Jump to content

Queue Production & Pool of units (limiting units for each country)

Recommended Posts

Yeah, i know its great: "hmm,ive developed jets this turn lets buy 2 airfleets with the plunder!", "Kewl, subs level 2, there u r 2 brand new subs!".

But, I like much more the posibility of using queues, thinking in advance what u r gonna need, chosing units from a pool of units. This pool represents all the possible units in the game.

Its a joke to see now how axis can make totally impossible an invasion with a swarm of italian corps, not even bothering in buying HQs.

Spain ,Finland, Sweden with HQs and the posibility to buy new units.

I know this would change the game entirely, its a difficult task for Hubert to change the concept of the game. he didnt choose to do it in SC and now its tough to implement it in SC2, tho this and other great ideas in the forum would make the game much more realistic and interesting. This idea joined with the idea previously exposed by Edwin P. in his post about probabilities in the initial set up of the minors would make the game very dinamic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


A Golden Oldie of a Topic. Glad you've brought it back to the public view. Including the neutral HQs and unit limits along with production queue is a new twist and a good one.

The situation is at it's worst when an aircraft carrier or battleship suddenly appears out of nowhere.

Agreed entirely on all points.

Regarding unit limits, the details would still need to be worked out and Shaka has already done some very fine work on this elsewhere. His material on this subject would combine well with your concept.

Along with map revisions, the game needs both this improvement and real weather very badly. Yes, I know things slow down in the SC rainy seasons, but the ground never gets wet!

[ May 17, 2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah, Jersey John i remember reading some time ago your post about the idea of production queue, i dont keep track of things i read or who wrote em, so almost everything i say has been previously mentioned and i only want to make an statememnt of what i like. This idea tho would change the game a great deal, and im not so sure about how many people would like it, but the more we post it the more likely Hubert could take it into account ;) .

We are not talking here about what new research or new units people want for SC2, this idea, the weather idea, map and HQs issues are very important. Weather, map & HQs have been investigated and discussed with lots of interesting and original ideas. Production queue is simple , you like it or u r against it. how many people like it or are against it, thats the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I'm sure other people suggested it long before I did but none of those threads, or the one I started, moved very far.

By combining it with unit limitations you're tackling two problems simultaneously and maybe that will make the difference.

I think we have some very good forum members now and hopefully you'll get enough of them will post with a positive response here to bring out how important the issue is.

In the past the Threads were smothered with the "Keep it Simple" comments that never fail to kill every good idea anyone ever comes up with. Hopefully those guys are now off playing solitaire old maid somewhere. smile.gif

You're right about starting threads if you think it's a good idea even if you believe it was started earlier. If a Thread drops past the second or third page it's probably dead. Nobody should feel anything but satisfaction at seeing one of their own ideas come up again later on by someone else. Aside from which, it's extremely rare for anyone to have posted anything truly original. I always feel good to see things started up again. Usually I link the earlier thread inside the newer one if it isn't getting good response.

But I think the guys who are posting now will all get behind your suggestion. The vast majority of us want there to be some limit to the number of units on the board and want new units to be produced according to a production schedule and would also like to see everything built only in a nation's home cities and ports.

I used to call those wandering transported Italian corps the migratory Vikings looking for a place to land. Which is another problem that needs to be fixed and I'm glad you've broached that subject as well. smile.gif

[ May 16, 2003, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me come out and state that I agree with the time limit on unit. And at the same time, give me the ability to place a maximum number for each unit type in the editor.

Now for the hard part... who wants to suggest what those time limits should be?

And how do you pay for it?

Example... Corp takes 12 months. So do I have to pay my 125 MPP all at once? Lastly, what happens if a tech advance occurs before the unit is produced?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The hard part indeed!

As for major ships, I think Battleships normally required three years and large Aircraft Carriers two years.

COS and HICOM had a longer construction time for carriers but I think they were also considering the time it took to increase the pool of trained aviators required for an additional vessel.

I have no idea how the expense would equate in SC MPP terms.

That's about the extent of my knoweldge in this area.

[ May 17, 2003, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the hard part... who wants to suggest what those time limits should be?

