SeaMonkey

But not on the Pacific Theater platform, right?

Soon as you get that done Al, I'll be looking for a game of your campaign vs a human.

Perhaps if you changed the % Morale into a real number the equation would work. 75% = 0.75

Especially for modded scenarios. In the Declaration of War screen, when you click on the flag of the country you wish to DoW, all areas that will be affected(be at war) are highlighted.

Actually emf that is kind of the way it works. If a unit is below supply 5 level then it does not reconstitute at the reduced rate if it is rendered "combat ineffective"(eliminated).

I don't want to get into a big argument about airborne losses as I've stated my position based upon WW2 facts, paratroop losses(effectiveness), the majority of the time are high. But in retrospect there is something that maybe we have failed to consider and that is the confusion aspect the enemy is exposed to from an airborne operation. How about any enemy units in proximity to an air drop be subjected to a significant loss of readiness and morale?

You know, Jon....you are spot on! Thing is folks, Rambo can't tell us why he's right, because he plays by feel, he doesn't dwell into the analytical aspects, he just knows. Nothing wrong with that, I play that way too, by feel.....but later....I think about the game mechanics. So ....from the Rambo/SM camp here's the basics. A global conflict takes place on Earth, a planet three fourths covered by water, it is simply the most complicated medium to get the correct interaction of the playing pieces. That why Rambo thinks it doesn't feel right, cause its not. The oceans represent more dimensions than any other geography, there's inner space(the depths), there's the surface, water and the coastal land borders(no where to hide, except in the vastness) and then there is the outer space(the atmosphere residing above). It is very easy to move from one medium to the other, things happen quickly. Any wargame that professes to be "great" needs to be designed from the oceans up, even if its playground is the universe, you've got to get these dynamics right first and from there its a cakewalk. Basically the same features that govern the land/air unit interaction won't work in the ocean, specifically blocking and zones of control. Now this is a general summary as you could dig down into the land, for a bunker so to speak, but there is lingering evidence. A sub slips below the surface and in a manner of seconds all evidence disappears, at least in the technology of WW2. So...as I've said before, there has to be a "pass through" provision for the oceans, the sea tiles of SC represent that vastness you can get lost in and what we're missing is that feature. We need "two ships to pass in the night" and never be aware of each others presence.

So...define..."a lot"? Here's the problem, since I almost always do a Sealion, the RN devastates my shore forces as the geography of the Isles lends to multiple attack positions for naval vessels, and obviously the UK has a few. I don't mind my forces taking damage as it seems historical for bombardments, but there is absolutely no counter in inclement weather when airforces are grounded. Besides even when you do counter with subs, naval surface, or air, your units always take damage, in turn, bombarding naval vessels never take damage. Land forces need a counter where they don't take damage and that should be artillery/shore batteries. By the time I do Sealion, the artillery has had a very short period of time to build experience. Tell you what, seems that the experience thing is the real breaker for artillery, I understand, well let's get them up there quicker, give them double strikes.

Come to think of it, this whole spotting thing needs to be changed, it should be randomized, especially high for land and naval units. I'm OK with running into units and then they being revealed as the "surprise contact" works now, but for air units disclosing everything in their spotting range, its just pure hogwash. I would think, that since air are the best recon units and are all subject to LR upgrades and experience accumulation, that a randomized chance of spotting escalates as these two characteristics rise. You should never be able to spot "for sure", beyond a reasonable doubt. Intelligence is like that, interpretation sometimes misses the obvious. Speaking of intel, there you go ......another factor for raising the percentage of enemy units that are spotted. See how this will work, each air unit reveals enemy units according to the set of 3 characteristics(intel, LR, exp.) (are there more?), so the greater your density of friendly air the higher percentage you have to disclose enemy locations. Is this to difficult to program? For the AI to handle? Are we getting closer to....."The Search".

OK...and what about those shore batteries? :confused: Artillery should have 1 NA/CA ctv!

I'm with Rambo on this one. In reality, commanders die, but in SC, HQs also represent logistical management, supply depots. I would think, for balance sake, you would need to build a new HQ at the present rate, no resurrections. Since a country's commander pool would be unlimited, I would say that once the starting build Q of HQs have been used up, a generic, low value HQ(2) should be available at a reduced price. More a representation of the logistical role than a competent commander as those good generals have been used up and their subordinates have assumed those positions. Kind of would be an added feature if we could name that HQ also.

