SeaMonkey

So the old activation triggers, like DoW, potentially hostile naval units in proximity, player decision choices and diplomatic chits drive the mobilization feature to the ultimate 100% where the player is free carry out his apirations? Anything else that may impact the road to 100% mobilization that we haven't experienced before? Maybe things like an IT or PT level, other research parameters like Intel, perhaps a US naval unit running around the Atlantic discloses a maurading uboat (unintended incident)? How about diplomatically getting some trade routes(convoys) opened up or enhanced and having a certain MPP per turn activate the mobilization?

Simple is nice, and yes other games have some preferred features. I remember Grigsby's WaW build Q, pay as you go with manpower restrictions, and CEAW's convoy system, all good. But overall, however abstracted, you can emphasize what you as a gameplayer feels is important in SC. The editor is the best out there. I clamored like hell for Hubert to get the editor done well with scripts and design flexibility back in the SC1 days. He did not disappoint me. Many times I have played as Axis and got to Mobility 2 level and no way could I afford to upgrade all my units, abstracted yes, but SC captures the feel.

Just a note from a different perspective, although I've never had the high end XPS model, I got my first Dell in 1996. Now I've owned 4, including two laptops and never a problem with the hardware. The OS have been another thing, Windows 95 and ME were both crap, had to reformat the HD and load 98SE and Win2000pro. I have replaced a cooling fan and have upgraded RAM, Video cards and installed larger HDs on the reformats, with no detrimental effects. I wouldn't buy anything else, we use them exclusively at work, but we never buy the high end stuff, always seconds.

You know, I think I have a problem with the substantial effects that "Russian Winter" causes in campaigns after 1942 Spingtime. Why? Because, I'm running the show and I'm a damn might bit smarter than that obliviated Nazi Paperhanger. I'm not letting my valuable soldiers go into a campaign against the Red Army without being properly equipped and by waiting till Spring of 42 represents my attention to that detail.:mad: How about a decision event for the Spring of 41, accept a lower MPP/turn total for X number of turns if you want to have your units prepare for Winter campaigning. Let's face it, everyone is affected by severe Winter conditions, its not like its an unknown commodity. Here on the coast we prepare for hurricanes....at least us Texans do..:cool:....well at least the native Texans.

Yeah Rambo...cut the crap, whatya think...we just fell off the cabage wagon? You're so obvious, please sign up for the next course entitled, "The Fine Art of Manipulation".

Now I see it, the G in CG is not a referal to Guided Missiles but to Gold!

If you send it to me, bradtap@aol.com, I'll run it through some turns on hotseat. It'll work with the PT edition, right?

Hey I got you PGH, French naval vessels ehhh, but ahem...a guided missile cruiser:eek:, that's a bit farfetched for WW2 don't you think? Course then again there were those rocket firing LSTs. That maybe quite interesting.:confused: Thanks for "a little taste of honey".

Remember the complaints of units that seem to be omnipotent because they can reinforce turn after turn if their supply source remains undisturbed? Now we have all observed that Strategic Bombers, Rockets and shore bombarding naval units will cause damage to the infrastructure and slowly erode the supply efficiency away thereby minimizing an occupying units ability to reinforce. Also as a byproduct of those strategic attacks we sometimes see the occupying unit actually take a strength reduction, but only occasionally. Doesn't it seem logical that the reciprocal should also be true? Meaning that when ground units attack, the byproduct of that attack should also be the occasional hit to the supply efficiency, sometimes referred to as collateral damage. Since our SC units contain the abstract concept of combined arms surely you can see the reasoning of adding such a feature and now those defending units that seem so resilient, won't be so anymore, but only slightly as the feature's only a random activation.

How about that "Zoom in, out" feature? Hubert, betas ??? Can someone give us an idea of the scales that will be available? Perhaps a "screenie" so we might see the unit and geographical effects of each level?

Thanks for the clarification Hubert, by the way, how's the back? I figured, no I'd hoped, it still might be early, that way our many complimentary suggestions have some ability to mold things. No reason to rush this out and I know a lot of our discussions are a rehash of what we've talked about over the years. You being the most competent game designer of all time, I'm sure many of the good suggestions have been noted. By the way, thanks for letting this out of the bag, its nice to have the forum discourse stimulated. Now doubt the well known SC logic path will continue as the gameplay dynamics certainly emphasize flow. I will be looking for that AAR, a great way to market a game, and hope that back is as good as new.