The other hard part is where units in various stages of construction should be. With our current no-stacking rule, this creates a problem. I'd prefer to believe that reserve units are in various stages of mobilization and ship keels are laid in some stage of construction all the time just waiting for final deployment orders. Maybe bring on new units at strength 5 or half strength, and requiring at least 2 turns before full strength deployment. Keep this simple.

Force pool limits for SC2 would be good. To review previous ideas already suggested, we could have 3 different options:

1 - hard limits which are user defined in the scenario editor, perhaps by year. For example, Germany could have a max of 6 Air Fleets, period. This would be Rambo's perfectly historical game.

2 - limits with some provision to exceed them, at additional unit cost. For the example above, Germany could build a 7th Air Fleet at +5-10% (?) cost. An 8th would add an additional +5-10% cost, etc. This would represent the economic strain of going beyond historical OOBs, but still permit some what-ifs.

3 - no limits, essentially what we have now.

This should be easy to implement, and should satisfy everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U can pay for the unit all at once, if u have some units killed in 1 turn u could buy em cheap next turn if not then price go up and even more with strategic bombers (this could be an interesting approach to the strategic warfare issue) , this was the concept in COS, Could it be reproduced in SC2? dunno, it depends of more factors.

About the tech advances, well, i must say i would like to see Tigers and Pz.IVs in the battlefield, but i think u have to consider here that u r investing in tech and u want the pay off, it could be considered as and upgrade on the chain production, the result: Tiger but with the hit points u payed for.

As for the time...i couldnt say. Well, as u say, Jersey, a long long time for ships, the strategic in this scene would be much more important than now.

Rambo, i think u are talking more about a mod, could be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


"About the tech advances, well, i must say i would like to see Tigers and Pz.IVs in the battlefield, but i think u have to consider here that u r investing in tech and u want the pay off, it could be considered as and upgrade on the chain production, the result: Tiger but with the hit points u payed for.

As for the time...i couldnt say. Well, as u say, Jersey, a long long time for ships, the strategic in this scene would be much more important than now.

Rambo, i think u are talking more about a mod, could be interesting."

Agreed, Rambo's suggestion is fine for purely historical scenarios: 1939 Poland, 1940 France, 1941 Barbarossa, 1942 Stalingrad, 1943 Kursk and 1944 Overlord -- but it would require a lot of research and adjustment to equate that in game terms. Ground units weren't built as armies and aircraft weren't manufactured nor pilots trained to be assigned as new air fleets. Battleships and Aircraft Carriers would be the easiest.

Also agreed about model manufacture. One of the problems the Germans had at Kursk was during the Spring of '43 Hitler couldn't decide whether to build a lot of existing tank models or spend the transitional time in switching over to Panzer V and VI production, making fewer tanks available for the summer offensive. If he'd have gone the Pz.IV route it could have gotten under way in May instead of mid-summer.

Building ships from scratch, at least Battleships and Aircraft Carriers, would put planning in a bit too much of a long range strategic mode. I'd go along with Bill's statement that there would be various keels in different stages of completion laid down already and it would be a matter of adapting one for a current project.

That might bring battle ships and aircraft carriers into the one year production range and, as also implied by Bill, those keels would have been at different locations, so if we want the shortcup option we should also designate which port the ships are being built at. This would definitely make for a more interesting game.

Perhaps have a system where it's assumed two capital ships are always in basic production at every major shipbuilding port; if conquered the new owner decides upon production. This would limit the number of large capital ships. Subs, destroyers and cruisers have much shorter production time so presumably an entire fleet of such vessels could be begun at any port, home or captured, and completed between six months and a year.

Also, I'd maintain the option of building large ships from scratch. If the Germans want to take three years to build a Battleship at Bordeax or two years for an aircraft carrier, why not.

Each port should be assumed to have a limited number of large slipways, however. I'd make England and the US the ship building kings.

Allow each UK (except for Scapa Flow) and US port three large slipways, each German and French port two large slipways and each Italian or Russian port one large slipway.

The other European ports, Athens, Oslo, Bergen, Stockholm and Helsinki, addendum, add Triana, Canada and Istanbul to those ports would not have had large slipways at the time; shipbuilding in those cities would have been of smaller ships such as freighters. They should have no large slipways. They should be unable to build battleships or aircraft carriers, but capable of constructing cruisers and U-boats.