The efficiency and supply are corroborated, 10% efficiency = 1 supply, 20% = 2 ... Bombers have a strategic attack value that reduces the supply/efficiency of any port/city,village/resource, depending upon their(bombers) tech, strength, HQ support, readiness, morale, and experience. If the City/resource produces MPPs, they will be eroded according to the effectiveness of the attack. Capital cities are worth 20 MPPs (2 * 10 supply/100% efficiency)(Oil a 3 modifier = 30 MPPs)(mine = 2 modifier)) and it loses 5/50% due to bomber attacks then the owning player also loses 10 MPPs and the capital is reduced to 5 supply/ 50% efficiency which recovers 1/10% per turn.

Rambo, that is a great idea for partisans! Your #10 is interesting, would it be like a fighter intercepting to its range, except from a port since its a naval unit? I would think that if you try and land airborne units in anything other than clear terrain and next to tripleA units you would suffer high casualties, >30%. Remember the strength loss is also a function of the unit's continuity and jumps are notorious for getting strung out, especially near imminent confrontation.

Well I didn't get London just because I had the firepower, you backed off and left the opening after our little English Channel clash and as far as the beaches, my position is precarious at best. Think of it as just another "little carrot". Now, I would think that after a capital relocation to another hemisphere, that pretty much is a surrender of the homeland and all subsequent builds by the UK would begin in Canada. As long as UK Government maintains a position in the Isles, with lendlease/resources to ports in their control, they should be able to continue home builds. Does that sound like "extra reward"? I'm assuming the later versions will have double strike AAA units? I like that. Now how about allowing the artillery units some "teeth" against your maurading RN bombardments. Shore batteries, which they would represent, were particularly effective against surface vessels.:confused:

We'll see how your triple team "plan" works out! Japan is about to get active. And Vypuero, how come when London falls you've immediately moved the UK gov't to Ottawa? My opinion is that at least one relocation into the Scottish Highlands, perhaps Inverness, or maybe in the Lowlands like Glasgow would be appropriate before going to Canada. I agree, don't mess with Manchester, cause in the Scottish countryside the UK can mount an effective defense and probably won't need to mess with moving on to Canada. IMO, its historically viable, and it serves a good location to bleed the Axis until USA can get into the game.

I've found that TAC do a good job of taking TAC out. Just get them some LR, spruce them up with NW and AT and now you have a unit that will deal out damage to a variety of enemy formations. Also they are pretty much immune from tripleA upgrades to ports and villages, but not the AAA unit. This is more in keeping with historical philosophy of using the islands as unsinkable aircraft carriers and ...do.. somewhat bring them into play, but still agree with Rambo, the outer islands aren't a good investment as the USN can just wait until they are all powerful. I have been thinking about a possible alternative for Japan though as I've noticed that the Roi-Namur fortification is a pretty strong deployment. If you could get a couple of engineers working on the islands to fortify them and then get the proper unit mix in, then you might have an efficient roadblock with some mutually supporting locations.

Big Al this is the recipe for input, this forum. There is no theirs, only ours. I would love to play your mod, but I need it in SC PT format. There can never be enough betas, solicit Hubert to become one. You've definitely paid your dues by doing a mod at the global scale, go for it!

You are exactly right arado and acknowledging additional agreement to emf's above post. As I've said before, SC is an evolution of a game engine and as we patrons are the most likely buyers we are comfortable with moving along to a bit more complication, not a lot. We know the mechanics, therefor we are able to handle more in depth features that may be a little tougher for new players to grasp. Never the less, the SC UI is so intuitive I don't believe new gamers will have too difficult of a time, many of whom crave the details of micro-management as it adds to reality(in their minds). I'm not in agreement with them(grognards), but I also wish success for SC as that provides the incentive for Hubert to continue the saga. So in essence as emf so clearly indicates we want a flow of ideas for Hubert to contemplate, as well as the betas to hash out. Most of the time I try to pattern my ideas with the reference to what I believe the AI can handle and those that don't require so many direct actions(mouse clicks) from the players. I believe the best ideas are the ones that only require a thoughful moment for a player to consider and the resulting game action that makes logical sense, quickly induced by a physical motion. I just hope the AI will be able to comply competently, not perfectly. Now, it is my opinion that it is time, with the advent of Global SC, to move away from the historical chronology of WW2 and focus on the greater strategic "what ifs", that were viable for the technology, political ideology, and logistical dynamics for the era and the participants. PDE broke that ground, its time to put it on the global scale.

