SeaMonkey

So what'll be....some 14 inchers, 16s or God forbid 18 inch shells from the Musashi or Yamato landing on your little Pacific playground. Reading Robert's AAR got me to thinking about shore bombardment and its representation here in the SC PTO edition. I mean what if a task force creeps in at night, or with plenty of air cover, daylight, and starts to rain shells as big as a man on your airfield or island habitat.....what can we expect as losses? If those BB squadrons from the Combined Fleet had gotten through to those Leyte beacheads what havoc would ensue? I'll use an example from Admiral Takeo Kurita's playbook using the Haruna and Kongo's 14 inch shells late one Guadalcanal night. Anyone remember what happened?

Kuni...they're still going to get nuked. It was over, before it started, Yamamato knew and he wasn't the only one. It was one bad decision. Humans are notorious for bad decision making........And...what's worse...is they make the same ones ...over and over again. A bunch of damn idiots...so don't ask me!

Excellent summation and analysis Terif, but I think you were at the crux of the situation with your earlier statement regarding the demise of defense. These things that have been mentioned are just a consequence of not being able to mount a competent defense. If you look at the combat equations you'll see they are all oriented to offensive operations and the defenses are resolved in essence by the damage the attacker takes. Remember in SC1 how we all commented on the lack of movement and the potential stagnation of building a front line akin to WW1 scenarios? Do you think we might have gone a little to far the other way? What I have always looked to for SC is the combined arms approach, but as you reiterate we seem to get to the point that some weapon platforms represented in SC through the building of experience as well as tech transforms them into superweapons. When I made PZAA, I tried to ingrain into the units, battlefield resilience. So that they would have staying power I manipulated the combat factors and supply/readiness so that no unit could be vanquished by a couple of attacks. It took many attacks from different units, perhaps closer to a half dozen in a sequence, and even then the elimination was always in doubt. A model such as PZAA, required a subsequent set of planning and positioning of units to achieve the required offensive effect, closer to a war of attrition where the defender is degraded to the point of collapse. Perhaps as you refer to Terif, the timelines that are the turns that SC represent should allow for greater AP. I also believe the ability to isolate a battlefield from enemy operands coming clear across the map is a realistic effect. It necessitates an in theater allocation of a reserve force which can either be on site or in the build Q for placement and has the alternative consequence of keeping unit density down. Anyway, just some ideas, we all have many, and I'm sure we can get Hubert to see the validity for adjustments. This is the best forum for game evolution I have been exposed to, not saying that it is the epitome, its just from my rather shallow background it seems to be.

I hate to say it but this is the one aspect of SC that really needs some improvement. I know its been talked about many times and there have been some good proposals, but somehow ...it seems we haven't hit upon just the congenial feature of representation. I'm not sure if its a coding problem or what, but oil needs a more apparent role in SC. I mean...of all the resources of WW2 impact, it is by far the single most important commodity, perhaps the decisive consideration for the entire era. Its deficiency was the one driving factor for campaign modelling by both Axis major partners, and the one thing that gave the Allies a most formidable advantage. What to do? ...... What to do?:confused:

Retri...check out "Bitter Glory". I think it has provisions for design and construction of war machines, albeit the traditional types from WW2, with modifications based upon present technological levels.

