What Huib (and others maybe) don't like about PzC

[Glenn Saunders]

:) You say that (WEGO) like it's a bad thing ;)

Naw - I just say it because PzC\MC is not Wego.

Well yeah, but you can limit the amount that's possible. Replaying turns is a really hard one to squash, for instance. But wrapping the OoB, Scen, and PDT into a single file along with the turn data and encrypting the whole thing would go a long way AFAIC.

Maybe - but John is reluctant to expend additional time on this as the feeling is, if people want to cheat they will find ways to do so.

Ok, let me rephrase:
2nd TAF do not belong in the Med. Bomber Command do not belong in the Med. 8th and 9th AFs do not belong in the Med. Typhoons do not belong in the Med. Lancasters and Halifaxes do not belong in the Med. Etc. The whole Allied air OoB in Salerno appears to have simply been copied from N'44. That is fine for MG'44 and B'44 (although those would still require a little adjustment), but definately not for the Med.

There is one generic Air strike - a Typhoon - in the Sicily OOB and that unit was used in the game too. I've corrected that now.

I see what you are saying that the Air part of the Salerno OOB likely came from Normandy. I guess one can see how that might happen as Wig built Normandy and had Salerno done too - I just redid the ground units to the Salerno game felt more like Sicily and not Normandy. (I personally didn't like the unit density in N44).

In any case - as far as I can see, these additional Air Units in the OOB have not been used in the Scns. So these extra units that shouldn't be in the oob would have no effect on Game play.

Ya - it was wrong to leave them in the OOB - my bad. Turns out only 6% of the Air units that are in the OOB were used in the game. I've cut in half the number of Air Units in the OOB and in doing so cut 3/4s of those air units from the OOB. I could cut it down all the way but lets face it - this has no impact on game play I have better things to do with my time.

In any case I will take steps to correct this appearance of poor research now that they've been brought to my attention - thanks for the input.

Glenn