring a lot of time to do a turn when all the belligerents are at war. Think about it, probably an hour to do a turn of the grand campaign in the later turns. If you're doing a mirror, two hours. Its going to take awhile to complete a game. I remember the old SC days, not saying I want to go back, where turns took maybe 15 minutes max. Just want to keep everything in the proper perspective and not forget why SC is the best strategic wargame out there.

This brings up a good point, which obviously can be remedied. What I'm going to suggest is in keeping with the way it really happened and would emphasize the use of destroyers in multiple task forces as well as subs in wolfpacks. Usually in WW2 naval combat, "first one found, usually drowns", but not always. Since submarine success has always been based upon stealth, I would like to see sub units get a surprise attack bonus if they initiate first contact. This means subs in hunt mode initiate the attack against a disclosed enemy naval unit, not run into them. This will simulate a stalking, maneuvering tactic for subs to do away with an escort, ie. destroyers and could also be used in conjunction with surface raiders to provide some realistic naval strategies. Indeed the "Battle of the Atlantic" could be quite interesting, but it won't necessarily be limited to just the Atlantic.

Hey "CPGeneral" you can return the favor that those Jap bombers are dishing out to your Chinese. You'll have an Amis HQ in China eventually, get some big bad ass heavy bombers with LR ready and watch Rambo tuck and run!

Crap! Rambo, I can't keep up with you as it is now much less start another game. Are you ready to surrender? If so, then perhaps we can start something else, after installing the 1.03 patch. I've been wanting to play Z with the new features, but we'll have to end our game, which I must say has been great fun. You guys owe it to yourselves to try Nupremal's World Campaign if you haven't. It is the epitome of SC and it will give you a good taste of the limits we don't want to cross(IMO). This scenario requires a lot of attention from the players to get through a turn and its length is about the maximum time I want to put in to get a turn done, about an hour. In my present situation with a life, its not easy to put aside an hour to dedicate to a turn and the longer the time required the greater chance of an interruption, which sometimes ruins my train of thought or puts me on another task.

Thing is LC we play these same old territorial reruns over and over, Poland goes down easy, France is simple. What if you get a decent fight out of the Frogs or the Polish military allies with Germany and they go after the Reds together. Hitler did try to get them to join the cause, when they refused, "Fall Weiss" happened.

You know this is another occurrence where "silent" subs should displace to other tiles like the dive feature. Think of it like this, "Sir, enemy sub contact ...err ...well .....it was there sir, we thought we had a sonar fix, but it slipped away, ..shall I start a search pattern?"

You mean the tiles they occupy don't change color when not spotted?

I'll try to get off a turn this evening, if I can get home at a decent time, had a horrible weekend. Come on you guys, Rambo is a blast to play, he tries all kinds of stuff, really interesting games. He'll, sorta of, :rolleyes:help you along the way!

Bill, I've had some experienced NW2 TACs take 4 strength points damage when attacking NW3 BBs with them taking only 2, seems a little extreme and makes it really difficult to protect any islands from marauding BBs that want to bombard. Thing is with so many tiles for naval vessels to bombard from its tough to keep them off of you. As I've said before landbased air should be very dominant over unprotected(unCAPed) surface vessels, remember we're talking 300 - 400 planes given the build limits. Wouldn't matter if they had double strikes, which I'm a proponent of, they'd be decimated in two strikes, perhaps eliminated with an intercept. I've been saying, you want the islands important, you make naval units especially susceptible to landbased air. Historically, they(naval TFs) avoided the proximity of LB air like the plague.

I like that turn by turn scorecard, good one Rambo. Really I would like to keep the Nuclear option out of this global conflict, kind of ruins the game with such an omnipotent weapon. You know a234 I've been thinking about that, multi-player options, almost like the 3 sided platform, where you have the Axis, Allies, and Communists. Or...perhaps each side has the option to make one of its partners AI guided, so you have that one ally that won't necessarily conform to your game plan. As Axis you could guide Japan and Germany, but Italy is the wild-card. And for the Allies, UK, USA, and USSR, one of which would be AI controlled, player option.

True, but not everyone wants to go in and open up the editor, besides don't you want to see what the world may have had a realistic chance to become?:confused:

Well its your strategy, can't say I don't see the merit in stuffing the home islands, its just those A-bombs decimate your defenses. I'd rather keep them off the Philipines and Marianas as long as possible and those LR bombers can spot them coming, not to mention the flexibility of deployment. You can really reach out there and touch someone with LR3, makes those double strikes devastating to supply. Think what they'll do to unprotected HQs, the ones that land in the outer islands, you can operate them(bombers) around with impunity. Bill did y'all tone down the NW tech effect on attacking planes? Its a real killer trying to attack naval vessels with NW3, not realistic IMO.

John, get down into the SW Pacific, like the Solomons(Guadalcanal) and lets see how that affects the MPP distribution. I believe that was one of the new features for the 1.03 patch. And remember, the best way to make US pay for those outer Pac. islands is keep their supply down. Get that LR on those bombers(build'em all, mak'em heavy):cool: that are getting good experience in China. As soon as US lands somewhere, bomb their supply, then they'll have to bring amphibs from long staging distances, can't operate air in and improve AAA levels not to mention having to build lots of HQs. Oh yeah, go get that oil. Get them MPPs up as fast as possible, you've got an Empire to create. (Queensryche)

