John DiFool the 2nd

As of the most recent release in the series, we could play true multiplayer (i.e. more than 2 people-NOT the "dualplayer" that we have now-each person in the game controls one major) only if everybody trusted each other implicitly and swapped regular save files without "cheating" (if the enemy) or screwing around with someone else's units (if an "ally"). If you actually used the PBEM option in the game, it would only save it at the very end of the turn, only playable by the other faction once he loaded it and typed in his password-the regular save function would be disabled. All I am suggesting then is that you can save a PBEM at any moment, and reload it later to complete your turn (type in password), so that the files could be swapped between allies before the last player hits end turn and he gets the save file to send to the other team. Unless there are severe issues with this that I am not seeing, we could get a reasonably functional multiplayer game going. You would still have to police your allies so that they don't screw up your units (unless further functionality is introduced this will be a potential issue). The "reload" timer can still be present (# of loads = # of allies: get any more and someone cheated).

In a naval vein, I most certainly did. An attack by 6 tac bombers merely scratched the paint of a few enemy battlewagons (-1 hit point each)-a few turns later there was a massive surface action which wiped out my entire task force (6 BB's, 7 CA's, 3 DD's) in one turn. I'm not sure but I think you need to "anticipate" where the enemy will be when the bombers arrive, or they won't bomb anything.

My rationale for my tech system is as simple as this: once a country had a national will to actually develop a specific desired tech, they almost always got it within a reasonable period of time. The only real exception to this would be the adverse effects of the sorry state of the German and Japanese industries at the end of the war, which is why (in part) it took so long for the Kriegsmarine to get their XXI's into combat (which they never quite did anyway). But if you look at just about anything else, once a need was demonstrated for tech X, it became a reality within 1, 2 years at the most: German heavy tanks? Once they started encountering (and capturing) T-34's during Barbarossa, the Germans realized their tanks were inadequate. The only slightly less revolutionary Tiger I started full production about 15 months after June 22 '41, while the more complex Panther came along just about 2 years later. Allied long range escorts? Yes, it was a combination of serendipity (P-51 getting the Merlin engine) and necessity (drop tanks), but the USAAF didn't really take long to get all of their fighters longer range after the 2nd Schweinfurt massacre absolutely demonstrated the need for same. The Battle of the Atlantic is probably the best example. The Allies were almost always one step ahead; Doenitz & Raeder never really considered the possibility that mere submersibles (with their crap underwater performance) would become obsolete anytime soon, while the Allies, being on the defensive, had more incentive to not take anything for granted, and this bequeathed them airborne centimetric radar, among other things (again a development that Doenitz never even thought was possible). When a need was fully grasped, the Allies got what they wanted fairly promptly; the Germans like I said waited too long on the electroboots & other things (dithering for far too long on radar warning receivers). Jets-same thing as the electroboots, tho many actually got to see combat, despite Hitler's order to give the 262 bombing capability. Anti-tank weapons? Need I say more. I could go on, but I think the historical record is pretty clear on this point. Any game system which calls too much attention to its random number generator is probably doing something wrong. Now yes, before someone accuses me of trying to make the game too "deterministic," I'll say two things: one, player choices, and not the RNG, should be the prime movers in which techs get developed (fog of war will be maintained), and two, there is plenty of room to tweak the algorithims to adequately simulate dead ends, teething troubles, critical delays in vital metals, etc. Some techs are going to be more revolutionary than others (electroboots are a much more complex and involving tech than drop tanks are), but then that's already built in more or less.

Been farting around with Storm of Steel, some Silent Hunter, but also rFactor, when I get a jonesing for some racing action (like at the Nurburgring...mmmm). Oh, and here's the post I alluded to above: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=65151&highlight=tech

You just described that big hairy thing I wrote up a couple of years ago, to a T. I just dislike every random roll being completely independent of the previous ones-that's most certainly not how it works (for starters).

Yeah, if they have a shortage of something, you can really fleece them of their technology. Yet they manage to keep their economy in good order even if they have a severe deficit of resource X.

Because their planes do diddly against ships. In a recent fleet engagement I had, I certainly expected my 6 tac bombers to do more than score a few single point hits on the enemy fleet, but nope. Maybe it's because planes are only engaged with the enemy for a brief portion of the turn, perhaps only giving themselves like one shot, and then back to the carrier, while in a ship vs. ship engagement, both sides can hammer away at each other for the entire turn. And ship vs. ship combat does seem incredibly bloody (I lost 5 BB's, 5 CA's, 2 CV's and 2 DD's in one turn last night-one turn and they're all gone, every single one, only had some minor damage going in).

