Edwin P.

JerseyJohn Thanks for the tip on giving the Scandianvian countries to the Axis. I also find that the AI, in its current incarnation, does not concentrate airpower to support its land offensive. Example 1: Early in the game I landed 2 corps and a HQ in Bari and the AI only sent 1 German Air to Italy to support its land assaults. I held them off until Russia reached Berlin. If the AI had sent 3 air units to Italy, My corps holding Bari would have quickly fallen. ----------------------- Hopefully, the next version of SC will include a scriptwriter so that players can write and exchange their own AI rountines. I would surely like to see the strategies covered in the AAR implemented in the AI (ie Corps defense of France, Teriff's UK research strategy, German troops landing behind Russian lines, etc) --------------------------- Tigleth When playing the AI recently with FOW on, I withdrew all my Russian Units to the Caucaus mountains, and then staged a comback after the Germans seized all other Russian Cities north of Rostov and Stalingrad. With the big Axis MPP advantage is was an interesting game. [ May 31, 2003, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

HvH - In HvH play I find SC to be a fairly balanced game and exciting game, where both sides have an equal chance to win. Although, I have read many posts complains about air power I have not found it to be an unbalancing aspect. About the only two major changes I would make is to do something that would require the Axis to garrison Russia after conquering it, and to make sure that the Siberian transfer is covered by FOW. Perhaps even giving the Russian player a choice as to whether the units from the Siberian transfer will appear in the area of the Urals or Stalingrad. HvAI - In play against the AI I find the AI routines to be fairly predicatable after a number of games, but due to my travel Schedule I play against the AI quite often. This can only be improved by supporting the AI's fuzzy logic with a library of additional strategies. Example: Allies - Attack Ireland on turn 1 or 2 with 2 Carriers, Battleship and 1 Corps (40% at Beginner, 100% Expert) or Axis attack Denmark on turn 1 (40% Beginner, 100% Expert). In playing against the Axis AI, I noticed that the Axis is not as aggressive as many human players. This causes it to enter into a war against Russia with a much lower production base as the AI does not will never attack Norway or Sweden and rarely attacks Vichy France or Spain or Greece. In playing against the Allied AI I find that it is too aggressive too soon and does not adequately invest in technology. Nor does it attempt to conquer Iraq and/or Ireland, both sources of valuable plunder for a human player. [ May 31, 2003, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Bug Report French Units in Canada, disband upon the surrender of France. This is counter to what the manual says. ------------------- PS: In this patch the AI seems to be less likely to attack Denmark (and other minor countries). PS: Hoping for post surrender partisans for Spain / Turkey / Russia, reclaim research chits AI routines for all major powers, occasional UK invasion of Ireland (for plunder & experience) and increased chance of Germany attacking Denmark, Greece, Vichy and Spain in 1939 Scenario. [ June 04, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Immer Etwas You can turn the Free French Units off in the setup options screen. I like your idea of giving Spain a Franco HQ unit. JerseyJohn and several others have suggested this in the past. If Spain felt itself threatened it would have mobilized a HQ unit to supply its troops in the field and perhaps another corps. I would reflect this by saying that if Vichy France is conquered there is a percentage chance for a Spanish HQ (75% - Franco Lvl4) and one corps (40%) or two corps (5%) appearing when Spain enters the war. IF VICHY FRANCE CONQUERED then: 75% Spanish HQ is mobilized 40% One corps is mobilized 5% Second Corps is mobilized I would have the corps appear on in the mountains on the French border (40%), in the mountains north of Madrid (Hex 18,24) (30%) or in the mountains next to Valencia (30%). This would throw a monkey wrench in the carefully laid plans of the Axis invaders. The Axis might be dissuaded from always attacking Spain if there was a chance for post surrender Spanish partisans (aka Yugoslavia Partisans) as this would force them to garrison the cities of Spain. [ May 31, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Thnaks for the tip, I will have to see what the effect of a HQ is in Spain. As for my stratgy, if the Germans attack from France and Italians launch a joint invasion from the coast I don't bother to send the Spain any assitance. If the only Axis attack comes from land then it becomes more tricky. Occassionaly I might have 3 carriers and 2 battleships waiting off the West coast of the Iberian penininsula to bombard the Germans, that is until they operate their air units down to Spain, at which point I withdraw and I might have a corps waiting offshore. Generally, I find the more forces I can force Germany to allocate to Spain the more MPP he has to use to Operate back to the Eastern Front. Also, as was pointed out, it can leave them exposed elsewhere, at the cost of a corps or two. (about 125 to 250MPP). My worst experience was when the Axis made a 3 way invasion of Spain and Portugal - Germans from the West and North and Italians from the East. Spain fell in 3 turns and then the Italian Navy entered the Atlantic and cleared the way for an early invasion of Canada, which triggered an early US entry into the war, but the Italian navy had blockaded the Eastern Seaboard of the US! [ May 31, 2003, 01:38 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Zappsweden Most interesting comments on Sea-Lion. By late Sea-Lion do you mean after the Axis has conquered France, Low Countries, Denmark, Norway and Sweden? and possibly Vichy France and Spain?

