SeaMonkey

No JJR, God is in the heart. It is here that man looks when faced with the perils of his existence. This, above all, sets him apart from all other living organisms, the ability to ponder his ancestrial beginnings and future. He now has the tools to mold the environment of his future generations long after his own demise. Unbelievably, he will thrust himself in harms way to continue the hopefulness of his own specie if even they be totally unacquainted. How great an achievement is that? There has been a history of that throughout man's residence, from all walks of life, from many geographical locations, it is undeniable. And in modern times, it still continues, the legacy is written in the annals of history of hero's sacrificing themselves for the freedom of others. I know many of you question the motives of leaders of these fine heros that send them sometimes seemingly blind into harms way, and yet they continue to go. Into the cauldron of evil, time and time again, ignoring the dangers to oneself, they march. How can you not admire that. And remember when they perform that ultimate sacrifice, they are not concerned with the motives of the leaders that sent them, their minds are upon the safety of there loved ones and that of the ones they do not know. They come from many lands for many reasons, but there is one common thread that binds them to their destiny, the salvation of their brethren. They simply have God in their heart and its really of no significance if there is an omnipotent being or not, because the spirit dwells within them and that makes it real.

Crap JJR, he was wide open for Sealion??? UK dual offensives...WTH? Where's your AFs and paras? Go take your medicine.

Ditto Timskorn's remarks......Amazing! The evolution of this game....excellent. Hubert,...you're a master at your art, "We're not worthy"...........thanks.

Hey Hubert, how about changing the anti-air and anti-tank icons to show self propelled versions when acquiring and applying motorization tech? Artillery too?

Doesn't matter Blashmon, you said it yourself, if addiction is truly individually uncontrollable then the economics won't have an effect. There is no easy answer for this as some people just have a compulsion(s) they can't seem to overcome. Everyone is a bit different, some have the will, some don't and I don't have a clue what is the catalyst to differentiate. I have done every drug in the book(voluntarily and not) and have walked away, lots of things are addictive, not just isolated to drugs and your specie seems to be without the ability to practice self-denial to any extent. Targul, just like for every action there is a consequence or opposite and equal reaction, there are no victimless crimes. The definition of crime is what initially is questionable. If humans could come to an understanding of the prophetic conclusions to their actions, however remote the connection, then possibly they would not embark upon such irresponsible behavior. Of course that takes deep contemplation and a forsightedness that very few of you possess.

Blashy...what a revelation!!!! You just got it, we should all be responsible for our own actions, paying the appropriate consequences. The drug thing, the addicts can't resist. So let's build some camps where drugs are dispensed for free. Let the people come there voluntarily if they want drugs, they get all they want, but you have to stay there. A beautiful encampment, with adequate facilities to farm, manufacture safely, very mundane tasks if they wish to stay. They get enough, they wise up, or there will also be a big nice graveyard where they paid the consequences for their bad decision making. And the ones that stay get to gaze out across it everyday. Sure, the taxpayers will have to subsidize it to a certain extent, but it may be cheaper in the long run than letting them exist in society, endangering the competent of your species.

Pearl Harbor!

Who needs a sword.....240 grains of lead carry a lot further. We have permits to legitimately "conceal carry". Bad guys....Beware!

Come on now JJ, simmer on SO, sometimes "they" don't change his diaper for awhile.......and.... well.... I know I can't remember either,... but those rashes sometimes can be quite irritable "they" remind me. Most of the time he can be serenely amicable and produce some knowledgeable posts, contributing to the civility of the forum........Oh!!...but when those diapers get in a wad....well.... Picky...picky....picky, ... where's the powder.

Hubert.......I'm speechless!

K man, has no bearing on supply, just combat readiness and morale. It is indeed worth it to upgrade HQs to full strength. Check the equations in the manual.

Good point Blashman. I kind of hesitated because of the micro feature this suggestion alludes to, but we already have the AF mission selection. Probably for a new player it would be a bit cumbersome, definitely gives us vets something to think about although the actual physical "click" aspect I think we all could handle. Could be very complicated for coding an AI though. Besides it goes against the axiom, "Don't fuss with success"...or something like that.

MW don't be concerned with "AirAxis", it was proven futile by Terif, and is now passe'. "Bombers" thread a couple pages back.