Non-European ports shown on the map, Tobruck, Alexandria and Suez, with Scapa Flow added, should have no shipbuilding capacity at all.

Large Slipways per Port:

UK = 3 (except Scapa Flow, which = 0)

US = 3

Germany = 2

France = 2

Italy =1

Russia = 1

Battleships and Aircraft Carriers built from scratch would be considered to spend their first year on the slipway. Large ships cannot be started in a port without an available slipway. For game purposes I'd assume every port, depending upon it's number of slipways, has one, two or three large ships already sitting in the water as a hull, not tying up a slipway, awaiting completion and fitting out; perhaps a year's worth of work.

Yes, I know this is making everything too complicated. I'm only fantasizing. :D

[ May 17, 2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Glad you like the idea.

The Russians would already have that ability.

The number of slipways is per port .

In the case of the Russians, Lenningrad, Sevastapol and Rostov could each be starting a BB at the same time. Likewise, the Italians could have one capital ship begun at each of it's three slipway ports of Venice, Triana and Palermo.

Each of the UK or US cities could begin construction of three (3).

Each of the Germans and French ports would have the capacity of starting two (2) capital ships at each of their ports.

Addendum: Triana and Istanbul should not have large slipways, they would be in same category as Athens, Oslo, Bergen, Stockholm, Helsinki, and Canada; able to build cruisers and submarines only.

[ May 17, 2003, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Manpower: The axis pool of units will be composed of historical HQs, armies and corps units, but u decide when to produce em.

Tanks&airfleet: Standard scenario for germany could be a pool of 6 airfleet and 6? tanks. But i like the idea of "what if", and tho allow to go beyond the limits, germany for example could be doing very well in the war and might want to increase production of tanks. I like very much your idea of the price penalty for going beyond historical, it allows strategics if u have the money to carry em out. A 10% penalty sounds good to me.

Jersey John

Fleet: U have found out a simple solution to the question. As Bill says, with no-stacking rules, i didnt even think about units in stage of construction. yer idea about slipways sounds very good to me. I would only add, what about Spain? not a single port, i think a port should be incorporated by adding a new city&port: Vigo, (Bilbao could be erased).

Another question that arise to me its the bombardement on ports, should they damage/delay somehow the production? Sub pens in france were to well defended to be affected by bombs, but what about other ports?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


A few months back there were a lot of us asking for Lisbon and Bilbao to be made into ports as well as Cartegena on the Mediteranean side and for a port city, Plymouth, to be added in SW England, but that hasn't gotten anywhere. I'd still like to see it.

Glad you like the slipway idea; I think it would allow for more new ship production than anyone is likely to use, but it's there if they want it.

During the war most ships damaged in port were hit in dry docks during repairs but there's no reason ships being constructed couldn't be hit as well. I think this should be dependant upon the enemies bomber range/distance from air bases, the defender's anti-aircraft radar level and proximity of intercepters.

Though naval guns were occasionally used for port shelling, most notably at Mirs el Kabir, the real damage to ships in port was done by frogman sabotage, something the Italians and English did best. Midget subs were generally used, the main actions being by the Italians in blowing out the bottoms on two British Battleships in Alexandria and by the British in hitting some freighters in Bordeax and also in the famous raid against the very large drydock at Saint Nezaire. This sort of activity would add an interesting and very aggravating element to the game. :D

Agreed, the subpens built in France were virtually impregnable.

[ May 17, 2003, 06:32 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I have the information, I'll post it in case it is of interest to anyone.

Unit...................Months to Construct


HQ................................/ 10

HQ (Russ)....................../ 8

Corp...........................2 / 4

Corp (Russ).................../ 2

Corp (Para)..................../ 8

Army..........................2 / 4

Army (Ge/Itl)................./ 6

Armor........................4 / 8

Armor (Itl)..................../ 10

Air............................4 / 10

Bomber......................4 /

Transport..................4 / 8

Destroyers.................6 /

Cruiser......................8 / 14

Battleship...............12 /

Carrier....................18 / 18

Submarine................6 / 6

There is no Cruiser in COS. They have a Escort. I placed it under the Cruiser definition.

