masterclaude

Hello gentlemen ( assuming in this wargame universe no lady hides behind any of those unambiguous avatar names around)!:eek: So after more than 5 years waiting for our Global release, I feel this general plot on the Battlefront forum to make us believe the REAL game is already out and has been available for play and actually played for about a week by all these guys showing no credentials is an insult to our intelligence. I remember all the previous similar attempts to make fun of us, true wargamers, where, naive that I am, I bought everything said here and rushed to my computer to order my Global SC game. You won't get me this time. So for heaven's sake, would someone talk seriously here about Global, the most awaited wargame of the year?

Here is masterclaude. As usual, Sir Sea Monkey comes up with the rigth solution for the scope of this game. Many proposals, no matter how justified they could be from an historical or technical point of view, do not fit in SC2 design. Still, I welcome your brainstorming, gentlemen and hope Sir Sea Monkey gets some special retribution from Fury someday for is the best referee in this forum. See you on september 1 1939 just before Christmas!

Hello virtual soldiers! Here is masterclaude on his way to the fridge between my routed Russians in a game and my staled Germans in another game. There are some days like that... at least I am not out of supply, still got some chili con carne left. Sir Sea Monkey, as I am re-reading this thread I have just realized you talked about ToW – Time of Wrath- not Toaw operationnal art of warfare. You sure thought I was a bit lost with my comment above! I guess a Global thread isn’t the right place for a deeper analyzis of other wargames so, in short, I felt ToW designers ( look at a July Armchairs article from them) fell into about every traps dreamers like me encounter years ago when we tried to make a fully comprehensive historical strategic WW2 game. Combining land-air-sea arms interactions without much abstraction compromise at a scale lower than Corps , fleet TF or Air Armies involves bigger maps ( 20-30 km scale) so units density and move radius can be consistent with a time-span of say 10 days , allowing for real tactical manoeuvers but , no magic here, this has a playability cost way tooo high! If you top that with a research, diplomatic or economic phase, say farewell to your life! Let’s find a remote monastery , plug our computers and play until we die. Not exactly my plans! I feel sorry for the guys at Wasteland. They really worked hard to deliver ToW ( Land units OBB and rating are surprisingly accurate, not a marginal achievement . It needs a lot of technical and historical references to be able to compare adequatly a 39 polish cavalry division, a british BEF motorized division , a light panzer division and so on all through the war with innovations and internal T&E structural changes) but they must understand: instead of adding stuff ( like their unusual naval system) they should preserve their good land model and clean up the interface. Fury avoided theses pitfalls and while one may criticize SC2 oversimplified mechanisms, the game delivers just what we look for: fun with a strategic wargame. Is wargaming all about fun? Then SC1 would better as it was very addictive! Well, playing games is bit like going to a theater for some action movies. If heroes start to fly or use any other special powers, it may be just fine for a Sci-fi story but if you watch a WW2 movie, gee! What a joke! You may not enjoy it as you may not enjoy a 2 hours reality show presenting in real time a bunch of soldiers stuck in a trench somewhere around Kaboul. You need a scenario, you need suspense, you need identification to a character and a credible lifelike world where blowing up the Kwai river bridge means there is an actual bridge, an actual commando and obstacles to their mission. Picture that: our heroes shoot down the bridge garrison with their super bow and super arrows then cut a single rope with their super knive at one end. Goodbye bridge! A british flag appears in the background and our heroes congratrulate themselves! Rather bad war movie, in my opinion! I prefer the original even if the original one is not fully historical or realistic with its vintage flavor. So there is a balance to be preserved in a wargame. Realism is also part of fun and SC2 is going in the right direction with Global. By the way, Sir Nupremal, I would be delighted to have a closer look at your mod but I don’t have PTO. I bought all the sequels up to PDE but they are many other games out there and as I said, we have only one life and few free evenings. Since I expected Global I chose to skip the PTO episode but I hope you are prepared to convert your World mod to Global. Friends or foe, I send everyone me best regards!

Here is masterclaude. I played Squad leader a long long time ago but tactical games are not my cup of tee. Many old fans switched to ASL and the new generation prefers Combat Mission type action games. Squad leader is a good school though that provides familiar not too abstract wargaming tasks most people may enjoy. There has never been too many wargamers, you know! Squad leader helped it that department. Recruiting guys for grand strategy games is an achievement in itself and after years of preaching in the desert, I realized accessible games like SC2 were the only solution.. Yes, SC2 is not realistic but any addition that would complicate matters should be weighted carefully or we are going to end up in a no man’s land facing mister AI again. As for realism, I guess Squad leader got closer to a playable model than any other boardgame but Grand strategy games are much more demanding in design terms. When creating a game like 3dR, You have to integrate so many variables and deal with so much data, it is unavoidable to err one way or the other and who can afford to spend years of testing a design? I did my own WW2 Grand strategic board games on a 30 km scale map as large as 2 ping pong tables. It took 10 years to get it right and needless to say, no one beside me can play it. Way too complex! But very realistic! After 1½ years of solitaire gaming where I managed to reach spring 42 after nearly 70 turns ( 2 weeks/ turns) I threw the towel! It is somewhere in a box... That brings me to Sir Sea Monkey speculation over a Toaw Grand strategy scenario. You bet I tried to make one! But, as you said, Toaw design improperly catches the feel of the 3 arms ( even SC2 has a better naval and air system) and, above all, has no political or economical factors players may consider other than script events that could change replacement rates or supply. Some modders scenarios( like Europaflame, tested and refined for 10 years) are interesting for Pbem as long as the players agree on many house rules, stuff like “you can’t invade Norway before april 40”. So, you see, no political consequence. No strategic warfare ( bombers or U-boat) is possible so, for instance, modders have scripts reducing your reinforcement at some point. Well, it works somehow but SC2 is better. On the other hand, most operationnal scenarios ( there hundreds of them!) are fine but bigger ones ( 1000 to 2000 units with 300 to 400 turns) are not playable neither by Pbem or against the AI. By the way, Toaw AI can deliver good punch if well scripted. I rewrote some scenarios AI like Fall Gelb and it plays historical now but 90% of Toaw scenarios I played (around 35) simply lacks any decent AI scripting. Well! Hot seat is what I really like since you can share right away your gaming session emotions with your opponent and beat him up for real if he’s doing too well ! Fortunatly, I have a good lawyer and a good nurse. I’d rather have more wargamers in town! masterclaude

