Edwin P.

Liam I like your idea of not having a surprise contact for subs. If they saw a surface fleet they would dive, dive, dive.

Jersey John Per your comments ragarding moving subs around Greenland to to avoid the Scapa Flow, could this be done in a similar fashion to the movement of ships via the South Atlantic and Egypt? Have one hex next to Norway that Ships could enter to appear 2 turns later to the west of Greenland on a random hex along the northern border To stop this the allies would have to station ships within range of the Norwegian coast. A most dangerous proposition if Germany decides to station air units there, or station 3 ships on the sea to the West coast of Greenland.

I agree that for multi-player games the commanders should be able to pick the setups of subs, as they would have postioned them before declaring war. For games against the AI, random setups appear to be the only way to go.

Shaka of Carthage Thanks for the tip I will try it out.

In Axis vs Allied AI the Allies always follows the same general strategy to defend France. Why not include an optional French strategy or two for the allies? Strategy 1: Current AI Strategy ------------------------------------------------- Strategy 2: Intelligent defence of France 1> Buy corps and replace armies in Maginot line with these units. Using the armies to hold the Belgium border. 2> Recall corps from overseas territories to reinforce France and entrench on border with Italy. 3> Scuttle French Fleet to finance purchase of more units. 4> Move UK fleet and carriers into position to support defense of France. 5> Operate UK Air unit from Malta to London, sell bomber to purchae HQ Unit. Move UK corps from Gribraltor to Malta. Move Canadian Corps to Gibralter. Move Canadian Army to France. ------------------------------------------------ Strategy 3: Flee to England - France will fall so why not evacuate now and save the army to fight another day and defeat a future Sea Lion. 1> Replace front line units with Corps and begin evacuation of French Army and Air units to England. [ April 13, 2003, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree that the US entry should not be certain if the Allies (UK and Russia) are beating Germany. Moreover, such a change would give the Axis player a fighting, but slim chance to stage a comeback. Thus there should be a chance that if the (Allies hold France) and (Russia forces are in Germany) that the US War readiness decreases or holds steady each turn, perhaps influenced by any Sub attacks on Merchant ship convoys (which increases war readiness) or the number of German cities held by the allies (which decreases war readiness)

JerseyJohn What you said about Greece is absolutely true. Taking Greece in one turn is the prefered strategy (although the AI never does it this way). In the case of Greece a random deployment would make things much more unpredicatable. I would like to see a random deployment with a chance for the army unit being based in the capital (as you suggested) and for another Greek unit (either the army or the corps) being positioned adjacent to the capital. Perhaps: Deloyment #1 - Current Setup. Corps in Capital and two Army units on border. Deployment #2 - Army in capital. Corps and Army unit on border. Deployment #3 - Army in Capital and Army Adjcent to Capital. Corps on border. Deployment #4 - Army in Capital and Corps adjacent to capital. Army unit on Border. Deployment #5 - Army in Capital, three corps adjacent to Capital. Deployment #6 - If Yugoslavia falls to Axis invasion as above but Greek units enter game with entrenchment level 1. Deployment #7 - Greece starts with 5 Corps units. (each army unit is exchanged for 2 corps units)

JerseyJohn I agree that the AI needs to have serveral strategies, otherwise, as you said the human player will know what the AI response is going to be. The question is what should these strategies be? and in what situation should they be used? Example: 1> If the Straits of Gibralter can be crossed by subs then the strategy would be; If UK Navy is sailing the Mediterrean: % - for German subs to enter Med to help Italian fleet sink UK Navy. % - for Italian subs to enter atlantic. 2> If the UK Navy is not sailing in the Mediterrean and if the Straits of Gibralter are taken by the Axis then there should be a % that Italy will adopt an Atlantic First Strategy. Atlantic First Strategy - Send Italian fleet to the Atlantic to blockade the UK and focus production on ships to strengthen its navy in the Atlantic. ------------------------------------------------- I also like your idea of expanding the war for the Atlantic with supply ships. Possibly with a supply ship appearing on a random hex for X number of turns. The Axis player would know where that sea hex is. Any surface/sub unit that reachs this hex would be restored to full strength. Of course, if the allies find that hex first the supply ship would be destroyed. [ April 13, 2003, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn I agree with your comments. I had not thought of what happens when the threatening armies move away. I think that if the armies move away that the defending units entrenchment level should decrease by 1 per turn or be reduced to zero imediately (as the neutral government would probably want to reduce the mobilization level ASAP) I agree with your suggestion that intimidation should have a role.