Question: What amount of effort should the Allies spend in defending Spain against an Axis invasion? Ie is it worthwhile to station a few Allied units off the shore of Spain and operate in Air units to support the Spanish resistance? or should the Allies let Spain fall without any assistance and aim to liberate it later? and if so, before or after the Liberation of France? The main problem that I experience in coming to the aid of Spain is that their is only one exit port for Allied land units - Gibraltar and that exit port can only accept one unit at a time.

Most interesting, thanks for the AAR

Reading the AAR's in respect to preparing for D-Day I thought that they both presented good strategies for D-Day. 1. Invest in Long Range Air and Jets 2. Move your air fleets out of Interception range until you are ready to launch D-Day, so you can spend your MPPs on buying new units and not repairing damaged units. 3. Preserve your carriers until D-Day 4. Invade with concentrated air cover. 5. Invade on a Wide Front with USA and Allied troops at the same time. 6. Save some of your French Forces by sending them to the UK. If the Allied AI was adjusted to follow these principles its D-Day invasions would be more of a challenage to the Axis player. Expecially important for the Allied AI, is investing at least 2 chits in Long Range and 1 chit in Jets early in the game. Financing this requires the allies to play a defensive game and conquer Ireland early in the game while reinforcing the carriers as new techs are discovered. The focus on technological advancement could vastly change the dynamics of a game vs the Allied AI if the AI could preserve its carriers for the final battle. [ May 30, 2003, 02:21 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