Hello gentlemen, here is masterclaude , humble servant in the Wargame Kingdom. First of all, I must say it is a pleasure to see Real Global finally on the menu. After some years of uncertainty, you bet our appetite got stronger and I guess for many guys the plate will have to be full to meet higher and higher expectations. With an Oil taste for instance! I do agree with them to some extent but let’s have a second look! As the SC serie unfold with a set of improvements, not ground-breaking thorough changes but all good in essence, I kind of feel SC has its Market niche well established and should not drift away. I mean this a low-complexity game giving a good playground for the average wargame customer. Fine and I will buy Global no matter what it’s included or discarded. It is probably unwise and premature to compare Global to other games according to the Battlefront public pages displaying some classical selling sentences stuff but I will! . All in all, it seems we have continuity here, a safe approach with a familiar design and gameplay. Maybe there is a lot more invisible candies in the bag. but let’s face it : THIS SERIE IS ABOUT GOOD GAMING EXPERIENCE NOT ABOUT A DEEP RESEARCHED WW2 REALISTIC SIMULATION. We are talking here of a game inspired by a WW2 thematic not a project to bring into a game a detailed and 100% faithful political and military model of WW2 on a strategic or operationnal scale. This has yet to be seen in the computer Wargame kingdom although we have some serious operationnal designs contenders out there deserving some stars., not so much on a strategic scale: - Commanders at War? Yes, It has good points but what a poor AI! At least SC2 AI can hold a front or launch an offensive. Don’t forget: in our hobby, games played against a computer opponent count for more than ¾ of all the play time spent. Moreover, SC2 editor makes the other ones laughable - Making History? Very good looking! ( but I prefer ladies) Yes, the map is outstanding, the ecomic model very interesting – despite totally incorrect figures- but is it a wargame at all? From a strict point of view , I would say No. Warfare is just a side show in this game, not a Patton or Guderian challenge, more a Marshall or Speer ones - Time of Wrath? Not a Winner but , despite what have been said, the potential is there. Matrix didn’t do its job and let the hard-working Polish team struggling with an incredibly unfriendly interface to handle a montruous package of units, hexes and loads of economical and political factors blended into microscopic windows. Still, the game beats SC2 in many areas but is not as FUN and EASY. In short, too much with too little too early A World Divided, GGrigsby ? Well done job, for sure. Clean and Professional. Fun and Easy! Just a small problem here: replayability. I read in a review somewhere ( The Gamers or Armchairs general ) saying a strong point of GGWD was its replayability! I pinched myself! With no less than 10 games behind, any half-awaked player has found out the optimal strategy for both the Axis and the Allies and thereafter games just look like a script running and repeating itself time after time ( one typical phrase of AAR over that forum is Same old Same! Pretty telling isnt it?) To be fair, I must point out, GGWD patches not only fix bugs but bring substantial well-thought changes . - Hearts of Iron3 I have not played HoH3, only HoH2. Players are quickly submerged by these realtime games huge flow of data to deal with second after second, in the end loosing the big picture and loosing control of their own units. You like or dislike it. I had a good time with shorter scenarios and, say, the first 2 years of grand campaigns then it becomes increasingly tedious as you chase and gather reports on every unit ( a lot!) , in a galaxy of changing percentage with the time of the day, the weather for each operation, the evermoving enemy not to mention your own guys often loose like butterflies and the bombarding pop-ups about economical and political affairs evolution. In brief, the real problem, as far as I am concerned, is not the work load of a game like that but, as an intellectual challenge, does it really bring into life the kind of war management leaders based their decision on or is it just a brain drill like a gigantic colourful Sudoku? It could be forgiven if HoH2 would be based on authentic specs and figures of WW2 and gives players a better feel of battles than just throwing numbers at other numbers but , beyond all this celebrated massiv encyclopedia, there is not much realism. Just for the record, Russians sometimes run out of oil after 6 months while Germans achieve Barbarossa without oil worries. How strange? In conclusion, like Making History, HoH is not a warfare simulation ( even Paradox warns people on the very first pages of the game manual: not a WW2 simulation, just a game) . What do I mean by warfare simulation? As the High command incarnation, I can set my units in specific spots with specific support to reach a specific objective in a given period and ADJUST my main effort to the circumstances of the battle developping before my eyes with assets and info available to commanders within a detailed front context . With HoH, you know the initial conditions of the battle. Once it has begun, you live or die with the result since there is no way to truly analyze what is going on. You get the traditionnal “ our troops won!” or the reverse and then look for a cup of coffee and aspirins But that is a game of another magnitude with a different and larger crowd to support it.. In that sense, Paradox can afford to take some risk with its revamped 3rd edition. We know SC2 has reached more or less its Engine limit and scenario limit. In plain words, operationnal SC2 scenarios are entertaining but cannot compete with dedicated operationnal games for realism. There’s a feel of déjà vu, once you played, say 10 scenarios, so adding every WW2 battles does not make the game more appealing. New features do. So, What about Oil? Would that give SC2 the edge on a strategic level? I know how primordial is Oil as a resource ( apart from the generic economic points pool called