SeaMonkey

Retri, is this your first game against the AI? I have to concur, I'm just now getting into May 44 and I'm being pummelled from all directions although the Jap. Armed Forces are holding their own. Massive ebb and flow as my core airforce is moving from one crises to another, I'm on almost total defense except in Burma and USSR where a huge attrition of my resources is going on. Trying an inner ring defensive effort with many mobile reserves awaiting in the build Q as well as two half Navy, half Airforce groups operating north to south.:confused: The issue is in doubt.

Good points Stitch on the CAP feature. I would like CAP/intercept to be an auto allocation to bomber sorties only(TAC & SAC) so as not to allow a response to the fighter only soak-off mission. This would almost surely dictate the use of escorts/mixed mode or else.:eek:

Understand arado, I was using the BofB example to show that hypothetically things could have been different. I mean after all a Red Army attack on Japanese positions in 43, or even 44 is a little bit different than history. In keeping with historical character, do you think Stalin's paranoia could have been capitalized on by a large scale attack that the 5th & 6th Pz Armies represented? My conclusion, and it is just that, conjecture, is the game simulates a scenario a bit farfetched for the timeline. Not saying it wasn't possible, just pointing out the inconsistency as related to some of the other scripted historical events. Again, a trivial matter in regards to the Global SC game we are sure to see in the near future where all the decisions will rest with the players in a WW2 context.

Actually Stitch all this is inconsequential in relation to Global SC. With PTO there is a need to present an abstraction of the ETO effect, so scripting of events and the appearance of forces teleported in is necessary. Once the SC edition goes global those PTO elements will be unnecessary and we will definitely have the WW2 "what if" we have all been after, that middle road between Axis/Allies and WiF. Anybody got any input to what's up after Global SC? My vote is a modern simulation of world conflict with the Supreme Ruler theme. My thoughts are we may need some additional computing power. I'm sure...its awhile down the road, if at all.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Battle of the Bulge occur after the destruction of AG Center? I wonder what would have happened if the 6th and 5th Panzer Armies had been loosed upon the Red Army? I wonder.... would the loss of 20 to 30 divisions impaired Stalin from offensive operations in the East? I mean.. if we're hypothesizing! Still early Russian entry into PTO?:confused:

Use him to train your forces, adding to their experience level.

I've made it just to Jan 44 on Blashy's recommended settings and I have to say that I agree with the crowd stating that a USSR entry on a Chinese surrender is both ahistorical and upsetting for play balance. Historically, it is as has been declared, Stalin would not have DoW ed Japan before the Germans were in their death throes, especially with Manchuria garrisoned. No garrisons....well...perhaps that is another matter. I've found China a bit too easy to conquer even at Expert +2, but when the Russians come in, its really a tough go and this is in late 43. So here you have it, 44 beckons, and there is pressure, lots of pressure from all points of the compass. Reds are over powered, Japan cannot contain them for long. USA sniping with Paras and Amphibs on the northern home islands. Commonwealth healthy and aspiring in Burma and the Indian Ocean. Allied airpower is crippling and fast Carrier task forces skirt the southern shores of the Co-Prosperity Sphere extending the Nip navy. All of this seems consistent with historical potentials except of course with USSR early entry. Its good...real good, but it's not excellent ....yet....strictly speaking for this preliminary assessment of Japan vs Allied AI....close though! I'm sure H to H is another world altogether, but still......Reds early????:confused: Someone convince me!:cool:

Actually I believe the attack on PH should be a decision event. You, as Japan. say "yea" you get historical results. Japan says "nay" then the victory conditions change to a different set of variables. Think of it in simple terms as with a PH attack the antagonism of "sneak" inflicts unconditional victory resolve from USA, otherwise perhaps a more limited approach from the Allies for conflict resolution.

Excellent post 2. Agreed, but perhaps Stalin's psyche is a subject for later discussion (I have a somewhat different evaluation), ie paranoid schizophrenic, dictators usually are. The real crux of my post is for the obvious future rendition of Global SC and that is a plea for a National Morale value. The NM will be very important to the overall victory conditions in conjunction with the diplomatic leanings and resource possessions of various other belligerents. Seems my request is appropriate for this thread in light of 2's orientation of USA homeland sentiments, which I agree with.

Ahh, I like this idea of intelligence reports. Let me make a suggestion in keeping with the way raiding subs are handled. Suppose that units previously spotted leave a lingering outlined apparition, a tranparent footprint if you will that fades out over the next preceding turns. In this manner you have an on map "intel report" for reference during your turn that becomes old later and less reliable but still serves as a "note" completely disappearing by the third turn after origination.

Xwood, let me ask you something. Isn't this water channel inside of a single tile, not lying between two tiles?

Rambonehead I thought we had this straight by now. You know as well as I that sometimes, very intermittently, the game will freeze up and crash when using the N feature. I'm with you, I used to use it all the time, but when playing PBEM.......well it leaves a bad taste in your opponent's mouth when they see the reload, even though it may be legitimate. There's an integrity issue here......so my advice...get over it. For AI games, well if you don't mind starting the turn over, go for it. Case closed!

Yeah Hubert! An auto disband connected to a date would do the trick.

Obviously KH, you are new to the SC series, that's a good thing, we always need additional perspectives. See you can have an airbase anywhere on the map, note this problem here with the location. What you can't have is supply everywhere and obviously that drives the war train. Fortifications do take time to build by an engineer and they are destroyed when attacked and the friendly occupying unit vacates. My original suggestion was, because the amount of time to build a fortification is directly related to the number of sides the players wish to fortify, to allow an inherent supply efficiency also tied to the number of sides the fortification has. Example, you build one side, you get 10% / 1 supply, two sides = 20%, etc. You could expand on this idea by additionally allowing a complex fortification, ie. max build, to become to some degree a staging port to help with naval refueling and limited repairs. Carrying on further by stationing an HQ in the fortification, taking into account a multi-tile island, you can bring about additional efficiency to your combat units. All these ideas have but one goal in mind, probably very similar to yours, allowing the flexibility of committing forces to a previously desolate area as was a common practice in the Pacific and hence the problem refered to in this thread is cured.