In playing several games as the Allies one always knows where the German wolf packs start from in the Atlantic Ocean. This makes it all too easy to locate and sink them. To rectify this I suggest three modifications: 1 - Random Starting Location of Subs (when FOW is active) 2 - AI Improvements 3 - Subs Can Transit the Gibraltor Straits if No Naval Units are stationed there. 1>It would be more interesting if this starting position was randomized when Fog of War is active. I would also like to see a chance for the submarine unit in the Baltic sea to be deployed in the Atlantic. For example: 1. Current Starting Position (30%) 2. Starting Position #2 (15%) - Near Coast of Canada (chance to sink Canadian Army!) 3. Starting Position #3 (15%) - Near Coast of US 4. Starting Postion with 3rd sub unit (10%) 5. Starting Position #2 with 3rd sub unit (10%) 6. Starting Position #3 with 3rd sub unit (10%) 7. Starting Position #4 (10%)- South Atlantic 2> Of course, if time permits the AI for use of the subs should be upgraded as the AI always seeks to move the subs towards Germany and into the Jaws of a waiting UK fleet. How would I do this? I would have the AI track how many of the UK Carriers and Surface fleet have been sunk. The more UK naval units that have been sunk the more aggresive the AI should be. If no naval units have been sunk the AI subs should adopt a "Hide to Fight Another Day" strategy, perhaps moving to the South Atlantic where they can intercept transports heading to Egypt or forming an anti invasion wall off the Western French Coast. 3> Subs should also be allowed to transit, but not end a turn in, the straits of Gibralter. I would allow Subs to transit the straits with no damage if the straits are not occupied by an Allied Naval Unit and no land units occupy the rock of Gibraltor. If land units occupy the Rock of Gibralter but no naval units occupy the port I would allow the Land unit to make a free attack on the sub unit when it is transiting the straits. [ April 13, 2003, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

All good points. I agree that a neutral country will not have time to prepare if the Axis launches a quick invasion. However, if the axis takes time to build up troops alongthe border I could see the neutrals starting the game entrenched. Example: Germany concentrates 4+ units along the Yugoslavian border for 5 turns waiting for the right moment to intervene. Example: Germany concentrates 3+ units along the Swedish border for 3 turns and has one unit waiting in transports off the Swedish coast for 2 turns. I would say that as a rule if 3+ land units are along a minor neutrals border for 3 or more turns then the entrenchment level of their troops should increase by 1 per turn.

Knowing how the Russian troops are deployed for war allows one to devise the optimal strategy for elminating the maximum number of Russian troops in the first two turns of war with Russia. It would be interesting if the initial Russian deployment along the USSR-German border was selected at random from a set of 2 or 3 or 4 preset troop scenarios. Perhaps: 1 - Current Historical Layout (70%) 2 - Modified Historical Layout (10%) 3 - Reinforced Historical Layout (10%) 4 - Defense in Depth Layout with more corps upfront and the Armies to the rear. (5%) 5 - Prepared Russian Defenders (5%) - Each Russian unit on the German border has a 25%% to start with entrenchment level 1 and a 5% to start with entrenchment level 2. [ April 13, 2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

From playing a game as Allies vs AI (V1.07): 1> Would the US have entered the war if France has not fallen and if substantial numbers of Russian troops had entered Germany? The AI US did, but in real life I think that Germany would not have declared war on the US if France had not fallen and the US would have focused its war efforts on defeating the Japanese. In fact, I would say that the US should not enter the war if (France and Russia and the UK have not fallen) and if 4+ Russian Units are in Germany. 2> Would Finland have joined the Axis after substantial numbers of Russian troops entered Germany and if the Finish border was strongly garrisoned by Soviet troops? The AI Finland did and was eliminated. Would Finland join the Axis and march into Leningrad if all Soviet troops were assigned to fighting the Germans and Leningrad was not garrisoned? I think so, but the AI did not take advantage of the ungarrisoned Leningrad.

Just played patch as Allies vs AI. Invaded Portugal as normal with two US Armies supported by battleships and two carriers to conquer Portugal in one turn and gain the VP. Spain joined the axis the following turn, in the past they never reacted, and Germany sent an air unit to Spain. Then Axis/Spanish forces waited while I landed more US units 3 turns later. In multi-player games this change will surely liven things up. All in all - a most welcome improvement. [ April 13, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Edwin P. - Both -

Eastern Front - A true classic, a tough AI and the hexes changed color in winter.

