SeaMonkey

Did we just get the true indication of how good SC is in Konigs post, "fun and interesting year or two". How many games can take that for granted. And the original SC? How long ago was it,..... 5 years when HC presented us with this gem. Classical status is near. Thanks to all for their efforts.

Well its almost time for WaW and I need a consensus defining the toughest side to play. No...not the one against Terif, ...the one that is truly the most difficult, given two equal opponents. Now I know that it is completely an abstraction to impose a situation of parity, but put on your idealist's cap and post your opinion. Mine is without a doubt, the Axis side. Isn't that the way its supposed to be? Think about it. What an exemplary conclusion to an almost perfect game, finely balanced, yet with such a subtle bias to the side that historically won. Additionally, turns that don't take perplexing levels of thought or protracted time sequences to complete and with an existing finality that is not beyond the normal gameplayer's attention span. And what do you have? Is there any doubt that SC is "cutting edge"?

On the right track ev. Maybe we should discuss the relevancy of SC's MPP. Is this defined as a Military Production Point? I believe that is what my SC1 manual states. Perhaps this manpower issue is actually defined in that parameter, or should be? I'm sure HC meant for MPPs to be associated with the manpower limitations, the argument seems to be that we need a more specific implementation. Then again this parameter is full of intangibles even though there are historical records to define the limits. One thing that comes to mind is Major nations' diplomatic and/or conquest policies for minors regarding potential population increases available for military inscription. There are probably others. Seems to me that perhaps we have not dwelt within the complications of the MPP values for each Major as was originally envisioned by the creator. A lot of SC water has flowed underneath the bridge since the original questions were imposed in this regard. Perhaps HC should wish to reiterate his position?

Wow, from hence great wisdom flows. No doubt SO is right, idealistically so, long have I been a proponent of a manpower pool. Mirrored my thoughts, Konigs. I think we all here know, as DD has alluded to, that SC is our best bet to realize the game we are all after. Boastingly, I recognized that fact a few years ago in the midst of SC, the original version. Can't say exactly when that revelation hit me, but it did, and I have remained here for awhile as the evolution of SC has not been disappointing. I believe SO is also in possesion of that conclusion and that is why he remains a staunch critic, admiringly so. So...where we are going is unknown to certain extent by the rest of us, excluding the Master and the betas, but generally in the right direction. Let us see how WaW unfolds and I'm sure our forum will be alive with intelligent ideas for the future versions. Just remember we are a team of thought provokers. So......provoke!

DD IIRC, USA 90 mm AA guns were fitted to TDs later in the war, emphasis on IIRC.....well maybe I dreamed it.

Way to go ev , get them to define Advanced Aircraft tech ctvs and Anti Air ctv applications. We need a acronym definition, differentiate :confused: between AA and AA (techs) and then there is ctv AA(air-attack value). Also interaction with NW's. back to hibernation. :cool:

Well let us hope that there will always be something undiscovered. :cool: Thanks guys....and don't forget to send me my copy, the price is of no consequence.

Terif, can you comment on the combat dynamics? If so, specifically the dual strike units, is the second attack at less favorable morale and readiness than the first? Secondly can you explain the significance through an example of how fighters are now of better use escorting bombers then using them to soak off the interceptors?

So Terif, any changes for WaW victory conditions?

Very cool, thanks Blashmon. Really,... AT allows for greater CTVs for AA and BA? What about AA (advanced airframes, oK ...aircraft)research, what are the effects on our air units?

So MJY, the original belligerents knew exactly when and what were the surrender conditions? "Unconditional Surrender" is without ambiguity? (IRL) You want a realistic game, right? Then you have to deal with at least a part of the unknown our ancestors had to cope with. Do you want to play WW2 or relive it?

