SeaMonkey

All hail to the rhombi!:cool:

Now we're talkin, nicely done Ghost! Being it November, I doubt the Reds will try anything other than retaking Morozovsk, make them pay. Hope you got additional fighters to back up those return strikes the Red's may launch.

Come on guys, it's "not nice" to make fun of senior citizens, bad karma! And besides, you guys are supposed to be veterans, you're suppose to dwell within the depths of the game, the foundations of unit interaction, "The CTVs"!:eek: Look in your tiny, little baby printed manual, the one you need a magnifying glass to read, in the back, the spreadsheet, Combat Target Values!:confused:

Sounds good, looking forward to it. We'll get some CTVs also I hope, especially the new units, right?

How about letting us know what the various research upgrade categories will be for the air units? I'm assuming CVs will still be advanced air, LR, and naval tech, but how about the CVLs?

Kind of looks like the same old walkover of China. I mean 16 Japanese Armies, that's a little ridiculous!

Awesome Al, I salute your dedication to wargaming of which we users will benefit. Thanks

I got'ya HC, I too have a good lab team, so thankfully I don't have to do everything. Still, as good as they are, there's times when the "ole master" has to step in and provide direction. So if you decide to go on vacation(ie Holiday), make sure and stay within communication's range!

It was never in doubt, at least in my mind, and I'm also positive that you(Hubert) have the presence of common sense to sift through what is adoptable to the SC AI and make the game better with each evolution. I play no other computer game, you have my complete trust and respect as the best wargame designer on the planet. Thanks:)

I understand the restrictions Al, but I believe the current editor will allow a customization of the airforces to a degree that they can logistically isolate the battlefield, given they have air superiority.

Let us see how the new logistical model works out. Believe me I been vocal about this issue for a while now, with Big Al for his restriction of double strike S.Bombers and Hubert / Bill for the super supply HQs. One thing is absolutely clear without bullets and butter combat will not occur for long, without fuel, mobile formations(land, air, & naval) are sitting ducks. I just hope that there exists a mechanism to simulate this actuality. My theory, as evidence supports to this day, is airpower is the key. When the conditions are optimum, the command of the high ground, the third dimensional artillery, the clarity of direct fire, and the force projection from a distance trumps all others.

Sapare, don't read anything more in to my sometimes seemingly chastising posts as many times I'm trying to initiate dialogue, nothing personal. Sharing of ideas, and the necessary discussions to evolve them into working solutions requires an exchange of opinions, some need to be tested for conviction, otherwise we'll deviate from a conclusion. Please don't take offense, it's just a game, nothing serious here, simple human interaction, practice.

Critical thinking about the scope of logistical support actually represented as historical would lead me to believe that outside of the owning country's infrastructure, the Germans could support 2 HQ assisted offensives and the Japanese one.

A couple of things. First of all, we're playing a game with hindsight that supposedly simulates a vast conflict in history. We all know the history of the mistakes and blunders well enough that we can choose not to recommit them. This is an Axis advantage in of itself and the balancing factor, historically viewed, is skewed by our knowledge. The reason the Axis didn't win was their mistakes were more compounded than the Allies were because the Allies had more resources which tended to lessen the extent of "bad decision making". What SC has a problem representing is the efficiency of force projection the Allies had over the Axis, those resources. The HQ representation is a party to that problem as it tends to enhance the logistical train over and above what the Axis truly possessed. Think about it for a second, a minute, the logistical base that can provide the essentials for an army, airforce, navy to continue to project its offensive power in a very "low infrastructure" environment like USSR, China and the Pacific Islands requires an investment the likes of which Germany and Japan did not possess on the scale that SC represents. The Allies simply had the resources to build small cities at many geographical locations to support their force projections and in the vicinity of a more sophisticated infrastructure build a force that was simply overwhelming. You want reality, you want SC balance, then SC3 better endeavor to get this correct.

Ok david, you probably didn't deserve that! I remember back in the old SC1 days where we had this same imbalance for PvsP and it was resolved by bidding MPPs for the Axis side. Meaning that both players bid MPPs to give to the Allied side before starting the scenario and then we opened the editor and provided the starting MPPs of the highest bid to the Allies and the high bidder took the Axis.

Sorry Ghost, I guess I kind of "flew off the handle" there. So Al, since the combat characteristics have changed for swamps, would you like to clue us in on the combat penalties and bonuses? How about the supply aspects, swamps are notorius for bad supply situations, are roads available to funnel resources into the fighting troops engaged in swamplands?

Dispense with the narrowmindedness, I already addressed this in the AoD thread. Now, for the fix. The Allies had the resources that allowed them to train and experiment to a higher degree. To simulate this advantage, when an Allied unit is rendered "combat ineffective" and returned to the production queue, they should retain some of their experience as the lessons learned in combat are passed on to the new recruits.

I won't argue your point, david. My best advice is try some of the other campaigns, Allies Turn the Corner, Last Democracy, High Tide and BF42 are some of my recommendations for a more balanced scenario.

Unfortunately, they're always about, and some time will be wasted acquiring the warrant.

How ridiculous! Cheaters will always feel empty and eventually meet their demise, no one needs to concern themselves with it, just be aware, minimize your exposure and let fate takes its course. Don't waste your life's energy on such a triviality, instead, make sure you endeavor to do the right thing and offset their mistakes. Now! Elbows into your sides, touch your middle fingers to your thumbs, close your eyes and repeat after me, OHHMMMMM!

Look Bob, the Naval-Air model is probably the hardest thing for any game to get correct and the intracacies of this type of combat are always going to be undermined to a certain degree by the necessity of abstraction at this scale. Never the less, SC's developers and scenario builders have been diligent at correcting the major issues and slowly but surely the features are coming around to a more accurate representation. Eventually they'll get this pretty close, have faith, and by all means vocalize your concerns and offer remediations. This is how SC has gotten this far and thankfully the "team" is committed to continued evolution the game.:cool:

WTH Ghost!!! This little half-a$$ defense of St Petersburg is getting on my nerves, where's the Luftwaffe? This is swamp land, there's an ariel bonus, get them ready for the campaigning season. The name of this game is "take the highground", unleash the Stukas, the Junkers, the Heinkels, Dorniers, bomb them Ruskies into submission. The key to USSR is take Saint P. and roll up the front, north to south, as soon as the weather clears, "strike with the whip and hold the reins loose".

And that is exactly how it is suppose to work. Fighters represent a mobile defense while AA cover the fixed assets, both should defend in an enemy air attack.

Bureaucracy would probably be a closer definition!:confused:

You mentioned no Panama Canal as there was no fighting in that theater, but there was significant importance attached to the arena. I understand your trade-offs for game play but have you ever thought about creating these little zones of significance connected to a loop from the traditional combat dominated areas? For example, Panama Canal, in one of your off map shaded areas, accessed from South Pac Loop, a small, dynamic map with the ports and towns of significance for the enemy to attack, perhaps actuating a decision event that requires the owning player to adopt some kind of action / expediture of MPPs, etc.?