See, this went just like I had concluded, we need to go further back. The whole crux of this thread is to determine just where GC would need to begin in order to produce a balance of military conflict. You guys are all contributing essentially the same thing with different details and focus and we're all headed back into history to that moment. Is it like a234 suggested, 1936 with the reoccupation of the Rhineland or further as the world comes out of the Great Depression as JohnDF2 alludes to with economic emphasis? We can't think like global citizens, too much nationalism back then, major countries with dictators at the helm. Put away the technological innovations of communications and infrastructure in our world, you've got to think on the lines of a 19th Century mentality, the infantile beginning of today's military doctrines. Not easy, its tough with our upbringing in this environmental crucible, we've been subjected to indoctinated behavior. I'll be the first to admit if you stack all the Allies against all the Axis, Axis can't compete and so we'll need a sequence that unfolds that keeps the balance until that time everyone is in and there is the potential for the even playing field. So.....what is that order of entry? Could it be in 1931, the Mukden Incident where USSR and Japan first go at it for the rest of Manchuria with modern(so to speak) weaponry. Can we as the players identify a path to balance starting with this action? The question remains, when is the best time to start and what will be the initial alignments?

OK I got to put this in here even though its in the WaW thread. Give us naval surface units selection of "avoid" or "search" on the right click mode menu. "Avoid" meaning similar to "silent"' sub mode, there is a percent chance that contact of enemy vessels will cause a tile displacement. "Search" option meaning surface forces will seek out engagement with enemy naval forces, no displacement and not subject to "surprise contact".

Hey w1963, welcome to SC, "the best of WW2 grand strategy". The way the "pass-through" should work is that based on yours vs theirs intelligence level as well as proximity of enemy air(in spotting range), weather conditions and experience of the enemy naval units that cohabitate the tile there is a % chance your task force will be revealed, ie stopped and engaged. The idea being that two TFs can pass each other in a sea tile without disclosing one anothers whereabouts. Of course it may be simplified if we could select the "search" or "avoid" parameter for the TFs sort of in the manner we do hunt/silent mode for subs. If the two enemy TFs didn't satify the algorithm for engagement they would simply displace(as subs do) to some other tiles. In this way, even though you've received feedback that enemy vessels are in proximity, there's still difficulty in pinning them down for combat. Hey...I like this idea...Hubert...are you reading this? You can do this, the sub feature is the model.

OK a234 I here you, but I need more detail, "early mistakes", what exactly are you refering to. And yeah later on after the East has been stabilized, we have a "little" battle to see who the Bully on the block is, Nazis vs Reds. I thought about the Kiev situation, what makes you think that they wouldn't have been there later on after the original drive on Moscow had been completed, probably by October 41? Think about it, AG South remains on the defensive, with tactical initiative, local attacks tying down Red Army elements. Think of the infantry formations from AGS that would have been available for PG II & III spearhead follow ups to Moscow. Now they would have been in perfect position to come in from the NE and help envelop the Kiev area after the Spring thaw in 42. Rambo...WTH...you watch too many movies. Keep it credible here! But I did like the Inglerious Bastards, damn great WW2 fantasy, Tarantino rocks!

Alrighty then...I see I have a few supporters...that's the spirit, how about a little further back. Did you know that Ribbentrop invited and he came, Molotov, to Berlin in November 1940, actually it may have been a little earlier, but anyway, the discussion revolved around the Soviet Union joining the Tripartite Pact. Of course they refused, but what if? Now shortly after that I believe we got Fuhrer Directive 21. What a game that would be with the Soviet's oil, the one commodity that always dogged the Axis, not to mention the MidEast oilfields within easy grasp through the Caucasus. UK and America will be hard pressed to maintain a presence in the East, even with China, India, Australia, SA, New Zealand. Are there others?

Could the AK have taken Alexandria and continued on to Cairo and the ME if Operation Herkules has been prosecuted? Would the invasion of Malta have been successful largely led by the Italians? As for USSR, how about all those assets for Fall Blau had been used for another push on Moscow as the General Staff had advised? Would that have brought the Soviets to the bargaining table? In the Pacific, suppose the IJN naval codes had not been broken and or the Midway operation had not been scheduled and those assets used in the SW Pacific? Its hard to imagine that the Japanese had a chance, but let's say for "what ifs" sake that the DoW had been delivered to Secretary Hull before the attack on PH(after all that was the intent). The whole idea here is to not find a set of conditions for Axis victory but to examine a hypothesis where the Eastern Hemisphere(Axis ruled) reaches a co-existence with the Western Hemisphere(Allied governed). In short, the best conditions for a WW2 oriented grand strategy game to be balanced(either side can achieve victory), playable and above all fun. Not...I repeat, NOT, to replay history as we know what happened.

Maybe the best way to approach such a proposition is with retrospect. Let's assume that we all agree that the high water mark for the Axis in WW2 was the Summer-Autumn of 1942. Tobruk had fallen and Rommel was checked at El Alamein, AG B was in the Caucasus and Stalingrad and the Japanese had just endured Midway and the Marine landings on Guadalcanal. Now, looking backwards, what decisions, in small increments of time, could the Axis have taken to propel this highwater mark to a more future date? With such an exercise perhaps we can uncover a set of data points that culminates with an Axis stalemate and Allied peace overtures.

I see your point Hubert, I'll leave it to your ideas and a later patch. During a quick bite(at lunch), a deluge of work, I thought about something that has always been a problem for SC enthusiasts, and as of Nupremal's World mod, me too.:confused: Supply! Hubert, if you do anything in GC, please give us a supply overlay for sources, cities, ports, HQs to be toggled on and off. I really thought I had a handle on this, but it needs a definitive visual aid. Not so much for the sea tiles, but on land I always seem to find some anomalies.

One man's assets is anothers failings. Try the demo!

Its never too late! Regrets can be abated.