I think you totally missed the argument Kerensky and me was trying to make. Adding a few more transports with same movement and defense values almost identical but being able to drag different kind of equipments do not add any real depth to the games but add unneeded complexity. You will have to ...

251 for troops and a new class for artillery with sdkfz 7.
The last one could be expensive.
A new Sdkfz 7 HT would go hand-in-hand with the other needed transport type - horse. That would give players towing options of none (not very realistic but possible given the way PzC handles towed AT/AA ...

My point is that the 250 was not used for land transport as much as the 251 and could easily be removed from that class altogether.
I disagree.

First it shall be the players decision to choose the expensive 250 or the cheaper 251, as long as the drawbacks are part of the unit statistics (as it ...

I think the halftracks should be in the same class, so you don't have to pay full price when upgrading.
An upgrade path wouldn't be very logical, as those two SdKfz were different vehicles. But it is also not needed, you have already proposed the solution:

Another thing I'd like to see is ...

Trucks are 50, halftrack 100, but a slightly better halftrack is 200??? Seems pretty steep.
I can understand paying full price to go from a truck to a halftrack, but why does a slightly better halftrack cost the full 200 as well?

Thanks
Historically, providing transport to the same amount of ...

Not everything can be explained historically. First of the game is using a highly abstract and simplified model. The units are reduced to only a few statistics. On top of that there are game balancing issues. Sometimes you have to divert from being 100% accurate to allow for balanced game play ...

Most of the time you are not going to use the main gun of a tank or selfpropelled antitank gun. Your going to use the machine guns of these vehicles instead due to the higher rate of fire.
Having a turret with a coxial machine gun makes a big difference when engaging soft targets.
Yes, but what ...

Your tank comparison really over simplify it.
Well, it is a "beer & bretzel" comparison.

You are virtually looking just at the weight of the explosives but there are many other factors that need to be taken into account.
As a big part of the effect of HE-frag shells in open is provided by the ...

Some further ideas:
- Extend the equipment part of the library (could/should be done by future extensions)
- Change initiative penalty of Anti-Tank units attacking Tank units to non-turreted units attacking turreted units (if not already done)
- Allow Anti-Tank mode for all Anti-Aicraft units (as ...

The IS2 has a soft attack strength of 12 and the Tiger 2 has a soft attack strength of 9. Is that imbalance historically accurate?

As PC is a "Beer & Bretzel" game, comparing of the soft attack properties of the main armament of tank and anti-tank units by simply comparing the weight of the their ...

Hmm. What if you could open an additional window with more detailed information? Then you could include there a more detailed listing of probable outcomes.
There is already the 'Combat Details' dialog, why not just extend it instead of adding another dialog ?

I'm just having a hard time ...

As to showing the span of results, iteration is a bad and costly model (in terms of cpu cycles), but a reasonable model would be to show the best and worse result within one standard deviation of the mean.
I agree with the iteration being a bad idea, it was a (too) primitive way to get mean and ...

The 'correct' solution would be computationally expensive, but this shouldn't be a problem with todays hardware, as long as it is not too expensive and as long as it is not used by the AI.
I have just done a rough estimate of the effort and realized, that the 'combat dice' has 100 sides. So in ...

Even if i assume that the combat predictor can't be made more accurate, i still see two worthwhile improvements:

1.) If not already done, shape the output of the random generator so that the values are normally/gaussian distributed, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution#Generating ...

Sorry about that guys.

I didn't mean to run you off onto a tangent that only Molve and I were interested in.

:oops:
On the contrary, i think it was rather interesting (even if i have never played a 5-Star game besides Panzer and Allied-General). :)

My intention was to prevent the Star General ...

I really like the idea of supply being slightly impacted the further away from friendly towns your forces are. This could really add another level of strategy to the supply feature
I like this idea but only if units close to friendly towns are supplied automatically every turn.
So basicly the ...

@macattack, Molve, PC Moderator:
Would it be possible/ok to move the Star-General related post into an dedicated thread, e.g. Molve's 'People's General, Space General etc'?
Just to keep the related information together and easier to access. Thanks.

I'm taking screenshots of the entire scenario maps, marking out objectives in white circles, airfields in yellow rectangles, drawing out the rivers in clear blue, crossing points in orange, red lines to denote the individual task force movement.

I would like to make a suggestion and this is not ...

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=264739#264739 :

I would like to make a suggestion and this is not meant to be a criticism. Rivers should be highlighted more prominently in colour (bright blue, for instance) so that the gamer is able to plan his river crossings. As it is now, the ...

That idea has come up before, but honestly I'm not really comfortable with that it.
It works for arty and AD because they are indirect fire units and/or have ranged attack.

I just can't wrap my head around the idea of unit X being attacked from the North by unit Y and ATG unit Z south of unit X ...