SeaMonkey

No doubt a wise perspective JP, and you are so right, the more entries into this strategic genre, the better for everyone. Still, as I said, it'll be regression for me personally, as a further dilution of my time with the possibility of an empty return. Not that I'm against experimentation as I do recognize the other games have some nifty features I would eventually like to see incorporated into my "chosen" wargame. With limited resources it is necessary to prioritize your investments and after reading the threads from both CEaW and WW2 RtV, they have fallen way back on the list. The list does remain though, and at the top now is NWS Supremacy at Sea. Doesn't it look like a novel experience, something really different. I'll monitor the resulting threads and perhaps follow through with the investment. Yes...I'm picky....picky....picky.....remember....limited resources, of which time is most invaluable.

I hope your right JP, I would like to see something truly rival SC. I guess I'm just jaded, been disappointed by too many ventures that ended up at a dead end. I should try to guard against becoming a cynic. I wasn't trying to be critical of RtV, just skeptical that the designers will hang in there as along Hubert has with SC and commit to getting it right. Its like Les said, these new game designs come along and they have all the deficiencies that SC1 had and it seems these new guys haven't learned a thing from the trials and tribulations SC went through. Why would I want to regress? I can invision myself making all the same old recommendations that have now been incorporated into SC2 and maybe in a year or two, perhaps longer, they finally get the game where SC2 is now. I'm getting tired of starting over, trudging down that same old dusty road time after time. At least HC has given me an editor to work with. How long before RtV has an editor? They didn't even have the forsight to release the game with a PBEM feature. Please JP....I'm not a fanboy....I'm a factboy.

Sorry Larry, SC1 has long left my hard drive eons ago. But you know where jbunnelle is posting, you're in the right thread over at matrix, perhaps he still has those gems stored. So Larry...are you playing RtV? Seems to be a very rough cut of SC, but maybe in about 5 years it'll get somewhere close to where SC2 is now. Course by then, Hubert will have moved ole SC down the road another quantum leap. Might as well "smell the coffee" this is where strategic gaming is at and likely to be in the future. So why are you messing with SC1?

jbrunnel's were my favorites.

Border guards??? Don't make me laugh! :DThe other day, venturing south of the border, down Mexico way, I forgot my driver's license as they needed it at the bank to cash my check and forgot to give it back. Dumb-ass me...I just took the money and ran. So I'm coming back...with mucho tequila.......and ...dunta dah ta done....DRUGS!!!!! and they ask me for "my Papers" and want to know my nationality...like you can't tell.:eek: OK, I had had a margarita...ok maybe two.......damnit....alright...I lost count of how many, so I said..."I'm Texican", but,,, but...I left my papers(read DL, passport, etc.) at the bank(I break into a song and dance routine).....but I do have this Sam's membership card with my photo on it! Ok.....Mr Taylor...(read terrorist).. you can go.....just pay your liquor tax at the booth. So just like a drunken terrorist with a suitcase nuke(disguised as tequila)....I'm in.:confused: Don't worry Les...you wear camo(olive greens) down here...we'll let you in, you're considered, "preferred folks", but bring your gun.

With fright???? Maybe.

Well Sombra.....you did ask for a more entertaining French campaign!

Besides that, once they reach the interior of Texas, especially in the summer months, the frozen margaritas would ensure they "chilled" out.

Armuss you can do that in the editor. I for one hope Hubert is done. Kind of hate to have to port a custom campaign to a new patch. One of the reasons I wait until WaW version is finished.

How about, I just bring it to you? This is a good point about unit density and this is where stacking into a container hex provision will be the fix. Each hex, depending on its predominant terrain/function has the ability to contain a certain density of combat units. As the units accumulate the containing hex takes on different attributes has different abilities. Take a land hex for instance, obviously a clear terrain hex would allow the most density, forest allows more infantry, limiting mobile units, a containing road allows an additional motorized deployment....get my drift. Say you start out with just an infantry division, or a corps as the base combat occupier, then the hex does not have a rigid ZoC until you deploy more. Perhaps another division or corps, now the hex contains a corps or army and has more influence on surrounding hexes. Want to give it more abilities, add some anti-tank guns, artillery, armor, engineers, recon, assign a leader and name it Kampfgruppe Kempf or something to that effect, even PanzerGruppe Guderian. I love customizing my units. Here's where upgrades come into play, not to mention various combat bonuses, like combined arms, defensive enhancements, bombardment effects, infiltration. Now let's say you designate a portion, not all, of the hex's deployment to a certain attack task, maybe a portion to a diversion, another portion to the main assault. Want a secondary assault...so be it. You create a breakthrough, guess which units in your kampfgruppe ignore ZoCs and flood through the opening, but only if you left them in the "reserve" designation, or the "exploitation" mode, or whatever. You see where I'm going with this? Combined arms, prosecuting attacks, setting up defences is about attaching the appropriate units to a designated command structure and giving them a task. Then hit the button/key....WeGo.