ppm here) with specific effects on units mobility, units strength through supply level – less fuel, less trucks for rear lifeline- and countries war industrial output as well ( think of indispensable lubricants and chemicals needed for so many weapons production ) Modeling that adequatly would be rather tough and a bit of a structural imbalance in any grand WW2 scenario as Sir Arado underlined. As a matter of fact , we all know it is rather easy to deprive Axis powers from Oil. Then, I hear you say: “ So what! Aren’t we playing a WW2 game with straigth WW2 political, economical, military conditions?” The answer is: no, we are not. As I wrote above, SC2 is a playground with military units for toys. Take SC2 maps for instance, roughly representing countries, islands, landscape, economic centers. Obviously theses maps have been drawned to help gameplay with regards to SC2 mechanisms and requirements of a balanced campaign so, for instance, 4 units can land onto french Bretagne shores even though Bretagne has a grotesque size compared to English shores almost unrecognizable as such, etc. Have a glance at the Global screenshots. Believe it or not, a unit ( 50 000 men minimum at Global scale) can cross the entire 2500 km Australian Western Desert with a road there and a providential supply source, thanks to Alicesprings! You have tons of those gamey WW2 shaped-like fantasy melted into this game system for players entertainment and the sake of simplicity. You get my point. Bringing Oil and other goodies into play means more micro-management, terrible turn-length for players and AI while the game engine pushed to limits deals with bigger campaigns crawling its way through hundreds of units and supply or tactical values calculation. No, let’s keep it simple. That said, I have to rectify, for Sir PowerGbh benefit, some of his statement. Oil is defenitely a strategic issue much more than a tactical one since operationnal- tactical games portray battles where antagonists have pre-determined oil depot value. So the player has control over his units oil consumption not the quantity of oil available each turn. It is beyond the battlefield commander power. On a strategic scale, access to oil is one of the main if not The MAIN economic concern guiding political and military moves of countries leaders. Having Oil sprite with a 30 ppm value does not translate for the economy and at the front into real effects of oil shortage. Let’s say, as Germany, you loose Rumania to the Russians in 42 but you conquered UK. Good, you have as many ppm as you had before Bucharest fell to the Soviet but , actually, the real German economy and troops fighting capacity would be greatly impaired. SC2 cannot reproduce this with a generic ppm system. As for the question of German and Japan oil autarky, your sources or your reading of the WW2 economic statistic might have misled you. Ertzatz oil as they called it was, indeed, produce on a large scale in Germany but hydrohygenisation plants until Stalingrad defeat were not contributing significantly to Oil reserve for military operations. Without Rumanian oil, Germany would have had to sue peace. Yes, with her early conquests Germany plundered huge quantity of fuel but reserves had always been low even on the ewe of Barbarossa. Resorting massivly to rail transport kept the army operationnal but many of the most dramatic decisions in large offensive planning as soon as 42 have been based on Oil supply limitation. Zidatelle plan, for instance, was chosen, among other reasons, because Germans East front HQs staff including Manstein were well aware that No deep armor penetration was possible in the light of the catastrophic shortcomings in fuel supply during Fall Blau and the winter 42-43. This was a Tactical issue. The decision of waiting until July 43 to launch the attack and stay on the defensive everywhere else was based, among others, on a STRATEGIC planning taking into account the necessity for higher oil reserve before engaging in major operations. So the OKW wasn’t just waiting for new tanks as we currently read on Zitadelle. It had to make sure Oil was available for intense activity on both front in that summer43. This was a Strategic issue. Now should a strategic wargame devote a special place to OIL? Of course. Should SC2 includes an OIL feature affecting units capacity and countries unit production? I dont think so, not in its present state. Many other aspects of SC2 would then need to be changed . People wants to have a bigger gloves compartment or anti-fog lights, air-conditionning, GPS, but no one seems to care much for the fact the Car has no radiator, no brakes, no suspension but the Car is comfortable for a short drive in an empty parking lot . Why going on the higways or in heavy traffic? Much less intimidating to drive slowly up and down a parking lot, isnt’it? No serious strategic WW2 game can ignore theses basic features: - Limited strategic transportation capacity for both Sea and Land -Replenishment limitations for units and resources rebuild limitations -Manpower limitation for both military forces and industrial capacity -Convoy shipping limitations ( tonnage availability) for trade -Separated industrial capacity for Naval, Land and Air unit construction with technological level for each type and each center to determine where and which units can be built or refit. -Isolated supply source( not connected to another city or port) with automatic decreasing value -Port capacity limitations for type and size of fleet, type and size of unit embarked or disembarked , size of convoy There are many more and, you see, bringing all theses features to the present SC2 engine would not be possible even if M. Cater would try. So, no oil! What is a “beer and Pretzels” game? Every one comes with its definition so I can’t tell! But, for sure, I don’t want Global to become a “coffee and aspirins” game. So, I stick to my first opinion stated last summer: Keep the game simple but give as many options as possible in the Editor. Wow! Congratulations Gentlemen you read me until the end! Thank you and have a good time with or without oil! masterclaude