For Your Info

3R had force pool limits. You lose a unit, you could replace it (assuming you had the BRPs). But don't forget 3R was a 3 month turn.

World at War which is the latest version of 3R follows the same concept, but they added a few things. By spending BRP's, you can increase the size of your force pool.

The other thing, is that they got rid of the "double move". So it's a good old, IGO UGO system, as it should be.

And here is the most amazing thing... after almost 30 something years, this 3R thing is still going. And World at War has something like 500+ pre-solds! And at $75 to $150 a unit!!! Thats amazing.

I now understand the price. Same reasoning I assume SC went thru when deciding on its price. World at War was looking at 25% of the sales of a SC type game, so they raised the price.


As JerseyJohn pointed out, I forgot to double the COS times. Corrected that 5/18.

[ May 18, 2003, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I don't think the historicial reinforcement rate would be appropriate at this scale. It implies that you are following the same historical path that actually occurred. None of us as Axis, wait until 1940 before attacking France.

What usually happens, wheter the people making the suggestions realize it or not, is that what is desired is a system that reflects the same constraints from manpower, equipment and time, so we are faced with the same issues and decision processes that our historical counterparts had.

Codename Condor

The unit replacement concept that COS used (varied cost depending on if unit eliminated out of supply or not) is in SC. Its just not discussed.

Unit being "replaced" in COS........ buying new unit in SC.

Unit being "rebuilt" in COS......... 1 str pt unit in SC being reinforced.

I think the rebuilt cost in SC is 47%, while in COS it is 50%.

Regarding Tech upgrades

I think the solution for this, from what I remember, is to make you pay a upgrade cost for each unit. I don't remember, but I think there was a part of this that said you had to return to a city or capitol to do this. This way you could have same type of units with mutil tech levels.


Because of the generic unit concept and the fact that in a historical OOB a Corp is not the same as another Corp, you have to be careful when depicting OOB in SC.

Germany 1939

5 Armies, 8 Corps, 4 Panzer and 2 Luftwaffe. Existing HQ's plus add Leeb in the west.

(five corp and one panzer are understrength)

Germany 1941

Add to above:

11 Armies, 0 to 3 Corps, 4 Panzer and 2 Luftwaffe.

(Corps depends on if you belive there should be a Fallschirmjager Corp and field Luftwaffe divisions)

And then there is the Afrika Corp. This is really a 5 Str Panzer unit. Again depends on your belief, but my problem is how to ensure it stays in North Africa.


Excellent idea JerseyJohn. Thanks. Much more elegant way (compared to High Command) to represent shipbuilding capability of a nation. And by having the one (1) year period along with pre-existing keels, you have just solved one of the major problems with representing the BB's and CV's that were already laid up. You either have to complete them or accept the loss of that keel from your ship building ability. Again, thanks. ;)


I don't like the idea of additional costs for units that have exceeded the max. But that is because to me the max is representing the inability of the economy or manpower to produce anymore of those units. Otherwise, I want the unit to be no max, with the constraints being in the economy (ie oil or MPP) or manpower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The frogmen activity could be implemented by means of sabotage, 1 option u could activate if u research Intel. I really would like to see Intel as a new tech available in SC2. Theres a post buried somewhere, started by Edwin if I dont remember wrong, where we discussed about Intel.

i like more yer slipway idea the more i read it, im only concerned about the Bombers, Germany only way to the Atlantic is to build ship in French shipyards, all of them exposed to bombers, so i guess the only option is to build subs as the subpens are impregnable, im not gonna built a BB in france if its exposed to bombers. But, well, that was how it really was.


im now lookin at the COS manual to find out that i had forgoten a lot about that game. There was also an automatic and cheap "refit" thats the "reinforcement" in SC. But its out of the question.

In SC the retrofit is automatic and free when u develop a new tech level, so when u u purchase a new unit retrofit should be automatic also. But i prefer the multiple levels units and the option to upgrade em in a city, much more accurate and realistic, but feasible in SC2? Is SC2 going to follow the auto retrofit issue as in SC?

