SeaMonkey

This is where we could get some definition out of the menus. In regards to fighters, choosing "intercept" means first priority mission, selecting "auto" infers secondary status. For AA, I agree a resource upgrade should be first priority to respond to air attack, no matter what the unit(bomber, ftr, TAC), this is the integral defense. Secondary responders would be a fighter selected as "intercept", or an AA unit selected as "priority", which ever has the highest readiness. Third responder would be the "auto" setting for fighters or "secondary" mode selection for AA units, again, highest readiness. Now that provides for a potential of three different mediums for air defense, I think that's enough and it only allows one response per unit. I can only imagine an upgrade as being a designated tile co-ordinate for the target of air defense forces and that means additional microM.

Waltero, its not cheating, its called intelligence.

DL the demo. If your talking Fall Weiss its about 18 turns per year(each side), times the number of years the conflict runs, sometimes to 1947. Lots of Mods, more all the time. You'll get plenty of competition if MP is your game.

Ha! That's a pretty random conclusion Sombra. Don't forget the snow and sand storms. "It takes a little luck to win a war." That surely has to be a quote from some great general....anyone?

So I'm assuming Sombra you think WaW is unbalanced, advantage Axis, correct? If so, then maybe you should play Minty. He seems to think that the Allies have the edge. I would like to hear from the WaW tourney participants. I realize, at least IMO, that the verdict is still out, but I am leaning towards the Axis. Hopefully the new games I have started will dispel that assumption, emphasis on Allied strategies.

HvS don't concern yourself with a grandiose economic collapse. Barring some cataclysmic event such as an astroid, earthquake, volcanos on a gigantic scale it won't happen quickly. Why???...infrastructure. The USA and other parts of the world are much too developed and hence have a certain resiliency. You want to know where Russia should put their wealth to work? Yep...build the infrastructure. It takes a long time for roads and rails, manufacturing facilities, power generation, etc. to deteriate, especially if you do a little routine maintenance. What does take a long time is to build a robust infrastructure, but the world has pretty much done that, its in expansive mode currently. Its all about commerce, you develop something your neighbor needs and vice versa and you trade. It doesn't even need a monetary exchange medium, although that makes it easier, it, in itself, is part of the infrastructure. Just like the wealth/money flows from one pocket to another, remember the laws of physics, matter is neither created or destroyed, it just changes shape/location. :cool: Man, and animals for that matter, need food and shelter to survive. If you're worried about that collapse, my suggestion would be to develop your own little infrastructure that provides for those basics. Now if you get good enough and have a bit of excess....well then...you might trade some. [ February 17, 2008, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Better yet would be for Hubert to code the ability for naval units to pass through each other, especially if they are not belligerents. Now later when they are opposing each other there still should be the chance of a pass through. Perhaps making it dependent on your use of way points. Using your Ctrl key to establish waypoints dictates to the game engine that you are using "search" movement in which case there is a greater percentage of finding enemy units at each designated waypoint. Not using waypoints indicates you are on a fast track to your destination and trying to avoid enemy combatants. Of course if you end your movement next to an enemy unit or within spotting distance as per carriers then they are revealed. Carriers would have a greatly increased feature of using multi-waypoints as a search mechanism as it proceeds through its movement pattern. Each waypoint generates an automatic search up to the CVs spotting level. Sound like a more realistic naval search feature? Refinements? Maybe the use of waypoints as a search initiating mechanism should decrease your APs for that move, proportional to the amount set.

Rambo I know you pride yourself on brashness and I realize a lot of what you say is "tongue in cheek" philosophy. Remember your World History classes...did you go? OK, I know you at least graduated from HS which means surely you passed American History...right? So its Friday night and you don't have a date, don't take it out on the Buntas. Now there are some cheap chicks that would possibly chat with you on line and make you feel better.....go ahead and turn loose of some of those greenbacks, they tell me those Russian babes will talk to anyone. But, just in case you would like to brush up on your history, especially the escapades of the American Army in WW2, try "An Army at Dawn". You'll get a different perspective about the early performance of the Americans which could be applicable to this discussion. Now remember your Churchillian cliches, "The further back you examine the past, the greater your insight into the future"...or something to that effect. Might be good advice for you to follow if you expect to be successful trading equities.

