Hubert Cater

Sure if you as the active ally declare war on the USSR before it becomes fully active as an allied combatant. Same for Germany wrt Italy.

Ummm... feel free to ignore the last post I would like to think that SC2 is suitable by all skill levels as it is very easy to get into and play, but with considerable depth once you become more familiar with the game mechanics and options available. I'm not sure just yet if there will be a tutorial, but definitly a quick start guide. For a rough idea on gameplay please take a look at the SC1 demo (SC2's predecessor) as it should give you an idea of what to expect: http://www.battlefront.com/products/stratcom/download.html

Currently, each minor can have a major parent set... so in this example Greece would most likely be set with the UK as its Allied parent while Germany would be its default Axis parent. So in most cases it would not make much sense for the USSR to expend diplomacy chits on Greece unless it just wanted to help the UK accelerate Greece's join percentage. Now off hand I'm not sure how this could be useful, but with the current system it is possible (although additional changes/limitations might be applied) and depending on what associated scripts come with the campaign it could very well be (in some situations) desirable.

Will plunder remain essentially the same as it was in SC1 Currently, plunder will be based on the number of remaining units and total number of resources for a surrendering country. Idea here is to give you the choice whereby you can anihilate your enemy for possibly reduced plunder but greater unit experience and quick surrender, or try and keep them intact at the risk of delayed surrender but greater plunder. Formula will look something like this: - resource plunder = 50% of full strength of all associated resources for 'surrendering_country_id' - unit plunder = 20% based on current unit_cost // 10 * strength (remaining land units only) Then this value can be multiplied by a random percentage like 150-250% to create some variance

Will Axis victory require conquest of Norway and Sweden as it seems to in SC1 Perhaps, but probably less likely due to the increase in *cause and effect* devices implemented so far. For starters, with the current convoy system there is a new relationship possible between minors and majors/parents. For example, if we have a Sweden -> Germany convoy script, any invasion of Sweden will not increase the flow of MPP between Sweden and Germany, rather you could consider it a situation where Germany is simply securing access to Swedish Iron Ore, BUT, at the same level of MPP... i.e., no net increase. So while you might gain strategic positioning, some experience for your troops, and some plunder, there is no increase in MPP since you are already receiving full value from the existing convoy. Other downsides to invading are of course negative diplomatic results like an increase in US and/or USSR readiness (same as in SC1). Now, why invade at all then? Well, since each script can have various triggers associated with them and since convoy scripts are no exception, you could have a situation where a convoy to Germany for Sweden will only occur under favourable conditions. For example, we could have a trigger where Sweden will only transfer MPP to Germany via convoy only if Sweden is leaning Axis and >= 30% join percentage. Do something as Germany that upsets Sweden and lowers it's join percentage... well then you might have a reason to invade to secure those precious convoy MPPs. Also some of the bugs in SC1 such as invisible land bridges no longer exist so don't expect an Axis invaded Sweden to go up to 80% resource efficiency this time around

Expect a few changes here

Hehe... nice

Good points here Waltero and the good news is much of this has been addressed

There is some possible linkage between scripts but most likely not this specific in nature... it will become more apparent once the game/demo is available... but general popups will be a standard script

Not sure what to say just yet about beaches but bridges are somewhat modelled as it was in SC1. For example it will cost you an extra AP to cross any uncontrolled river tile but of course once you control that tile that penalty is lifted...

Correct, scorched earth can essentially be set for any country via a flag in the editor

Just giving you guys a hard time At the moment, and although these are all great ideas, it's not likely to change for now. Perhaps after release with additional enhancements (based on feedback such as this) but unfortunately there is still too much to focus on without worrying about going back and changing *decently* functional items.

Sorry... set in stone

I would answer this question as responsibly as possible but why ruin a potential suprise?

Perhaps this might be an option in SC2, but offhand it is a little more interactive this time around with the option to perform Elite Reinforcement etc., but something to think about for sure

As it stands right now, air or naval bombardment... same as in SC1.

You would have to destroy that unit first

This is true and my hat is also off to Excel for his excellent analysis, yet there are still the cases where, despite the highlighting features of SC and newly incorporated ones of SC2, you might be interested in what you and your enemy will be capable of in the next turns etc., like can his or your units reach a certain tile and so on. So, like I've mentioned, besides game engine mechanics this was of some concern as well. Hubert

Hmmm... to each his own I guess, it was just felt that with a 1-per tile system there would be no need to actually estimate as you can count out the distances accurately (and in mind a little more easily) including ZOC penalties. For example, how far does my Air Fleet intercept range cover, can that tank reach Warsaw in the next turn? etc. Sure you can do it with a 3-2 per tile system but it initially seemed more involved. Keep in mind this was not a philosophical design decision or a choice that I believe to be superior in all cases, rather just the one I went with that I felt was best suited for this type of game Wasn't the navy always instructed in the advantages of moving in a zig zag versus a straight line?

Agreed a circle would be nice but after some considerable gameplay and testing and trying to balance out the benefits of a 3/2 (or pythagorean) system versus the added complications wrt ZOC rules, movement rules, quick surveys of the map I'll just reiterate what Bill and Dave have mentioned so far that the simplier 1 per tile really was the better choice. Believe me we did fiddle around with it and while there is some give and take with each system, once you are in game and playing and moving units around the chances are you'll forget that your units are not moving in a perfect circle and/or really care for that matter... and of course once the demo is available you will be able to judge for yourself. [ February 23, 2005, 08:39 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

Oops... looks like I made a small mistake and I've edited my original response, thanks. Hubert

I have and here is an excerpt from my original reasoning in the beta forums: I've gone with simply having each tile cost 1 action point regardless of direction. I did experiment with using pythagorean distances for diagonal movement but I felt that the complication far out weighed any of the accuracy benefits. For example it is much more difficult to determine distances when just eyeballing the map. Here is a sample of an HQ with 3 action points using pythagorean distances for diagonal movement: Edit: I originally cut and paste the wrong post and picture [ February 20, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

Good points all around but at the moment there are no still plans for stacking

Officially this is still undecided, but if a script were created to this effect, then yes.

Not yet...