SeaMonkey

Hence the new thread.

I like this idea, but one reason the Third Reich had some production issues is because they didn't encourage the use of their female population in manufacturing and infrastructure type positions until later, like 43. GGWaW had a similar feature based on manpower pools that limited the deployment of the units that were produced. You could get them into the build Q, but you couldn't deploy to the map until they had been assigned population points. Each area of the map had a certain contribution level per turn to the manpower pool, discounting conquered territories. Definitely realistic and low user demand handled mostly by the program. I would also like to see the ability to disband a percentage of the hard build limits of one unit category and reallocate them to another unit category. So if the USA would like to sacrifice their engineers to build an additional TG, then it would be possible. Of course this will lead to greater deviation from historical force mixes.

Actually Lars infrastructure is relatively important, usually, not always, depends on the strategy of my opponent, or myself. Consistently I do dump some MPPs in whether Allies or Axis. Makes me less inhibited to operate around my HQ supported air corps, shifting attack emphasis from one theater to the other. Those elite, high experienced combat units also benefit, as they set wonderful little traps all over the map.

Well of course this is a great concept, ala Norm Koger's TOAW. Easily adaptable to any scale, allowing for customized units, each having certain unique actions/features depending on their TO&Es. Unfortunately this will not be WaW, but possibly a version down the road. At least we have a designer that has the know how, a great set of betas, and a congenial and contributing community. I don't have a lot of gaming time, but it is a part of my life. Because of the limitations and variety of possibilities I needed to throw in with one developer, make a commitment and stick with it. Isn't that how humans make progress? Sure, I won't agree with every little step, but life is about compromise and better to be flexible, open-minded and positive to get as close to the finish product as possible. And after all, the real fun is getting there.

There you go ev...good one...proper management. Let us not forget that because of the initially dominant Boche military, that "proper management" leads to a well rounded experienced force. I have developed a new strategic initiative for the Axis that doesn't terminate the game with all but the USA and UK in Canada being the final disposition. It is indeed exactly as ev has alluded to, a managed minor victory for the Axis, defending Festung Europe against the 3 major Allies. We all know how small the set of errors is for an Axis victory, this strategy allows a little more breathing space. It is founded on that fire brigade elite overstrengthed group of highly experienced German units operating to the trouble spots coupled with long range surveillance. How do you obtain such a group whose home base is usually in Russia? You figure it out, take a page out of ev's book. Now come to think of it, USA needs another Para unit also, remove the engineers.

"The new world order establishes truth, freedom, tolerance and prosperity across the globe". What about our entitlement programs? I'm starting a revolution!

And don't forget the flask of Tequila!

Sometimes Fantasies are a premonition to reality. So, SO tell me what can the Allies research over and above the Boche. (thanks xwood ) I thought the whole concept of a level playing surface for the default FW campaign was a fantasy in itself? No way the Axis could win, right? 50/50 not possible! So now we're going to be fantasy selective.

Exactly! Look SO, I'm with you, I recognize that the effect can be presented in a more defined feature and you always have some good ideas of implementation. The fact remains that in WaW we are going to have the effect, this discussion is about what we can do as players to somewhat neutralize it in the realm of What ifs. Remember we are playing the Supreme Commander role, some of us recognize it gets cold in Russia, some of us care about the frontline troops, others will opt to build or research other things. All we are asking for is the choice in WaW, which is to be imminently released. Choice is good. Let's see what we get and go from there.

Crap!! It simply gives you a mechanism in the game to avoid the winter effect. You research infrastructure = you pay MPPs to winterize the equipment and soldiers and perhaps(randomizing) avoid to a lesser degree the consequences. You could also say it was the investment needed to change the eastern railway gauge so the stuff could be delivered. Do you need more abtractions? Would you like me to draw you a picture?

I agree...a complete lack of the abstract connection.....and thinking.

Count me as a supporter too, Moonslayer, good abstract logic. Something we could use a little more of around here.

Man I go away for a couple of days and this thread is still going. Lots of good ideas here and we have hashed many of them over and over throughout the years of SC existence. I think the best thing is to wait and see what HC and the gang comes up with in WaW. Ha...can you tell the natives are restless? Look this was a simple intended thread, with a simple fix, gotten kind of complicated now with ideas that don't have an iota of a chance, although good, to make it into WaW. With the Allies having only three TGs in the west, it simply limits their flexibility in a number of different theaters. In WW2, there was Italy, Normandy, and S.France going simultaneously, that puts one TG in each, sound acceptable? Now examine the combat values of a TG vs Army/Corps, you do see that they have an advantage of hitting power and mobility? Didn't someone mention this as a characteristic of Western Allied operations in a return to the continent? Now apply upgrades and examine the potentials of the TG vs Army/Corps, now a greater disparity. Mobility and offensive power against the German's experience and defensive prowess and that is where the balancing act exists. It was the reality of WW2 and also of SC, simple? Currently that Mobility and Offensive striking ability exists in only 3 W.Allied TGs according to build limits of SC2. Its simple, reduce the number of armies allowed by UK and USA build limits and give them the three additional TGs as replacements, same number of overall units. Now you'll also find that the W.Allies will have the incentive to do HT research.