Here is masterclaude. I second Sir Aesopo's request. AI speed, of course, is not a problem for the few ones who play exclusively against human opponents. Nevertheless, any wargame designer knows, at least game sponsors and producers know, that 3/4 of the playing time out there for any particular game pit their hard-won consumer against the computer opponent. Although no one expects AI game challenge to be equal to a real face-to-face- or, I might say, screen to screen- hot seat or pbem experience, there is a minimum efficiency standard consumers can live with. A month or 2 ago, I pointed out what seems to be some of this Game Engine limitations unfit for an expanded SC3. AI Turn length is certainly one of those. I can't help noticing that Global ( Thanks God It's here!) use a 256X64 map, basically the revisited blizkrieg 1.09 one. I first wondered why not the full map? Well, struggling with big mods gives the answer. The more tiles and units thrown in a scenario the longer AI turns become to the point, not a mere annoyance, we lose interest in the game, not a good prospect either for this proposed 512X256 map since it is going to be almost unusable. To be honest, I prefer mods to the included scenarios, the big ones like Honch FallWeiss larger Map or Big AI Bruteforce but, as you reach the middle game 42 and up, hum... the AI looks like a bit overwhelmed... When I made Giant Conflict mod 256X128 ( it's still in the making because I have not found yet a solution for theses everlasting AI turns beside cutting everywhere) I realized that no matter what, past a certain map size and units quantity, AI routines jams get increasingly common with a long frozen screen in your eyes- even deleting all the scripts doesn't make a bit of difference. Don't get me wrong, I played monster games(board or computer ones) where a full hour turn is not infrequently seen for you or your human opponent , not to mention Pbem days of waiting sometimes. Tolerance level differs for that matter but everyone would agree that, for the sake of playability,the faster the better . So, As far as Global is concerned, the AI routines speed too should be looked through. It goes without saying I will buy Global even if the AI is dead or punishes its detractors with electric shocks masterclaude

Hello everyone here is masterclaude, humble servant of the wargame kingdom. Sir xwormwood, I’m glad you brought up those questions because most people in most forum simply don’t buy any thought on game design for they say it’s redundant, academic and pointless because we, players, don’t make theses games out there nor have any clue at how a programmer can implement our suggestions within his timetable/ market target boundaries. Well, I do know so I will try to answer your questions in regard of SC2 specifically, that is, what could be valid or consistent with the main architecture of SC2. Well the last word is up to M. Cater, of course. 1) HQ too expensive? Attack capacity? First of all, Have you ever wondered what is a HeadQuarter as a military definition and what it is for this game? Clearly enough, we are not talking of the same entity. HQs in SC2 include a lot of stuff. Not only top officers with some maps and communication devices but a whole range of assets: thousands of vehicles, special companies and engineers units, intelligence staff, food, clothes, ammunition, fuel dumps scattered over hundreds of square kilometers around the visible icon squeezed on a unique tile. We are talking on Fall weiss scale of no less than 200 000 men some of which are rear area security units, small garrisons and the like. If anything, HQs are certainly not too expensive. While armies are the muscles, HQs are the brain, the nerves and the blood of SC military forces and can’t be dismissed as a secundary unit with a good or bad leader. By the way, naming a HQ Rommel won’t give more guns and fuel to the 21th Panzer, only a better tactical capacity, but, on a strategic scale, it can only take the form of a combat bonus affecting the math formulas. So ,let’s forget about theses leaders and let’s keep in mind that a HQ unit is more or less efficient in pro rata of its assets. Accordingly, US HQs for instance should be a lot stronger than the others ones and more expensive as well. If we also take into account the chain command flexibility and communication speed and reliability, German ones are at top while French and Italians ones were simply overwhelmed by the new WW2 requirements. I am pretty satisfied with the HQ role in SC2. They have effects, through supply availability, on action points(so mobility), on morale and readiness, all preserved historical mechanisms. Now, having HQs reinforcing wherever they are doesn’t match any historical possibilities. HQs should be subject to the standard supply limitations as any other units unless there are on a coastal tile where they would have (as they are presumably linked to a supply source by sea transport) some of the mulberries features. Otherwise, I can’t see that lone AI HQ lost in the birma jungle or in the Sahara desert replenishing itself all the time for no gain- not to mention you can use it for a mpp siphon by keeping it alive turn after turn . Isolated some times by enemy ZOC a unit like that should disappear. How about its fighting capacity? Hum..defensive one, sure! Maybe HQs could be given flak capacity and soft target defense power or some kind of high evasion rate or like Subs -as strange as it seems with this abstract realistic process – when attacked they could surface 2 tiles back closer to a supply source ( don’t forget how large is an HQ deployment, much more than one tile, destroying some trains or trucks convoys with your spearhead tanks won’t neutralize it). Supply or HQ tech for units? There is no equivalent in WW2. That would be just another gamey trick to please the crowd looking for easy moves and attacks giving SC2 a faster pace and probably more exciting play from this point of view. Logistic units were part of the internal T&O of divisions and there was many bigger ones attached to corps or armies but it is already there with units capacity to draw supply from cities and ports. Yes, some games have extra supply or offensive supply features that can be given for a turn to some units. If we expand that supply capacity with a Tech , I guess it’ll be better to fit this innovation in the game through existing code easier to reorganize. I mean we already have static supply sources. We need one that can be created by a unit (a bit like HQs do). You know we have a supply depot sprite in SC2 operational scenario. Why not having depot creation as well for some cost by a specific unit? This depot could start at ten then lose a point every turn. For instance, following your suggestion, a destroyer unit( because it involved smaller vessels able to close in shores) could create a depot of one to ten points depending of its own strength(1 to 10) and depending on what ppm you give for: - Suppose we pay 2 ppm for each supply depot point, then a destroyer with 8 point strength would be able to build up to 8 point depot for the cost of 16 ppm or a 5 point depot for the cost of 10 ppm on a land tile next to its sea or coastal tile. As long as the destroyer unit stay there we assume supply are disembarked one way or the other and the depot could stay at full value . That would emulate nicely a Guadalcanal or D-Day situation. - Bombers could have the same capacity ( as long as there within range of another supply source hold by the player) so reproducing theses famous air lifts that would unlocked peripheric theaters and islands Of course, all the details is a bit of complexity but the main object, that is creating Depot, would be easy to code. I doubt the SC2 tech feature in its present state can support what you asked. Having