Right you are Retri. I'm thinking its time for a new direction in this scale. Since units of this size, usually corps, have many elements, many abilities to perform different functions, it is time for the unit to display mission oriented combat factors. Just like there are different functions for SC AFs through the pull down menu, other units should have a similar feature. Depending on the mission selected through the pull down menu, the unit will display different combat factors or abilities. For example a typical pull down menu selection for an army could be "bombard" or "recon" or "infiltration attack", or maybe "full assault" or whatever. Depending upon the mission tasked to the army the unit will perform the action with different factors. Like for recon, there spotting improves by one tile, for bombard-they can attack an adjacent tile without suffering casualties using there artillery assets, degrading entrenchment levels. For a full assault they can cause great damage to the defending unit but take a large amount of casualties themselves. Maybe they choose "defend" and they are dug in, all weapons are sighted and positioned to create great havoc for the attackers. We wouldn't need a lot of different units, just a few with emphasis on certain abilities built in by the players adjustments to tech and TO&Es and their mission selected accordingly.

Actually what I was thinking, not to complicate things, is that because the SC units include various aircraft types, the mission allocated crafts are the ones that fly. Simply only a portion of the units(AF) total aircraft TO&E is designated to the task and those are the appropriate airframes and pilots for that task. The combat factors thusly are mission oriented.

Let's see if I understand the tactic of soaking off the interceptors. As the initiating player I designate my fighter/FB unit to ground attack, which means they are carrying the proper ordinance and training for that mission. The interceptors are responsive and equipped accordingly for their role of air attack, interrupting the mission, same type of unit, different objective. Which group should have the advantage in the air supremacy scenario (dogfighting)? As escorts my WaW F/FB unit is using the men, machines and tactics best suited for that task, protecting the bombers which requires prowess at air to air combat, shooting down fighters...only. The interceptors or CAP are put in a dual use environment of shooting down both escorts and bombers. As some of you know sometimes those two objectives require different caliber weapons and tactics to maximize effectiveness. All I'm saying is that dependent upon the mission, perhaps the unit should display different combat factors, thereby making the selection from the unit's role menu applicable and not subject to gamey tactics, ie. soakoff.

Perhaps SO, the initiative lies with the most advanced AF?

Everyone check out the new blog, some great insight to WaW features. Thanks Hubert. Now to the theme at hand. I never use escorts, why? I think we all know, better to just soak off the interceptors with your own AF attack on some ground unit, double the usage. So the question is, shouldn't AFs used in the escort role have an attack advantage on any intercepts? Makes sense, the interceptors are fulfilling the primary objective of stopping the bombers, this gives the escorts the benefit of position usually in altitude. Escorts have the advantage of the initiative. Ok, let's say the interceptors decide to take on the escorts as their primary function. Now the bombers should sustain almost no damage, depending on the success of the escorts vs interceptors. In addition the bombers, given the luxury of an uninterrupted mission, should conduct a more devastating attack on its target. Agree....disagree, is the feature already there...anyone know for sure?

How about another para unit for USA? I know off topic but let's face it 4 divisions equal two units for ETO.

Fascinating ideas. Perhaps a choice at build to allow an extra turn before appearance for a boost in morale and readiness....two turns? Better yet, just let them remain in the queue, the longer after the minimum appearanc time the greater morale and readiness percent.

Is anyone keeping score here? Does it really matter? Is HC listening? Are there more comments, perspectives? My conclusion is that Engineers in SC represent a specialty unit, not necessarily of the same size the combat units are. This is about abstraction and application of a feature that had a paramount effect in WW2.....any war condition..IMO. Its like Rockets which are really artillery bombarding from tiles 100s of miles away. Abstractly they are not 100s of miles away but are located in the rear echelons. It is an effect simulated in an abstract way.

As much as I like the units, SO and Timskorn have a good point. Perhaps as an attachable asset as recommended here, maybe to an HQ unit and based on the level of "infrastructure" research category for different abilities. An HQ unit with the "Egr" attachment would allow an additional entrenchment level per tile type for units in its command range. This would be in lieu of the fortification feature. Come to think of it, maybe HC had that in mind as part of the HQs features anyway. Maybe these conditional ideas should be at the mercy of MPP expenditures?

Yeah right SO...ha ha, not only do I believe that there never was a document, person, or thing that ever knew, .....if there ever was, it will forever be misconstrued through the politburo's propaganda machine. In short...we will never know.

Right on Blashy......and by the way....where is that "Wizard of the Ways and Means" committee?

A popup revelation would be appropriate also. Could it be scripted?