Come on SO, I know you can see an abstracted connection. Infrastructure.... a foundation to build on, the basics, transportation, communication, farming, clothing, waste disposal, etc. Guess what makes a region a great economic model. Guess why the USA uses most of the Earth's energy per capita.

Take it easy Blashmon. We all recognize your stance and we do enjoy your mods. By the way, when do we get try them???? :confused: Ohhh and Blashmon, I believe you should deliver a different set of victory conditions for you mod and enter it into the campaign description.

Whoa! How in the H-ll did this thread get turned into a total deflection of what was intended??? OK, I apologize, I poked a little fun at A234, Sorry A234. This is not about production, or national pride, or such and such's fighting or leadership abilities. It is about the number of Allied Tank Groups available in the build Q. OK. It can be balanced. Take away a couple of corps or armies from the force mix and give the Allies some additional TGs, that's all. I want balance....I need balance, but there are a number of ways to accomplish this. I also want an accurate force mix as provided for by the build limits. I love "What if", but I like some historical premise to that and we all know SC is exceedingly generous in providing for that type of balance...... also. The victory conditions can be changed to adjust balance also, as tournament players we could get points for levels of victory depending on a number of parameters qualifying a Minor, Major, or intermediary result. Now about "buntas", JJR.....how about we go with "Hogans Heroes" emanation of the Germans. You know, the French guy.....what term did he use...."The Bausch"?????

Gotta Luv it!

Crap!!! A234, tell that elite formation crap to the Screaming Eagles occupying Bastogne in the winter of 44. Ever heard of "Those Devils in Baggy Pants"? And we're not talking about that crap these headbangers wear with their underwear exposed. Take away an army or two. Change the victory conditions. I don't care, there were tons of Allied AFVs. I want what was! That's IWWW, and this argument has got some teeth!

OK this has gone on long enough. 3 Allied armored corps grossly under represents the actual armored formations the Allies deployed in WW2. Yes I know we have the editor, but this is not representative in the default Fall Weiss that we all use for tournament play. The one scenario that is supposedly balanced. My opinion is 4 armored corps for USA. 2 armored corps for UK and one for Canada. Now what are we going to do about the 2 French armored divisions and the Polish 1st? CRAP!!!! I want some Allied armor. WTH the Axis formations in the west don't even need to have AT upgrades. I charge you betas and HC with the responsibility to get this right.

The good news is there seems to be a consensus for a little less random tech, always has been and JdF had a brilliant algorithm to accomplish just that. The bad news is that was a long time ago and I feel fairly certain that if HC had agreed with the concept we would already have it. The system as it stands now lends to greater playability under a more variable advancement schedule and after all, that's not a bad thing. Look at it like this, if you're on the receiving end...elation, which sometimes leads to inattentative mistakes later. If you have to deal with it as the opponent then it makes you a better SC player. Sounds like a double positive to me.

Good idea Colin, but one way or the other it still consumes MPPs. If it is a variable with a possible nth degree, then there is always the chance that you were advised correctly by your staff and the ramifications weren't so acute. Remember you have hindsight our predecessors didn't possess. Yeah I know.... Napoleon....but how many humans actually use historical reference to foretell the future.....ha, ha, what a joke, you have to believe the earthly inhabitance have some intelligence. Doomed to repeat.

More than just a sweet spot Bill, HC has set the baseline for ETO, all others are judged against SC and IMO seem lacking. I'm thinking MWIF will be too engrossing for my ADD, but may give it a try. Thanks DD, glad I could be of assistance, but let's not over inflate my contribution. You have taken HC lessons and created your own artform as has Bill, looking forward to being a consumer.

Yeah DD, I can't wait to get my hands on that campaign in solo mode. I know Bill has exceeded all of our expectations. And speaking of, there is another that deserves accolades of thunder, down under, where those hot desert Khamsins rule. Eagerly awaiting its scope of play also.

Retri, have you had a geological survey (core sampling) done of the strata supporting your concrete foundation? If not, I would advise to do so. If its not to late you may want to modify your foundation blueprints accordingly. This is the most important factor when erecting a building.

Actually ev I like the idea of no Army units, everything would be corps size, excepting the smaller specialty units. One problem is unit density. That could be overcome with a larger map, but it does become laborious in the late game with so many units to keep up with. The one aspect of SC A3R that I disliked was the unit density, it just isn't conducive to fast and furious gameplay......well fast anyway.