I want the unit to be no max, with the constraints being in the economy (ie oil or MPP) or manpower.
When we are talking about a 5-10% price increment for every unit that goes above the limit, we are really talking in terms of economy constraint, how many airfleet do u think i can build at that rate? what other things am i sacrifying? BUT i have the option to sacrifice 1 thing to build another, i wanna do plan Z or to rule the skys, its up to me, and thats great.

But i like yer manpower constrain also, only that i cant find out how to do it, maybe the economy constrain its easier to represent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shaka and Condor

Glad you gentlemen like the large slipways combined with existing keels concept. I think the idea goes back to dgaad's writing about Hitler's Blue Ocean Navy plans (the North America Thread) utilizing French and Italian port facilities with existing but incomplete ships begun before the war.

Regarding the construction schecule from HiCom and COS laid out so well by Shaka: turns in COS were two months and in HiCom they were monthly, which might account for some of the differences represented. With shorter turns I'd assume HiCom's times are more accurate, COS might have needed to round things up or down a bit.

This Thread keeps incorporating new ideas and information. I think a lot of it should be relevant to improving SC.

Condor, agreed completely on the espionage aspect. The strange thing is I don't remember much about ship construction having been sabotaged during the war. Of course, the Germans volutarily took themselves out of that category after Tirpitz (though they continued building destoyers and submarines). The Germans constructed two new classes of BBs during the war (16" Vanguard & 15" Lion) but neither were touched while being built.

The main concern over this was in the United States. The FBI received publicity for being vigilant on this count and New York's Governor Dewey, having put Lucky Luciano in prison as a DA, supposedly got him to urge mafia controlled dock hands to stay vigilant on the water front. Having dealt personally with that bunch my guess is they beat up a few unfortunates with foreign accents, most likely Jewish immigrants they mistook as nazi spies, and congratulated themselves for saving the country over a few beers while Thomas Dewey ran for re-election.

Shaka, thanks for mentioning the World at War project, sounds interesting. The main thing I didn't like about 3R and COS were their back to back turn or flip-flop formats. Glad they got rid of it; moving units twice without defensive adjustments from the enemy gives too great an advantage.

In COS it was meant to reflect which side had the initiative at a given time in the war historically, but in 3R it could be manipulate through economics, which I additionally didn't care for -- as there are no turns in real life nobody would juggle their economics for the sake of moving twice in a row!

[ May 18, 2003, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oooo! Some really good ideas in this here thread. Love the concept of limited slipways for the capital ships and, of course, build times. But I do think that any ships under construction need to be on the map so they can both take up space and even be attacked. But as Bill pointed out it might be tricky if there is no unit stacking. If the build-in-progress vessel is indeed represented by a chit on the map, the chit could show an outline of the vessel to indicate it is currently under construction and cannot be moved.

It would also be nice if the slipways could be damaged during an attack, halting construction. If the port falls below some value, the slipways are no longer active until the port recovers its size.

Would the already laid (but as yet un-used) keels be a unit on the map itself as a physical chit or just an abstract part of the build queue? If on-map, could they be attacked as well as moved before construction begins?

3 years for a Battleship to be built? Realism can be brutal. smile.gif BTW, glancing through the handy (and cheap) Illustrated Directory of Warships, even Cruisers took a good deal of time to construct. The 8,200 ton German Cruiser Leipzig was laid down in 1928 and not completed until 1931! :eek:

- Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Good points. I don't know how they'd be represented. The ideas, if combined, could have as many as four or five ships being built simultaneously in the same port! Presumably if finished the same turn they'd be initially placed on sea hexes near to the construction site. I suppose launched vessels could be moved but those still on the slipways would have remained there.

Most French and German ships being built in ports that changed hands seem to have remained undamaged for the new owners. The Italians scuttled a partially completed aircraft carrier and several other ships as the Germans took over their cities in 1943. The Soviets lost several partially built German ships when they attempted moving them to Lenningrad after the war.

[ May 18, 2003, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The strange thing is I don't remember much about ship construction having been sabotaged during the war. Of course, the Germans volutarily took themselves out of that category after Tirpitz (though they continued building destoyers and submarines). The Germans constructed two new classes of BBs during the war (16" Vanguard & 15" Lion) but neither were touched while being built.

Maybe u r right, i was watching the other day Hitckcock's Sabotage movie and they tried to sink the ship when it was being placed in the water!, clever boys, they wait for the ship to be finished.

