Timskorn

Awesome, looking forward to parachuting them into Berlin.

Haha, c'mon now, you guys start dragging me into all these MP games I won't have time to mod!! I don't back away from a challenge, so if you want a game send it my way. Just can't guarantee how fast it'll unfold...

Cool did you do those 3D icons? Or pull them from somewhere else? I agree they are much more appealing to the eye than 2d icons.

Sweet! I love a challenge, even if I don't stand a chance. PBEM good for you? I work too much right now to have time for TCP/IP, should have more time after next week though. I'm working 12 hour days and weekends, until after next Wed. even my PBEM time will be limited. No mods though, vanilla 1939. If you're okay with a slow start, go ahead and send the first turn, or we can figure it out next week. Timskorn@aol.com "It's never necessary to tell me that you think I'm right. We'll just... assume it." - Lt. Col. Gordon Tall, The Thin Red Line.

Haha, sorry...not my words. I'm living proof single player people have friends, I have one or two.

You count JJR. And so do the 180 people who downloaded my AI mod because they have no friends. The fact is, AI is important. No game ships without one and for good reason, even if it is bad. A lot of games now are also shipping with editors which are primarily used to create single-player experiences. Mods and scenarios can give years of extended life to a game, even after the MP community has gone off to other endeavors. DD: Thanks, and yeah HC has some sweet additions to the editor for the next patch. It's not really tedious though, I enjoy it as much as playing the game. Twisted, I know...

JJR: Luckily for the rest of us HC isn't making his decisions based on what's good for you or the minor multiplayer community in general. Unless the cash you paid for the game happens to be lined with gold and socketed with gems, everyone else has as equal say as you for being a "paying customer and consumer". The AI doesn't need to be on your level to be competitive to the single player audience, it just needs to be tough enough to be enjoyable for them. I've worked in the game industry for the past 4 years...the majority of buyers prefer single player against the AI. And I'm telling you, HC comes out with SC3 and no AI, that'll be the last game he makes.

Wasting his time fixing it? If there was no singleplayer there wouldn't even be an SC2. I know I wouldn't have bothered to buy it. Embrace the AI JJR, it funds your existence here.

Lars: Yep, can definitely add a production script based on which cities are still friendly. Good idea.

There's also 2 kinds of AI's that will be available over time. For most players they want a 1939 campaign that plays out very close to history (Ie, they want to see D-Day in July 1944, Operation Torch, Axis invasion of Denmark, etc) and an AI that gives them a difficult challenge. The other type of AI will be entirely based around competitive gaming. Historic events won't be as important as the AI doing things in a way to efficiently beat you. This'll be for those who don't play MP but don't mind an ahistorical game if it means the AI might completely thrash them in a way they didn't expect. From the sound of it HC is fixing some non-script stuff that'll make the current AI much more competent. Just the simple fix of having the AI properly upgrade their units, or buy units upgraded, can have a huge effect on difficulty level.

My moral compass agrees that bombings of such magnitude in Japan were horrific, and no matter what kind of war you're in that kind of destruction of civilian life can never be justified. On the flip side, I didn't live through that time. The world had been embroiled in a war the likes of which had never been seen, and for 6 long years. Dozens of millions of people had died and the future of the world had balanced on a thin wire. In that light I could never judge (nor should we judge anyway) the people involved in the atomic bombings of Japan. Back on topic anyone? Personally I'd like to hear from some of the multiplayer guys what they're opinion is of Allied air superiority and bombing of German targets in France/Western Germany. Is it worth it? Is it a viable tactic in most cases? Or is money better spent gearing up for an early D-Day?

Would be nice, I know there has been situations where that would've been useful. Not a huge priority though, maybe a future patch...

Awesome.

1. Not sure. 2. I wouldn't worry about it being "unplayably large". In my opinion, in order to do a world map properly it's going to have to be big. Ideally you'd want the current european theater to remain at its current size, and expand from there. If it's "unplayably large" simply because most computers couldn't handle that big of a map size, then that's a different issue. 3. Personally I don't care for map work. I'd rather have a map in place and then I'd script over it, add simple stuff like resources/cities, etc. I think having a standard world map available will allow a lot of different people to use it for lots of different mods, not just a grand-scale WW2 game. If I ever have the time and a map like that was available, it'd save me a lot of time working on a grand-scale WW2 game anyway.

