SeaMonkey

Now I'm assuming there is a veil of secrecy hovering over Global SC, but wouldn't it be nice to liven things up a bit here with some trivial news item? We don't need as much as perhaps other game publishers' forums get, since we trust Hubert to get things right, but a tidbit here or there might give us a morsel to digest with some conversation. Hubert / Battlefront, its OK if you have 5 chits in intelligence, but a little random news......duely laced with a plethora of ;)s surely would be a welcome to our continuing patronage. I ....don't even mind if its misleading. :confused: ??????????????????????????

That's it Rambo.....giv'em hell! So how are the islands working out with the new MPP values?

Shoot Scott, advice is easy, remember though its like an opinion, you do know what those are worth, but thanks for the acknowledgement. If I didn't have 3 PBEM games currently going I'd engage you with your mod, sounds interesting. Maybe later.

I'll let you know John, presently Rambo is scrambling to prevent a Sealion. All the pieces are in place although JJR has been doing decently with delaying the operation. I'm about to press the issue, its spring 41.

Try a hydrocarbon, like motor oil, there is a reason that water is not normally used as an hydraulic fluid.

Idealism in comparison to realism suffer a severe disconnect. You either die embracing one or live with the compromise of the other. To apply one or the other selectively is hippocrisy.

I here you Colin, I agree, the concept of SC is strategic, but since we have these units why not make them function in their realm of the tactical and enhance the overall play of the game? SC has come such a long way and I like to believe that it borrows from all levels of the wargaming genre with its foundation in the strategic scale. Warfare is so complicated and to try and create a simulation as well as a gaming platform is no easy task as I'm sure Hubert will attest to. Its playtesting and adjusting, its innovation and improvisation, its trial and error and it seems it never is perfect....and we know it never will be, but we can make it better. So let us not limit ourselves with strict definitions, this is about our imaginations, let them roam. Definition: Forum = roaming imaginations. Limitation = Moon;)

Have to agree with emf on the double strikes for the anti-air, anti-tank, and artillery, as long as they have been entrenched 1 level, which represents them being sighted in, calibrated(in battery) and the proper supply level is achieved, greater than or equal to 5. In fact I would be of the opinion that all units capable of double strikes be in possession of a supply level 5 or greater to produce that action. This represents a logistical support structure for them to perform at their utmost efficiency.

Just remember that PTO is nothing but a stepping stone to Global SC. Global SC should ultimately be about the "what ifs" of WW2 as we have Blitzkrieg and Pacific theaters for the historical crowd. We know how it unfolded, let's see what could have been, in the constraints of reality, which we will debate, and Hubert will patch.

Gathering my thoughts here......Bombers...tech, LR and heavy bombers, but come on .....think...these are large aircraft. There were many large type airframes in WW2 not necessarily designated as strategic bombers or having that strategic mission exclusively. Many were multi-role, recon, tactical ground attack, interdiction as well as the SC designed feature of strategic attack. Long story ....short...I would like to see the NW tech extended to "Bombers". This allows a more customized mission design of what a player wants his bombers to fulfill. Early in the war this was obviously not their intended concept, but they adapted, and by the end, they were effective. So if we have the NW tech applied, bombers should start out with 0 as a naval attack combat target value, but as we allow up to 3 levels, by the third we should have NA = 3. Now we do have the issue of the twin strike program. I'm of the consensus that all aircraft types should have double strike due to their agility in reference to all other SC units, perhaps excepting CVs because of the size of CAGs in comparison to other SC air units. I think this is worth an initial effort to be revisited after play of the Global version has been extended for at least a quarter, 3 months. Remember there is a "give and take" designed into SC, defined in the CTV, as well as the limiting build numbers so that double strikes can be effectively curtailed if necessary. What I want to see is players making the decisions to operate and commit their air assets to certain locals/theaters, not everywhere!