temporary depot would be better for realism as well. All units able to embark/disembark without ports? Absolutly unreceivable. We have a serious problem( as far as realism is at stake)with the present system that allows almost any numbers and any size of units to embark and disembark in no time no penalty no delay in any port( do you think Cherbourg or Throndeim has the same port capacity as Hong kong or New York ones?) Giving any units a sort of amphibious capacity is way beyond any nation capacity including USA. At any given time in WW2, the Allied never got equipments to land more than approximatly 300 000 mens world wide. On SC2 Fall Weiss scale, it amounts to 5-7 corps or 3-4 armies. Amphibious capacity should be a lot reduced actually and Amphibious level and Transport level should be bought an constitute a pool . If you have 30 amphibious point in your pool than you are able to move 30 points of armies, corps and so on for an amphibious landing. Not more. Ports or no ports? Well, you see me coming! Ports are unescapable military and economic infrastructure in any decent strategic WW2 game. We could change ports though so it could be customable in size or role( some ports would never refit naval units for instance or only a minimum – think of Port Moresby, Tobruk, St.Johns Canada! How on earth theses ports could refit Warships! One or 2 points would be a big concession in this respect. Stacking units? More than a major change. You are asking for a new game. Very though to rewrite all this code to allow for stacking while keeping all the others features workable. A lot of testing would be needed. Think of a year or 2 of development. Naval combats revised? Totally agree! For most of the war, it was hard for TF to keep contact with enemy ships, search and destroy them. There should be a miss feature or evade feature for all naval combats and ships encounters, not just subs. Hope you had here some interesting thoughts on the matter. masterclaude Post scriptum: Just read Sea monkey response. I think we are fighting the same fight and go along with you for the essentials

Hello Seniors! Here it’s masterclaude leaving at the moment until next saturday. Keep that thread alive as you wish with whatever stir up the hornet nest provided we get some enlightment here ( even if it hurts!). I am glad we have 3 other high performance brains for the race. I will answer in due order to each of you. First of all , few words for Sir Sea Monkey. Thanks for your appreciation. You certainly overestimate me! ( you can, I don’t mind). Talking of a new engine and programming langage, I must state this first: I am not a professional although I spend lots of time with them since many friends of mine work for Ubisoft as game developers so I am kind of immersed in those discussions whether I want it or not – huum, frankly I had never liked the computer era but dinosaurs got extinct, you know so I had to adapt in my own way to this new world, not easy though to use a keybord with tyranosaurus fingers. Years ago, I tried to make my own game with some of the developmemt tools available out there with tutorials and guidelines. I am afraid you wont see my name in any game credits. I hardly managed to get something a bit like SC1 but it made me realized a part of the challenge in building a new game engine or a design. Actually any good programmer can use almost any language to some good as long as he has defined the scope and complexity he wants for his game. Some languages are better for some tasks but there is more involved. For instance, what is your time table? 2D or 3D? How big or accessible is the library for your language? Libraries are real time-savers. It’s more or less having a Home Depot store across the street when your building your house without the need to go out in a forest cut your trees et prepares your pieces of wood by yourself C++ is a standard in game industry but projects would require considerably more time to build up than using Eiffel for instance. By the way, you can download Eiffel studio for free and see by yourself its possibility. My friends said it is a wonderful, friendly-user development tool but they have issues with language compatibility or memory use. I don’t think Mr. Cater would made the jump and almost start from the scratch with C++ since he can use Eiffel right away but, for an expanded more complex SC3, he will have to rework deeply his game engine down to the basement. Then again , it’s a business decision. Is there a market for a sophisticated wargame that could justify another minimal 3 years of coding slavery? Well, it’s up to him but I will take what he gives for I trust its skills and, as I previously underlined, its focus. Now, what about this controversial Z! I would cowardly say no more work on mod for me at this point ( still an 100 hours to put on Giant Conflict). I want precisions on Fury next game (Global campaign, as everything point out, although they are working on something else too, maybe within the same package?) which announcement or some official news should be around next month. Then, I will move on to another mod, Z or a smaller theater. As the question of balancing that scenario in PTO, (I have not played it , but played a lot of pacific wargames including the recent Admiral Edition), we are crossing that fuzzy frontier that separates an historical wargame with any fictionnal open-free scenario. Obviously, Japan could not stop the US military might after 43 nor go further than its 42 high water mark no matter the adjustement or cheats we introduce in this scenario. A poor Allied player may allowed ( to its dismay) India or China conquest and even a landing in Hawai but it is absolutely unrealistic from any side we look at it. Moreover, Japan ALREADY got a boosted army and navy in PTO –Z. Let me bring few facts out: - The imperial fleet , although well trained fighters, had no substancial logistic capacity for long term operation. The fleet was so old that one third of its units, even BEFORE PH, had to be modernized, repaired or patched one way or the other while the naval industry could not deliver even the minimal merchant ships tonnage needed to keep Japan domestic AND war economy rolling . In brief, 1941 Japan is a sinking country( huge debts, goods and raw material penury , even food problems) before any Doolittle bombers came over. PH was a desperate – not too clever- attempt to take advantage of Allied problems in Europe. At the time, maybe it made sense because the whole world expected Russia to collapse soon. Bad calculation! - The japanese outer perimeter strategy was doomed from the start as it gave US planners that attrition war Japan could not stand for long and easy isolated targets they can pounder with a huge numerical superiority. What strategy then? When PTO came out, I read a thread where gentlemen debate about the feasibility of an Hawai invasion. Let me tell you this: unless Americans would have simply got out of the way or