I like it!:eek:

PGH, understand that you are the pricinple designer of the "World Campaign"? Could you enlighten us about how some of the gameplay flows, specifically entry and variations of the major participants? Perhaps a brief summary of chronology, theater by theater, that has been observed in your testing? Is there a possibility that the Axis could reach some sort of stalemate condition with the Western Hemisphere?:cool: Finally, I would like to extend my great appreciation for your efforts, looking very forward to trying your campaign out.

Excellent ideas here, as naval personnel really needed R & R, after extended deployments, to remain effective, especially carriers. So supply is not the only real life consideration. The air operational moves should be covered with something like the loop arrows where movement to another theater requires a few turns dictated by the final destination's proximity. Do remember that many times aircraft was crated and moved by sea and rail, not just flying hops.

I'm with you Rambo, we need that communication/logistics net! How about our SC engineers making these improvements and enhancing/expanding "the net"?

This "belligerence" feature sounds mighty awesome. Is this essentially a new form of diplomacy? Do we still have the old SC diplomacy mechanism, or is it replaced with this. Maybe both interact? How does one attain "full mobilization"? More information......................please.:cool:

Alright Kuni, you and Rambo have a go at the beta in mirror mode and post the AAR. Lot's of good smack talk, you guys have thick hides, Lord knows, I ain't afraid to engage. This could be the alltime great beta test AAR for SC, the whole forum can bitch-slap you guys. Come on Hubert....Moon...these guys are SC icons................and they deserve it.

I believe the game engine has this about right, not perfect, but abstracted adequately. Move along now......nothing to see here......return to your other threads... we have this under control, don't be alarmed, its all taken care of.

I really like JJR's partisan idea, let's face it partisans should appear randomly and melt away when attacked, wasn't that the MO for them in reality. A player facing a potential partisan occupation should only be able to deduce where partisans might form, not know exactly where they will form. Perhaps there should be a limit on the number of partisan units that will form in a region, of course a randomized figure different from game and circumstance each play. Take Spain for instance, lets say they will get a partisan occurrence from 7 to 20 times in the course of a game. If the occupier is astute at garrisoning and finally kills the allotted number then no more will form, the occupier has subdued the region and can remove their garrisons. Only thing is, the conqueror will not know that exact number. Now doesn't that sound like a real life simulation of the "partisan" effect?

Yeah...what Scott said! Well OK, hey Scott, maybe we shouldn't be so demanding, what do you think?:confused: Maybe if we just get something revealing(see my "new features" thread) each week that would be consistent with "Battlefront" and "FurySoftware" 's well recognized secretive collusion.:mad: Come to think of it, I have some hurricane boards(for the windows) in my backyard and with all the rain lately, I've got a decent collection of rainwater.....anybody got any ideas??????

OK, so we have Surface Raiders and the ability to blockade ports, accolades to Hubert and the team! But.....well OK...I'm a bit spoiled..I want more..a lot more! So...Hubert?.....Moon?.....Betas? What else will be "new" features? SC has been in this format for quite awhile now and there are already excellent World campaigns. What have you got to earn my money? Entice me!.......and "them" too.

Hubert, get these world scenario makers on the beta team and I've got to add, people like Rambo, who play often and fast, and test the gaming limits, are very valuable to the finished product.

I have my reservations about the all encompassing map. I really prefer that the theaters of conflict be emphasized, as you did Nupremal. On the other hand, if there could be some kind of incentive for the majors to project into the historically ignored regions then I could be won over. Now you realize we will take SC to a more Civ oriented game, albeit beneath the WW2 era umbrella, with such a scenario?

Nupremal, there were instances where Chinese divisions were equipped and trained with US materials, it was more the uncooperative atmosphere that Chiang induced and the US position of not meddling, or trying at least to restrain itself. A moral aspect, the US was sensitive to China's subjugation by European powers in the past. If we throw these things away with the Axis, the personality conflicts, we must also do it with the Allies. I'm in the camp that minors should be customizable with regard to the tech level advance the equipment is that they receive, it should never be "cutting edge". For China, maybe 2 levels below USA highest attainment as the theater is quite remote.

Nupremal is right, the Chinese were very rudimentary and Chiang was not real cooperative, he was actually belligerent at times until the US laid down the law which wasn't often. China is no doubt a minor. Normally the original France would be a major, but if you want them as weak as they were historically then they would have to be a minor, its a fine balance here. Lots of room for debate and no way to be consistent and produce a competitive game from both sides.