SeaMonkey

Wait a minute Lars, anyone that stoops to that level of inhumanity is abnormal, I don't care what they've been programmed to do. They may appear normal, they may act like a completely different person faced with a different set of circumstances, but sorry, there is truly something demented with a human that conducts themselves in the manner these people did. Death is a better choice and yes there maybe more innocent deaths to accompany yours, but it is time to give your life for a principle when faced with a dilemma of this magnitude. There is a place and a time to make a stand in defense of one's fellow species, let a situation like this define that moment, that is the normal thing to do, or should be, .....anything else is a deviation.

You know MJY, that's a great concept, selected intercept should override the "auto" selection. Generally I believe the first to intercept is the group within range that possess' the highest readiness.

OK Ludi, I get it, fair enough, no doubt you have a credible foundation. To tell you the truth, I have yet to model the features rockets possess in WaW(I'm always pressed in other arenas) but as far as SC2 is concerned I agree with you and others wholeheartedly, they are tactically overpowered. In SC2 I always envisioned them as actually representing the artillery role. Now if they approach that level in WaW then I am in agreement, perhaps some adjustments are necessary. But they should have some ability to operationally cause some battlefield disruptions in the primary combat maneuvering elements. As always the SC genre strives to represent the "what if" concepts that we in hindsight have a greater level of clarity to define. To allow them to be totally restricted to the historical confines IMO is presumptuous. I mean think about the actual impact in game terms, Germany gets 3, Italy 1 and the three allies one each. You put that many resources into Germany's(the only viable contigent) development of the weapon you are really out on the limb if those research chits don't culminate in advancements. There are always byproducts from the targeted aspirations and I don't think Lars is out of line expressing possible applications of those technical innovations. But perhaps I'm wrong...damn it..imagine that. Since Terif is the recipient of much more WaW play than I hope to and I'm sure most agree we'll ever approach, I'll submit to his opinion on this discussion.....presently!

Uhhh, maybe we need to examine some intangibles here???/ After all, that's my middle name. What were these rocket weapons known as, "Terror weapons", think about what that means. Don't necessarily need accuracy to be disruptive, workers scurrying to bomb shelters at a hint of a V-1 siren/buzz coming in. V-2s hitting without warning, maybe a sonic boom. Who's responsible for strategic output...could it be "people"... what happens to unsecure feeling people??? What happened when a couple of airlines were sent into the WTC, want to tell me what the economic impact of that event was? Its still to be decided...think about it.

Hang in there Dave, optimism is a great healer of the body, mind over matter, never give in, we need you. My thoughts and prayers go with you.

HvS has presented a correct summary, but for a variation on the Malta assault, remember that the occupying unit is dependent on both the fortress and the port for subsequent reinforcement levels. Reducing the efficiency of both will ultimately lead to a max reinforcement level of 0/0% efficiency, but usually 4 because they recover each turn, 10% minimum efficiency. Using your Fighters(WaW) to reduce the entrenchments is the most efficient use of MPPs, bombers next and lastly your naval vessels, unless you have built some DDs for Italy. Once the entrenchment is gone it is a little matter to reduce the garrison to combat ineffectiveness(destroyed)) with your TAC bombers.

Engine: WaW Modified Synopsis: Unit actions continued or interrupted by phasing players will ultimately be dependent on expended action points. (clicking off and on units without ending their turn actions) Summary: Unit would be able to engage in multiple moves and/or strikes to the extent of its available action points not necessarily in a sequential manner. Problem 1: Obviously this would serve to further undermine the AI ability to competently provide competition to a human player. Problem 2: Additional micromangement feature slowing the progress of gameplay.

To better secure your logistics you could take Greece and Yugoslavia, getting Athens efficiency to 80%. Station an HQ and AF in Greece at a 8/9 supply put the AF on intercept and it will intercept the UK Sbombers run on Tobruk first with the higher readiness. You'll need LR1 though. Buy both bombers for Germany and the one for Italy and use them exclusively on naval vessels allowing the AFs for ground support only or the occasional elimination of a low strength naval unit.

Now you do know this new system will allow multiplayers on each side. One side delegates the command structure, settles on a supreme commander, each player issues his orders as the turn is passed around and finally zipped up and sent to the opposing side's "Supreme Commander". Still SC, just a different name.

