Ottosmops

The tiles 92, 15 and 93, 15 have terrain type Tropical Hill instead of Marsh.

The type of the defender determines the attack value that the attacker uses to damage the defender. The type of the attacker determines the defense value that the defender uses to damage the attacker. The numbers in brackets in the following examples are from the table in the PDE manual page 18. If a carrier attacks a BB it uses its Naval Attack value to damage the BB. (3) The BB uses its Carrier Defense value to damage the carrier. (3) If a BB attacks a carrier it uses its Carrier Attack value to damage the carrier. (4) The carrier uses its Naval Defense value to damage the BB. (2) If a fighter intercepts it doesn't matter whether it is the attacker or defender, because the fighters Carrier Attack and Carrier Defense values are the same, (1) and the carriers Air Attack and Air Defense values are also the same. (0) This means the land based aircraft has in any case a small advantage. I think the loss calculations are done with the values that the units had before combat begun, i.e. simultaneous. At least that is how I imagine the things work. I could be wrong.

JerseyJohn, Thank you for the interesting information about the American Civil War game. As an afterthought I have to add that such a game would need the possibility to zoom in/out to keep an overview.

Perhaps another approach to the stacking problem could be as follows: Make the map substantially larger, let's say ten times as many hexes, but keep the number of units the same. Let every unit have an area of influence, e.g. the surrounding six hexes, or even the next bigger circle. Combat would take place, as soon as the areas of opposing units overlap. Concentration of your own forces would be realized by overlapping of their areas (better combat values). Because the map would be sparsely populated, there should be more room for maneuvering. Does anybody know if such a game already exists? Would it work? Would the players like such a system?

Are you sure you had enough MPP left?

JJ, you can go to User CP Edit Options Miscellaneous Options and change the editor interface to Enhanced Interface Then you can insert the smilies with a mouse click.

I fully agree with Kuniworth. A situation as in the picture below shouldn't be possible. The German tank is in supply, and so is the Polish corps below.

Joe98, try the following link: http://www.battlefront-store.com:8080/community/forumdisplay.php?f=16

@ Rambo Even the Rambo films are intellectual masterpieces compared to your babble. Did you learn German from The Great Dictator?

@ Rambo There are still a few Christians in Europe, but I'm done with it. :cool: Thanks to idiotic immigration policy, EU will be an Islamic republic in the future. :eek: BTW, I thought Maryland is in the USA.

@ Rambo: Johnny Cash failed to enter your list? Shocking! :eek: I recommend that you put him in your list instead of your #5.

How old are you, dud? :confused: Younger than twelve or older than seventy? :confused:

Maybe this old thread is still relevant. Similar topic from SC1 [ January 11, 2008, 04:31 AM: Message edited by: Ottosmops ]

Engine: CURRENT Synopsis: Automatic reinforcements to save a couple of mouse clicks. Design Summary: After the player ends his turn, all of his unused units will be reinforced according to the algorithm described below. Also, the player could intentionally start this process every time during his turn. The player should be able to activate or deactivate this option during the game as he wishes. Manual update (as it is now) should be possible at any rate. Details: Three variables per unit could be used to control the behavior of the algorithm: 1. PRIORITY: range 0 to 9, default 4, units with higher priority are first reinforced. 2. UPPER_STRENGTH_LIMIT: range 1 to 10 (or 15?), default 10. A player might want to keep a unit deliberately at low strength, e.g. a Corps for garrison purpose. 3. MAX_POINTS_PER_TURN: range 0 to 9, default 9. A player might want to reinforce a unit slowly, if he needed it not urgently, e.g. the German BBs. The values of this variables could be changed in the same window, which is currently used for reinforcement. A check box APPLY_PARAMETER_SETTINGS_TO_ALL_UNITS_OF_THE_SAME_KIND would be convenient. The algorithm should try to distribute the MPPs in the currently handled priority class in a way, that the resulting strengths are almost equal, e.g. if a unit is at strength 4 and another at 6 and there are MPPs for 6 points available, then both units should end up at strength 8. Problem #1: The algorithm could not give the results the player considers best. Problem #2: Where should the button AUTOMATIC_REINFORCEMENT_NOW be placed? Problem #3: The player should always see, how many excess MPPs he has per nation to buy other things. How to present this information to the player?

