Todd Treadway

Yes, the number in brackets is the adjusted cost that you pay.

Don't they give prisoners laptops upon checkin these days?

But in the current state, there really is not much reason to send out the navy. It seems that they do two things: 1) bombard, and 2) interdict shipping. If your opponent stays away from the shores, that takes out number one. A change to the amphibious system would give the navy back its importance, but right now, just leave them in port or sink the subs. Not too exciting.

My point was simply that under the old game the turn length was the same I believe. But in the old game the weather was abstracted and there was no bad-weather movement penalty. Seems like the turns should be more standardized in length now, since the movement penalty is now in place.

As for the number of turns per season, I was wondering about this also. The original concept in SC was that there would be fewer turns in the bad weather months, but that there would be no weather in the game as an abstraction. Now that weather is in the game, does that still apply to the same extent? I'd think not. In other words, there should probably be more bad weather turns.

I'd also like the ability to click on the strategic map and have it take me to that space on the operational map.

I would like to see the ability to have more than two players as well. In TCP/IP it would be more seamless, since the players could do their turns at the same time. PBEM would be a different game.

Corps would be the favorite. All ships would fall into my category of suckiest units. Don't see much use for them in this game so far.

Roger that.

This topic was again brought forth in a PBEM game I'm playing right now. As the Axis, I decided to do a SeaLion after finishing off Alexandria. I felt absolutely no inclination to send my ships into harm's way to intercept, block or assist the landing. Maybe there would be a use for them against the USA, but not in a SeaLion under the current system. I've always thought a naval zone system works best with strategic games, if you can handle the abstraction, and it has been confirmed again. Clash of Steel got it right in at least that regard. Whatever solution is reached, I am glad that so many others agree that there is a problem. I look forward to whatever Hubert comes up with as a fix. Other than that small problem, this is a very fun game. Definitely worth the $$.

Blashy, when you say piggy back, do you mean that you can use an HQ to put another HQ in supply for purposes of that other HQ then receiving a higher supply level and extending supply even further? I thought that an HQ could only use supply from a city to get the higher supply level.

I thought the only relevant issues to surrender were: 1) capital is occupied, and 2) number of friendly surviving units of that country. If the capital is occupied, that country has a chance (number of units times 3% for major powers or 6% for minors) to not surrender. Otherwise it will surrender. Thus, if Poland has 6 surviving units (not sure if they have to be in Poland or not), then it has a 36% chance of NOT surrendering each turn.

One thing that might make the current amphibious system more palatable for me would be some sort of "landing space(s)." Amphibious landings could only be into such spaces. These spaces would be in the sea, and adjacent to coastal areas. There would also be such invasion spaces next to areas like Malta and Gibraltar, which are now immune to amphibious and paratroop attack. They would work like this. Move the amphibious transport into the space, click unload. The unit would then be sitting in the space, and could attack. While in the invasion space, it would defend as a transport against naval/air units. Once the adjacent coastal/island space(s) were vacated it could move onto the land. Perhaps the invasion space could act as a limited supply source. This may even work well with a new "Amphibious Tech" research area. The Amphibious Tech level could determine: 1) number of amphibious transports available at a time, 2) movement range of such units, and 3) supply level of the invasion space. Any comments?

What would you all think about scripts that would move diplomacy percentages in favorable directions depending on the number of units on the border? E.g., each Russian border space has a chance of raising USSR-Axis tensions, say 0-1% for each space occupied by Russian units. The inverse would also be true--Axis units on the Russian border would lower tensions. This could also be used for smaller countries, such as Benelux, Spain, etc. (probably with larger percentages).

From the manual: "Each new level of Intelligence research increases your own research bonus by 1% and decreases your opponent’s bonus by 1%. When decreasing your opponent’s research bonus, it will only apply on a per country basis within applicable research categories. New levels of Intelligence do not otherwise increase any production or reinforcement costs." What does the second-to-last sentence mean? What are "applicable research categories?" And what does "on a per country basis" mean? Thanks