The command structure allows you to ratchet down to any level. Say you have an Army Group led by Guderian, perhaps seventeen corps size units total, arranged in 3 armies, each with a commander. Guderian also possesses a pool of assets allocated to him by the Theater commander. You could give your orders to Guderian and watch the whole AG perform, or allocate the assets to the different units, or army commanders along with orders to them or to the individual units. Now the more you let them(your commanders)control the units the more their actions realize their special traits. The more you micromanage....well I hope you have special abilities, better than your AI leaders. Is it getting clearer? [ January 02, 2008, 05:53 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

A little wordy??? :confused: Moi? Banish the thought Tiger. Yeah, a WEGO, simultaneous. Imagine those WW2 maps of battlefield deployments showing the front lines and unit echelon borders. Well I want to make them dynamic, like in the beginning each unit has a circle of influence, a patrolling perimeter, but the circle becomes misshapen as it moves and performs across the battlefield. Like if it had a recon attachment it would ooze out down a road in the direction of movement, be limited by a river, only a small encroachment up an incline. You get the picture. :cool:

Engine = RTT...Real Time Term. Simultaneous execution of a plan designated to run for a game time(hours to weeks) dictated by the players' agreement. Delegation to a command structure of leaders with different capabilities using a variety of combat forces organized by the player, yet retaining the ability for the player to micromanage at the lower combat levels. Grid based map with transparent lines of longitude and latitude that can be turn off or on. An active semi-transparent border defining ZoCs exerted as the units move through the turn emitting a configuration in relation to the unit's activity. Say for example, small arrows protruding off the border(ZoC) line in the direction of the units attack, thicker designates an higher intensity assault, perhaps XXXX for a defensive orientation(barbed wire). These are dynamic and change as the battle turn rages. Combat success is a result of the usual parameters with emphasis on unit cohesion through the command structure and the force mix as a function of the task objective designated by the players' orders. Simple Nato type units floating on the map grid changing color shades as a reflection of the unit's success in completing its mission, say darker green for highly successful to bright red for complete failure as a function of cohesion, again dynamic through the simultaneous turn. The dynamic unit boundary lines(ZoC exertion) could also be used in the coloring scheme. Perhaps a predetermined(prescripted) "emergency order" allowed during the turn by each player. An "if-then" sequence to change the turn plan execution, subject to the receiving units' cohesion and communication efficiency, but never guaranteed. More details to follow. [ January 02, 2008, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Well I guess we are discussing a continuation of the same or similar platform, so I will limit myself to those parameters. What I would like to see is a return to the basic combat units, like infantry, armor, airwing, CV, BB, etc. Taking that basic building block and adding the additional features in the form of assets, enhanced and controlled by the army group commander/flagship admiral/airmarshall, etc. historical characteristics. This pattern can be reassigned from the strategic scale to the grand tactical by simply using the commanders at...say the regimental level and giving units a various strike range, number of strikes, etc., depending on the asset attachment configurations. The assets are the smaller unit task specific organizations of artillery, fighters, dive bombers, anti-tank/air, CAGs, engineers, heavy armor, naval escort, motor pool, etc. [ January 02, 2008, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

This is just the thing Terif was referring to that cuts down on the strategic possibilities, penalizing the player from deviating from the historical path. Now I'm not saying yay or nay, just remember, be thoughtful about what you wish for.

How about when you click on the island tile you get a subscreen with a multi-tile layout representing the enemy units' deployments. You can then initiate your attacks from the main screen units to the enemy positions in the subscreen, one at a time. Obviously when the enemy reaches the point of combat exhaustion, you send in the Marines.

You did see the notification of Axis diplomatic success?

So you want it as it really occurred or as close as posible....sorry not going to happen in a game, simply because life is full of unreproducible intangibles. But there is hope of a relatively accurate simulation, although that fact is opinion driven, but there will always be a need for a player's rationalizing imagination. A map is a map, is a basis for interaction, tiles, squares, hexes, a grid.....doesn't matter if it produces the effect. Think about what actually occurred, millions of human beings collectively and at odds with each other in conflict for a sometimes shrouded goal. You're going to simulate that in a game of perhaps two humans representing those multitudes of decisions? You're going to have to represent the different scales of delegation from the strategic to the tactical in some manner of reproduction. There is but one model, generally unrefined at the SC scale, that even has a chance at the possible reinactment and it will take an evolution like SC has seen to bring it into the realm that we would consider successful. That model, understanding that it is only a basis for ideas for the future of SC3 is the Airborne Assault software developed by Panther Games.

