ev

I really like this idea. Once I played a board game like this... I guess it would be hard for the AI... The AI would need to plan in advance how many depots it will need, and, where. This, of course, also means deciding, way in advance, where you will be advancing, or, retreating. Still, I think it is a great idea, and, Hubert should pursue it even if he cannot get the AI right at first.

The problem behind the problem lies in the model for the road and rail network. A town should be required to connect via rail or road to either a port or capital city if it is to act as a supply source. Notice my focus is on the rail and road network. It should not be necessay to surround each tile arround a city to degrade its supply. If you effectively cut off all rail and road access, its supply level should be seriously impaired. How strong should this impairment be? At least half... so a level 10 city goes down to 5; a level 8 goes down to 4; and a level 5 goes down to 2 or 3.

What if the Supply value of these small cities was reduce from 5 to 2?

I agree there should be a way to increase the spotting range of ground units. First, I eould like to draw a distinction between spotting range and spotting quality. As I read Grng's proposal, he is concerned about spotting quality, while I am talking about spotting range. Nevertheless, bear with me: During WWII a ground units ability to patrol and reconnoiter a given territory depended largely on two factors: (1) How fast or far away could your patrols move in agiven amount of time. For example, scout moving on jeeps could cover a much bigger area than scouts on feet. (2) The ran

In SC a unit without an HQ is at a terrible dissadvantage. You want mimick how the Duce treated his soldiers? Send them with no HQ support and no tech improvement. If you do that in SC you will get the same results obtained by Mussolini. If you want to repeat Mussolini's stupidity, you don't need Hubert to write you a special software package. You just have to act in a very stupid manner.

I agree with the first point, but have some doubts about the second. With regards to the first point, I think better HQs is the way to represent better tactics. With regards to the second point, Italian low morale may have been due to poor leadership and poor equipment. Low rate HQs may a better way to represent poor leadership, while low tech may be the best way to represent poor equipment.