Good one John, but there should always be some collateral damage from either mission. Another wish, especially for fighters and CAGs, is to differentiate between CAP and intercept. The "intercept" mission allows the fighter contingent to seek out enemy air to the max of its range, while "CAP" leaves the fighters to defend the tile/CV they are deployed in/on.

While I was doing an OpZ turn and using my carriers I was thinking about a modified movement and strike component for Global SC. This would be an alternative for the ability of units to save their remaining APs and come back later to use them in a movement or combat capacity. Presently with a double strike Tank Group unit you can attack, move, and attack again, but what if with an upgrade in mobility tech you would enable a slightly different sequence? Remembering how the Fast Carrier Task Forces worked in the Pacific, lets say you moved first, in for the strike, made the attack(only one allowed) and then moved off again. If you decide to stay there and not move, then you get the additional attack. I think this represents how the CVs were used the majority of the time, they just didn't linger long. Now take that concept and apply it to land units that get a >/= to 5 AP value, obviously they need mobility tech. In reference to my above post about combined arms, players will need a lot of firepower to break a "configured" defensive deployment and if we happen to be going back to hexes....well...you can see the problem of stagnation. Not if you have the ability to move, attack, (player's choice) to move or attack again. Think how a mechanic like this represents the Blitzkrieg. You start out with two powerful units adjacent to the position you want to take, they attack and move off. Next group of highly motorized units swoop in, attack and move off. How many groups can you concentrate within the range to pull off the Blitz and move off? You see this is a matter of concentration of forces that could present a very real major offensive build up with the dynamics of a breakthrough with this withering sequence of attacks. Sure, your opponent could unveil it with recon, and it can be inhibited with weather and terrain constraints, but under the right conditions......is there any defensive position that could hold..., I think not.

I've been trying to figure a way to use the smaller units in a more realistic function for SC. Given the scale, many of you have professed an inclination that anti-air, anti-tank, artillery, and even perhaps special forces don't belong in this strategic environment. Your opinion has been duely noted and rejected! In lieu of having attachments, which I would prefer, I want to offer a new approach for the "small" units of SC. Think of it, what advantage do the "small" units have over the regular sized versions? IMO small units have a greater effectiveness, not staying power, or combat power, they simply display a greater cohesiveness than larger units. They can react quicker and are not bogged down in the command chain. They don't use as many resources so they're not so dependent on logistics. So how do we model this? I propose an effect similar to when a nation has been successful at subduing its enemies, the conquest bonus to "readiness" and "morale" that enhances its combat units in subsequent turns. How will it work? Let's say that you attach the "smaller" units to the normal sized SC units, Armies, Corps, Tank Groups, by having them adjacent to that unit, a connecting tile. Think of a condition that exists when you have an HQ support certain units although in this case they must be adjacent to each other. Now what does this remind you of? Could it be representative of "combined arms"? Of course it does and each unit that fulfills the adjacent requirement, including the parent, all get that bonus in morale and readiness. Perhaps the more you fulfill the combined arms concept with the adjacent smaller units, anti-air, a-tank, art., the greater the bonus. Imagine the configuration...a Corps, Army, or TG, with an anti-air, anti-tank on the flanks and the artillery in the rear echelon creates the combined arms maximum bonus.

OK last suggestion, and this one creates suspense, cause you just never know when the pressure of the reaction will over come the physical friction. A mixture of vinegar(acetic acid) and sodium bicarbonate(baking soda) will produce a reaction giving off carbon dioxide. Both chemicals are relatively harmless and adding a little soap will definitely increase the overall visual effect(foaming bubbles). You'll have to experiment with the proper dosages, but that's the fun part. Make sure you wear eye protection. Have fun!

I think this exploitation feature would be better represented if units could save their APs as they go about their actions. Then any unit with additional APs remaining after moving or combat would be allowed to use them later after being deselected for more movement or combat as the player wishes. Think of how valuable motorization tech would be.

I here ya Scott, I still play PZAA from both sides against myself, constantly tweaking and adjusting gameplay. It takes a lot of time. So when you are happy with it and I finish these 2 OpZ games, I'd like to help you test it and offer some commentary, we could do an AAR. I think its well worth it to have that alternative mod that has parity. I love to initiate a campaign that I know nothing about other than the mechanics of gameplay, especially against someone who is a veteran of the scenario.