Edwin P., I appreciate your proposals to make the model of naval warfare more accurate. However, one must not forget that 50% of the time of a turn in the game is at night. If a DD meets a BB at night, the smaller ship can see the bigger first, fire its torpedoes at long range and retreat. A result (in SC terms) of 10:0 in favor of the weaker side could not be ruled out. I also like the idea of upgrading ships with admirals. But I cannot see how this could explain extreme combat results. Admiral Nagumo was the same (probably competent) commander at Pearl Harbor and at Midway. Still he achieved an overwhelming victory at one occasion and suffered a crushing defeat at the other.

powergmbh, I think I can understand your dislike for randomness. But if SC wants to be a war simulation besides being a game, then some randomness has its place, I think. Luck played certainly a role in real life. The grenade that sunk the Hood had a determinate trajectory. But if the air temperature or air pressure were different, than its flight path would have been different, and the result of the battle might have been different. From the view of the admirals in real life, such details are unforeseeable. But they still make their plans, as best as they can. Randomness and strategic planning are not mutually exclusive, IMO, as long as the randomness is within known limits.

Are the results of naval battles to predictable? There were naval battles, like Midway for example, in which both sides were of approximately equal strength and one side lost all its carriers. I think such a result can not happen with the current model. I do NOT suggest to increase the values of the combat table, because there were also battles, often at night, in which both sides fired many torpedoes and shells without much success. I would rather suggest to increase the randomness of the combat results. Example: If the CTV (modified by upgrades) is N, one could produce a random number between 0 and 2N and replace the CTV by this number in the combat formula. One would have to pay attention when to apply this increased randomness: e.g. CV attacks BB --> CV losses normal, (the CV can only lose some planes, it attacks from beyond the range of the BB's guns), BB losses more random (it can be destroyed or damaged or missed). BB attacks CV --> both more random? Questions: Do the above comments make sense? Would this improve gameplay, because a slightly weaker force could win with good luck? Or would such a change hurt gameplay, because the chicken-hearted players would leave their fleets in the ports? Would the players like such a change?

That's a great concept, SeaMonkey, and exactly my thoughts of a true strategic wargame. Where can I buy this game?

I agree to everything, especially to the hexes. My number one wish is a stronger AI. I guess it's to risky and to much work for the developer to make radical changes, like a zoomable 3D map, an enhancement of the turn based system to a simultaneous system with planning phase and execution phase, smart subordinate commanders doing the work I order them, and so on. Though it would be a pleasant surprise to see something of this kind.

@ Rambo Relax a little. Do you like skiing? http://skichallenge.orf.at/sc08/stories/englishinfo/ It's free.

The model of naval war as it is now can have strange consequences. I've often read that a naval unit represents more than one ship. Now imagine, that a unit is down to strength 1 after combat. It can go to the next port and have strength 10 the next turn. Since it takes longer than one turn to build new ships, the only interpretation is, that only repair work was done. Consequently, the fate of all ships in a naval unit depends on the last strength point. Either they survive all together, or they sink all together. An intermediate result - a part of the task force is sunk, a part survives - can not happen in the game. Maybe the game mechanics should somehow distinguish between losses that are replaceable and losses that are permanent. If some of the ships in a task force rest at the bottom of the sea, the unit could hardly regain full strength in its next turn in a port. This problem seems to be mainly relevant for naval units, because land and air units consist of many more units, so that the reinforcement mechanism works better there.

Youri, what is a real AI?

Welcome to the forum, shuegli65. Basically you are right. It can happen, that you have no research progress in a whole game, but it is very unlikely. Given a 25% chance for a hit each turn, no hit at all after 50 turns should happen less than once in a million games. I also favored the idea of an increasing chance for a long time, but recently I started to appreciate the current system.

compassion = Mitgefühl, Mitleid passion = Leidenschaft