Well, in my most current game, I am in an arms race with Mao that I likely cannot win, because the bugger apparently has a production bonus, and his massive food shortage, as indicated by the trade screen, isn't hampering him one bit (or causing his cities to shrink). He currently has a massive stack of ships (6 battlewagons and a bunch of other stuff)-I tried to engage it with a stack of my own which I thought was only slightly inferior, only to see my entire task force wiped out in a single turn, with only a few of his ships lost. My planes are worthless-occasionally they'll get a single hit, but most of the time they are shot down.

A couple of things regarding resource trades: You can really sell the AI down the river if he has a shortage of something-he'll be so desperate for any scraps of same that you send him that you can thoroughly loot his technology. It also appears that the AI doesn't use the open market (nor inter-nation trade), as it will have like 1,000 oil while its armies and people are starving. Is it possible to make the market dynamic, as in prices fluctuate depending on what is being traded? Supply and demand and all that...

At least I know where to look for the carrying capacity now. :blush:

And one more apology: turns out class 1 CVs only can carry 2 planes, not the 4 I assumed they did. Upgraded them ASAP, everything seems to be fine.

RRRR Late night posting always gets me in trouble... Sorry Brit. In any event, even with the new patch, it happened again, the CV was stationary (again), and the plane in question crashed right on the deck of the CV, again (past the halfway point, if it makes any difference).

Sorry Bret didn't see the update this morning. <crosses fingers>

Heck, I'm still seeing planes which I am attempting to land on a carrier run out of fuel. Just ended a session in resigned annoyance when the little bugger still crashed even when I kept the CV stationary for the whole turn-how do you run out of fuel right on top of the CV? I also had one ditch 5 miles (1/8th of its out and back range) from its home city-why wouldn't you fly back to base once you couldn't find the carrier you were ordered to land on? I'm sorry Bret, I know you're trying your best, but this should have been (thought it had been) squashed several patches ago.

As far as wargames go, 1st ones were Crusade in Europe & Decision in the Desert for the Commodore 64 (actually I played the original game in the series first, NATO Commander). This was back in the mid-80's; in retrospect what Grigsby did with the crude graphics and tiny memory and processor in question was miraculous. Have spent a lot of my subsequent time in sims (the original Air Warrior, various other flight sims-racing sims too-and sub sims as well). Where is Terik nowadays? He get a bad case of burnout or what?

It's clear that their expansion "strategy" (as such) is rather lacking. First priority has to be building infantry/tanks and the transports you need to carry them, and scouting out for new areas to expand into. Not sure if EOS has an AI which can see into the Fog of War ot not; in any event they don't seem to use their air units for recon much, nor do I see enemy destroyers probing towards my lines in search of new booty to capture.

Was just about to start a thread on that-my game too was a continuation, if that matters. Did they "track" the CV, predicting where it was going to be, in previous versions? [Can't remember]

Okay, after 15 turns or so I can now buy ships in these towns, even tho the only thing I researched was Biplanes...

And then it CTDs after 7 turns...

Yeah, had the exact same problem (and I just DLed it tonite in the hope of getting some game time in)-thought I was going crazy or that Brit put in some new feature. Both cities are right on the ocean-can't even build a shipyard (so that can't be a prerequisite). Total gamekiller.

Pardon me for this silly question, but the AI does process their turns while the human player(s) does (do), right?

IIRC from the demo, sometimes it would appear that your unit was in the city, when in fact it was like a mere 1 pixel outside it.

He had the vague title, "This just happened twice," which could be about anything (tho does mouseover work for you?). Not your fault if someone else isn't specific with their topic. In any event I've had this happen to me several times, always when I've put a ship (usually a DD) on a course into the shroud to do some exploring.

Brit, I really think you need to add a few more playable maps to the demo. Right now we have no idea how the system and the AI would handle maps which are (say) mostly land. At the very least generate a new demomap for the next build (pretty please).

It's highly likely, given the new convoy functionality (most notably raiding surface ships and bombers) that I'll be working on an Atlantic sub war campaign upon release.