Jersey John I like the concept of requiring Germany to garrison the two ural cities with an Army and a corps in the other cities. To me that sounds like a realistic deployment plan, as Germany would not garrison Russia with only corps sized units.

I just came accross a SC contest at: Strategic Command Contest In Brief: The deadline for entry is March 31st. [ March 27, 2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Liam, I agree with your points, but do not understand Quality. Does this mean you would give all units a rating for Experience and Quality? Does this mean that German units would have a quality of say 10, while Russian units and Italian units would have a quality rating of 6(ie -4) to reflect the superior training of the German infantry and its commanders. Thus would combat strength be a function of: Readiness x Experience x Quality X Unit Strength Readiness - supply status Experience - Actual combat experience Quality - Training & Leadership Strength - Equipment & Manpower

John DiFooL I really like your concept on FOW and units behind the lines being identified as Armor? Infantry? and Jets? with a chance for misidentification. RE: HQ In my mind HQ units are not only leaders but also dedicated supply units that are assigned to support specific front line combat units, thus increasing their ability to wage war. Attacking them with air units is a valid combat tactic. As their strength is degraded so should their ability to support an increased combat readiness. ie Iraq: You can attack the combat unit or you can attack the supporting supply units behind the front lines. [ March 27, 2003, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Occassionally in WWII an Army did not aggressively advance when ordered. If an Army/Corps unit moves and is not commanded by a HQ unit I would assign it a small chance, say 5% that it would advance up to an enemy unit but not attack it if ordered, ie Anzio. (and tell the player this with an appropiate pop-up message - General is awaiting reinforcements prior to resuming the attack). Thus any unit would have a 100% chance of attacking if it made no other move that turn or was in the influence of a HQ unit. If a unit moved that was not influenced by a HQ unit there would be a 5% that it would not engage in combat if it encountered hostile forces. "Okay, General, I ordered you to attack why didn't you push forward." or imagine Lincoln asking a the Commander of the Army why didn't you advance? [ March 27, 2003, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

As for what equipment to apply to each level of research (for purposes of a Tech Level Popup screen), here are my initial thoughts; Germany: Tanks Concept: Popup has a picture of the tank with a short description below it, along with facts about the tank - ie Gun size, Armor , Actual WWII production, etc. Tech Lvl 1 - Panzer IV - 75 MM gun Tech Lvl 2 - Tiger (88 MM gun, 100mm armor) Tech Lvl 3 - Panther G (75 MM Gun, 60 MM armor, faster) Tech Lvl 4 - King Tiger (88 MM Gun, 100mm armor) Tech Lvl 5 - Maus (128 MM Gun, 200mm armor), only 4 were built before the end of the war. Germany: Rocket Concept: Popup has a picture of the rocket along with a short description and statistics - Speed, Range, shortcomings, actual WWII production. Tech Lvl 3 - V1 Rocket - Slow moving, many where shot down by anti-air, minimal damage Tech Lvl 4 - V2 Rocket - Very Fast, Range 250 Missles, lots of damage Tech Lvl 5 - V3 Rocket - On the drawing board but never actually built [ March 27, 2003, 10:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Good point, Would the US have continued the war if Germany conquered the UK, I mean its one thing to invade from accross the English Channel, another to invade from accross the Atlantic, but of course this is just a game.

KDG I agree with your proposal to allow air units to reduce the strength of any unit to 1, although I would limit this restriction to ground and HQ units. As I think that an air unit could reasonably sink a fleet and totally destroy it (the ships would be sunk) without the assistance of Naval units.

I read the posts above which would require a limited german garrison to avoid all partisan activity and must disagree. During WWII the Germans mistreated the Russians and their was a great deal of hatred for Germans amoung the Russians. I feel that Germany would have been forced to commit a sizable resource of its own forces (primarily corps units) or minor power forces to occupy Russia (which is larger than all of Western Europe. Without this garrison partisan bands would have started multiplying to drive out the invaders. The larger and more widespread the garrison the less chance for partisan groups forming, as such groups tend to form where the occupying force is weak. Thus if the major Eastern Russian cities were garrisoned the partisan groups would form in Western Russian cities.