use slingshots, even with the best weather, the best timing, with the entire IJN on support, NO landing party could have stayed there more than a month or 2 before its annihilation. Supply lane simply too long, see what happened at Guadalcanal much closer to japanese main bases? Same thing for Australia. As far as PTO is concerned, holding island is almost useless except as staging bases for risky if not suicidal advance eastward with no mpp gain. - As the Co-prosperity sphere incorporated more countries and nationalities it became clear Japan lacked even the minimal engineering staff and equipment to put to good use those new resources or even soldiers to garrison these thousands square miles of shores, cities, ports, mines, road, etc. Too much too fast. Better political deals with colonized nations might have helped and relieved Japan a bit- namely with extra manpower or local militia (maybe some political scripts could be added for that matter) . Anyway, Japan could not repulse any concerted, well planned counter-attack for long. Allied clumsiness made more for the Sun Empire resistance than anything! It would take 10 pages just to mention Japan shortness in various technical areas but I understand that, for game purpose, we give the Japan player some munition and extra guns. So, balancing the scenario? What I did in Giant conflict may help, at least as a reference, to explore more options. One main problem many diagnosed in SC2 is logistic. Yes, it is great to be able to move units around but in real life they have logistic tail. That is why outer islands meant something in WW2. Having the fleet spending supply each turn would have been better and getting island ports activated through scripts (plus full scortch earth) would mean US advance significantly slowed down. Then, you can increase fleets move rate and THEN the japanese forces can be spread quickly as far as their 42 High Water mark before Allies could react. Nothing but History Another point is China forces and commitment in the war. After PH, Nationalist and communist troops were pretty passiv, keeping static positions, turning the whole theater into a guerilla fight not much threatening for Japanese occupation. Sporadic activities all over the front resulted in battles casualties seldom amounting to less than few hundreds a week for japanese. Not exactly a big drain. In PTO, China units seems to be stronger than what they had been in WW2 so it might be appropriate to squeeze them a bit. In Giant Conflict I turned Chinese armies mostly in militia-partisan weak units, numerous but not very dangerous. Finally the outcome of the Pacific struggle was actually decided in Europe. Axis progress in Europe could have been the only break for japanese forces. A more ferocious and expensive Atlantic Battle for the Allies way past march 43 would have made a sizable difference in the number of ships (merchant too) deployed in the Pacific. More than anything, though, the amphibious allied limited capacity meant that any landing disaster in Europe would have changed the whole pacific advance schedule. Some Event script could do the trick. It is one of the reasons I was asking for a limited transportation point system or port system to make sure an allied player would not launch an Okinawa a D-D operation every 4 turns. It brings me to Pzgndr answer whose advice is always welcome and studied carefully. You know the golden rule when bargaining: ask more so you get what you want by giving up on something marginal. Well, to say the truth, if we can get what you foresee as a possibility I am more than happy! I would just be more precise with the replenisment point limit. I don’t prone a one point limit but an upper limit ( any) that could be specified through the editor for A) ALL units or EACH type of units ( whether customable on a country basis or not) But, you are right, The easiest most logical way to obtain some similar effects would be changing sligthly the supply point vs resource point table as you suggest. Ok! Got to go! Hope you have good time next week , gentlemen, and while you are meditating on this fascinating world of units and tiles, well, don’t forget to kiss good night to your wife! Masterclaude away for a week

Hello to all the 4 stars Generals out there! Here, it’s masterclaude just passing by. Hope you all enjoy your summer including those stuck in the southern hemisphere on a beach with nice ladies or with penguins. I’m taking the opportunity here to talk about my Mod Giant Conflict and the much awaited Real Global coming very likely this year on the SC2 platform. First of all, I haven’t got much feeback from the forum itself about Giant Conflict maybe because Weapons&Warfare mods seem to be already museum relics . Not that sure( 116 downloaded so far) because from what I have seen over the past years in multiple threads , SC2W&W is still the standard by which we can gauge overall progress in the Serie. Plus, SC Blitzkrieg and W&W are the best sold ones so I felt a Global mod would reach more people in this respect. I’m also contemplating a conversion to SC2Blitzkrieg because the 1.09 Global is very basic, too much to my taste. I dont think I go for a conversion upward to PDE or PTO though.. We already got good Global mods with Big AI Brute force and Nupremal World Pacific one. I followed over the months their serious efforts to get things right with unrelenting experimentation and correction , a tremendous work modders like me do appreciate for its own value no matter what the result could be. ( It’s a pity , I have not played Nupremal Global . Well, exploring the PTO Demo, I was impressed by the agressiv, efficient AI and the non-stop action but in the end the game did not appeal much to me mainly because I disagree with some design decision like geographic disproportion , unlimited supply for moving fleets, unrealistic fleet radius vs Time span, etc, some of which can be fixed through the editor but the 29 countries slot only is sort of a fun breaker for modders looking beyond the Z scenario .) That said PTO brought interesting stuff, but it does not change fundamentals of the game or gameplay for all practical purpose. I passed my turn. Knowing the Real Global is in advanced stage, I don’t feel like converting my mod to PTO either. Real Global will make our mods obsolete to some point so for the benefits of you guys with only Blitz and W&W SC2 copies I may complete Giant Conflict in september. As it is now, I must admit my mod has many problems with scripts firing wildly and some other crucial events that fire just once in a while. It`s still playable if you are patient (average 10 minutes per AI turn) and is defenitely fun with a real opponent ( mine got tired though, he had been testing it with me for 5 months!