Major Spinello

Not even a NOT-connective available? For then IF p THEN Q := NOT p OR Q p AND q := NOT (NOT p OR NOT q) If there are really not more logic functions, these should be requested in the "request thread"!!! Not being able to specify unit types is also a bummer. I´m beginning to wonder how you can write all those scripts ... sounds like giving a speech with your tongue anaesthetized!

dispalor: I do not know whether this is just in Dave´s scenario, but there is Romanian Oil shown in my convoy window. So "land convoys" should be possible already. I have another one, too: - The possibility to specify a max-value (from 0 to 10) for a city´s mpp-value. So we could enter many minor cities and still keep the overall mpp-balance. Depending on supply, ATM cities are all either worth 5 or 10 (except if bombed or Malta-effect strikes).

It goes without saying that with "range" I mean the "bad weather" range of course.

Maybe you could do something like this? IF the AI has a carrier or bomber or airfleet within range of tile XY AND there is nothing at XY, THEN ...

*gulp* ... I hope Hubert is aware of these issues. Any comments from him lately?

Against the AI I always delay the Germans quite a bit. Actually, before the patching it was waaaay too much so that the game as Allies got boring because it always ended extremely early. (I know I could give the AI advantages, but I hate that.) Actually that´s the reason why providing France the opportunity to have adequate doctrine, OOB and maybe even a maginot line up to the coast is not a serious choice in WW2 games: Players would not repeat the original French mistakes. Thus all games would boast a stalemate on the Western Front and an early Axis-defeat once Soviets jump in. Exciting, no? So this has nothing to do with not respecting the French or adoring the Germans - it´s just that people want a WW2 game. Having a chance to delay the Germans is fine, but stopping them for good is a game-breaker...

Edwin, this last idea is a winner. I would love to have statistics on convoys throughout the game!

While this is an ingenious idea, I think it also goes to show once again how desperately you modders do need these global variables. SO I REALLY HOPE HUBERT IS READING ALL THIS AND DOES GIVE IT HIGHEST PRIORITY FOR THE NEXT PATCH! There is much talk about that the AI has to be improved. One of the most efficient ways to do this seems to me to give the scripters (like Edwin and Normal Dude) more degrees of freedom ...

I think that there should always be a chance for the AI to do a sealion because of the gamey moves Normal Dude mentions. But if it does it, it should try to do it right: - Try to gain air superiority positioning all available air-units (depending on what scenario/mod it would also have German bombers and Italian fighters). - hitting any Royal Navy CAs and BBs which are located in the channel-side ports with A/C until they leave the channel. - Trying to knock down the entrenchment of the unit on London, too. - having escorts to the East and West of the transports to block the Royal Navy at least long enough to get the guys over there. If the AI cannot scripted to do such things, then Hubert should rework it in this respect. It is of utmost importance that amphibious invasion plans work reasonably also for Overlord. (Not to mention any Pacific-Mods ... )

Dave: - Dobrudja to Bulgaria: 103,21; 102,22 (I´d say two tiles are warranted here) - Don´t forget about Transnystria to Romania once the Reichskommissariat Ukraine is established.

In my mind a game can be balanced even though the chances of winning for one side does increase and that of the other decrease with time. In fact, what makes a WW2 grand strategy game fun is exactly that both sides play very differently. If you play the Axis, you are on the offensive early on, but have a tight time table and inevitably lose the initiative if you can´t keep up the momentum. With the Allies it´s more or less the other way round: You are always on the verge of breaking in the early years, but if you stall the enemy long enough, then eventually you will outproduce your opponent and turn the tables on him. Nevertheless, if the game is done right, both sides can win.

Commander-Europe at War ... hmm ... this game probably deserves discussion in its own thread. Many people think it will be just a SC2 clone. Anyway, the only really good new idea I heard they have so far is that cities will be different in what they are worth so that they can include lots of different minor cities without screwing overall game balance. Yes I have sympathy for the project, for we can´t have enough of these games, can we? But it´s too early to say whether it will be a serious competitor - especially in the AI department.

- Do I have to have both Riga and Kiev for those Reichskommissariate to be announced? If not (and I think they should indeed be separately announced), then something is not quite working; for I took Riga three turns ago and there was no announcement ...

The AI beat you????? :eek: Great work, master of the scripts! Can´t wait for the them being transferred to the bigger map of Dave´s scenario!

... and it was about the same story in East Africa ...

- Hmm, Abbysinia is on my wishlist, too, of course. If it is liberated, can it get some troops through scripting and act a bit on its own against the remaining Italian troops there? (I hope these will not just surrender?!) - I wonder if Guzzoni is right in Abbysinia? I don´t know really about him being in Ethiopia at that time, wasn´t he operating in Southern France in 1940? At least he had no role in the invasion of British Somaliland. Maybe we should have Amadeo d´Aosta as the Italian HQ here?

Something must be wrong here. When I started that other Malta-thread a while ago, I had the fortress at efficiency 0, the port at 0 and the morale and readiness of the corps at rock-bottom, too. Still, it did not take any losses. I used only Battleships and cruisers, though. Is it maybe ESSENTIAL to attack the corps from the air?

So the reason US has a limit of 4 armies in SC2 in the scenario that came with the game is because Blashy hates the US ... please gimme a break! I´m not always with Blashy, but he does a good job of explaining and defending the design decisions for SC2. And btw: If I look at the AAR between Rambo and Stalin´s Organist in the other thread it seems to me that the game is not that badly ballanced after all.

Rambo, I forgot for a moment that you don´t care about the AI ... However, then it even more seems that you just want parameters changed for SC1 in a patch which you simply can access and change in SC2 through the editor to basically get the same result. So instead of raising cash for a patch, maybe someone could instead make a SC1-mod for SC2? (It´s not as silly as it sounds. People do this with other game-series, too.) The only thing inherently better in SC1 is that it has hexes, but even this is not as big a deal as I once thought it would be.

@Hyazinth: I fully agree that the idea was not sound in the first place. However, I just thought that AS THEY ALREADY WERE pressing towards Cairo, then this going to the Middle East would have been a logical further strategical step. I know that it was far away and a vast expanse of terrain to cover, but so it was for the UK! Also, the UK took and garrisoned everything from Syria to Persia with just a few divisions before. So once the DAK would have really gotten to Cairo, the Middle East could have been taken over with only a few additional troops coming from the Caucasus.

I thought that the better upgrading behavior of the AI is a sole consequence of the patching?

AFAIK the programmer of the game is Canadian ...

Night, I´m a singleplayer gamer just like you, and I also think the AI wanting. However, I have some faith in it getting improved considerably. Sure, if that will not be the case, then I will also go and buy my games elsewhere in the future. Ok, only time will tell ... But, as said, I´m rather confident that the wheels are in motion AI-wise. Also, the scripting work of guys like Normal Dude and Edwin make a big difference.

... on the other hand I just recently read that once the prospect of taking Egypt was within grasp, Hitler entertained (for a while) a double-pronged attack (through the Caucasus and Egypt) on the oilfields of Iraq and Persia, thereby depriving the Allies access to the whole region. I wonder whether this does not make some sort of sense.

Is there any situation in which I would want to use silent mode then? What I mean is would there be any reason to sometimes position a sub in a convoy route, but have it not attack?