Nice...on the right track. Now have you adjusted the army sized infantry units to be Corps or do the smaller infantry nato rectangles represent the armies? Actually I would like the smaller icons to be the armies but don't you think a star would be appropriate in place of the usual XXXX (which you didn't include) designation?

First of all, great job JJ in taming the "Lucky Animal" that Kuni was, and my congratulation Kuni for becoming a productive member of the SC community...just don't go off your medication. The answer to the great question that Kuni has posed is two parts..... a definition or preference of one way or the other. Either continue the format emphasizing improvement of the game mechanics, balance/variability, and AI interaction on a global scale, or ...essentially start over with only the present SC as a consideration for scale and purpose but following a completely different mechanism of simulation. :cool: Eventually, IMO, Hubert will have to accept the latter and commit his considerable skills to the development of WWSC or perhaps embark upon a different genre altogether. He could also choose to retire.

Marines...are never subject to a combat penalty...unless politicians are involved.

Clearly its not difficult to follow your logic Terif, as Liam states, you are the Chess Master. I can understand that probably before playing even a few hundred games of any platform, things could get monotonous. To tell you the truth, I admire your patience and dedication to this game, it is a paramount compliment to HC that it has garnered your attention for so long, mine too! :cool:

This may be a good time to explore whether an adjustment is appropriate. I have no problem with the current scripted "Russian Winter Strikes", but maybe there should be some deviations to the percentage of the possibility. For example, let's assume that as the Axis player you should like to delay your current Barbarossa to a later date than when it actually occurred, June 22, 1941. By doing so, your justification is that because of Napoleon's debacle, you have taken the historical lesson to heart and prepared for the winter combat situation. So the longer you delay, as the USSR prepares, the lesser degree of the winter consequence culminating with no "Winter Strike" if you wait until the USSR DoW's Axis and joins Allies. Awaiting the USSR unification with the Allied effort signifies a competently prepared(for winter conditions)Wehrmacht.

Liam, you're wishing for a Russian Winter strike is realized in WaW. I'm just not convinced by Terif's position although I have to abdicate to his experience level. I understand that his viewpoint is from a strategic position and he is right from that perspective, but WaW crosses into operational aspects while remaining in the strategic abstraction. The new naval features along with the new units add the variability through the operational scale and the road supply, rail operands add a greater depth of realism to the strategic struggle. See..SC is approaching the simulation side with WaW and moving away from its gaming annoitments. Terif said it himself when he related to the success path that is highlighted by historical player actions. Yes... there is a greater potential for exploits but not necessarily "gamey" ones. That is for us players to workout and solicit Hubert for change in order to continue the development. There are many of us that long for a return to some features that may have fallen by the wayside as the human/SC experience progresses, but to turn away from the obvious improvements actually detracts from the evolution to perfection. I'm glad Terif is happy with SC2, but Terif are you completely satisfied with its current state? If you are then fine, I'm glad for you, but for me, perfection has not been attained. Actually I see the world scenario eventually eclipsing Fall Weiss as the prefered gaming platform, with all its fluctuations, and granted it will not be a short gaming experience, hence I'm locked into the longevity that will be SC.

Well I truly can't say I've played hundreds of games, so perhaps my perspective is indeed a bit narrow in retrospect. No doubt the game requires an additional time investment and I understand the implications for TCP play, but I've never played in that mode. I guess my playing objectivity is different as I'm not really concerned with the time length to play the game to conclusion. What's important is playing. I play to win, but I usually only wish to marginalize a victory in the end, allowing a dominated opponent to slowly re-enter the game through my experimentation. You know the old cliche', "its not if you win or lose, its how you play the game", and my games usually last for many months, ending in 1946 or 47. Just seems like more fun and after all, isn't that what games are for?

Don't fret Mr.D, a new tile is coming.