You're not out of line Xwood, you state the truth, the truth is never "out of line", problem is, "some people can't handle the truth". You're right Blashy, Hubert has given us the tools of creation, but alas as is humanistic, they don't want to put in any effort, they just want to fork over the $ and get what they want. There's just too many "wants" for the compensation the "fork" will carry, so they won't ever get what they really want. I'll be the first here to say I'm humanistic....I want to use the "fork". I have so many demands on my time I can't make that devotion to creation, .....so I want....but I don't get. Well...I get a little:), but it just never seems to be enough. Actually it probably is, its just my expectations are so high....I probably couldn't handle what I think would be "enough" if I ever got it anyways. See that's it, Hubert has given us enough to create, but we won't admit it because that would mean we'd actually have to perform and create what we really want, from the building materials. That takes work, I already worked, and got $ for my effort, so I just want someone else to create it for me and I'll give them some of my $. But you know what...it won't ever be what I really want...cause it wasn't mine.

It seems to me the question here is what should the decision to not create Vichy encompass to offset the decision to create it. You already know the advantages of creation, but what should the possible consequences be for non-creation (keeping it historically viable)? If there does not exist an offset of benefits for non-creation vs creation is there really a decision to made here? I think not.

Sombra I understand what you're saying but the fact of the matter is SC2 has the ability to grasp that simplicity. The editor allows you to customize any campaign, adding or removing any features you wish or decline to have. You can create a game with a smaller scope not incorporating all the features that SC2 has available. You can choose. Choice is good! Now I know that there are many of you here that do not wish to use the editor, that's fine, I understand. There are plenty of customized campaigns that you can choose from, most are really good contests and can be played rapidly. See my thread about a faster, short duration scenario for tournament play in the Mods forum. I chose the NA and East.Med theater to incorporate all the elements of land, sea and air, but there is no production, research, diplomacy, a lot of decision making has been removed to focus on the combat aspects. Sure, it may not be what everyone desires, but I don't care, I'm making it, its my design decision. You can choose to play it or not, but if you do, I'll be open to adjusting the creation to yours and others recommendations. In conclusion, SC2 and its variants have the potential to recapture that simplicity of SC1, you just need to turn off some of the features.

JJ, don't go, we haven't discussed sea zones. I think it could be applicable to either SC variants. I have SPI's PTO which kind of had sea zones but it also had hexes inside those zones. Tell me how sea zones work. I need some orientation. I kind of like to maneuver my naval task forces, but I'm open to other possibilities.

True Blashy and the AI will have a hell of a job managing it competently, but its not impossible. Sure SC can be played within a couple hours of loading by not even reading the manual, but it can't be mastered without a commitment. An intuitive interface is a great feature, but eventually we need a little more, evidence is SC2. You can make anything from nothing, so to speak, even a mere simple action can be disassociated into its complexities, humans are ingenious in this effort. You can play SC reactively and you can play passively, you can also play aggressively. But SC's best feature is to play thoughtfully.

See my post in the SC1 forum, SC1+ thread about attachments.

I have to agree with Bill here. I just made a map of North Africa and the Eastern Med all the way from Port Said to Tripoli. It occupies one fourth of the full SC2 WaW map's max editor area. Turn off the tile grid, it's absolutely beautiful. Sorry guys....the map is important! I have units that have 50 APs and there is no way you're going to be counting tiles, the least movement APs is 25. If you play this game all you'll do is click on the unit and observe its possible highlighted deployment tiles.....you're not going to be counting them cause you'll have to scroll to see the end of the movement. Definitely a play by "feel" campaign, tiles, hexes.....don't matter.