Awesome guys, much appreciated. Good idea CaptA, I will try the Midway scenario first. Thanks Blashy, and what do you guys think about Bill's suggestion? I'm not totally locked in on the Japanese side as my first, I could just as easily go with USA.:confused: Being a surfer, I'm addicted to the adrenalin rush.:cool: Good to hear that the basics still hold true, a preponderance of force has always been my MO for SC games, a page from Monty's book. MoonS, seems you tipped the scale, thanks, max settings it is.:eek:

This is a perfect opportunity to employ the engineer unit for building an airbase infrastructure, like I suggested before. Allow the SeaBees(SC Egr unit) the same capability as the special forces amphibious feature, but with the addition that it can now build an airbase much like it does a fortification. Of course the fortification then has an inherent 5 supply/50% efficiency rating to simulate the required base logistics foundation to support combat units. What could be more historical?

JDt2...I had concluded the same thing while reading this thread and then !behold! your exact same summation. What this gives the player is a chance to recreate history or not. Choice is good. SAS lingers!

Haven't received my copy yet, but when I do I plan on playing my first game against the AI, I'll be the Japanese. I plan on doing this as my first go at the new AI since back in the ole SC1 days and I'm wondering.....???? Since I feel I have comparable SC experience approaching the Betas, I would like to solicit their opinions as far as the settings for my first game in many a year against the AI. I'm not going to read any scripts. I love going into a scenario,"sight unseen" with only my historical hindsight as my guide. I think it improves the FOW element and replicates to some degree the unknown nature of the future the original contingents may have felt. So...totally unexperienced, no investigation other than refering to new unit mechanics, veteran SC player, PTO settings for the initial AI Allied opponent? All suggestions welcome, but please..no game busters, not even a hint.

In the context of this thread I would like like to bring up a related consideration. Knowing that SC is more strategic oriented but tuned to tactical realities, I believe the radar advantage of the Allies should be included in the game to a certain degree, possibly also modelled in the research mechanism. Throughout WW2, especially air and naval battles the tactical advantage the Allies had, through their superior radar detection, allowed them to gain the upperhand. To an extent the Axis also were able to develop their radar technology, but never to the same level as the Allies, they were always behind. This tactical model could be initiated in the spotting ability of surface forces devoid of the all important air reconnaissance that is extended by long range air tech enhancements. Possibly LR spotting may need to be reined in a bit. Now I realize this may be a bit complicated to infuse into the current SC edition, PTO, but looking into the future and after a lengthy evaluation, it could be something for Global SC. For me, the anticipation of finding the enemy through your maneuver endeavors is one of the most compelling parts of the game, any wargame, and goes far in capturing the essence of "Fog of War". I continue to be a strong proponent of "The Search".

Tim has got it exactly right, although I do wish for the zoom feature, a couple to three layers would do with refinement when Global SC comes out. When I made PZAA, the large unit movement allowances dictated that I use the overview map since literally you could move units out of the area encompassed by the normal map. It takes a bit getting used to but in the end becomes second nature. My suggestion is practice and I believe you will all see the benefit it brings to your overall gameplay.

Well when the Master provides his disciples with the proper resources they can approach the level of artistry the creator possesses. Hubert, you can always count on my patronage. A short break is in order, PTO must be explored and allowed to catalyze additional ideas. And then............ well.....again.... a Master always knows his calling.

Well maybe not Nupe, as far as the game mechanics, yes, but psychologically, think a moment. "What if" an air attack on the West Coast USA happen to catch something significant, some 007 plan unveils perfectly, no reaction? Imagine the repositioning of assets to prevent further escalations and then the unthinkable, another lucky attack. Now you truly have some paranoia, the population demands action. Remember the attack on Tokyo from "Shangri La", and the response, Midway and the Aleutians. Do we need this parameter in the game?

:rolleyes:Rational thought effuses that SC is a game first and foremost, no need to reiterate a234's statement. Perhaps it is a simulation second, that is debatable, but assuredly it is nowhere close to reality, never will be, for simply one most prominent reason, hindsight. Hindsight defined as either historical or repetition of the game mechanism. So from there and there is no denying it, you'll always have a deviation from history and people will argue that it is not reality and we will be without reproach. Bottom line, the game will always be a "what if", and in that embodiment there exists a chance that the Axis conglomeration could win, not the one that we know historically, but the one that SC presents. The one conclusion that does exist is the one that happened, the why's and where for's will always be discussed, but in the context of reality, inconsequential. Now our SC ending is another matter completely, so let us remember, in that setting, anything is possible, within the confines of physics....as we know them. Even....."Sharks with Fricken laser beams on their Heads":eek:

Now may be a good time to start the new SC Global thread? But before that, perhaps it would be best to define a start date? I have a few candidates to nominate. I'll start in chronological order. 1. Kwantung Army occupies Chinese state of Manchuria, September 1931. 2. Germany re-occupies the Rhineland, March 1936. 3. "China Incident", July 1937. I'll state my leanings to #2. Others to consider?

I'm with you xww, a USA surrender is no plausible than it is today. But remember, its just a game, and besides, knowing we are on the same page, let's concentrate our efforts for a realistic what-if Global SC. So....HC...when does the coding start?