This thread got me thinking about the effect of Canada. So I moved 3 French units to Canada and 4 fleets to its shores. Test 1: All 3 French Units vanished when Paris fell to the Germans. All 4 French Fleets Survived. Test 2: 2 of 4 French Fleets survived The naval results are probably due to chance, but heck, if the French army units made it all the way to Canada shouldn't they become Free French too or at least have a 25% to 50% of becoming Free French if in Canada when Paris Falls. [ May 28, 2003, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Shaka, I like the concept of National Will. Elaborating on it a bit more, I think that national will also depend on who you are fighting, your government and your culture. Japan, Russia, UK and Germany had stronger national will due to the nature of their government and the perceived threat. Italy and France had lower national will due to the pacifist nature of the populace. Futhermore, Germany had a stronger National Will vs the Russians than the Allies. Thus they would have kept fighting longer in the face of Russian invaders than Allied troops. In a lot of ways SC accurately portrays this. France and Italy are most likely to surrender after their capital falls. Russia and the UK will move their capital. Germany will often keep fighting for a few turns after Berlin falls. There are cases though in which this could be improved; 1. In the case of the UK I believe that even after the home islands fell that the British Navy might have continued the fight based out of Canada. Perhaps there should be a chance for a Free Brits option based on the strength of the British Navy at the time of surrender. Say, if their are 10 British Ships the Chance for the Free Brits option is 90%, if there are only 3 UK ships afloat the chance for the Free Brits option is 30%. 2. Realistically, I think that after the surrender of Moscow that Russian partisans would have continued to launch actions against the occupiers; especially, if they received support from abroad or if Russian forces in the East continued to resist. Perhaps the Russians should have the option to invest in their post surrender resistance. This would increase the chance of post surrender resistance and would represent the stockpiling of arms and ammunition for a guerilla war. 3. Perhaps, you could have a counter that represents the leadership of the country. This unit would always be covered by FOW unless an enemy unit moved into its square. If this unit was destroyed then national will would drop. If this unit survived, say for example, Churchhill and the Royal Family fleeing to Canada via a transport or Stalin Fleeing to Siberia, the chance for post surrender resistance would increase. 4. RE: Siberia Perhaps their should be an off-map Siberian holding area with production of 50MPP per turn. This MPP could only be used to reinforce or produce new units in the Siberian holding area after Russian surrenders. The Russian player could move units to this area. The number of units in this area would affect the chance for post surrender Russian resistance. (ie 1 to 3 Units in Siberia = 0% chance for resistance, 3 to 4 units = 10%, 10+ Units in Siberia = 100% for post surrender resistance). If there was post surrender Russian resistance these units could move back into Russia at any time either along the north, middle, or southern range of hexes along the Eastern map border. The German player would not know if there was post surrender Russian resistance until Russian partisans appeared. Perhaps, the Russian player could decide to delay the initial appearance of partisans for 1 to 10 turns if their was resistance. The Germans would also not know how many units the Russians have transferred into the Siberian Holding Area.

Dan I like your suggestion linking the number of hexes a sub moves to the spotting range of opponent aircraft and ships. Excellent Idea! Essentially if a sub moves more than two hexes the opponent's naval/air spotting range is normal. If a sub moves 2 hexes or less then the sub can only be spotted by units that attempt to move into the hex occuppied by the sub. This would allow the sub to evade enemy air power at a cost of 2/3 reduction in speed (ie instead of 3 turns, 9 turns to naviage the channel). Thus German ships can safely navigate the channel or the area around the north of England if they were prepared to stay submerged. Re: Battleships can't attack subs Another interesting idea. Perhaps you would want to add a SA (Sub Attack Rating). Battle Cruisers would have a Higher Sub Attack rating as compared to Battleships but Battleships would have a higher Surface Naval Attack rating as compared to Cruisers. This would also allow the construction of cheaper dedicated ASW Air Units which would have a higher Sub Attack rating than normal Air Fleets or Bomber Fleets but a lower Naval attack strength. Battleship - Naval Attack 4, Sub Attack 2,ND 3 Cruiser - Naval Attack 3, Sub Attack 3, ND 2 Carrier - Naval Attack 5, Sub Attack 5, ND 5 Sub - Naval Attack 5, Sub Attack 5, ND 0 Air Fleet - Naval Attack 4, Sub Attack 3 - 400MPP ASW Fleet - Naval Attack 1, Sub Attack 3 - 200MPP [ May 27, 2003, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC the Germans often follow a strategy of surrounding the Russian capital but not taking it. Thus, although the Russian player can reinforce units outside of the capital, he can't build any new ones. Often times you will see that you have over 1000MPP in the bank but can't spend it. In reality the Russians would have moved their capital before it was surrounded, instead of awaiting its fall. I propose that: Option 1: The Russians can voluntarily move their capital from Moscow to Sverdlovsk at a cost of 400MPP. They can voluntarily move it again to Stalingrad at a further cost of another 400MPP. This change allows the Russian player to counter a key German strategy while also giving him strategic flexibility. He can move the capital and suffer a loss of 400MPP or decide to defend the capital. Option 2: Another option might be to double the construction costs of units built outside of a surrounded capital where the unit can trace a supply line to an alternate capital city hex such as Sverdlovsk, Stalingrad or Manchester. Thus a corps would cost as much as an army to build. Option 3: Or you could say that Russia can always build units in the hex of Stalingrad or Sverdlovsk, even if Moscow is surrounded. Thus the Russians could build new units, but at most only 2 per turn and only if that hex was not occupied by another unit. Of the three options, I would vote for option 3. Its simple and logical. [ May 27, 2003, 01:33 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