Alright I have a little problem! This is something that is a consequence of SC not having the ability to stack units. Now it can be remedied, but it will take the "communication" layer to do it. Someone offer me an alternative. Here's the deal. With the island scenario that PTO has brought to light, I find concentrating my air assets is a bit disingenous. Even though I have an HQ in proximity, having 8 supply, because the terrain has an AP cost greater than 1, usually two or three, my air assets suffer accordingly, less supply = less efficiency and morale. Subsequently they are not that effective on the attack and essentially it limits by build up for future plans. My persceptive is that with a continuous communication connection these island bases should eventually, over a few turns, reach a supply level of 8, allowing the HQ supply depot to have a 10 supply. This will impart a greater supply/efficiency level to my massed air units that I choose to deploy in proximity(remember NO stacking) of that HQ representing the commitment of resources for offensive/defensive operations and not suffering the decrease of AP penalties that nonstacking affords. To expand on this a little more, the ground units I accumulate at a given base for projection of amphibious operations will also benefit from the increased supply. Isn't this a bit more realistic than the current model? I mean, now the islands are of increased importance( I know I've said this before) as a staging area for the next invasion. Think about it, isn't this the way it was?

John, as Nupr says, amphib a cheap garrison and capture a port closer to your objectives, then stage from there. I know that you end up paying for the transport also, but in this manner you have the benefit of air cover(possibly), and your amphibs won't suffer as much efficiency loss. Don't forget to bring an HQ into the staging area also which serves to make a much more efficient use of the area, essentially turning it into a base of operations.

This is another reason we need that LOC(lines of communication) layer. Subs and surface vessels would serve to interrupt the supply lines of islands, reducing the efficiency level by 10% / 1 supply level per naval unit straddling the LOC. Of course air assets would be needed to support the blockades and there would be a reason to sorti your naval task forces to lift the enemy infringements of those LOCs. I won't mention those sorties would need land based or CV air support if you wanted to guarantee their success. Then again...there are no guarantees in this life, but you see where I coming from with regards to making the island chains of increasing importance.

I'm wondering.....can I get this 1.06 and also continue my game with Rambo using 1.03 while running the new version against a new opponent? Keep both in my campaign folder without conflict? What changes are you making?

Makes sense Hubert, I see your point, I repectfully rescind my position......currently....... with the rights reserved to change my mind again (must be a slight elevation of the miniscule estrogen level I possess).

Hey John, if your trying to dl Nupremal's World Campaign, I have version 1.03 on my memory stick. Its a pretty big file so I'm not sure it will email, but I'll try if you want. Currently, I believe the latest version(1.05) is experimental(as they all are at this point), but has some flaws that may be changed back. send me a pm at btaylor@camincargo.com if you want to try.

Thanks Hubert, but that seems a bit confusing, maybe its my oldtimers flaring up. So it seems the response of fighter intercepts is limited by its spotting range and not by its AP or range. You do realize that SC1 AF intercepts were determined by their APs, right? IIRC the AFs had an AP one less hex than their range (AP=4, range=5). Rationally speaking, I believe the intercept range should be determined by the unit's own range and not spotting as they could be called in from a coordinated central defense command, much as the Luftwaffe and Royal Airforce actually did. Logically..I guess ....I could explain your position as the necessary use of action points(fuel) in conducting the dogfighting, attack runs on the opponents aircraft, diminishing their range by one tile. But then again you could use the same logic to restrict air attacks on naval/ground units and diminish their range as well. My position is its inconsistent. Would it be safe for me to assume in the future that my fighter intercepts would be conducted at 1 tile less than their range/APs, kind of like it was in SC1? Maybe I should learn to use the intercept range highlighter which I've never used before!

Oh yeah, I got my memory stick right here, turn 49, its on the way, thanks Hubert. No weather that I could tell, I ran the turn a number of times trying to figure it out, I'm almost sure I'm overlooking something. Probably I need a good dressing down, so long to the rank of General, next stop Buck Private.:confused: You know what, come to think about it, maybe it was weather cause I really couldn't see the bases(they were on the edge tiles) where my fighters were, on the turn replay screen, perhaps they were socked in, maybe we need a bigger replay screen Hubert?

Let's address the movement and subsequent conflicts that occur with naval assets. What I would like to see, subsequent to adoption of saving APs, is a large movement allowance for naval units, say like 25 APs. I've found through testing PZAA that naval units with large APs tend to perform their historical task of patrol more realistically in conjunction with waypoints. A player could task a patrol route through the use of waypoints and while going about that path engage revealed enemy units, costing ...say a couple of APs for the combat and then continue on the designated path until all APs are expended. A great feature for naval recon and indeed you could have a drop down menu for the unit that allows certain order options like aircraft and CVs have. I've thought about seazones, but I've come to the conclusion that I like the ability to maneuver naval assets much like tanks on the desert, we just need to give them greater flexibility to react or to continue on, avoiding combat. Might serve to bring "the search" to fruition.

