SeaMonkey

Very interesting...I like it, not that it makes any difference to HC, but wouldn't this make for an opportunistic use of diplomatic chits. The diplomatic rangling for the spoils of France based on some randomness and defined by the choices laid out by Edwin and JJ would add a very interesting flavor to the SC2 diplomatic model. I'm not sure, but with the many options presented by Edwin and Co. in previous posts would lead one to believe that the SC2 diplomatic model could be a precedent setting feature for PC WW2 wargames. Does anyone know of another of WW2 genre that had an extensive diplomatic model? Perhaps there are lessons of the "do's and dont's" in those previous installments. One other concern is the decision making ability of the AI when confronted with the many diplomatic options and use of chits.

Fubarno, You are absolutely right, but forget the demo part. After DD and Bill and Co. have verified that the game mechanics work, it is time to release to the community.....the conditioned community, that's us. We will play the game...in essence a beta test to balance the scenarios and we will pay the retail price. Nowhere can a developer get better feedback than from his/her/they're forum fan base, its just the facts. To me, this is a foregone conclusion, as SC2 is a much more complicated entity than the original, especially with this editor, it will need much tweaking to get the balance of "Rock-Paper-Scissors" effect. I know....I know...the age old argument of the reputation of the developer-publisher risking a tarnished image over an unfinished product......tsk tsk ..perish the thought....tell us it is the demo, tell us precious little lies...who cares!! The facts are the facts, the fans are far better testers than a gathering of angels...we will reveal the unrevealable, we will scrutinize the play variables, the gambits, the idoisyncracies.....we are simply......the omnipotent critics.....because we care.....almost as much as you, Hubert...almost.

Based on the practical solutions exhibited in SC1, I'm going to venture a statement that a combination of air, sea and amphibious assault, if successful, will cause the occupying unit to retreat. Isn't that the way it occurred in real life? Oh! And one other possibility....those devils in baggy pants may drop in on you also.

There will be retreats in SC2.

Ohhh, Ok I got it Edwin, you want to be able to passively direct your Allied AI partner. Good suggestion, but heck, just take control of your Allied counterpart, doesn't take that long to play an SC turn. Hmmm, well it used to not, may be different with SC2, we are going to have much more depth. Perhaps the scripting feature could handle this request.

Wait a minute....let me get this straight. You want to be able to tell the AI what kind of strategy to embark upon and then you want to play against something you can anticipate by your decision? Shouldn't there be a bit of randomization here? Edwin, I believe you asked for a certain randomization of AI strategies awhile back, "nes Pas"? The AI will be lame enough without knowing what general direction its going to take and we know it will be repetitive with its moves once the strategy category is chosen. IMO, this is a waste of HC's time and will be for us scenario designers to explore. That's why we'll get a great editor with scripting.

Come on Jon, your telling me after the experience that SC1 blessed you with, you'd seriously consider not purchasing SC2......Blasphemy!!! I say burn Jon at the stake!......Oh.. alright I'll chill...ok Jon if it means a further delay for the coding of the Demo, are you absolutely sure of this position? Heck I'll buy you the game myself, I mean think of how cheap SC1 was...you should have paid twice as much. Is there anyone here that thinks they didn't get a good gaming value with SC1?

Turkey is indeed a perfect scenario for the use of SC2 diplomatic chips...as was the case in WW2. Turkey was severely challenged by both sides, signing a Treaty of Friendship with its historical rival, Russia, in 1935. Later, in May 1939 Turkey entered into a joint declaration with the UK to aid one another in the event of a Mediterranean war, both being leary of Italy's Balkan designs. France also courted Turkey's friendship with a similar resolution and transfered the disputed province of Alexandretta from Syria to Turkey sovereignty. Imagine Turkey's horror when the Nazi-Soviet Pact was signed...ouch! Followed by a period a grave danger when the Axis entered into the Balkans after France's collapse and the ensuing impotence of the UK. Finally the diplomatic shuffle ended when, with the UK's blessing, Turkey signed the Treaty of Territorial Integrity and Friendship with Germany in June of 1941 just before the beginning of Barbarossa. Now imagine if SC2 gives us the ability to duplicate this kind of diplomatic rambling, we will truly have the "Strategic Game of Games" simulating WW2 in Europe.

