John DiFool the 2nd

Read Here

Favorite: Tanks & Paras. Least Fave: Subs, which are too easily sunk if they don't dive, and Partisans, which not only invariably pop up in the ONE square you left uncovered, but then somehow manage to pork your supply over a much wider area than their ZOC.

That may be true Blashy but in SC1 you could surround such a unit and it would have absolutely no chance of buggering off like that. But even if it is two overlapping ZOCs of yours to one ZOC of the surrounded unit, these empty squares flip back to his control during his turn. Also an issue when trying to cut off a city from reinforcements, as just happened in a game I played today-squares flip, and all of a sudden a city which I thought I had cut off has 4 new units built and/or operated in around it. But I learned my lesson...attack from the diagonals NOT from the sides-that keeps the city surrounded with no more liberties.

What if you consider an air move into an already- friendly hex as not a drop, but the paras being transported in their transport planes and landing at the destination like most normal people do?

If you have undo moves enabled, this greatly aids a player in hunting down hidden units (specifically submarines). Try a move; if you find nothing, undo the move and search somewhere else until you find whatever it is you're looking for. Fortunately you can disable undo, but I just wanted to point this out...

Thread on AI Improvements Now remember kiddies to read the forum thoroughly first before posting a rant against something which has already been addressed. :cool:

And they will be running a gauntlet all the way down, and all the way back...

Me too Night. Didn't Hubert say he was going to add multiplayer at some point?

While playing around with an idea for a Midway scenario, I realized that it probably wouldn't work very well because of how there's no distinction between the CV and its air wing. [Yes we discussed this before but I want to bring it up again] I have visions of the Enterprise attacking the Yamato from 15 squares away, and sinking as a result (the Big E not the Big Y). At the risk of a little micromanagement, could we please do this HC? The CV would still have a strength of 10, but would need its 5 strength air group(1/2 of a regular air group, or alternately make it 10 but pork all ratings other than anti-ship) to attack ships from a distance. The air wing could be detached and sent to a friendly location for repair/tech upgrades. Plus I think you will need to be able to stack air units with ground units, else every Pacific island will need to be 2 squares (or more) in size. Just my 2 cents...

I wish that diagonal moves cost more, but I can see why Hubert didn't allow it...

It should be a choice-most of the time the Germans won't have extra cash to spare to upgrade their minor allies. But if trading tech to a minor is possible trading tech to an allied major power should also be possible (with steep costs of course, preferably payable by the receiving country). Can Italy afford to buy tank tech from the Germans? Probably not in most cases.

Having Bermuda with one of those naval bombers would likely help the spotting problem. I still think tech is the route to go here: let Germany try a Sealion (or the American Gambit) with level 0 landing craft-slow, poor defense, crappy supply, subject to LOTS of damage from storms. On D-Day, OTOH, the Allies probably had what could be called level 3-4 tech in landing craft-better at resisting storms/supply losses at sea, faster, a bit better at defending themselves. It took them awhile to figure out what worked, and what didn't, but the eventually got it, while the Germans seriously thought river barges would get lots of troops across the Channel safely. Most of the other suggestions I've seen here are kludges, where porking the Nazis in 1940 means porking the Allies in 1942/43/44, which to me is unacceptable.

1. Engineers can be operated while the in the middle of fortifying; when relocated, they will finish the job in the new hex, and if this is a city the city will be "replaced" with the fortification! 2. For some strange reason bombers are curiously resistant to being bombed/strafed by enemy air assets. I had a British bomber (1/2 experience) which I was continually hitting with 5 level 5 fighters, but I never managed to kill it (tho I came close a few times). British fighters I managed to kill very easily. 3. Is there a reason why the Greeks can disrupt Athens & port even though an Axis unit is stationed there?

Same thing happened to me when I took the Baltic States with Germany-it reverted to Russian control DESPITE the presence of one of my corps on top of it! And it didn't change back to my control until I moved the corps out one turn and then back in the next...

Perhaps each minor could be upgraded in tech X if the major first pays the cost of one chit to trans- fer tech to the minor? An interesting choice, perhaps too expensive for most people's blood (as I usually use them as garrisons in Russia), but a choice nonetheless. Can a script be written to transfer tech between majors?

Plus you can cover that "air gap" with long-range air tech, which as it turns out is exactly what the Allies did. I do wish we had "maritime bombers", which would eliminate the kludge of non-operational- moving bombers, and give the Allies the choice of building them...

You can't really compare a brand new game to one which has been out for (what?) a year now. Plus I am anxious to see what both modders and Hubert have in store for us... P.s. I dislike area movement in my WWII strategy games...

[Could an admin make this a sticky please?] Consider this thread a place to notify others of mods and scenarios which are in progress. In addition to the name of the scenario/mod and a brief description, also include a percentage completed estimate (10% completed, 90%, etc.). This will hopefully avoid duplication of effort as well as whet the appetites of us anxious heathens. Thank you.

Think it has something to do with units not being entrenched at the start of the game...

Well, you can use my idea (other thread) for tweaking MPPs/turn: right now apparently if you change it to normalized with (default) 14 day production, then production is halved in the summer, "normal" in the spring/fall, and doubled in the winter. Tweak the number of days down (say to 10), then there are more MPPs floating around for everyone (tho this will favor the Axis in the early going, and the Allies later on).

[Feel free to transfer this thread to mod forum] Okay, I can mod everything I want apparently EXCEPT alter movement penalties according to weather-are those hidden in a config file somewhere or are they immune to player alteration?

I think a proactive, rather than an reactive, approach to partisans are necessary. The buggers, if just one shows up, will pork your supply in a broad area around its spawn point (and I hate that).

Which really isn't a problem for the Axis. More units=target rich environment=more experience for Axis units. It basically becomes a death spiral for the Russians (at least) as the more el cheapo corps they buy the better the Wehrmacht becomes! I noticed this in a campaign where I gave the Allies a bunch of extra MPPs and systematically chewed my way through the Russian conscripts anyway, building my units' experience through the roof.

I am wondering if constant length turns would work better? Right now the winter months zip past, while a number of campaigns had crucial battles during that time. You really don't quite get the kind of breather you should right now. You could still restrict movement (snow probably should have an additional -1 move penalty), but it would have to be balanced by some MPP adjustment. Playing in the editor I see I can normalize MPP production for X days. Doing some quick calculations... Right now you get 15-16 turns per year (for your side). If we go with biweekly turns that's 26 turns per month, which would require about a 40% reduction (60% of what you get now) in MPPs, which would peg the normalization at 21 days or so, so that MPPs before ~= MPPs after. Certainly something we could test.

I think Hubert would need to be convinced to have a "no major countries at war" setting for 1936 to work. I was toying mentally with the concept of Totaler Krieg's Dice of Decision, which would randomly generate a war setup which would be different every time...