Clearly A234 get's it:D, this is exactly about making SC better, the feedback and suggestions from the forums. Everyone has made valid statements, now we take these and incorporate into future renditions and SC becomes "more fun". Now fun is a matter of perspective and we all know we're different when it comes to that definition. So what we want to do is build a consensus. Terif is right, SC2 was immaculately balanced for MP and remember Terif it really didn't take that long to get it there, because of the ideas and adjustments. But Terif....SC2 had some deficiencies in realism and historical context and it is now a landmark in that town we left behind, we saw it, we liked it, but it is time to move on. I'm glad you decided to take up residence there, you found your place early, we're still searching for ours, although I still hold my liberty to visit from time to time, and I do. So ....when you get right down to it....most of the things we're discussing here are irrelevant(presently) since PTO looms, but perhaps consequential to the forthcoming global variant. We'll need to examine PTO's mechanics and put them in the proper context with WaW. For all we know, PTO may alleviate some of these misgivings we currently have with the WaW unit interactions. We've already arrived at some remedies, many put forth in this thread and other discussions, its just a matter of testing. And you see....Terif...you... as are many others here, are important for that resolution, for we all want the same thing. An excellent single player vs AI game as well as a balanced MP scenario for World War 2 simulations in our strategic scale, operational too. A vast playground that presents us with something new everytime we boot it up. We agree in principle, its just the details we have some differences over. So ....I say to all.... you have an SC summer home, a vacation place you like to frequent, me too, but do not forget, there's a rather large space out there that is unexplored. I'm setting my sails for "out yonder"......hope you guys come with me.:cool:

You can only land paratroopers on a vacated tile. The attack from the sky as well as the sea is subject to conjecture.

I think we're working up to that Al, one step at a time. PTO feedback will have its necessary imput factor and modifications first.

I like A234's approach and I also can see the premise behind Terif's proposals. It has been a constant compromise for SC development, historical accuracy vs strategic gameplay. Since I don't have the PDE expansion I can only comment on the lines of the WaW variant. And as I've said before choosing Canada as the backup capital to continue UK involvement has produced some very long and captivating games for me, H to H. The supply situation in Afrika should always be precarious at best, for both sides! It is a very important theater with vast consequences and thusly should be portraid in that manner. It should take a commitment from either side that will impact other arenas for its rewards and should conversely have its downsides. I think with the Ottawa fall back provision it is represented. Perhaps, and I say this hesitantly, there should be a decrease in USA readiness if UK does choose, in the face of British Isle invasion success, to continue from Canada. If they choose to continue from Egypt, then morale and supply needs limitations. Since PDE has the decision events it should be for the Allied player to choose. The gameplay balance, the diversification of strategies, and the historical context can all be satisfied, but its not going to be easy, especially in the case of constant SC evolution. I've been here, as well as others, a long period of playing commitment and I don't see me bowing out anytime soon as long as Hubert continues on this SC development path. So what happens when we get there? Its over? We have the perfect game? I think not! We'll never get there so let's have fun on the road that never ends. Now ...as far as the defense of UK homeland...my group constantly employs the engineer unit(first built) to guard London. I've even seen the USN(as a neutral), in conjunction with the RN, engage in naval maneuver exercises in the North Sea and English Channel that completely impedes any notion of Sealion in the early stages of the game. So ... I still revile the easy victory of UK invasion by the Axis forces.

VC there's a difference in de-entrenchment for fortifications(made by engineers) and fortresses(permanently on the map). You guessed it, it takes a direct attack on the unit occupying the fortress to reduce the entrenchment level. Bombers attack the infrastructure(supply efficiency) of fortresses and not the unit, although there is a chance for a strength reduction due to collateral damage from the bombing. In other types of terrain, including fortifications, but excluding MPP producing cities/resources and fortresses, a bombing attack will reduce the entrenchment level by 2 for each attack. Just remember, Bombers attack infrastructure(MPP producers) first and TAC or Fighters attack the unit occupying the tile, therefor reducing the entrenchment level of that unit.

Sounds great Hubert. Still wondering aloud here.....what if you could bring an enhanced NA CTV for DDs and CAs when they attack close in, say from the adjacent tile to a CV, BB, CA, etc simulating the surface torpedo attack?:cool: Of course running in that close means that the next turn you're liable to be obliterated if the tactic was unsuccessful, sort of a suicidal naval attack, such as was common from PT boats as well as destroyers in the Pacific. Just an idea.