This is a good point about unit density and this is where stacking into a container hex provision will be the fix. Each hex, depending on its predominant terrain/function has the ability to contain a certain density of combat units. As the units accumulate the containing hex takes on different attributes has different abilities. Take a land hex for instance, obviously a clear terrain hex would allow the most density, forest allows more infantry, limiting mobile units, a containing road allows an additional motorized deployment....get my drift. Say you start out with just an infantry division, or a corps as the base combat occupier, then the hex does not have a rigid ZoC until you deploy more. Perhaps another division or corps, now the hex contains a corps or army and has more influence on surrounding hexes. Want to give it more abilities, add some anti-tank guns, artillery, armor, engineers, recon, assign a leader and name it Kampfgruppe Kempf or something to that effect, even PanzerGruppe Guderian. I love customizing my units. Here's where upgrades come into play, not to mention various combat bonuses, like combined arms, defensive enhancements, bombardment effects, infiltration. Now let's say you designate a portion, not all, of the hex's deployment to a certain attack task, maybe a portion to a diversion, another portion to the main assault. Want a secondary assault...so be it. You create a breakthrough, guess which units in your kampfgruppe ignore ZoCs and flood through the opening, but only if you left them in the "reserve" designation, or the "exploitation" mode, or whatever. You see where I'm going with this? Combined arms, prosecuting attacks, setting up defences is about attaching the appropriate units to a designated command structure and giving them a task. Then hit the button/key....WeGo.

Very interesting JJ, many things I like, some questions though. Pieces, I'm OK with, map....I would prefer bigger, but I'm not adamant. Weather, yeah, I'm a little worried about the extreme conditions making an area unplayable in the winter, but that's not so hard to reason it might be unplayable in reality. SC2 allows you to customize coastal weather conditions. Phases eh? I can go there, but I'm firmly in Les' camp...WeGo if at all possible and it is. Amphib IV....yep and V. I agree. Might have to give USA some special abilities to project amphibs a distance though, perhaps allowing them to stay at sea a couple of turns or give them a large movement allowance, maybe both. I would like Amphib units limited to Corps size. I like your assessed costs and consequences for staying at sea. III Air, is fine and the land phases look good, but Strategic Movement....hmmmm? Start, pass through, or end in enemy ZoCs? Isn't this more exploitation? What is "operate" suppose to be? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Now back to sea movement, what provisions do you suggest for the actual naval units and interaction to simulate the Battle of the Atlantic. It seems to me that most surface vessels needed to be based, operating and refueling from ports with maybe only one turn at sea before needing replenishment. Subs on the otherhand can lurk at sea for longer periods, cruise greater ranges than combat surface task forces, being replenished by "Milk Cows". Maybe some mechanics devised to mirror this anomaly would provide us with the simulated Battle of the Atlantic? Anyway, you're right, it might take awhile to play this game head to head.

Les, JJ is right. As much as I agree with you, in principle, about AI play, you cannot alienate that segment of potential buyers. Remember this is about money, however trite, convoluted that may sound, that's the motivation and the catalyst for even having this discussion, else we wouldn't have even SC1. Its the incentive for Hubert to continue and you can't deny him that reward for his hard work and especially....with emphasis... especially the criticism he's had to put up with for it. To tell you the truth, I would've reacted with a "you can take flying leap up my"....well anyway I'm obviously absent with some character of humanity in this regard....cudos to HC. I respect you're a purist Les, an idealist, that's good, me too, but my idealism has been tempered by reality and as good as your ideas may be, you will not be recognized for them unless you present them in a reasonable light, much less get them implemented. Do not forget, I baited you into SC1 and HttR, I posted as James Taylor over at Matrix for awhile. I knew you were a purist, I knew you could contribute, I knew you would help me.....and here you are. There are many here, JJ, JJR, Sombra, A234, Retri.....god so many...I could never remember how many great suggestions abound here from so many different people, you can't discount any of them. Even the most mundane, idiotic position, however many times repeated has the moment of possible idea incitement in someone else, you cannot therefor ignore it. Each of us think we know what we want, but if you have lived for even a short time, you also are aware those wants change, know that... it is inevitable. And besides, if you're not aware, can't comprehend the impossibilities of being possible, then how will you even know that you missed it, but you did.....and it didn't matter...right! Wrong! All I'm saying is open up your mind and use positive suggestions and the creativity will flow, we can deduce what will work and what will not. The mind is a terrible thing to waste!;)

JJ, you've said a lot in SC+ thread I'll need to contemplate. Not only that, I'm not sure I concur with a revisit. I was never one that played SC on line, always PBEM, and my schedule was not conducive to many sequential hours of game play at one sitting. I like the mental exercise, I need the mental exercise, but I do like simplicity of the UI as Les related to. IMO, it(the UI) is absolutely the most important aspect of a wargame, it should be very intuitive, and SC1, as well as SC2, has it. You should be able to play by "feel".