A lot of good ideas have been floated here on this forum. Here's a chance to list 3 "simple" changes you would make in the next patch if you were the designer. My list would include: 1> Increased chance for German AI to DOW on Denmark on Turn 1,2 or 3. Why? I have played several games where Germany never attacked Denmark, thus depriving itself of plunder and income. Most players DOW on Denmark on turn 1. 2> Subs that attack merchant convoys and random Starting Location for two German subs located in the North Atlantic in the 1939 Scenario. Why? Make the hunt for the subs a real hunt in AI and Human vs Human games. 3> Post Surrender Partisans (aka Yugoslavia partisans) for Spain, Turkey, and Russia. Why? Forces the Axis to garrision conquered countries. These are the only European counties with a history of resisting invaders. [ May 26, 2003, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

1. Unpredicatable and more aggressive strategic AI. (Think German Sealion, UK takes Iraq, Japan invades Hawaii)coupled with a script writer for user designed campaigns/strategies. 2. Random Setups to spoil the easy kill stategy(Why do those 2 German Subs always start in the same hex in the North Atlantic?) 3. Better Tactical AI - Know when to hold, when to retreat.

CorsairBlue I second your motion for a more aggresive and less predictable AI as I am another one of those fellows who plays the AI more often than a human. In addition to the US attacking North Africa/Sicily I would like to see: 1. Brits take Iraq and Ireland 2. Germans DOW Denmark on Turn 1 and Take Norway/Sweden 3. German Sealion invasion of the United Kingdom 4. Axis campaign against Egypt/Iraq An AI that knows when to retreat. I just surrounded a pocket of 8 german units in Russia. They had an exit path 2 hexes wide they could have used to operate out of the pocket. They did not and quickly lost all 8 units. [ May 25, 2003, 02:14 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Heavy Junk I like your idea of randomizing the starting location of subs in the Atlantc. Its so simple and effective it should be a canidate for the next patch. I nominate the simple following random changes; 1> AXIS: Random German Atlantic Subs Starting Position 2> ALLIES: Randomly reinforce Egyptian Fleet with a ship taken from the Atlantic UK fleet. John DiFool I like your idea of a scripting language for SC. It could be a simple one for controlling purchases, which countries are attacked, tech investments or where to move units in the opening turns of the game. You could tell the AI to DOW on Denmark (or Ireland) on Turn 1, something which it never does or tell the AI to use the plunder from France to purchase 3 tech chits (Air/LongRange/Industry) or 2 air units or tell it to Move the Egyptian Fleet to the Atlantic. It could be a more complex one that would execute upon specific events occuring, would tell the computer how much resources to devote to an attack and how to prepare for an attack. Of course it would have to have rules for what would happen if something intefered with those plans. 2 Simple Examples: Campaign: Norway WHEN: After Surrender(Denmark+LowCountries+France)and Before (DOW Russia) IF: ALLIEDNAVY NOT WITHIN 5 HEX XX34 Resources: 3 Air, 1 HQ, 2 Army Transport, 2 Corps Transports, 2 Navy Units TARGET: Oslo Execute1: Move 1 Navy to Hex XX30, Move 1 Navy to, Move 1 Transport to , Move 1 Transport to hex XX22 Execute2: DOW Norway, Army LandAttack, AirAttack, AirAttack,AirAttack, Army LandAttack Camapign: Norway2 WHEN: After Surrender(Norway) IF: ALLIEDLAND Not Within(5,OSLO). Execute1: Garrison (Oslo:Corp,Began:Corp), Move NOT(GARRISON) to Warsaw. Scripting Command Language: SIDE WHEN AFTER BEFORE DATE SURRENDER(CountryName) ATWAR(CountryName) DOW(CountryName) EXECUTE1 "What the program does on the 1st turn of the script" Example: SIDE: AXIS WHEN: AFTER SURRENDER(POLAND) EXECUTE1: DOW(DENMARK) or SIDE: ALLIES WHEN: AFTER ATWAR(FRANCE) EXECUTE1: DOW(IRELAND) or SIDE: AXIS WHEN: AFTER SURRENDER(Poland,LowC,France) AND BEFORE ATWAR(Russia) AND BEFORE DATE(06/15/1941). Execute1: DOW(VICHY) [ May 23, 2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Here's an idea; 1. Front Commander Gives a +5% to +10% readiness bonus to HQs within a radius of 10 hexes. This reflects the priority allocation of supplies to a front. Thus a 60% Rated HQ becomes a 70% rated leader. A front commander costs 500MPP. Players have a choice; buy a new HQ unit to support more combat units or purchase a Front Commander to increase the readiness of exisiting HQ units. 2. HQ Commanders Supply Depots and coordinating staff for up to 5 Units. 3. Unit Commanders Gives a unit a bonus/penalty based on the leadership ratings of the unit commander. Example: +1 SD, +1AP, +10% Readiness, -1AP, -5% Readiness. Cost 80MPP. If the unit dies the unit commander dies with it. 4. HQ Pools Players could purchase HQ Commanders from one of 2 Force Pools: a. Known HQ Commanders - As per the current force pool. b. Unknown HQ Commanders - The value(s) of these HQ would be determined randomly. All would be available at a fixed prive of 300MPP. Thus players decide between activating a known HQ Commander or taking a chance and activating an unknown (with a value of 2 to 9) HQ commander. Value for Unknown Commanders: 5% Value 2 <> 10% Value 3 <> 15% Value 4 <> 35% Value 5 <> 15% Value 6 <> 10% Value 7 <> 5% Value 8 <> 5% Value 9 [ May 23, 2003, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