How about going another way. Make it so that as anti-air levels rise through research the air defense(AD) CTV of ground units goes up. Increase the chit cost to 100 MPPs for research. Once a player reaches level 3 anti-air tech all his ground units receive a boost to 2 CTV for AD. This would make it more expensive for ground attack air units to conduct missions as it happened in real life. Further as each player enters into the later stages of the game and the TAC becomes more experienced, give ground units another boost at AA tech level 5 increasing their AD to 3. You could also plan that BBs, Ca, and DD units might see an AD increase at that level 5 anti-air tech level. I like the idea of having further dilutions of MPPs for players to commit to different arenas, enhancing the rock-paper-scissors theology.

Just wondering out loud here....wondering if the PTO engine will be naval oriented enough to do something like the battle of Leyte Gulf? We've heard mention by Hubert about Moonslayer's "Canal" scenario being an epic naval engagement to some degree, or did I just read that into the comment? I see the listed "Battle of Midway" in the campaign reference of the PTO features page, but what about the widespread use of torpedos(Long Lance) from surface vessels like destroyers and cruisers? Remember how devastating their(torpedos) use was in the Pacific, especially in restricted waters that were so apparent in the large island groups. Can we expect an engine to handle these types of actions, Surigao Strait, Samar, etc.? Is there something in the game engine that models smaller vessels' effective use of torpedoes against larger Ca and BB types?

Actually it should have been the FW190 fighter Bombers! Or perhaps sharks with fricken laser beams on their heads!

So Moonslayer can you give us any details on your Guadalcanal campaign?:confused: Like ....does the map include all the Solomons? Perhaps, New Britain and Rabaul? Is it all surface naval oriented or are there carrier interactions? Just a few tidbits......eh...how about it HC?:cool:

Yep, bombing doesn't quite have the range restrictions artillery does. One thing not brought up yet, but was effective in its own right, trying poking your head out for a look at the enemy assault when you're being strafed by 50 caliber machine guns. Worse yet...caught out in the open.:eek: Unless you're Patton, I don't think you'll be very concerned with accuracy.

You know Colin in a way you can interdict any tile, albeit not directly, if your playing WaW with roads and rails. Simply bomb/ard all supply sources down to the lower values, 1, 2, 10% efficiency etc. There was hardly ever a case in WW2 at least on this scale for SC turn periods that supply never got through, seems there was always a way to get a trickle and of course the inherent ability of the tile itself. Combat groups always seem to find a way to forage.

Figures! I already put my early order in for WPP. Its got to be way better than this SC PTO gambit. I mean, I"m such a glutton for punishment knowing time and time again I'm going to be disappointed by Hubert's releases...................................................................................................................... NOT!!!

And to add to A234's observation, since the Tank Groups TO&Es represented in SC are not 100% tanks don't you think their supporting cast should take some damage from air attacks also?

That's it, no PDE.

Sorry then, can't help with the testing.

Was this made in PDE format?

What I did with PZAA is other than create the known extreme weather zones, is to make a bunch of different generic types. Like "Stormy Winter", "Temperate Winter", "Calm Winter". Make them with different degrees of characteristics and then sprinkle them around the map loosely grouped to the actual features of the global zones. This allows for different varying weather, almost like storms in a sea of calm or vice versa, very hard to predict. After all isn't that what weather is?

Hmmmm, kind of makes me wonder. What if the UK/USA maxed their diplomatic pressure on the Soviets and you scripted a faster entry coupled with a greater than 8 deployment forward, how quickly would the best case entry scenario for USSR develop? Imagine a reversal of what actually happened with the Western Allies clamoring for Soviet entry the way the Reds did for that second front. You might also catalyze a Soviet decision to belay research in order to purchase more low tech units for the forward deployment. It might all end up with an historical unfolding.

Sounds pretty neat Al. So you, as the Allied player, using a forward deployment of units, can slowly ratchet up the entry readiness of the Russians? That's very interesting...I like that approach. Gives the USSR an incentive for forward deployment if the Axis are stalling and also simulates the historical orientation of forces.