Someone clue me in, what am I missing here. Page 44 SC WW2 PT manual states defending fighter within AP range, strength greater than 5, set in either intercept or auto mode will be activated for the intercept mission. Imagine my surprise when my CV in Vizagapatam port does not receive the intercept help from carefully positioned fighters (the US Marine Ftrs 4 tiles away respond), UK one in Hyderabad ignore orders, the other in tile 6,39 north of Madras go missing, both 9 and 10 supply, AP = 5, strike range 5, set in "intercept" mode. Both of them...just sit there, did they fail to get orders? I counted the tiles numerous times = 5. Do I only get one intercept from US Marine fighters 4 tiles away, while the enemy CVs get double strikes? Perhaps they were involved in a Texas Hold'em game and went all in which they perceived to be a satifactory compliance for the given orders, while 2 thousand RN sailors flounder in the waters of the Indian Ocean, many never to see home again, after their carrier goes down! Ohhh, the humanity!:mad:

Vypuero, you could delay the deployment of the KB if the PH option is taken, allowing for the time for return plus refit. Of course the IJN did have some light carriers to help with there expansion right after PH so I would allow them one CV group. If the option is not taken, then the entire KB is available for initial actions, turn of Japan DoW of USA. Assuming the PH option is taken, wipe out the USN BBs at PH, plus damage to the installations and aircraft. I mean who wants to fight such a choreographed action, there's no SC skill to it, barely an exercise!

Damn it! Must be a day of "good decision making". Heck JDF2 I thought you already had this magnificent specimen being a vet from "the beginning". Been spending time with SAS I assume....how goes it? Vypuero, you're right, the Japanese did think the Americans would not allow them a free hand in the SRA and would go to war as ABDA, hence the attack. There were some entities in the Japanese High Command that believed they might get away with it, but the other voices were too loud and the clock was ticking. Really, I'm just trying to provide "food for thought" so that eventually we end up with a game that's balanced so that either side could win knowing in retrospect that the Axis didn't have a chance unless there were a possibility of "conditional surrender" variations. I think the SRA scenario presents such an option within the realities of "what ifs" for WW2. Where are my historical scholars? Anybody out there! We can't assume our creators have examined every viable possibility.

Good decision! Now that brings up another set of possibilities. Suppose Japan decides to engage in conquest of the SRA, avoiding the Philippines and any confrontation with America, solely targeting UK, Dutch, and Australian interests. Maybe a limited pull back in China for USA appeasement? Without PH event do you think that USA would be enticed into war just to secure the UK Commonwealth members, the Dutch colonies? I believe Roosevelt and company would have a hard sale to Congress and the American people to risk her young men on such an endeavor. At best, I could see some acceleration for entry, but not a DoW from the USA, giving the Japanese substantial breathing room. Eventually, yes, Japanese and USA interests in the Pacific are surely going to collide and war will be the result, but perhaps without PH there may be a conditional end to hostilities which lends credence to an Axis victory, at least in this theater. Other possibilities?

I kind of was thinking that perhaps the SC operational/tactical level could evolve into a campaign type system. You know like PG had with a core group of units that continue down variable branching scenarios(depending on the outcome) culminating with the war being won at the end. You could have naval-air oriented core groups, land groups, you know the scheme. Don't know whether Eiffel could handle it, but it would be new trend for Hubert and company to continue down. I mean the AI has gotten pretty damn good. It worked before!

In light of the reference of Yolo911 in the IT thread, I wanted to bring Vypuero's attention to the inadequacies of trying to duplicate the PH attack. I counted the tiles from the departure port in the Japanese Kuriles to the striking distance for the Kido Butai NW of Oahu and found it to be around 122 tiles. Divide that by the AP cruising range for CVs which is 14 and it will take approximately 9 turns to get there and your opponent has 9 turns, that's 18 turns total at a week per turn. Hmmmm, the KB departed like Nov.26 and of course the strike date Dec.7, that's 11 days, 1.5 turns. No problem with the surprise as Japan can DoW USA, but the road back will be a long one with the KB taking 3.5 months to return. Perhaps a Japanese loop is necessary?