Edwin P.

As Liam says; I mean I'm not going to be a party pooper. The Pacific on it's own is halfway interesting theatre. Though Island hopping like steppe hopping puts most of us to sleep... Just ask the people that play A&A none of them Island hop with the US unless they're really unconventional. It's slow, it's pointless as you gain too little ----------------------------------------------- Idea 1: Seizing islands would be more important if the hexes between controlled islands rolled back the Fog of War. If an enemy fleet moved through a line of hexes linking the two closest islands you would have a % chance to see that unit for 1 turn. The % would depend on the distance seperating the two islands. Example: If 10 hexes seperated the islands then there would be a 10% to see any fleet crossing between the islands. If 5 hexes seperated the islands there would be a 20% of seeing any fleet that moved between the islands. This would be doubled if an air unit exists on both islands. The more islands you have the better chance you have of locating the enemy fleet. To reduce the enemies chance of locating your fleet you have to seize their islands. Idea 2: Only Marine Units can make an amphibious invasion against an occupied hex. Marine units can only make 1 attack, if this fails then they must be resupplied before making another attack. (ie after a failed attack their strength is reduced to 1) They can only be resupplied at the nearest island supply depo or city or land hex in range of a HQ unit. Seizing islands allow them to be resupplied closer to the front lines.

The game would also have to allow for stacking Air and Land Units in the same hex. Ie You seize an Island and station an Air and a Land Unit there. Islands with an Air unit would should also allow for improved recon. Say all hexes within a radius of 2to3 hexes all the time and an air patrol in one or two directions for a distance of the air units range. So if you held an island, you would also be able to select direction(s) of patrol for that islands air recon units. Thus you have a strategic choice, do I patrol North, South, East, or West. This is most realistic as you can't watch all the ocean all the time and clouds obscured vision.

As indicated above you would have to change the tactics in the game to allow for amphibious invasions, reflect the superiority of land based air units over carrier based units, and make it important to seize islands on the road to Japan. -------------------------------- 1> Perhaps saying that Carriers have to return to port every X turns for resupply and repair. Reduce their combat strength by 1 point for every turn above X that it has been at sea. That means that you can't keep a carrier at sea for 18 months straight and expect it to be in peak fighting shape. -------------------------------- 2> As for the Amphibious invasions, you would have to allow for 3 aspects; 1. Speed of Invasion - If you delay the actual invasion to allow for bombardment you give the Japs time to sneak in reinforcements. 2. Fortifications - The extent of which were largely unkown until the US acutally invaded. 3. Invasions by several marine units over several hexsides at the same time. Thus giving the Japs a defense bonus when invaded only from 1 hexside and a defense penalty when invaded from 3 or more hexsides. ------------------------------ In my opinion, one of the most exciting aspects about the Pacific War is the Fog of War and its effect on the major battles. You don't know where the enemy fleets are, you only know what their objectives could be. If you guess wrong, you lose. ------------------------------- You will also have to allow stacking in ports and allow any attack on a port to damage all ships in port (aka Pearl Harbor). ------------------------------- I would consider allowing the Japs to pick a defensive strategy for each island they hold - ie Defend the Beaches, Defend the Interior and allowing the invading Americans to pick an attack strategy at the time of invasion without knowing what the Japanese Defensive strategy is. a> If the Japs "Defended the Interior" then Naval bombardments should have minimal effect, but the Marines would be able to attack with full strength. b> If the Japs "Defended the Beaches" then Naval Bombarments would have full effect but the Marines would attack at 1/2 strength.

This has been a most interesting thread to follow and I think that everyone agrees that it was impossible that Germany could develop the A-Bomb with the resources it had "historicaly" devoted to it. However, I do believe that it should be a strategic option, although a very expensive option. --------------------------------------------- Kirkus Reviews - In history that reads like a great thriller, award-winning former Washington Post reporter Kurzman (Left to Die: The Tragedy of the USS Juneau, 1994, etc.) tells the story of the Allied effort to derail the Nazi quest to develop a nuclear bomb. In the war's early stages, Kurzman relates, Nazi Germany's atomic research program, which included many of the world's greatest physicists, was more advanced than those of the Allies. However, the German effort was crippled by a dependence on heavy water to facilitate a chain reaction. For a long time Norsk Hydro in Norway, a factory seized by the Germans, was the only producer of heavy water in the Third Reich. At the urging of General Leslie Groves, the military leader of the Manhattan Project, the plant quickly became the target of British commando raids and American bombing attacks... Kurzman quotes OSS official (and later CIA chief) William Casey as estimating that at war's end the Germans were 700 liters of heavy water short of developing an effective nuclear reaction. --------------------------------------------- As to whether William Casey was accurate in his perception I have no idea and many people will disagree. Axis A-Bomb Option: 1> IMHO the Production of an A-Bomb would require Atomic Tech Level 5 and occupation of Norway. 2> A-bomb research can not advance if Norway is not occupied by the Germans and there are any allied troops in-country (this would reflect the effort of allied commando raids on the heavy water facility). 3> Atomic Techs Levels 1-4 would offer no usable technology, Just Pop-ups saying "Scientist have.." 4> Delivery could only be done via an A-bomb equipped Strategic Bomber or Rocket unit. 5> Use of an A-Bomb on a Capital City would cause the defending nation to surrender 50% of the time due to the morale effect of dropping the bomb. 6> The A-bomb Tech Option would be user selectable (on/off - standard: off) 7> The Allied Player would be advised that the German Player is pursing the A-bomb option when Germany Reaches A-Bomb Tech Level 3. Just my opinion. PS: Although this may be an option, I believe that any player who devoted substantial resources to developing this weapon would be quite foolish or very desperate. If they choose this option the Allies would have time to stop it with an invasion of Norway or the landing of cammandos (ie Corps). Just my closing opinion on this matter.

