SeaMonkey

Get it guys, ...."this particular release"...! We will be getting the world eventually, but this PTO step is the logical progression. In keeping with the evolution of this great series, each expansion/features need thorough testing and adjusting. A Masterpiece requires careful thought and incorporation.

How about this surprise: Posting over at Matrix, I find out from our Liam, that "Commander: Europe at War" was developed by our old buddy Zappsweden from the original SC forum. I'm assuming firepowerjohn=Johan Persson=Zappsweden. If so, its kind of interesting how this strategic scale has been so inspirational and how that first SC title has served to be a great catalyst to wargame development of this genre. Yeah ...I know it wasn't the first(SC), but perhaps a little push for resurrection.

CSS, Rommel had 4 Wehrmacht divisions, 15 & 21 Panzer, 90 light and 164 "Afrika" plus a number of attachments and with the 6 Italian divisions, not all as bad as history makes out, became a viable "Panzer Armee Afrika". With a little more help from naval and air assets neutralizing Malta for a longer sustained period, the Axis could have come very close to capturing the Suez, if not actually completing the accomplishment. I really like JJR's suggestion of a set of variable victory conditions, either chosen or appointed at the beginning of the scenario always making for an unknown strategic element. Attaining different conglomerants of victory objectives could lead to "bonus" points. Say as Axis, you chose the "Scandanavian Expedition" where the capture or joining of Norway, Sweden, and Finland led to a possible 2 point victory allocation with an added bonus point from the capture of Leningrad as a further incentive. Now you could prosecute all kinds of different geographic/political strategies and set up diversions unbeknownst to your opponent what the actual intent was. We could really get creative here!

If you want to connect land or water movement then you have to use the terrain tiles that have a channel in them.

No! GZ the maps are portable from one edition to the other.

If ever there was a return to a ladder type competition with SC PTO as the centerpiece, it maybe desirable to define the win-loss circumstances in terms of points awarded. Historical unconditional surrender(Axis) by the original timeline, "Allied Decisive Victory" = 3 points. Add a half dozen turns, 3 to 6 months, to the above = 2 points Marginal Victory defines as another year of conflict = 1 point. Draw...I don't like draws, forget'em, its win or die! Then I guess its allowable for points to be assessed to the Axis for certain accomplishments also, instead of just delaying the ultimate surrender, which it seems was inevitable? So what points would be awarded to the Axis players for attaining certain strategic positions throughout the game. 1. Ocuppying Gibraltar and Suez Canal and essentially closing the Mediterranean = 1 point,....for example. Should the Mideast also be a part of the strategic goal? What I'm saying is other than a timeline victory condition, shouldn't strategic positions also count?

Sure it does, SC2 1.08 has a world campaign version IIRC. This is not in the WaW expansion. Understand that WaW and PDE are both separate expansions based upon the SC2 platform, you need the SC2 foundation to play either or both. SC2 PTO will be stand alone.

Alright GZ, I'll be looking forward to some of your custom made campaigns. You made a gooooooood decision. Ohhh by the way you'll need to checkout Bill's (pzgndr) ATR campaign.

One of my favorite games was ...hmmm. was it SPI or AH's "Blitzkreig". The two major powers(red & blue) were separated from each other by about 5 minors, IIRC. Les, isn't this what SC aspires to be? Really, when you think about it, it just has all the limitations(WW2)....ie loosely applied, and a geographically semi-accurate map as the playground. Its a "what if" in an historical context in a designer(HC) defined environment, nothing more, nothing less. And it is way ahead(4 to 5 years) of the competition. I've never expected anything more, but I do expect it to get better. My defined strategic scaled TOAW, but with better mechanics(TOAW air / naval model was weak....very weak).

I would concentrate on the Map for the present awaiting PTO. Once you've got a working model of the map create a pool of units for testing and start writing your scripts and decision events to assess their applicability. The OOBs are simple, lots of documentation available. The real time consumer is the balancing, like building a house, goes pretty quick at first but the finish work is a bear.

You know this leads me to a configuration of maps denoting different areas at different scales that are connected by loops. I'd thought about doing something like this for a Pacific campaign. Say you create a number of different island groups in their normal N->S, East->West orientation and connect the map edges with loops to the appropriate map edge of another group. Say you have the Solomons in the center connected to the Samoans to the west and the Admiralties to the NW, the Carolines to the NE, New Zealand in the south, and so on and so forth. Then of course the Carolines connected to the Marshalls, the Marshalls to the Gilberts....you get the picture. Now each group is separate and you can design each one separately to whatever desired scale you wish, no need for a scale that is relative. Since they're all islands all travel by units is done through the sea loops from one group to the other with a variable number of entry arrows. Just one thing to workout, long range bomber and recon units moving from one group to the other. As the SC mechanics work now, your only air elements would be carrier based.

Maybe you're right Nupe. I haven't had a chance at home to open the editor....too much work lately. Seems I remembered a land loop for PDE. Nevermind, perhaps you can make a large lake in a land area and put the sea loop in it. Experiment!

