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

Maybe a new amphibious landing unit? (Marines, SNLF, etc.) Could be the only unit able to use amphibious movement and have a tech level that would increase movement rate, etc. Also, maybe an artificial harbor unit that would then allow other units to be moved in via sea transport. The harbor could provide limited supply also for several turns.

Why even have pop-ups at all then? I'd suggest that we disable them altogether so that we have to guess as to what is happening in the game, especially in PBEM. And make sure to get rid of the pop-ups for our destroyed combat units and technology advances as well. Oh, and when the USSR and USA enter the war also. Take those pop-ups out. After all, I do enjoy spending my time (even 90 seconds) looking at the diplomacy screen every turn--and I would love to spend even more looking through all the screens and guessing if units are being destroyed or subs are disrupting convoys. Umm, isn't this supposed to be a game of making high-level decisions? I think I might have a subordinate telling me about these things (i.e., a pop-up window). If there is any in-between, maybe give us the options to turn on/off these windows such as in Hearts of Iron.

As a separate matter, I think the ability for units to move after they land is too powerful. As it stands now, with amphibious transports able to move ten spaces, you can land DOUBLE the number of troops you could land in SC1. (Since in SC1 you had to start adjacent to the coast to unload.) This makes the current system even more biased towards amphibious assaults. I liked a previous comment someone made regarding a limit to the number of amphibious transports in the water at a time. Maybe either linking this to the infrastructure tech or a new separate tech of its own?

I think that changing the action points to 3 or 4 for amphibious transports would also have the positive (and realistic) effect of encouraging amphibious operations to originate from a closer port to the target.

SMG42 has it right. Back in SC1, I think I remember that the spotting range to subs was given a -1 modifier. Maybe this was changed in a patch or was never there to begin with, dunno. But it does seem like a modifier would make sense for air/ground units.

I searched the manual and the message boards, but couldn't find the answer to this. Is the spotting range to subs reduced by anything for naval, air or ground units? Thanks

Doesn't sound too bad to me. After recently playing "War of the Ring" (a boardgame from Fantasy Flight games), I wouldn't mind a Middle Earth game. And this is coming from someone who normally dislikes fantasy games.

So if I just pre-ordered today, April 13, will I be able to do the digital download? If so, it will come as a link in an email? Any idea when that would happen? I received the order confirmation email, but no digital download instructions. Guess I should've pre-ordered a few weeks ago!

This whole discussion has made me wish yet again that SC2 would use a naval zone system similar to that used by Clash of Steel. Naval interdiction of supply could be handled abstractly, uncertain naval engagements, etc. I'm sure Hubert has thought about this a lot more than me though. Maybe the scripting thing will allow a simple way to simulate the Germans getting cut out of supply? Also, what if ALL ports had some script saying that if there were enough opposing naval units within a certain distance it would lower the supply value of the port? Thus, instead of attacking the port you could set up a blockade. This would also allow Germany to lower the supply level of British ports using the same script. Haven't thought this through, but would it make sense?

Blashy, I'm not arguing that the HQ system is bad. I like it, as a matter of fact. Clash of Steel used a similar system, and it was fine also. But, having an HQ unit bonus and using the supply benefits of the HQ unit do not fully address the issue. The fact is that going on offensives costs lots of resources while sitting still uses a lot less. Why not keep the HQ system as it is, but simply add on another layer that would make a person pay for using all those armies he has paid for? The system in World at War was very simple. You build supply units and your combat units use them up as they perform actions. In the basic game you didn't worry about where your supply units were, it was just a pool used as needed. In the advanced game you had to make sure the supply was where you needed it. After playing it once, the advanced supply rules were easy, and added LOTS to the experience. As a matter of fact, the supply system to that game was the main reason I liked it. BTW, I'm not interested in logistics normally, but that game proved to me that the concept can add tremendously to the experience. The game has many other flaws, but I really liked that aspect.