emf

@xwormwood, I don't recall having any problem upgrading minors to the same level as majors, maybe I just wasn't paying attention or I'm so used to my own scenarios. And yes, it is quite expensive.

I believe that the minors should never have tech values as high a the majors. No major would ever give away its cutting edge equpiment, if for no other reason than for national security. I also think that the costs associated with minor tech upgrades should take into consideration training and logistics. Training - the language and cultural barrier. Logistics - getting the equipment to the country. For instance Hungary, minor of Germany - the cost for training should be minimal since the culture and language are similar enough to Germany to negate the minor differances. The cost of logistics should be negligible since the two countries share a border. Hungary, minor of Britian - the cost of training should be more than for Germany since the language and culture are not so similar. The cost of logistics should be high since Britian would need to first - transport by sea, then transport via land, if allowed by another country (one more reason to use politics). Hungary, minor of USSR - should be between that of Germany and Britian For instance China, minor of USA - the cost of training should be considerable since the language and culture is compleatly dissimular for one another. The cost for logistics would also be tremendous since all equipment must be shipped half-way across the world then half-way across a continent. China, minor of Germany - the cost of training should be the same as for USA. The cost of logistics should be even higher. China, minor of USSR - the cost of training and logistics should be low. I'm not sure how to make this work in the game, but I think it should be given some thought.

Thanks SeaMonkey, didn't realize that.

I believe the ability to re-build eliminated units should be tied to the units ability to trace a supply line at the start of its turn. A unit which starts the turn without being able to trace a supply line, i.e. surrounded or behind enemy lines, then it should NOT be possible to rebuild that unit.

It might be helpful when creating a new map to be able to click on the river, road, or railroad button, then click on a tile, click on another tile and have the game connect the two points with the appropriate symbol...river, road, or railroad. This would be in addition to placing them individually.

In the spirit of the "What we would like to see in the Global SC" thread I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread solely for the editor. I'll get the ball rolling with: When setting a tile's weather, all tiles with the same weather should highlight. This should be in addition to the different colors used to identify weather zones. I noticed that the colors repeat, for example 3 and 23 are the same color. If the tiles were highlighted then the job of editing the weather zones would be much easier.

@arado234: in a way yes, but perhaps the ideas could be used to create specific scenerios. Besides, speaking for myself, the ideas we are coming up with I'm sure we know that most will never see the light of day. They are just a starting point for discussion.

@ SeaMonkey I like your ideas, but I think that with the groups of units, all units should be adjacent to a unit that is in contact with an enemy unit. And/or if they are farther away, then they should have a very high readiness, perhaps for every tile away from the enemy the necessary readiness should increase.

This could be done either as a researchable tech or as an event. The event would be easier, as they would appear the turn after D-day. They should have no more than a supply level of 5 and perhaps, be able to supply no more than 3 units not including HQs, and no more than 3 tiles away. The tech would allow them to move? from port to any non port, have a higher supply level, supply more units, and supply units further away.

The leaders of countries, large and small, don't liked to be pushed around. Nor do they like to feel that they have been forced into a situation not of their choosing. When a major country tries to influance a minor who's to say that they must react neutrally or positively? Can they not also react negatively? I suggesst that there should be a small chance (1% per chit, or higher in the editor) that a minor would move away from the country trying to influance it and towards the enemy parent.

Colin I - imho, I concider anti-air, anti-tank, and artillery to be tactical, but for the purpose of this game they are organized in batteries and thus are operational in nature. I think that, for such units, entrenchment levels also could be concidered as organizational in function. So for a battery to entrench it might take as long as a week to get all the units dug-in and sighted, communications networks laid out, chain of command, etc... Long story short I kinda agree with Seamonkey with the need for at least entrenchment level 1.

I think that improvments in infrastructure should increase the industry modifier. Building better, more, and more efficient roads and railroads means you are able to move more materials faster. Each new level of infrastructure will give the industrial modifier an increase of 1% to a max of 5%.

I think it would be nice to have HQ's drop by parachutes, after all para units did have some sort of HQ with them and they were able to put into amphibious ships. Now I do realize they may not be a large as regular HQ's but that can be solved by limiting the strength of said unit to no higher than 5. We might also limit the number of units and the range of units attachable to the HQ, perhaps 2 or 3.

I would like to see, on the reports menu, a break-down of units by type, both for what you have and what you have eliminated. It would also be nice to show what units are yours and what units are your minors.

If we allow all air units a multiple strike then we should allow anti-air that ability as well. I also feel that multiple strikes be allowed for defense as well as attack. I can give artillery a multiple strike on the attack but why not on defense? We should be given the choice (via the editor) of multi-strike attack or defense for anti-air, artillery, and anti-tank.