John DiFool What would a front commander unit contribute to the HQs serving under him? Jersey John I was thinking about linked HQs as you mentioned and started to wonder what would be the effect of having a time lag between the time when a HQ lost control of a unit and the time that it could assume control of a new unit. Say 1 or 2 turns. This would provide players an incentive to keep units of a HQ together. [ May 23, 2003, 01:31 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Shaka I really like the idea of randomly selected HQ units. Not only does it make leaders more affordable it introduces the uncertainties of war. Another excellent idea, but being a history buff I would want to have the generic leaders be assigned an historical name after the rating is determined, but perhaps this is too much to ask for. I also assume it would be too much to ask for the ratings of the leader to remain unknown until their first battle.(and now I see how my comments can make a nice simple adapation into a major project) As for the Naval Command ship, in the ETO I do not see the need. If SC2 encompasses the PTO then I would like to see Naval commanders that affected the fleets they commanded. [ May 22, 2003, 10:21 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Shaka I like your idea of rocket units not being spotted by Air or Naval units. This one change would totally change the dynamics of rocket units. The Russians would have an early "survivable" counter to German air. The Germans would have an invisible defense against allied transports and allied carrier strikes. The consequences would be most interesting. [ May 20, 2003, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

HOI - Hearts of Iron A much more complex WWII game covering the war at a global scale. High learning curve. [ May 20, 2003, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