Kind of like this idea, but needs some expansion using the cadre accumulation system. Let's say an experienced(at least one medal) unit is destroyed. We know that not all the combat personnel from that unit were killed, so allow a certain number(subject to some randomization) of "elite" replacements to enter your build/reinforcement cadre of that type of combat unit, ie naval, air, or ground. Then when building a new unit, the player can select a certain number of "elite" replacements from this cadre to build the unit, the starting experience in ratio to the amount of "elite" replacements selected. This would also allow for a newly built unit to be overstrength subject to a maximum of say 12. Example: Say a player has 8 elite replacement points in his "ground" unit cadre and he wants to build a Panzer Corps with some tech upgrades. First he chooses the unit with the level of upgrades he wishes and pays the appropriate MPP cost. Now being 12 the max strength of that unit he decides to use 5 elite replacement points to allocate to the unit personnel and his new Panzer Corps starts out with 5/12 = 42% experienced, not quite 2 medals, so it starts at strength 11. Simple decision for us.....but what about the coding...might be a bit complicated. Are you willing to wait an additional month for SC2? [ April 24, 2005, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

Whewww We!!!! you guys(ole timers) sure are protective of HC's ego.......as it should be, but not necessary, HC is focused...he knows his calling. Your right vveed, WaW is not in the SC league, not in the least, but WaW does have a decent Pacific theater. It has a good rock-paper-scissors theme and good PBEM(team) dynamics and it will fill the bill until SC2 arrives....I am playin it. And see....I don't need no updates on SC2, cause I know the team is hard at it and it has a complicated foundation, what with us wanting the do everything editor and Edwin asking for a "to die for" AI......it ain't coming soon...but the wait will be worth it. So take a "chill" pill everyone and lets crank up some WaW team PBEMs and post our inspired ideas for HC to incorporate into SC2.....and wait some more.

KZ, yes there is a link to tech level of rockets that allows them to be included in the Siberian mix. Many times I have made custom scenarios with rocket tech at level 3 for USSR (simulated artillery) and when the transfer occurs there always seems to be one unit perhaps two in the mix. Of course HC could confirm this.

I kind of like the idea of designating cities and ports for builds of naval/air/ground units. This would limit your builds to certain areas that have greater than 8 MPP value, or some other mechanism to associate local resources/manpower to unit creation. It would also be nice to create a supply system, optional of course and a very simple abstraction. It could be related to the MPP accumulated each turn if "Supply"/"No Supply" is selected on the game options screen. Depending on the amount of action points and/or attacks the unit uses the appropriate amount of supplies are expended. Now we would have a third item of strategy to think about instead of 2 as MPPs are related to builds/reinforcements and research investments.

Okay all, this is my reasoning: If a device has the ability to accomplish some action/deed then it should be allowed the possibility of that use. Makes no difference of the historical frequency, remember SC2 is a "what if" also. Besides, let's examine the historical frequency. I reiterate what has been posted so far. How many CVs, BBs, CA/CLs, DDs, SSs, were sunk by WW2 submarines, taken the individual classes. Examine other weapons platforms' engagement frequency versus naval units. In SC1 ground units can engage naval units in port. How often did that happen? How many BBs/CAs/DDs sunk Carriers, should they be disallowed the ability? Look, combat on the high seas was pretty chancy at best in the context of WW2 technology. Remember I have always been a proponent of the possibility of two belligerents missing the opportunity of engagement when occupying/traveling through a SC sea hex/tile. Really now, is this such a far fetched notion that Subs should be allowed the ability to engage each other?

JJ is completely correct, WW2 subs were little more than low silhouette boats that could submerge for short periods, easily spotted by aircraft. As far as sub vs sub combat...it actually happened but mostly by accident, and should be allowed in SC2. By 1944 US subs had sunk a total of 7 IJN subs, in fact the first warship sunk by a US sub was the IJN I-173.....Jan. 27, 1942. And yes JJ, it was the Indianapolis. That was the one with the massive shark attack, when the sailors were in the water for something like 4 days.

Colonel, This was already discussed and the consensus was it was not to be. Since you will be able to use the editor to set commander names and ratings, you should be able to create your own commander and delegate a number of combat forces to his formation.

For me, I consider the Tank Group as a Panzer Corps, a grouping of 2 to 4 motorized/mechanized infantry and armored divisions. Now with the new SC2 editor, I can invision unit sizes at whatever scale you wish, but probably down to the Battalion size is about the lowest for the operational mechanics of SC.