Lars/DD: Yep, it was 'fighter' happy, even though the % were skewed towards bombers, just happened to get more rolls for fighters in my first playthrough. Bottom line though, is the Allies having enough airpower over France to put a dent in German MPP's and also make the German player think twice about sending units out from cover. Also force them to invest in AA tech or purchase/redeploy their fighters to France. I also agree that the brunt of the work SHOULD be done by land units, Patton-style, but until the 1st patch is released the AI needs all the help it can get! And it's not totally unrealistic that German units were thrashed from the air during and after D-Day. The Battle of the Bulge was partly successful in the beginning for the Germans due to the inability of Allied air to sortie against them. Had their been enough clear skies it's possible the "Battlin' Bastards of Bastogne" may have never had the chance to receive their moniker. It's apparent however, that air dominance over France is necessary for the allies, one way or the other.

None recently anyway. May be worth bringing up. I agree though, a Corp/Army should possibly have the advantage of entrenching more than an armor unit can in a city.

In light of this conversation I decided to go into the scripts of my mod and tweak the US to favor early air production to achieve 'dominance' over France by 1943 unless the German player diverts their airforce. It's April 1943 and the US now has 5 Fighers and 1 Bomber in France, along with the UK's Fighter and Bomber. The net result has been the complete shutdown of Axis operations in France. I had a Corp. in Brest for awhile, but I was reinforcing it with 33+ MPP's a turn due to the damage it was taking from the air. Once the unit was gone, the AI focused on hitting strategic targets. I'm bogged down outside Stalingrad and I've bought 2 AF, 2 Corp, 1 Army and an HQ to sit around the Siegfried line. A British Army has landed in Brest, but if I poke my head out to take it back my units will take a beating from the air. In comparison to my other games, I've realized this is an absolutely necessary strategy for the Allied AI. A human player would probably be able to achieve similar results, with the Axis player unable to compete with the amount of air units fielded by the Allies unless they were all taken off the Eastern front. I'm awaiting D-Day, which I imagine will be far more successful with the historically correct Allied air superiority over the landing areas. A US Torch landing does put early pressure on the Axis, but it seems better to focus on an "Air Power" research and production as the US to shut down operations and production in France/Western Germany.

5 Production tech would be a cumulative 25% decrease in unit production, correct? So a Corp would cost 75 instead of 100, allowing you to buy 1 extra Corp. for every 4 purchased. For the most part I only invest in IT over production at first. IT helps you every turn and the MPPs can be used across the board (production, research, upgrades, reinforcements, etc) while production only helps you at the time of purchase. Granted, even at level 2 you can save 30 MPP's buying Armor, or 75 at level 5, but IT typically gives you that back as well and on a more frequent basis. As Germany, I find that I build most of my military up in the beginning and use most of my MPP's for reinforcing and upgrading. It just doesn't make sense to drop 5 chits into production at that point. For other country's...maybe, but if I were to choose between IT 5 or production 5, I'd always choose IT.

Looks good Kuni! Yep, platesting is the long and difficult part. Maybe start a thread in the design forum for testers when you're ready? Always good to get early feedback once you've played through your own scenario a 100 times.

I agree Youri. This is individual unit AI though, which only HC has control over. I've noticed this too, when Russian units are behind a river during the winter AND outnumbered (or outgunned), they'll still attack piecemeal over the river at whatever unit is there when they should just sit tight and let the attacker suffer the attacking penalties.

Well, we're given the option of still doing a D-Day in bad weather, but that's a risk you choose to make. I don't think anyone would like to be forced not to do an operation because of a month of bad weather. If they want to slog through France in the mud, that's their issue.

Karhu: Thanks a lot for the feedback! Yep, one of the bigger known issues that HC should be addressing in the 1st patch is the AI's slow upgrading of their units, and their inability to buy upgraded units. The longer enemy units sit, the better chances are the AI will upgrade them, but the AI won't purchase upgraded units or upgrade units more than 1 upgrade at a time. Also, for the next version of this I've decided to take out the US landing at Algiers until the 1st patch as it's entirely ineffective right now. I've also beefed up the Russian defensive lines so now there are hardly any units near Riga/Minsk at the outbreak of Barbarossa. Once HC releases the 1st patch, not only will his AI probably be better than what I could do, but us scripters will have better tools available to make the AI be able to knock most casual players into next week.

This would be helpful, unless HC is doing something 'behind the scenes' so when the AI looks for a unit to garrison in a city, for example, they choose one of their best available. At the very least though, yeah, it'd be nice to make sure the AI had good units in high-value positions like cities. This alone could have very large effects on the difficulty of the game. Imagine trying to take Moscow or Stalingrad with a level 3 Russian tank fully entrenched in it, instead of that fresh Corp. they just bought.

Sweet, I'm liking the sound of this collaboration!

HC, thanks for the update! Can't wait to start editing with the new fixes. I'll probably start fresh with the AI mod depending on the amount of scripting you've done for it already. May not have left much work for me to do. Lars: Yep, for the Allied AI to give an Axis player a good challenge, it all hinges on Russia so I'm glad to hear they're giving people a better challenge.