JerseyJohn Excellent; -------------------------- The same effect can probably done with more general statements such as Germany replaces it's minister to Sweden and . . .. to announce basically numerical results in an historical manner that would help maintain the simulated ambiance. - JerseyJohn --------------------------

JerseyJohn Excellent; -------------------------- The same effect can probably done with more general statements such as Germany replaces it's minister to Sweden and . . .. to announce basically numerical results in an historical manner that would help maintain the simulated ambiance. - JerseyJohn --------------------------

JerseyJohn Excellent idea and most interesting background information. Where do you find the time to research all of this? I look forward to a game that has this background information available. You click on a leader and see his photo and a short history lesson about his effect on WWII. Perhaps you could give Germany and Russia a pool of 5 to 9 historical ministers. They could pick from this pool to select three ministers to head three departments: Diplomatic / Military / Production. Each minister would affect the game in some small way. The production leader might affect to a limited degree how much certain types of units cost to produce. The Military leader might give a small bonus to Attack or Combat or Experience or reduce the cost of a certain type of unit or allow a unit to Entrench 2 steps in one turn. The Russians could change leaders at any time through a Purge. Thus to change a Military Minister they would have to kill one of their active. The Germans could change ministers only after a major event -ie France Falls or Germans lose 5 Units on Eastern Front or Italy Falls to Allies. The game would start with an option for (1) Historical ministers or (2) Random Starting Ministers or (3) No Ministers So the question becomes should Hess be in charge of the Foreign Ministry or the Production Ministry? Should Stalin change his Military minster by having him executed or executing the Foreign Minister? And then you could have historical random events based on the actions of the minister? Or does all this make a simple game too complex?

JerseyJohn Excellent idea and most interesting background information. Where do you find the time to research all of this? I look forward to a game that has this background information available. You click on a leader and see his photo and a short history lesson about his effect on WWII. Perhaps you could give Germany and Russia a pool of 5 to 9 historical ministers. They could pick from this pool to select three ministers to head three departments: Diplomatic / Military / Production. Each minister would affect the game in some small way. The production leader might affect to a limited degree how much certain types of units cost to produce. The Military leader might give a small bonus to Attack or Combat or Experience or reduce the cost of a certain type of unit or allow a unit to Entrench 2 steps in one turn. The Russians could change leaders at any time through a Purge. Thus to change a Military Minister they would have to kill one of their active. The Germans could change ministers only after a major event -ie France Falls or Germans lose 5 Units on Eastern Front or Italy Falls to Allies. The game would start with an option for (1) Historical ministers or (2) Random Starting Ministers or (3) No Ministers So the question becomes should Hess be in charge of the Foreign Ministry or the Production Ministry? Should Stalin change his Military minster by having him executed or executing the Foreign Minister? And then you could have historical random events based on the actions of the minister? Or does all this make a simple game too complex?

I was thinking that perhaps Diplomacy Points could also be used to influence random events; Example; Event: German Sub Sinks American Curise Ship Frequency: 1 in 10 games (ie same events do not occur each game) and only if a German Sub is in the Atlantic Ocean. Popup window with picture of sinking ship: "One of subs has sunk an American cruise ship. What should we do" a> Apologize most profusely to the Americans (Use 1 DP chit) b> Tell them that their ship was in a war zone (+10% US War Readiness) c> Tell them that we will stop all attacks on ships traveling the Atlantic for 1 year. (+0% US War Readiness, + 25MPP Bonus to UK while in effect - as merchant ships are not afraid to sail to the UK, if Axis breaks this agreement then +20% US War readiness and MMP bonus to UK ends) Thus players could allocate DPs to countries or hold them in reserve to affect Random events. Note: I believe that it is very important for random events to be historically possible and that they should be truely random in nature. I.e. you would have 20-40 random events and each event would have a (1 in 10) to a (1 in 100)chance of appearing in any one game. You might not see all random events until you have played 100 games.