So I was playing PDE today as Germany and I'm about to enter France during the second turn of the western invasion. It is the first week of May and I have clear skies. On the next turn I get rain, yuck! If I had know it was going to rain I might have postponed the offensive. Then it hit me. Why can't our wonderful intelligence office PREDICT the weather? Start out with a base of 25% accuracy for the next turn, increase by 1% for every level of intelligence, decrease by 5% for every consecutive week of prediction. Pop-up would say "Our weather forecasters say that over the skies of France we are probably going too have clear weather next week and we might have storms the following week." This might be a good feature to add as a game menu button perhaps under Reports. Press the Weather button and get predictions for all weather zones.

OK Thanks Bill101

Recently I was trying to set up a script whereby if the Axis declares war on the USA that Cuba would enter the war and start a convoy to the USA. The problem I'm having is that Cuba starts the game as neutral. Now I can code for Cuba being neutral or I can code for Cuba being Allied but it requires 2 separate scripts. Everthing I've seen requires "this AND that", and I need "this OR that". Is there a was to do this in one script, Cuba as neutral OR allied? For that matter what other comparisons can you make? Greater than or less than, ELSE, ELSE IF, NOT, etc...

Hey Rambo, yeah I remember all those conversations. It would be great to have Naval Leaders and Air Leaders. I just figured it might be easier to code the current HQs with different modes than it would be to create new units.

Ya know SeaMonkey thats very true. Sometimes the gods of war are against you. So here's another idea, since there's no stacking and we attack with one unit at a time I suggest that for every friendly unit which is adjacent to a tile being attacked each unit attacking that tile should get a bonus to their moral and/or a detriment to the enemy being attacked. This bonus or detriment could be lessened or negated by how many units the enemy also has adjacent to the hex. You could also say that the type of unit might increase or decrease the bonus or detriment. The adjacent units would not have to attack. For example: Germany has 1 army attacking 1 USSR army. Germany has 1 armor unit adjacent to the USSR army. The German army would get a 10% bonus to their moral and the USSR army would get 10% detriment to its moral. If USSR also had a armor unit then the bonus and detriment would be negated. Armor +/-10%; Army +/-5%; Core +/-2%; HQ +/-1% OR Every additional unit which attacks the same tile gets a ?% increase in their moral. Maybe 5% for the first additional unit, 10% for second unit, 15% for the third, etc...

Colin I gave me an idea. HQ's whose mode could be set for land, air, or sea. Each HQ would have a bonus depending upon the individuals strengths. For example Rommel would have a bonus if set for land, and Nimitz would have a bonus if set for sea. I'm not too sure how the naval portion would work, perhaps all naval HQ's would have to be adjacent to a port. This idea could be further enhanced by giving each HQ a bonus for a specific style of warfare. For example if an HQ is good on defense then all units attached to it get a defense bonus. An HQ which is a submarine warfare specialist would give bonuses too all submarines in attack, defense, search, etc...

I would like to see the engineers kept, but expanded, simular to what SeaMonkey has said. I think they should have two modes: construction and combat. In construction mode you may build roads, railroads, fortifications, fortress and ports(?), airbases(?). In combat mode they would negate the entrenchment value of a unit or the fortification value of a tile, for the engineer unit and maybe, for every ground unit which attacks that same tile during the turn. Each tile would cost ?mpp's too build a road or railroad depending upon the terrain. We could have this value modified by infrastructure research. If we allow engineers too build ports they should be different than the ports which start the game. I feel that the ports which start the game should be given a mpp value of 1 due to its economic value and they could be concidered a town, and any newly constructed ports should not be given any mpp value.

Intelligence could be expanded to show diplomatic moves and convoy routes, or a single convoy tile. Could also show what the enemy is building or how many mpps they have.

Here is another idea for neutrals. I'm sure such things were discussed before but I can't remember. Where do all the points spent on DPs go? I would suggest they should be spent by the country in a random fashion, reinforcing, upgrading, or building new units, building fortifications, antiair for resources. Perhaps building infrastructure, like roads and railroads. This might go hand in hand with putting limitations on how the points are to be spent. For example if Germany spends points on Spain it might be required that Spain buys a certain type of unit. Maybe you can say here's x$; you get all if you do this, or 1/2 if you don't. Another idea is to allow influance other than DPs, such as transfering technology or loaning a unit.

It might be an interesting idea to have the ability to create convoys during the game. If Germany puts DPs into Venezeula, at some % activation, a convoy would be created to ship oil to Germany. The Axis player should be able to direct the path of that convoy. This could be expanded to allow all players to move the paths of convoys during the game. Of course this would mean that the other side would not be able to see the path.