Snowstorm

Personally, I am in the camp of both JJ and DD. I don't really see the need for having A-bombs in the game. They arrived very late in the war, and were extremely expensive to develop and eventually produce. Nor do I see the "appeal" in it either. :eek: However, if the majority of people want it in the game (say, in an expansion), I suggest making it so realistically expensive that it would discourage most from even pursuing it (that would certainly be historically realistic anyway). So, if one REALLY wants it bad enough, great, but they'll have to sacrifice alot just to get it into the game.

Bo, Changing the mileage (or action points per turn) for any unit is easy. Just go into the Editor, open "Country Data", highlight the country in question, then open "Combat Target Data", highlight the naval unit, go to "General" on the right side of the screen and change the action points for it up or down as desired. Then save your data under a different scenario name to preserve the original scenario in the Editor. Hope that helps.

Yep, I joined the Pre-Order Club.

Yolo911, There are any number of ways to change the plane's attack values, but here's a few: First go to the Editor, open a campaign or scenario, then open "Country Data", then select "Edit Combat Data", then selecting Bombers change the Attack numbers from 2 to 1 wherever desired, as well as for any country. Also, if you want further adjustments, using Country Data, open "Edit Reseach", and using "Advanced", you can alter "Increments (Unit Target Values)" from 1 to 0.5 for Anti-Tank. Beware though, this will alter th Anti-Tank values for ALL units that benefit from it (such as Tanks and Infantry) so you have to be careful what you are changing. Also, when saving your changes, change the file name (for example, Fall Weiss A or 2) before you save, to preserve the original scenario name without changes. There may be other ways, but these are just a few. Practice makes perfect! Hope this helps.

Thanks Bill101, I appreciate that.

That's an excellent idea too, Sea Monkey. :cool: Now if only we could get some feedback from Hubert and/or the beta/mod testers....

Excellent idea, Desert Dave, :cool: it makes it so much easier that way, not just for me, but all the rest out there who might like to pursue this. How about it, Bill101?

I think I could go along with that idea, Arado. Just as long as it was a very difficult road to use that option.

Oh, was this the trivia thread? I know the answer: History of the World, Part 1.

JJ, I know what you mean, the SC editor can work wonders for those who lose too many games. :D

Thanks Hubert, I'll try and figure that out. Appreciate the help.

OK, I did find the maps in the Extras Folder, but I still don't understand how to take those maps from the folder and use them in editor to make a bigger map for an existing scenario or campaign. I must still be missing something. :confused:

Baron, Thanks for the background on yourself. I was a fan of the SSI games myself (particularly the PG ones), and was looking for similar games when I came across this one by accident. Many people have been coming to the forum recently with the coming release. I would greatly encourage all those newbies (and others coming back after leaving for awhile) to check out the preceding pages of this thread to see some background info on all who have provided some info on themselves here. It's a great way to find out more about the posters, what they may like (and don't like), and enjoy some of things we may similarly share. It makes the forum more enjoyable for all. It's why I like to keep this thread alive for those just arriving on the scene. :cool:

Extras folder....sorry Hubert, but I don't recall seeing that. Could you elaborate on that a bit more as to where specifically it can be found? I'm having trouble locating it. :confused:

Hubert, In the example you set forth, it seems to me that the lower casualties (benefit defense, hinder offense) would lead to longer battles. Has this lead to issues for the beta testers with the amount of time needed in the game? At least on the surface of it, it seems as though more time would be needed in the game to progress to certain objectives needed to be obtained. For example, Germany invades Russia. With the different combat calculations, it may take more turns for a attacker to wear down Kiev, since the defender may be able to hold out longer with fewer casualties taken per turn than with the old way. :confused:

Desert Dave, Agreed. "Folksy,friendly advice" sounds MUCH better......unless of course I'm in one of those more moody of moods you just so elequently described.

Desert Dave, Good point about the A bombs. I think it just adds an awful lot of unnecessary, extreme results to the game and destroys any balance to it. Perhaps if SC were to eventually have a Korean War or later version of itself it would make more sense, but not in Global Conflict.

Sea Monkey, You're absolutely right. With that strategy, and at least maintenance of the navy and air force, the Axis can have a whale of a time (hey, I think I found that fishy smell you talked about ) trying to cross the English Channel, as well as second guessing if a return trip is coming back on them. JJ, Thanks for doing the looking for me with your obviously superior magnifying glass, I was having trouble finding mine. Did you come up with anything yet?

JJ, He did? Drat, I MISSED something! I better go back! :eek: Now, where did I leave my magnifying glass, I knew I might need it.

Paul, If you had been at this forum long enough, you would know that many of us here have both praised AND criticized many issues with this game. Judging from your posts, you probably haven't seen alot of the criticisms we all have made in the past, but we do give credit when it is due to the development team. Hang around with us long enough here, and trust me you will see that for yourself. As for myself,I DID criticize the issue concerning coastal landings just the other day on another thread. As for the other issues you mention, I'll let others answer for themselves.

Spot on? HOW were we spot on? WHERE were we spot on? WHO was spot on?:eek: (Ohhhh I know, Hubert, you can't tell us that, how about just a teensy, weensy clue? )

Desert Dave, Wecome back (again), been missing your (shall we say) colorful commentary since mid-December, but you're back at a good time. Lots of activity goin' on here now. Join the fun! And I agree, the Game editor does indeed help cure some of the issues here if one does not mind tinkering with it a bit. Just remember if you do: save, save, save!

JJ, I agree with you on the diplomatic issue in the game. With so many different possibilities with countries not so locked into any alliance as much as before, it's probably near impossible to completely ignore the diplomatic end of this game without getting burned unexpectedly.

Arado, I agree with you on that. JJ, I think your suggestion almost sounds like Civ 5, except with an SC game engine, design, and map. Come to think of it, I don't have a problem with that idea at all. Hmmm.......IDEA! :eek: :cool: Hubert, hint, new game idea, hint,....:cool:

Any more trivia questions? I must admit my Civil War trivia knowledge isn't that great, but now that it's shifted more to WWII, perhaps I might have a shot at it.