And i reckon uve just given the brits BBs to the germans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Codename Condor

But i prefer the multiple levels units... but feasible in SC2? Is SC2 going to follow the auto retrofit issue as in SC?
Only Mr H has the answer to this. One of the problems with having different values for units is that you need to store the values for each unit as oppossed to having one value for the nation. Example... Germany has 20 Armies. We are asking for unique values, hence 20 values. Current method only requires 1 value. The technical term is data redundancy. Real world calls it wasting space. And remember, the map is the size it is, because he had no more space. So it is quite possible that even if he wants to include it, he can't because of space (ie memory) constraints.

economic constraints ... Cost increase isn't the type of economic constraint I am talking about. Germany had roughly 20-25% of its military in motorized units (ie Panzers, PanzerGrenadiers, etc). Why? The German Panzer divisions in 1939 were all organized differently. But when Germany wanted an increase in Panzer divisions (he doubled them), he had to reduce the tank size in the 1939 divisions by half. Why? Those restrictions (and others) were not based on how many MPPs you had. In some respects, we see another side of the same problem when people simply grap as many neutrals as they can, because the more MPPs you have, the more you can buy. Thats why I am against the addt'l cost increase.

And the above is easier to model than the manpower issue. That one is a nightmare of a project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahem! JJ I take offense at that "Old Maid and Solitaire" statement,... but I still luv ya man. Come on guys, you know the beauty and eloquence of SC is its KISS approach. There are very few games out there that you can sit down and finish with an opponent in the time constraints of this world. I to yearn for realism, but at what cost? I am constantly monitoring this forum and there are so many good ideas, both past and present it seems redundant for me to post mine which are really ya'lls (say with Texas drawl). But since the group has provided the stimuli, here it goes pure and simple;... like we haven't heard it before. Each major SC country should indeed have a limited beginning cadre of units to build from based on historical populations (people pool=PP) and industrial capability. This can change somewhat through acquisitions and/or research but not a lot. Deductions from your PP occur through reinforcements (as well as MPP pool)and queing new unit builds. Each unit and subsequent replacement/reinforcement has a required PP alotment, don't forget the supporting elements. When you queu a unit to build from your cadre you must designate a location for where it will appear, usually a city or port (and surrounding hexes) with historical references. If that location suffers from an attack, then a certain amount of PP and MPP is deducted and the appearance time suffers a delay. If the location is captured then you will be allowed to redesignate an appearing location with the appropriate penalty. You will never be able to queu more unit builds than you have locations for them to appear. Also the time required to build units is unique to each country and its industrial research level, all tied to the historical reference with a little bit of "what if". Units are never completely destroyed, other than naval, they are resubmitted to the cadre pool to be requed for building. Yeah I know there are some other ramifications to be considered here but this seems historical yet simple with a tiny might of "what if". Now I've got an "Excedrin Headache"........ "say Tex ice down that beer".

[ May 18, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Glad the old maids and solitaire remark flushed you out from the still.

As usual a lot of good ideas. I'd like realism without micromanagement, which may be an impossible dream. If an inbetween ground is found which would maintain ease of play while increasing realism I'm all for that as well.

When I starting reading back page Threads that went up before I wandered into this thing I quickly noticed you were one of the guys who'd already posted things I thought were my original thoughts.

Since that time I've come to realize almost everything has been stated before. Which is good. It gives the place a sort of Buhdist timelessness set against mortal futility.

And through it all Hubert sits somewhere in feedback Hell reading all these restated Topics through permanently open glazed eyes -- what a miserable fate!


[ May 18, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks JJ for not shooting me down, you know how it is "a bird on the wing" hates to leave the safety of "The Still". Don't mean to be silent, but ya'll have things well in hand and there is really no guidance from HC. It would be nice if he would just say "Hey guys this is set it stone, no deviations", or "I'm kind of not set on this, does the forum have some ideas?" Course we'd probably deluge him and SC2 would be delayed further....none of us want that. All good things are worth waiting for. Only thing is when you pass the half century mark the impatience of youth seems to re-interject itself. Oh well.... love the pics JJ, keep it up.....damn the Moon.....he! he! just kidding Moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Create New...