( He said: Complete it damn it and I will come back! Having me stopping in a middle of a game for modification finally drove him crazy)) Real Global is not yet at the doorstep but they are working real hard to deliver an enhanced and , most of all, playable Global campaign for SC2 (not SC3 which is, apparently, a different project not for a near future). Against old wise opinion, making a new stand- alone wargame takes time essentially because of thorough playtesting and constant touch-ups, not working on the general design per se. That RealGlobal is somewhat tricky for sure as I assume the present game engine cannot handle more layers of code and scripts without making game turns too long and buggy.(so the need for a SC3 engine) If you know about programing in general and Eifel software specifically , you understand you cannot make things Very big and Very complex at the same time. There is a point of diminushing returns. Too many variables often freeze lots of mechanism or spark off weird, unwanted behavior of the game. You must cut corners here and there or even sometimes put down theses walls painfully erected a month ago. Same thing with the detailed frame of the game where adding new units , new functions, new interactions , (Diplomacy and political status, to name few, will be more flexible hence needing a lot more coding, with additionnal contries- 58 minors so far instead of 38) leads to inextricable mess so there is no other way, considering time, money and resources reasonably assignable for such a product, than going small with a cautious step by step approach. Had we a team of 30 programmers with a million dollar budget , I guess we could have all theses special requests repeatedly popping up in this forum, treated and shaped in a playable manner for SC. It is not the case but we have almost something as good with Mr. Cater who is among the most dedicated designer in the Wargame circles. That counts and make SC more attractive because , we know, will and dedication matter as much as knowledge and expertise when it’s time to bring and keep a wargame up to fan expectations. Besides, Mr Cater seems to be very focused and, judging by his timely interventions, knows how to sort out relevant additions without concession to one current of thinking or another. Polarized opinions about what a good wargame should be have always been around, I could summarize this in few words: Fun and Playability VS Realism and Accuracy Mind you, we, wargamers are not always realistic when we ask for realism in our game. Realism is a subtle concept within the particular wargame environment that obviously needs clarification if we look at what people implied by that in all wargames tribunes. ( I will expand on that someday. ) As it is, in the real world , we need income to make a living, so wargame designers as well.. I understand why realism maniacs like me are pushing for a game with more depth closer to the holy grail WW2 game total simulation we have been dreaming of since the beginning of SPI and Avalon hills board game. I understand but I do not endorse it for SC nor believe in it - at least for the next decade – even though new software can show up but don’t be too optimistic, software is one thing, having the guys who could put such a game together is another thing . Stop by WiFlame forum at Matrix, you’ll see what I mean, they have my blessing ( not my faith), I wish them good luck anyway! So where am I heading for? The first major requirement of a game is : good selling prospect. It means SC2 GLOBAL will not be a revolution and cannot be. On the other hand, making sure Battlefront keeps a good pool of customers for the SC serie helps everyone even realism maniacs who might be disappointed ( like I was a bit with PTO since I wanted more changes) with a not so daring design. The truth is realism partisans are just a very noisy fraction of the wargamers out there. 80% of gamers, at least, do not bother much with facts like : this country would not have been able to build Heavy Bomber or did not have any port for Capital ships or was almost starving in 43 and so on. They want the Illusion of realism with proper OBB and units moving and fighting at will ( which was not the case, far from it . In Operational Art of Warfare by Koger, sometime half of your troops do not respond anymore because, as you kwow, their C3I is too poor or repeated battles had made them too weak. But even that game cannot be tagged realistic. Toaw has been around for more than 10 years, note it down! ) My point is the official game should and must be easy to learn and play , eventually, reaching most of the crowd that makes this business viable, BUT the Editor should give an alternative to the grognards. That is why I have only small ( Ok, BIG, I know) requests for the Editor not the game itself - Make resources customable so we can set a village, a port, etc to the exact maximum supply source level we want. A port could then be no bigger than 2 or 3 or 4 as anyone see fit while another port could be at 6. Picture this: Tobruk at 3, Benghazi at 4, Tripoli at 5, Alexandria at 8. Much more realistic constraints - Setting transport and amphibious transport accordingly. We could set the maximum transport or amphibious transport allowable per each port point level. So a level 3 port could only send or receive a 3 points transport or if we want set it at 2 transport points per level. Then that level 3 port could receive or send a 6 points transport. Same thing with amphibious . Ports could have separated settings for both transport and amphibious. - Disband unit on a one point basis. Then having the choice of taking that fixed or random % of MPP in exchange or that strength point to reinforce another unit of the same type. - Put a maximum point replenisment per turn for any unit. So, in one turn that type of unit could be reinforced up to that specified amount only ( would be fine - although harder to code - if it is set on a country basis with the unit Edit combat target data ) For instance, a fleet can then be reinforced each turn by 2 points only even in full supply. - Maximum operationnal moves distance customable or/ and Transportation point with an MPP cost and a country limit per turn. For instance, Italy could get up to 45 transportation points in a turn, China 25, India 35, etc. Unused points could not be accumulated. ( I know you are working that one out) Every one has its list. As time goes by, mine gets hopelessly longer and longer. So I just put it aside and dream of the Real Global with whatever improvements you guys in Heaven prepare for us. I have learned to be down to earth but i never stopped dreaming . Sure the Gods are kind ! Masterclaude

