Bill101

Yes, I like the idea of filling in the holes too, though I'm just as taken with the idea of fielding the 532nd Red Army Corps! If you want I'll send you my copy of Mila 18, and you can just post it back when you've finished using it.

Hopefully in the scenario editor we can name and rate HQs as we see fit. As this discussion is showing it can be very hard to rate some commanders who only led troops in one or two WWII campaigns. However, for those seriously wanting to pursue this I recommend hunting through books on WWI, as anyone who was a general at the start of WWII will almost certainly have been an officer during the previous war.

John, this is something I've been thinking about too. It would be especially useful for the Red Army, to see how many Corps they have got through, and also which ones have managed to survive against the odds. As long as we also keep the ability to rename, I can't see a problem with this.

No, the resource itself will inflict some damage (with some luck!). In SC1 the unit on the resource will protect it, but in SC2 strategic bombing will target the resource itself, probably leaving the unit on it unscathed. If you playtest using the scenario editor in SC1, changing AA from 0 to 5, you'll soon see the difference in casualties to your air units when they attack.

John No, we can't be sure of how Rambo meant it, but I certainly had a good laugh reading his message. Seriously though, it probably would be a good idea for some of the top competition players to be involved in the playtesting at a later date, as I really hope that we can play SC2 without having to use bidding. They are certainly far more likely to pick up a lack of game balance than I am.

You're right, but airborne forces were usually expected to be relieved within a very short period of time, and in SC terms that would really be in the next turn at the latest. To have them holding out for weeks or months on their own, with no supplies, would be unrealistic. Remember that even at Bastogne the 101st only held out for the equivalent of one turn in SC (in fact, more like one summer turn!). Good on them, but it was still a very short period of time in the current system. [ April 22, 2004, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

Yes, it'd make playing against the AI a lot more fun.

Ah, but the real differences are a bigger Atlantic and a bigger USSR. It should help the Soviets immensely now that their rearmost positions aren't going to be just to the east of Stalingrad, and I am looking forward to a far more realistic Battle of the Atlantic.

I saw in one of the screenshots an example where mechanization gives the German Army in the picture a movement of 3 rather than 2, therefore I think this must be already included. [ April 22, 2004, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

My worry about this is that keeping the colonial possessions of France in the game might help the Axis more. For instance, they won't have to declare war on Vichy France any more, thus helping keep the USA and USSR off their backs for a while. Italy should be able to take out Algeria pretty easily, and the defenders of Egypt will have to guard Syria now too. The plus side for the allies, apart from the extra fleets and maybe a corps or two, will be the ability to use Beirut as a base to take Iraq earlier than usual. Despite these reservations, I am actually rather keen to play this out. I guess we could model it with SC1, though we'd have to use the editor, starting the game in mid 1940 just after France has fallen. Does anyone fancy giving it a try?

Perhaps another way of doing it is that France surrenders as usual, Vichy is created as usual, BUT there is a very small % chance of Syria and/or Algeria continuing to fight on. This is assuming that they took up De Gaulle's call to carry on the fight, and at least it might be easier on the programming side. They will then provide MPPs to the UK. I'd also want all of this that has been discussed to be an option, rather than something that's built in that we can't change. How this would affect war readiness is also a problem, and I'm inclined to think that the status quo is better (though there's nothing wrong with having options). Anyway, if Battlefront take up Rambo's advice then they won't be listening to anyone but him, so maybe we're wasting our breath anyway! [ April 22, 2004, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

My own view is that we cannot properly assess Hubert's decision to use tiles until we play the demo. Those who say that they won't touch SC2 without having even played the demo do give the impression of being narrow minded. That said, I respect others' rights to comment on the hex/tiles issue. I'm all for free debate.

Thanks Shaka. I have the raw data on the Luftwaffe in Alfred Price's book "Last Year of the Luftwaffe", but I'd have to add it all up, so I was hoping you might have had some figures at your fingertips. If you find the allied figures I don't mind adding up the German just so that we can see how they compared. The reason being that I wondered if the number of serviceable aircraft was more even. Also, as SC2 will have unit limits, if you want that game we talked about 6 months ago then I'll be up for it (I never felt that I'd be able to manage it properly in SC1, and wouldn't have wanted to get it wrong).

Quiepo, I'd hope that you could give us all a Spanish Civil War mod when SC2 comes out. I'd love to play that, though I take it from your name that you'd be prefer to be Axis?

Les, I'm afraid that I don't understand your latest argument in favour of removing North America. No one here appears to have argued in favour of Axis landings in North America. As I said, I've never been keen on such things happening. I have also stated that the Battle of the Atlantic cannot be correctly recreated without North America being on the map, but you haven't answered that point. The Battle of the Atlantic was won by the allies when the air gap was bridged between North America and the UK, therefore this game needs the ability for aircraft to be stationed in North America. Likewise, ships on escort duty should be able to refuel and resupply in North American ports - as they did in real life.