OK got it. Now explain how the former GLR (now Naval Warfare) research is applicable to TAC? Would that be increases into NA, UA, and CA CTVs? How many levels of NW? I got the AT research that is now useful for TAC upgrades(TA CTV). Love it! Any SA impacts? I'm assuming we now have 3 air units, Fighters, TAC, and Bombers, correct? Nice touch on enabling escorts. What are the interactions of various research categories to the specific CTVs for these units? Come on guys...spill the beans, us 2nd tier Betas are ready and willing, but we need orientation. Its......Showtime! [ August 31, 2007, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

What a "prevert" , another career politician, where's our public servants? TERM LIMITS! :mad:

Come on HC sale it as a new game, its worth it. Correct me if I'm wrong, did I read units retreat now?

And while I'm at it....Kudos to you, Blashy and Terif for the "Naval Warfare" tech change from GLR, most excellent. :cool: Love the interaction of land and sea effects.

OMG! Unbelievable! You guys have have really outdone yourselves. Thanks for all the hard work, looks like I hooked myself to right star.

DD, that's my favorite book! Memoriessss..... By the way, my birth was OT and my existence is such.

Damn HC, your skills spread way beyond game development.

I always like to keep at least 1 chit active in IT and PT for USA, USSR, and Germany throughout the game, but each situation is different. In your current effort, with little intelligence on my part, there may be an opportunity to snipe at Romania and/or Finland, you'll need combat enhancements to follow that path as soon as your active. You'll need them anyway, but a diversion from UK conquest is high priority. USA should be ramping too. Remember the Siberians will come in with whatever combat enhancements you have received to that point.

Got it! Shipping date will be Sept. 26 at the latest, excepting for BLP. Unfortunately only Vista was available, but got away with a 17" screen, 2 Meg Ram, and a 256 MB video card for a grand. Sooooooo,.... which will arrive first Vostro 1700 or WaW?

In the context of a game based on WW2, ev, yes...Moscow is a significant part of the VC, if not the major contributor.

Like I said guys, the motivation doesn't matter, it is the selection process. We are not all born with the absolute clarity of the specifics of eachs' contribution. Sometimes your perceived selection is not actually yours. Sometimes others have an ability to see more in yourself than you do, but it is very important that you harmonize with the process. Intuition is important, but be careful it is not a product of a conditioned environment. Much is always amiss, much more is melodious, depending on the tune your listening to. The drumbeat incites people to different levels of actions, be aware that it can also numb your reasoning of the significance of past events and the posturing for the future. I want the point of progress to remain sharp, honed by the best at their chosen tasks. Doesn't matter how they got there, that is for their contemplation, only matters the intent of their journey.

Not always do they perform better ev. Half strength teched units with full experience tend to have more staying power in combat and do produce enemies losses to the same degree as full strength units without tech or experience, sometimes more.

ev, although I agree about the timing of Russian intervention as it would have potentially unfolded, I think SC gets it about right for balance. If Axis await for USSR DoW, the Red Army is usually strong enough to eclipse any possibility of a successful Barbarossa. Without Moscow, no Axis victory.

Well said DD, and I agree with your logic, but I must present a counter philosophy, not really a counter, but more a different perspective. After all, as you alluded to, it is the American way. Certain positions in a civilized, and I use the term loosely, society require the highest order of the human fabric. These are suppose to be the role models....I know, greatly skewed in the present, but never the less of paramount importance. Among others, military service should be one of those positions of higher callings. It takes training and incentive to propagate an efficiency that literrally means preservation of life. It takes longer than two years to reach that level of proficiency, especially with reference to the complication of weapons systems that are today's norm. I wish in no way to denigrate the issue of public service, IMO should be a requirement of all citizens, but for something as important as the defense of my society, I want professionals at the helm. I want the best of the best and that goes for teachers, law enforcement, and politicians also, the latter needing a gross infusion of human quality. These positions should be beyond reproach and I don't care what it takes to fill them, if money is part of the incentive package, so be it. The thing is, it may be money that provides the catalyst initially, but if the proper people are attracted to the proper positions, money won't be required for the maintenance. [ August 29, 2007, 08:10 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]