So Sombra, define fun. Historically the French didn't have a chance, although no one presumed that at the time. So if you wish to make it "fun" then I presume the French will have a chance to delay to the point of stagnation for the western front which deviates from history. Can we all accept such a possibility of historical deviation to this degree? Further, that means an early, potentially game ending defeat for someone, most probably the Axis, is that acceptable? Are you saying that the window of unknown opportunity(gametime), where either side still has a chance to pull off a victory without realizing that they are in a futile situation should be greater? That's going to be tough once you've played the scenario a few times. I can think of some diplomatic maneuvers that may continue the conflict, but again, will SC players accept the historical deviation? I need more details? Anyone else?

Look you guys, I remember, seems maybe some of you need reminding about the shortcomings of SC1. What's this crap about Fall Gelb, it was never a contest, just like SC2, its a matter of when. Remember the bias towards the Axis, that's why the bidding came in. JJ reminded us of the uber AFs, the stagnant WW1 lines. Must I go on about the building of Axis momentum and experience that eventually becomes unstoppable, remember RB/arby's post, I do, I got it. SC2 is an improvement and yes, I'll agree it is a more involved game than SC1 was and yes the beauty of SC1 was its ability to be rapid contest to completion. Remember SC1 AI left much to be desired, SC2 is better, WaW more progress, and PDE, the best AI so far....so I'm led to believe. I'm sorry, I'm not buying into this nostalgia of SC1 being better, it wasn't, pure and simple, but yes I'll agree there were some good things about it and there is no problem with recapturing those shining features. But so far it just seems the most glaring complaint is Tiles, its trivial, no meat, no substance, nothing in comparison to the array of great features SC2 has graced us with. I challenge you guys, because SC2 has the editor to make a simplified scenario, find a custom campaign you all like and put some time in testing and playing. Help the developer to refine it, give it something other than lip service and watch it develop, the potential is there, much greater than SC1 ever thought about having. How many of you have played Bill's ATR edition against the AI? I know, you can't get past the tiles...right! Just have to shake my head.:confused: I was here, don't tell me differently, I remember the many posts to improve SC1 and I'll judge that we've seen a lot of them come to pass. Sounds like some of you have this constapation due to tile blockage. Realize that and explore the dynamics of SC2, know SC2 is a product of your and mine wishes, perhaps we are at fault for not adequately communicating that to Hubert. No one here can say that Hubert is not receptive...so maybe we'd better choose our suggestions carefully, be concise, be detailed and above all know that whatever is decided will not please everyone, but arrive at a consensus, each of us having to make compromises. That is how progress is made. And if not, well...SC1 is still available, you can still play it, it's still what many of you want rather than tiles, you are free to choose. I choose we make a new thread in which all those that wish to participate in helping SC3 come to fruition, arrive at a consensus of the features, and has the posted conclusion. First entry can be the byproduct of this one..."Stacking". Lot's of ideas here, are there others? I challenge you...all of you...arrive at a consensus, accept something that we all can play with. We have a foundation...first feature accepted by all is.......Hexes! Right?

Les, this is by far the best post I've ever read from you. Lots of accurate conclusions, IMO, and we know what those are worth. I won't pick apart the things that I don't agree with here, which are few, but I will strongly disagree with the grade assessed to SC2 and leave it at that. One thing I will strongly commend you on is your statement about the use of the things that work by other designers, surely would shorten the process. And that's just it, it's a process. Same one that's been going on for millineums, a slow refinement, evolution, if you wish. Some of us have visions of quantum leaps of progress, others prefer the status quo, and no one has the crystal ball required to deduce all the consequences. I guess in the end, you just have to have faith, the indomitable human characteristic of hope that it will get better, however slow. In each of us there is a certain amount of contribution, I would like to think that we all, "do what we can", and would like to do more.

I have to say, its the ones that I've never played before. Since one of the biggest factors of a realistic simulation is to recreate that unknown unfolding of events, what better way to accomplish it. This means, other than the historical occurrence, you have no prior knowledge of events, scripts, OOBs, reinforcement schedules, etc. Seems to me, the one thing you can count on in a war event is that your devised plan probably won't survive the first engagement and this, in essence, will gauge your grasp of the game's features. A true master of SC will be able to pull off a spirited contest no matter what the circumstances.