We definitely need North America to correctly recreate the war in the North Atlantic, as aircraft and ships based in North America played a very large role in defeating the U Boats. However, like you Les I am not keen on Axis invasions of North America, but there might be other ways of stopping or at least discouraging them that could be built into the game: 1) Landing craft are very unlikely to be able to cross the Atlantic without being sunk, as they cannot cope with the long crossing. 2) Several Corps of National Guard automatically mobilise if the Axis land in either Canada or USA. 3) A house rule to prevent landings in North America until France, the UK and USSR have all surrendered to the Axis (one I like to use in SC1, and the beauty is that it requires no game programming). Perhaps this could be programmed in, as an option, so that Axis units are unable to land in North America before the other main allied countries have surrendered. I also think that in SC2 it will be easier to defend North America due to the fact that Canada and the USA are now joined together. [ April 21, 2004, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Bill101 ]

RobRas, actually I respect the argument for a top down view a lot more, though again without having played it I don't know how necessary it might be. My view is that the game concept and its playability are the most important features, therefore if the game is hard to play in isometric, then a top down view should be offered. I would like to think that if the playtesters come to that conclusion then Hubert will get working on one. I played Civ3 for a while, and Talonsoft's Eastern Front a lot more, and in both of them I found their isometric view was fine. In the latter I did try out their top down view a couple of times, but I didn't like it at all. It's all a question of how easy this game is to play.

Shaka, do you have the figures to show what average proportion of the frontline combat aircraft in 1944 were serviceable, i.e. able to fly in operations on an average day?

Holyman wrote: "Now your faithful customers are going to have to wait extra time for something they majority dont care about or even worse - do not want." No, they can download the demo and try it out, rather than reaching rash conclusions before they've got even half an idea of how the game will be. I can't understand why some people's minds are so closed to new ideas. There are without doubt a number of people playtesting SC2, all of whom had a good knowledge of SC1. I'm sure that they will soon tell Hubert if they think that tiles are spoiling the game. But any amount of argument, without the experience of having actually played the new game, is not going to convince.

Yes John, I've read somewhere else on the forum that it will cost MPPs to build fortifications.

Will a unit landing on an enemy coast, the tile where they land being unoccupied by enemy troops but having fortifications in it, suffer higher landing casualties than one landing on a clear tile?

As it currently stands, after all the majors are at war there are no penalties for either side to declare war on all the remaining neutrals, as and when they are in a position to do so. I've always felt a little uncomfortable with this, but like most others I've taken advantage of it and gone ahead with invasions of Switzerland, Spain, Turkey even. How about the aggressiveness of the Axis in declaring war on numerous nations is taken as a sign of how they treat the conquered peoples. Therefore, the more invasions, the nastier their internal policing is presumed to be, the end result being that as the Axis invade more countries, so the % chance of partisans appearing increases. Perhaps this isn't a brilliant idea, but I'd like there to be some penalty to out and out aggression. Another alternative is that neutrals outside Europe could lend a hand to stop the Axis. If the Axis attack Spain, Switzerland or Turkey then there could be a % chance of a Brazilian Corps arriving in the South Atlantic, while it could also have the effect of making South Africa agree to its troops being used outside Africa (i.e. a % chance of a SA Corps in the South Atlantic too).

Nor anywhere else - being on the receiving end of a full barrelload of Nebelwerfers wasn't the place to be either. However, rockets in SC appear to me to represent not the Katushka and Nebelwerfer, but the V1 and V2. I had always thought them a waste of time until I read the book "Last Year of the Luftwaffe". The author argued that their nuisance value in bombing London and the south east made the allies divert a disproportionate effort to deal with their launching sites, thus saving some more important Axis units and resources from a good pounding.

Holyman, why the fixation on hexes - surely its the quality of the game that counts? And as to stacking, well it would just make a quick and easy-to-play game far more complicated and time consuming. Just imagine a PBEM game where your opponent does a move every 3/4 days. That means that every time you play it you'd have to remind yourself of what units were in each and every stack. Talk about boring. And sitting waiting for your opponent to finish looking at their stacks would kill online games too.

My concern with national characteristics, such as the poor morale of the Italians, is whether the good Italian units will be tarred with the same brush as the rest. A friend of mine who was in the Desert Rats agrees that the Italians were generally pretty poor, but he has also told me that if they knew that they were going up against the Bersaglieri then their hearts would sink. Some of the Italian armoured and paratroop units were also rated highly, even by some Germans.