Hello fellow players and WW2 grand strategic games fans. I finally got my file downloaded,(It was a java script error problem with my Internet Explorer). 2 years ago, I bought SC2 Weapons and Warfare mainly out of curiosity for the promising Editor included. I didn’t have big expectations as I felt, on first sight, that the whole design could not be exploited much and lead to a real dynamic and realistic model of strategic warfare. I was wrong. Despite some flaws or limitations this is a very good basis for a credible simulation of WW2 on a strategic scale, leaving well behind all other competitors products including vaunted Hearts of Iron that I tested extensively. And m:(ost of all, it is Fun! So, last year, I began this Global Mod, putting in all my knowledge of WW2 and I mean much more than just the events or main technical aspects. I have studied in depth the economy of that period as I think industrial power made the difference more than warfare doctrines , equipment, training and usual explanations given for success or failure on the battlefield. It will be reflected in this Mod as you will have to carefully plan your allocations of resources even if you get, (specially the Allied) more mpp than you ever dreamed of! Unfortunatly, I haven’t been able to complete my work. It proved to be a lot more demanding than predicted, 20-30 hours in average per week and now, as summer is coming, I am involved in too many activities to resume my edition project at least for the next 2 months. Well, I guess a complete version could be out in october ( if people are interested) unless we get the Real SC3 Global campain by then. Instead of keeping the monster spleeping in my computer, I thought some guys out there might enjoy a good fight with it even though there are numerous minor bugs both in Scripts Events and AI scripts. Don’t be skeptical and give it a try! Let aside some messy political scripts and chaotic AI moves here and there, GIANT CONFLICT is fun and rich in flavor and surprises, all within historical boundaries. Just for its World Map, maybe the most accurate one available in SC2, It’s worth a glimpse. Feel free to use it for you own mod. I managed to keep geographic distorsion to less than 15 % in most areas with a new projection of the planisphere well better than the Mercator most commonly seen. I think the map accuracy matters as much as game mechanics in order to get closer to a true WW2 simulation. Of course, due to specific features of SC itself, compromises were needed for the sake of playability. So, you may find roads, ports and other supply sources where there was actually not much to support major warfare operation. I tried as much as possible to stick to the real landscape for every single tile but, then again, had to put more clear areas to prevent total paralysis of units here and there or make a choice for a 100 km square tile what would be the right feel with a real Army. Units movement capacity was tested to bring optimal and realistic radius of operation within every 10-14 days turn as I found out longer or shorter turn length would not be suitable for that scale and , since time/space balance regulates the whole tempo of your mod, one must understand why that frame is so critical. First of all, you can’t play forever so forget a 300 turns game and both players can’t play simultaneously. It is inherent to SC. So, in a single turn, you should not be able to do so much that you opponent can’t react effectively when he faces the new situation. That is why a monthly turn can’t be realistic. In one turn, Poland would fall? Not interesting! The original SC2 parameters for economy, politic, research, units, etc down to a any submenu have been fully revised and improved with, in mind, a better simulation of WW2 historical context. All units or pools of units have been re-balanced according to countries historical record. So don’t expect Japan to be able to build tons of tank units or Germany to keep up with the Allied in terms of Tech and production either. Spain won’t easily join the Axis and there are innumerable small fixes alike. Italians frogmen, refugees, synthetic oil plant, foreign labor, manpower shortage, mining of ports, tropical diseases, German raiders are just few of the surprises. No more invincible unit, no more one year siege, no more easy travel around the world, you plan and advance step by step and , sorry but it’s reality as it was, don’t even consider an invasion of America and don’t be frustrated because you cannot send millions of men wherever you want in a couple of month. Welcome to History! NOTICE: AI scripts, as a first generous clumsy draft , are good enough for solo gaming and even challenging at hard settings ( Try AI +1 at 50% with no soft build limit, weather on, Fog on) but you may hit several oddities (for instance, in a test where the Allied AI was on his way to beat me up badly in France after a successfull D-day turn, suddenly most of its units reembarked and were send to Italy where they landed again! It was obviously the Italy invasion script interfering with the France invasion one). All in all, this mod is not so neat and polished as it should be but I think many guys out there will be pleased to have an additionnal Global mod. Nevertheless, I strongly recommend you find a real opponent and be prepared to sweat. Whether you are Axis or Allied, there’s no room for mistake. Victory conditions are tight and the Allied player won’t get away with any level of victory at all if he doesn’t do better than his historical predecessors by september 45. Secondly, AI turns after 41 can be Veeery long. This is a monster mod with more scripts, more units and tiles than any official scenario. If you hate that, well buy a better computer or play Packman! Thirdly, if you disagree with designs decisions, think twice. You must see the whole picture and how everything has to be abstracted one way or the other to keep units and countries interactions playable within the Editor constraints and built-in SC2 design decisions I cannot change like supply rules, type of units, type of ressources,etc. The strict, rigid structure of SC2 scripts has its pro and con. After spending more than 1000 hours on that, am I allowed to complain? No! SC2 is a Jewel for wargamers and I can’t wait for the real Global to come soon ... Now have fun! Special thanks to Hubert Cater for his neverending effort to make his game better and stay in touch with the community. Special thanks also to Nupremal and Big AI whose questions and experimentation with their own Global mods helped me to get a better idea of this whole enterprise and my hat’s off to their perseverance.

Hello everyboby! I have been working on a Global Mod for many months. It is not completed yet but I think there are people out there who would like to use it as a good basis for their own Global or even try it despite some chaotic scripts. All in all, with its impressive unique map, this mod should help any modder in our communauty to go forward with their own project. As strange as it seems though, I cannot register in the Repository files nor log in neither do anything no matter my computer security settings are. Anyone has a suggestion? I am running out of time because I will be away for quite a while soon, so I wish I can upload the baby . I already sent a message to Support. Maybe I can sent it to someone who will be able to upload it? Anyway, we have 72 hours! Thanks for reading!