This sub thing, the naval thing actually has long been one of the SC features which, in my opinion, has been somewhat lacking. Its getting better, but the real crux of the situation is the missing element of "the search". The silent mode for subs is a step in the right direction, but still because of the sea area limitations, naval units are revealed in an unrealistic manner. Usually naval vessels in port are a known element to the enemy through espionage, but on the high seas, its a different animal altogether. As far as I'm concerned, most naval units should run with a % transparency on the open seas. Only through search and combat actions should their numbers and types be revealed. I like the ability to maneuver the forces as SC simulates now, its just that in certain choke points of the map, in proximity to land areas, the disclosure of the naval forces is too predominant, negating the search mechanism that is inherent into any naval/air actions. Thusly results in the surrealism of the SC naval model. Of course the correction is a coding nightmare where units are given a search and an evasion factor that accumulates in proximity to one another to finally reveal enemy forces. And as always there is a variable associated with the mathematics of the calculations. Not an easy accomplishment for Hubert. So it seeems to me Gentlemen, we have a job to figure out how to present the search and reveal mechanism in a manner that is not only easy to code but simulates the effect. We have a basis to expand on.....Subs running in silent and hunt mode. It's realistic to a point and it's in the game.

No wrap, but both loops(land and sea).

OK Les, I'll bite. Take your CBs example, what did they do? They made an infrastructure in a place where one didn't exist, at least to the capacity for the designated mission. So, you land on an island that has been neutralized by your forces and lets say by SC definitions that island's efficiency(port,village,etc) has been reduced to 0%, ie. everything was destroyed. Now through the game engine, they slowly start to recover(CBs at work) a certain % efficiency every game turn until they reach a threshold which will accomodate more forces other than the initially landed unit. (you can't operate an air unit in, dock a naval unit, start a convoy, etc. until it reaches say 50%). The "effect".

My point exactly, grand strategy doesn't allow a lot of specifics.

Good job Nupremal, I like the way you think. Indeed most of Western Hemisphere is inconsequential, all you really need is the coasts and a hundred miles inland. Same for the middle of USSR, western China, both nonessential. Somehow you will need to incorporate India and SE Asia. Just put them on a loop into the Indian Ocean and across the Hump.

Maybe its not so important to recreate the actual event, but the effect, as long as the players' ingame decision making is a catalyst for "the effect".

I also noticed this in my mod in June, 1941. First I had frozen and then the next turn snow. The weather layer was temperate with 0 chance for that type of weather as it is the Med area in the Summer.

"I played Italy, and ended up doing so much damage to the Brits in Africa.." Well....That's just wrong! No wonder SC is so much better than ATR.

Integers only. Convoys transfer MPPs only. The convoy screen allows you, once the script is written, to send a variable amount of MPPs as a percentage of that country's total. You can also further modify the transfer according to weather periods. Also the convoy is interrupted if the destination/originating port is bombarded to 0% efficiency. Let's say USA, once it has reached the activation status(also set in the script), has a total of 200 MPPs from its resources and your maximum allowable transfer is 40% to UK. So UK would be elligible for any percent(even numbers) USA wishes to transfer(variable through the convoy map screen) up to 40% or 80 MPPs and let's say that's for a Summer convoy at 100% transfer rate. Now for Fall it is only a max 75% rate so that would be 60MPPs, and winter at 50% = 40. All this can be set in the editor through script writing and is made available during the game as a convoy owner variable. For unconnected resources(without convoy event) there is a maximum by the game engine of like 50%. Once you get a land connection the resource available MPPs will go to whatever your setting is in the editor "Modifier" area for each country where you set the max % efficiency occupational value, default I believe is 80%. So for example, Finland joins Axis or is occupied, but has no land connection, so all resources are at 50% MPP(Helsinki=Capital=3(resource value multiplier)*10=30*.5=15MPPs) until that land connection is established and then is goes to what you have set in the editor. Are you confused yet?:confused: Actually its pretty simple once you get past the learning curve, trial and error, but it doesn't come without commitment. There is a lot to remember and a lot that's interactive, but you as the designer have a lot of control. And after all, that's what we asked for.

I'm not sure this release will be the one for multiplayers for each side but definitely when the SC Global is out it will be time. For Allies, as many as 3 players, USA+China, UK+France, and of course USSR. The same holds true for Axis, Germany, Italy and Japan, the Triparte Alliance, although I would venture to guess that Italy should be played by the least experienced player. Would make for some nice team tournaments and of course there would have to be provisions for lend-leasing units as well as MPPs. This one feature in itself would probably lend more to SC longevity then any I can think of. So Hubert....do you like money?

Nupremal, you can set those parameters in "resource data" in the editor. Using the different resources, like mines, oil, capitals, etc. at MPPs per strength point and a multiplier you can customize the MPP allowance for each country. Example: mine at 10 strength/100% efficiency at 1MPP/strength = 10 MPPs, then use a multiplier like 2 = 20 MPPs per turn for that resource. Convoys are set up using the scripts in the editor under "event scripts". There are examples on each type of script with a definition of each line. Just don't copy and paste the example and make changes, for some reason that didn't work. I had to actually write the whole script physically.

So GeoZ since your scenario design work is winding down, does that mean CA is imminent for release? This year maybe? Don't violate the ND, but all the mechanics are working correctly?

Yeah I agree 2. What I've been doing in PzAA is creating an island resource area in some remote corner/side of the map to simulate convoys from mainland Europe. Now you can break that island up into different countries/resource amounts and run multiple convoys which allow nice routes for the enemy to interdict or the possessor to protect. And yeah, I would be corrected by Bill, as I'm a rookie at scenario design.