Ditto that fischkopf. I to am into WaW presently. Once I got my PC to run it, way underpowered, what a ram hog. Its OK so far, but not anything like what my first impression with SC was. So it will take up some time until SC2 is ready and then, most likely will get shelved. Above all, Hubert take your time for SC is truly a gem, don't cut it or reshape it too much, just some polish and of course the new setting.

The UK and USA AI never builds enough Airfleets, usually concentrating on Armies and Corps for DDay.

Good ideas Edwin and I'm in agreement about the capitals, in addition I would like to see a port also. However there could be another direction to consider to reduce the incentives for attacking neutrals, like reducing the plunder algorithm. Possibly another consideration is to represent a reduced trade (MPP transfer) mechanism between adjacent neutrals to major countries. Example: Ireland with a port and a capital has trade with the UK based on a 20% multiplier to the Irish overall MPP worth, say 40 MPPs = 8 MPP per turn to UK coffers. If the UK invades not only is the total MPP worth of Ireland reduced by at least 50% subject to a randomizing factor, but also the trade multiplier(also subject to randomizer) could be reduced to say 5% = 1 MPP per turn to UK. This trade algorithm could be subjected to certain randomizing factors like diplomatic chits invested in Ireland(propaganda campaign)or MPPs to represent an investment to improve the infrastructure that would slowly increase the MPP worth of Ireland to the Allied cause, post or pre-invasion status.

Your welcome SB, Actually I had a lot of fun making this one and since the feedback was so good I have embarked upon my last SC1 custom, "No Peace in Our Time". It pits the human player against the Allied AI and has proven very tough to balance...like no chance for the Axis, but it goes the length of the SC timetable. I just need to make sure there is a remote possibility the human Axis player can eek out a victory somehow, which I'm not convinced of...yet. As always there will be an historical context for this "what if", the idea coming from the 2 volume set of "Hitler's War". Unfortunately with GG's World at War coming out at the end of the month, future digestions of this SC engine are off the periscope. But it is just a diversion until SC2 comes out as I'm sure it will be the definitive grand strategic WW2 wargame for a long time to come.

Agent, I'll have to catch you in the AM...I'm in the Lab tonight...all alone with test tubes...Oh! Oh!Oh!..Oh! After I've sent out about 40 emails of this campaign, your SC brethren have only posted about 5 winners, must have been too tough. They think this one's tough, wait until I'm finished with the new one against the Allied AI, currently in testing.

Both, for infantry only.

Yes, and Sombra think how much extra fuel they burn flying all that extra distance......see about the supply factor(especially oil).

Ditto that, Les. HC take your time and make SC2 the one for the ages. Get that Intelligence/Espionage feature down = 3 months. Now don't forget that simple yet sophisticated supply model, + 3 months. A few more user friendly suggestions for the AI...ala Edwin, OK another 3 months. Let's see, that's about 9 months....Christmas...right on schedule.

Edwin, think of Patton in his true historical context. At the end of the war the 3rd Army had V, XII, XX, and III Corps, with two attached reserves of the 4th and 70th Infantry divisions. Couldn't you stretch your imagination to think of that as 5 corps. Now I do agree that Patton was not an army group commander as he is depicted in SC1 and so in lies your perception of him not commanding 5 armies, which is correct. Heck, I think the USA only had 5 armies on the whole European continent at the end of April 45. What I would like to see is a more accurate representation of supply in SC2, using MPPs to purchase offensive logistical "Dumps", for lack of a better word. Perhaps automatically moving from their resource origin to the highest HQ, say SHAEF, for an example and then to the Army Group HQs and finally to the Army HQ, each SC turn, as long as there is an unbroken friendly tile link. The HQ receiving the supplies would slowly raise their "Rating" as the "Dumps" accumulate to actually allow an enhanced combat effectiveness to the units under its control. The owning player designates with a right click on the HQ and the subsequent HQ menu allows the distribution of the "Dumps" to the next lower HQ and finally the units receive an automatic distribution dependent upon how close they are to the distributing HQ. Now I know this is kind of a rough structure in need of fine tuning, but it is ludicrous to see so many unrestrained offensive operations happening all over the SC map every turn. That's not what happened in WW2.