SeaMonkey

Greater than 5 supply and they are at full(10) strength?

One strength point per turn with greater than 5 supply and no adjacent enemy units. And of course they must have at least a full ribbon/medal of experience.

What could be more logical? :cool:

Lighten up Liam, Minty's post is relevant and has historical context, I'm sure there was no malicious intent, more an amusing overtone.

xwood, there were only 2 over 40k ton displacements, Tirpitz and Bismark, considered true BBs. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were thought of as BC staus at 32k.

Lparkh, welcome to the "Game Forum", there is an additional FJ unit in the build screen, you get 2 total as Germans, 3 as Axis if you build the Italian one. Corps in Konigsberg can reach Stockholm on second turn but before you "Amphib" them you must cover all the sea and port tiles, except for 71,16(which they will embark into), with your naval forces. Use fighters at your discretion for ground attack, they will need experience and elite reinforcements to get to their former SC2 airfleet status, but they can get there. Fall Weiss Poland surrender is same difficulty as before. There is a pdf file with the game, DL or CD, and on BF website for a summary of WaW/SC2 changes.

When you mouse over your Engineer unit building fortifications I would like to see the remaining turns/days for completion. Display in the middle of the upper tool bar like, "Clear(114,11) 25 days remaining" For Fall Weiss: Bombers start at 0 CTV for Naval Attack, Carrier Attack, and Sub Attack. By investing into Naval Warfare research(new category, there is a space) you can get their CTV levels up to 2 for NA, CA, and UA.

Interesting SO about "Guns of August". What features of that game could you see being ported into the current SC model without too much recoding. I know you're an advocate of sea areas and the patrol scheme, but given our maneuver scenario that now exists in SC, what could be customized features from GOA that would add to the real life effect of naval warfare other than what's been mentioned?

This has been a good exchange and there are many valid points and opinions, much of those are from our conditioned thoughts and some of us think more abstractly than others, that can neither be construed as either good or bad, but educating. Let's face it, the details of the SC naval model are perhaps lacking when addressing our historical indoctrinations, but the effects are there for us to produce a decently accurate interaction of the units on a grand scale. That's important and it gives us a basis to expand upon. Personally an extra DD unit here are there only addresses the current balance which exists in its infancy. More in depth evolution of the model would address surface and air raiding of convoy lines, in fact the air interaction probably needs the most attention as long range aircraft were adept at attacking surface and subsurface vessels, not to mention recon abilities. I like the idea of providing Bombers with more UA CTV abilities to a certain extent, but this is a radical change and could introduce more problems than it solves as the balance is very delicate. Then again we have TAC that have the ability to upgrade and provide some of that versatility, but since they are also very effective on land units and are limited by the build maxs....well...you see how complicated and confusing the decisions can be for the players. That is a good thing, at least that's how I envision it. To my thoughts the ability to upgrade and provide different CTV emphasis actually can change the mission orientation of the receiving unit from its primary role. My BB scenario could evolve into a sub hunting capacity(passive in scope) by the application of ASW to some degree. They actually perform that mission better than their designed mission, not because they have been physically altered, but their taskforce configuration has. I rationalize that I have organized a naval force with astute ASW escorts around a BB core for warding off any encountered capital ships during its mission. This is what I mean about the SC model having the versatility to evolve itself during gameplay to counter ones opponent's actions. Now I understand that since I only play human to human (Sombra) that yes indeed my perspective maybe skewed when applied to matches against the AI, but I trust in my fellow SCers to cover that lack on my part with their qualified guidance.

Yeah, you're right Sombra....all the while the UK just leaves their CVs & BBs in port.

I've already addressed this, subs are not too powerful unless you, as the allies, do not take the appropriate steps. TH has given you all a clue, I'm not going to explain again how to neutralize the axis sub threat. Part of the fun of the game is figuring out how to adapt to different schemes your opponent hatches. Now go......and have fun!

Elmo, I can attest to what Hubert says, SC will run on Vista. Tell your Dad he needs a little more than PG to stay mentally sharp. SC is a small upgrade of PG. Actually try the original version first (SC1) available for a good discount at the Naval Warfare sight. I believe the demo is still here at BF also, in no time he'll want to move up....say for his birthday. If he's cool with the original, go for the WaW bundle....he's worth it.

