kozmeister

Agree, give the PC some intelligence and options regarding naval strategy. Disagree, Germans should adopt a strategy to build subs if most of the allied naval fleet is sunk? It's usually not a problem eliminating most of the allied fleet using large sub production alone. Also, the allied AI does not play smart when hunting subs. It runs right into wolf packs constantly with less than overwhelming force. I can usually sink the majority of its navy by early 1942 this way. How about making subs more vulnerable to surface ships? KOZMEISTER

Looks like an interesting in its own right. I think the name is Battlefields though. The difference in the scale emphasizes where SC2 should keep its balance. I think what really fascinates most about WWII and games like SC1 is really the political intrigue surrounding the various players: the parliamentary democracies vs. continent wide national socialism and budding communism. This was really a continent that was up for grabs for a while. Game play should (and does) emphasize the fragility of any one side's advantage and the importance of alliances. SC1's the most fun I've ever had on the computer (save for some memorable hours with Close Combat II). . but I'm jonesing for something new as well. KOZMEISTER

Then what would hex-grid paper and pencils be good for? You don't mean it's tough to find someone who likes to stay up all night penciling in their carrier group's movments in classics such as Flat Top? KOZMEISTER

I would like to propose the grand campaign for SC2 not start with a prerequisite invasion of Poland and all parties at war. Leave these options to the gamer. Alliances should be more clearly indicated prior to declaring war (who reads the rules anyway). For example, Germany wants to declare war on Poland. A warning is provided - "France is a strong ally of Poland, invasion might trigger war with France." Probable increases to the war readiness numbers would be given prior to the actual assault. Actual values would be slightly variable, as 'foreign sentiment' was not always predictable. Also, what about the idea of variable alliance-sets? Alliance-sets could be pre-selected at the beginning. 1) Franco-Russion-Poland encirclement. Neutral Britain. 2) no fascist Italy (British-US-Italian). Neutral Soviets. 3) Standard set. etc. I will stand back and take my boot up the arsh. KOZMEISTER

SC1 is enjoyable in this sense in that it allows the attacker to coordinate the movement of armor units rear of the line after the front line has attacked. One way to add mobility to frontline war would be to allow for stacking of armor units with infantry units. Two benefits: 1) Armor units following breakthrough would have increase mobility. 2) Strategy would be more effective at geo-political bottlenecks where offensive breakthroughs are all but impossible currently. KOZEMEISTER

Neutral countries, particularly major powers should be 'active' prior to the entrance in the war. 1) Neighboring powers should be able to spot units that are at least near the frontline. 2) Inactive, neutral powers should be able to develop, deploy and move armies in response to the actions on the board. 3) Economies should start slow and slowly gain momentum. Production should not be the same for the USSR if war is declared in 1940 as when war would be declared in 1942. KOZMEISTER

I don't agree with the concept of vulnerable piece that would move around only to be targeted. After all that is what the capitals themselves are. I DO agree with the idea that the 'government' could potentially resides in one of say 2-3 cities and could be relocated at the player's discretion. For example, say Moscow is in danger or indefensible; Soviet player could decide to move the capital at any time to another location- with a requisite reduction in moral or other penalty for the army of course. This would be a BETTER SYTEM than simply following a historically predicatable precedent. KOZMEISTER

The west Germans should fight alongside the west, but the Soviets should benefit economically for east Germany. Has anyone considered the nuclear-age paradigm as a option for R&D in SC2 as it is in Tactics II? If nukes were provided, these alone might force realistic closure to any chance of further conflict; i.e., anyone in their right mind (especially a pragmatist like Stalin) would stop before they could be used (or at least before planes that would have the range to deliver them could be produced). KOZMEISTER

That's what I've always thought of them as SeaMonkey. Correct me if I'm wrong but both western allied and German units consistently used 'self propelled' artillery near the end of the war. These were very effective replacements to older cannon artillery. I'm no aware to what degree the Russians used the same. German units used (shorter range) tactical rocket launders at the platoon level in their mechanised units. Rockets as artillery seems correct; rockets such as the V2 used for field maneuvers seems esoteric at best. KOZMEISTER

One of SCs major attractions is the ability to control and direct strategic resources of the combatants; however, this is greatly limited for the allied powers that are involved in other theaters. One way to add to the enjoyment of the game would be to have a 'total' resources map show out-of-theater resources for Russia and US. These could be manipulated and used in two ways. 1) A limited quantity of out-of-theater resources (like the Siberian army or the US pacific fleet) could be transferred early in the war to the European theater with a small but grave risk that large parts of these theaters would capitulate (i.e., Japanese would occupy easter USSR) and overall production would fall. The option should be there in case there is a great threat in the EU theater. 2) Later in the war, increased US production and US pacific resources could be made available to assist in Europe after a random date of Japanese surrender. As the Axis player, while preparing for a German-US invasion late the war I've often wondered, 'where is the US Pacific fleet preventing me from carrying this out?' KOZMEISTER

As a newby, let me comment that the enthusiasm shown in these threads in suggestions aimed toward perfecting SC is a tribute the fact that it is such an enjoyable game. Toward generally improving the flexibility of the game,I suggest the following: - Italy neutral scenario. Allow Germany the ability to invade Italy (currently not I believe). - Trapped units after seaborn invasion of Ireland. Allow units that are used for amphibious landings in areas without a port to eventually leave that location (perhaps with a time and equipment loss). - Supply-trapped units in Soutern Caucasus. Allow units some degree of movement when out of supply. Certainly even in the worst supply situations, given enough time to scrounge, any unit not encircled could move a nominal distance. - No ability to create bridgeheads at beaches or across rivers. I understand that SC2 will address this somehow for seaborn invasions? - Air unit flexibility and self-destructing air units. Users should have control over tasks for air units. Units should not automatically provide air-cover and excort support (particulary when there is a good likelihood they will be destroyed). Will 'retreats' also apply to air units in SC2? - Amphibious asaults from the US? For amphibious assaults, units should lose readiness based on distance to enemy shoreline. - Invulnerable U-boats? I agree with others who have posted that U-boat effectiveness vs. surface fleets is too exxagerated (reinforced after a recent viewing of Das Boot). - I also agree with others recent postings that air forces are too effective against ground units when used alone. Destruction of ground units by air forces should only be possible when coordinated with ground forces. Toward improving the fun-to-play aspect, I suggest the following for making the SC2 AI less predictable (suggestions refer to grand campaign). - Maginot line. French considers maginot line too important. Units should completely abandon line after Axis breakthrough. - Initial French strategy. French are too predictable and always stay within French border. - British always excersize a general bombardment strategy for using all AFs on mainland and in Malta that seems to use up its entire resources. AI should choose to excercise air units in this way based on a limit % of resource units for anticipated casualties. - British navy is too passive in Mediterranean. - Germans do not follow historical course. Immediately after the conquest of Poland and France, they begin preparations for Barbarossa. Generally, the neutrals are ignored. My apologies, but I needed to ramble. KOZMEISTER

I agree. The player controlling the US and USSR should have some capability to control the preparation of at least the military constituents and R&D prior to their entrance into conflict. Roosevelt (a clear proponent for war) whose hands were tied politically still had the ability to direct military resources. Added benefit would be increased fun for the poor allied player sitting and taking a whipping while waiting. KOZMEISTER