Maybe FJs were the answer, if properly planned for. Expanding the airlanding capabilities to capture a couple of airfields, some adaptations for external fuel tanks for fighters or an effective policy for RAF neutralization, it may not have been necessary to use the sea lanes to the UK initially. Didn't the RN have control of the seas around Crete? Granted the effective window for the airlanding forces would close as sea logistics are of paramount importance for Sealion success. Without RAF coverage how long would it take the Luftwaffe to secure the English Channel? What truly could the German armed forces have accomplished had they embarked upon a plan for the eventual invasion of UK beginning with Fall Weiss(1st SC turn)?

"10 out of 10 americans think Rambo is just a novel and movie character." Me thinks you give them too much credit Kuni. I'd guess its closer to 7 out of 10.

You know HA you're right, it does add some flavor to the game. I've built the Rumanian leader on occasion for supply help in USSR. Trained the minors on the Yugo partisans until they provide resiliency against the Western Allies. But usually this is only in a few games where my opponent is overmatched, doesn't usually happen in real competition. You know in the basic FW game you can upgrade the minors albeit at a greater cost, but think of it if you could achieve high PT and IT levels for Germany, it evens out.

Very Interesting!

Are you feeling challenged...Kuni?

I think there is no resonance in this thread, the game engine should concentrate on the Pacific mechanics. Is that simple enough?

Now if UK has to move its capital due to Sealion success and I select the Canadian option instead of Egypt, shouldn't there still be a lendlease capability from USA? Now if this had really happened, do you believe that USA would have been even more proactive about rebuilding UK's military forces than was historical?

Thanks arado, I have been called a smartass occassionally, but due to oldtimers my clarity mostly is referred to as cynical. :confused:

I think actually this is probably the tech that has the least variation throughout the war as applied to carrier aviation, LR. Of course there are exceptions, Zeros had a 1900 mile range, but in most cases carrier air groups had a 1000 mile max range. If SC tiles are equal to 50 miles, I believe sea tiles are greater, then taking into account, loitering to form up, time to find targets and adjust search patterns, not to mention actual combat, perhaps all carriers should have an inherent 5 tile range, no LR upgrades. As far as ground support, the size of a CAG pretty much excludes an appreciable damage pattern to corps and army size units, its fine as it is in comparison to other SC air units, the AT tech is not applicable. The CTVs for a carrier should revolve around DE, DM, AA, NA, CA, UA, BD, ND, CD and UD enhancements through tech research. So in summary the carrier techs should be AA, ASW, and NA, if only three are possible.

And MJY the blockading naval units will attack multiple times, everytime an amphib is adjacent. They are not limited to one defensive response like AA,art. I like it.

And so aesopo he's never been any good for even a chuckle? Also there have been, as I recollect in the quantity of single digits, some informative posts. See there's always a silver lining, sure the examination requires a microscope at times, but never the less.

Ohhh Nooo, its been more than a few warnings, he's been sent to his room on occasion. Think of it like this. Most of us are black and white, Rambo, Kuni, some others add a bit of color.

Yep! Arado has it right. Naval units should have blockade characteristics against amphibs. Its as it should be.

My feelings is that instead of an advanced aircraft upgrade, they should have the naval warfare one. This should increase their target values for NA and reduce the corresponding damage from air attacks to simulate better taskforce cooperation(operational procedures & weaponry) in air defense and carrier operations(damage control, launch & recovery).

You can patrol the home waters and the High Seas, just don't violate any 12 mile limits, and that might be 200 for some nations.

PPH you do understand the consequences of taking this program into more detail? Terif has already presented his point and it is indeed not without logic. The game has the ability to do what you are asking, maybe not quite as specifically as you would like, but never the less capable. Look around you, all the masses of humans, all with a little bit different requirements and societies trying to accomodate everyone. Do you see the platform for complication? Ever think about how incompetent humans seem to have become in mass? Maybe they are not really that ignorant, but perhaps they are constantly diluting their attentive essence in trying to keep up with the requirements of living in a complicated society. There's a lot to be said for keeping things simple. Simple has the ability to adjust efficiently, its not trying to remedy every specific event, take care of every possibility, it requires you to innovate, to improvise. You want to be free, personal responsibility goes with freedom, they are inseparable. You have the freedom to change SC to a degree, abstract the rest.

Hey David, don't forget, we're here to help if you need it.