This reply will hold a more detailed outline of ideas for improving the Strategic Russian AI to make it a more formidable and unpredictable opponent. Here are my initial thoughts on the topic (to be updated in the near future). AI Strategy Ideas for the Defense of Russia German Destruction - refers to number of Russian units destroyed on Turn 1 German Units - refers to number of Axis units spotted by Russian AI. TURN 1: RUSSIAN AI STRATEGY On turn 1 the AI has to select which strategy it will use to defend Russia and whether the defense will be focused around the production of (Corps) or (Armies and HQ) units. Most humans decide on their inital strategy for the defense of Russia based upon the results of the initial German attack. A German attack which is weak will invite an aggressive Soviet response. A strong German attack will ofter lead a human player to make a quick withdrawal in an attempt to build a defensive line. I have attempted to model this thought process by having the AI quantify the success of the initial German attack by looking at 1) the number of Russian Units Destroyed and 2) the number of Axis units involved in the initial attack. Based on these two factors the AI will select one of 6 basic strategies; 1. Norse Defense of Russia 2. Strategy Manual - Corps Defense 3. Strategy Manual - Army & HQ Defense 4. Strategy Manual - Cluster Defense 5. Standard Defense (Current Game AI) 6. Forward Defensive Line At times these strategies may be supported by add-on strategies that the AI may use in support of the main strategy. AddOn-A: Invasion of Finland per Bill Macon's Strategy manual AddOn-B: Invasion of Turkey (don't laugh , if the Brits control Iraq and have sunk the Italian Navy the Allies can take Turkey in 3 or 4 turns with a combined Russian (2 corps)/UK invasion force(5 units + HQ) of 8 units and air support. IF (Russia DOW on Germany) IF (German DOW on Russia) STATE 1: GERMAN Destruction = High and GERMAN UNITS = High EXECUTE STRATEGY-1: 80% Strategy 1: Norse Defense of Russia – Rostov – Smolensk – Leningrad EXECUTE STRATEGY-2: 10% Strategy 2: EXECUTE STRATEGY-3: 10% Strategy 3: Forward Defense (Current Game Standard) STATE 2: GERMAN Destruction = Low and GERMAN UNITS = Low EXECUTE STRATEGY-1: 5% EXECUTE STRATEGY-2: 25% EXECUTE STRATEGY-3: 70% ADD ON STRATEGY-A: 20% ADD ON-A: Russian Invasion of Finland * An Add-on strategy is a strategy that is executed in addition to the primary strategy selected. STATE3: GERMAN Destruction = High and GERMAN UNITS = Low EXECUTE STRATEGY-1: 20% EXECUTE STRATEGY-2: 40% EXECUTE STRATEGY-3: 40% STATE4: GERMAN Destruction = Low and GERMAN UNITS = High Russia End Game AI Strategies Russia Tech Strategies As per Bill Macon's Strategy Guide Tech Strategy 1: AntiTank-2/Industrial Tech-1 Tech Strategy 2: AntiTank-1/Heavy Tanks-1/Jets-1 [ May 21, 2003, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

2 Things Everyone Should Know: Surround the enemy capital and he can't build units elsewhere. He may be able to reinforce but he can't build. (Often the key to victory against Russia is surrounding Moscow, not taking it) Occupy all surrounding land hexes and a city based unit can't be reinforced higher than a strength of 5. [ May 20, 2003, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Most interesting ideas, Shaka, I like your idea for sea zones and for ASW tech. The only change I would make is to create more sea zones to add more strategy to naval warfare - ie North Atlantic East/West/Middle. Thus an Axis fleet could move from the Artic Zone to any one of three North Atlantic Zones or back to the Baltic Sea box. The Allied player would have to decide where to send his ASW resources. Ideally I would like to see the Atlantic broken into 14 Zones - Artic (to/from Baltic), North Atlantic (3 zones), North Mid Atlantic (3 zones), South Mid Atlantic (3 zones) South Atlantic (3 zones), and Transit to the Suez. As for cutting the ocean hexes in half, why not increase the movement point cost for deep sea hexes so that they would represent wider distances. You would have 2 type of ocean hexes: Ocean and Deep Ocean. This would be easier to program and it would only involve creating a new hex type: Deep Sea. Such a change would delay the arrival of US reinforcements in Europe, which could be critical in the event of a Sea Lion or to reinorce an invasion of France.