You know part of this I can agree with henri. First off any repairs, replacements and familiarization with the unit idiosyncracies should encompass one turn. Now upgrades should at least use another turn for training on the new equipment, not to mention the time needed to supply it to the unit. Now here's the rub, elite replacements in my mind don't quite make sense as usually elite troops are already a part of the veteran cadre, it is more of a unit psychology. Now I could rationalize that veteran troops from other organizations are made available and that could be construed as a slow process being a rare commodity. But here's what I would like "elite" to mean. Yes, the addition of veteran and/or highly skilled/trained soldiers, but also the committance of additional assets to "overstrength" the unit. To make it more of an assault class status unit for special missions this should only take one turn, whether reinforced to 11 or 15. What say ye SC brethren?

Edwin...that is an exceedingly gifted idea. Somehow...though...I'm not surprised. Now think of something for rockets.

Hubert you are of course correct, it is way to early. This is only an exchange of ideas and a presentation of evidence and opinions. We all discuss our perspectives as if we want them implemented yesterday when actually that is not the case, at least for my parts...anyway. It takes time to run the various interactions between the features and arrive at a consensus and knowing that is exactly what the beta test was about, I'm sure you've heard this all before, sorry. "But we have to talk about it" and I got to laugh here, cause there's always so much of that on a forum...in life....... and I know no one has presented it exactly from my viewpoint...uhh..like me! There is an infinitesimal amount of opinions, ..just ask. :confused: So at the risk of rambling, I'm going back to my test. :cool: Oh... and Hubert...thanks for something to talk about.

Won't be long now before the Atlantic really heats up if Zin has been doing his homework. Not sure what he has left for the battle, hopefully he didn't lose his CVs and destroyers.

Alright Sombra, I have to agree with you to a certain extent. AA tech should have the ability to shoot down planes....notice I said planes...all types. And should be applicable to all resources. The AA units we have now represent an additional investment into antiair capability and allow flexibility in your deployments. You make a good case and I also believe that WaW AA units should probably get two strikes, but I would like to witness their prowess when at a high tech level. Anyone seen what kind of damage they can do at 5?

I'm with you A234. Do any of you here really doubt the seemingly omnipotent use of airpower on the battlefield? Don't let your logic be clouded, ever since their invention and evolutionary development, airpower is dominant. It exists in three dimensions and is not as restricted as the other 2 dimensional weapon systems. It has the high ground(surveillance). It possesses the inaccuracy of obliteration and the precision of a surgical strike. Please arrest any further assault on my intelligence. You have air superiority, you eventually win....now....and as it was in WW2.

OK guys I think its time that we also have some weather effects for supply tracing. When we get mud, sandstorms, rain, snow, etc clear terrain tiles should go to 2APs for supply tracing. (perhaps it should be editable) Now with the advent of the road/railway supply tracing of 1AP always, there will be additional emphasis on the transportation network, as it should be. Of course then, as has been mentioned, Engineers will have the feature of extending the network just like they build fortifications. Are we all onboard here?

Nah I like their use. Don't mention that Gibraltar is now toast with LR from Oran and some SB help, no need to DoW Spain.

I'd say pretty much the same, but with some minor differences. The naval aspect as far as uboat interaction is a definite improvement, map is bigger, and with the additional space the MidEast/North Africa theater plays differently, more historical. I can understand Terif's opinion that there is less flexibility for strategies, but on the contrary my opinion is there is greater tactical/operational variety. I do feel that WaW does dictate a more historical path although not mandatory, but its still early, more exploration is needed. I believe the real changes for SC were underneath the hood, with the editor, and the ability to present a more competent AI, although I just can't bring myself to play the AI anymore, so my claim is somewhat unjustified.

Sounds logical to me!

Hey JFD2...it takes awhile to run the various models from the different perspectives. They're out there....figuring it out! Well ... at least calculating the percentages.

Choice is good! For those that can't handle it.....well there is the original SC...."Socialist Commands".

One of those "intercepts" was actually a USA diplomatic/war department official that was attached to the British forces in NA. As an observer he sent correspondence to Washington with detailed information about UK force dispositions which were subsequently intercepted. Took them awhile to figure it out.