I was thinking that perhaps Diplomacy Points could also be used to influence random events; Example; Event: German Sub Sinks American Curise Ship Frequency: 1 in 10 games (ie same events do not occur each game) and only if a German Sub is in the Atlantic Ocean. Popup window with picture of sinking ship: "One of subs has sunk an American cruise ship. What should we do" a> Apologize most profusely to the Americans (Use 1 DP chit) b> Tell them that their ship was in a war zone (+10% US War Readiness) c> Tell them that we will stop all attacks on ships traveling the Atlantic for 1 year. (+0% US War Readiness, + 25MPP Bonus to UK while in effect - as merchant ships are not afraid to sail to the UK, if Axis breaks this agreement then +20% US War readiness and MMP bonus to UK ends) Thus players could allocate DPs to countries or hold them in reserve to affect Random events. Note: I believe that it is very important for random events to be historically possible and that they should be truely random in nature. I.e. you would have 20-40 random events and each event would have a (1 in 10) to a (1 in 100)chance of appearing in any one game. You might not see all random events until you have played 100 games.

Shaka, your force analysis is really impressive. I also like the concept of giving countries: ie US and Italy MPP to allow them to build units that are not shown on the map. This also allows each country more strategic flexibility.

Jersey John, thanks for the quote, Any thoughts on my thoughts reducing Russian Plunder due to Soviet Scorched Earth Policy and the overall destruciton of Soviet Russia. Ie should Russian plunder be reduced to perhaps only 350 MPP or even Zero?

Xwormwood Many thanks for the historical information.

Very Interesting, Perhaps if UK spent some diplomatic energy (Diplomatic Points as mentioned in another thread)building relations with French Admirals this would have happened in real life. Just a thought

Perhaps, A simple way to resolve this difference of opinion would be for the game designer to make A-Bomb development a user selectable option. You can turn it on or off. (That is if Hubert decides to add this option to SC2)

Diplomacy Points (DP) and Free Brits Idea: If US allocates 1 DP point to UK, then when/if Great Britain falls to Germany all UK and Canadian units & ports & cities (ie Suez, Cario, Gibraltor, Canada) outside of Great Britain become Free Brits under the control of the US. This would reflect a serious effort by the US to plan for the fall of Great Britain by gaining the loyalty of British forces and territory outside of GB. Thus Allies could use their Diplomacy Points to affect Neutrals but and Allies. An interesting strategic choice.

Diplomacy Points (DP) and Free Brits Idea: If US allocates 1 DP point to UK, then when/if Great Britain falls to Germany all UK and Canadian units & ports & cities (ie Suez, Cario, Gibraltor, Canada) outside of Great Britain become Free Brits under the control of the US. This would reflect a serious effort by the US to plan for the fall of Great Britain by gaining the loyalty of British forces and territory outside of GB. Thus Allies could use their Diplomacy Points to affect Neutrals but and Allies. An interesting strategic choice.

I just visited Liam's old What If thread (recommened by JerseyJohn) and saw a proposal that if the UK Falls, Gibralter goes to the US. Thats a good possibility, but what if; If the UK falls to an Axis Sea Lion then all UK & Commmonwealth units outside of Great Britain become Free Brits (aka Free French) and allied with the US. This seems to be realistic to me, as the Brits afloat would never surrender to the Jerrys. Any thoughts? Or is this too unrealistic? What would the effects on play balance be?

Shaka I really like your comments the effects of a limited manpower pool and the impact it has on reinforcing units or building new ones. It could make the decision of which unit to reinforce so much more critical, as you can't reinforce every unit, even if you have the production points.

JerseyJohn Great Post, Totally new to me, I knew that the Germans had spies in Sweden and that Sweden sold all of its Ore to Germany, but your information really makes clear the extent of Swedish co-operation.

JerseyJohn Great Post, Totally new to me, I knew that the Germans had spies in Sweden and that Sweden sold all of its Ore to Germany, but your information really makes clear the extent of Swedish co-operation.

I agree that by the time that Russia collapses that the Axis is swimming in dough, and I too usually launch a SeaLion at this point. Perhaps(?) the plunder that Germany gets from a conquered Russia should be greatly reduced, reflecting the greater level of destruction inflicted on Soviet Industry (and the soviet scorched earth policy) as opposed to other plundered countries that were quickly conquered? What should the Russian Plunder be? Perhaps only 325 MPPs(?) or Nothing(?) considering the Soviet Scorched earth policy and future income from all the Russian cities. Any thoughts? Am I totally off base in reducing Russian Plunder?

Currently, after Russia surrenders, the Axis player can safely operate all of his units from Russia to the Western front. I believe this to be unrealistic. Axis should be required to garrison this country in order to forestall a revolt. 1> I would allow Post-Surrender Russian Partisans to be created per turn based on the following formula (or something similar to it). +2% Per UnOccupied Russian City/Resource +10% Per Partisan Occupied City +5% Per Existing Partisan Unit +10% Per 4 Liberated Cities The more cities that Germany occupies the less chance for a revolt. The more partisan units/liberated cities that exist the greater chance that more partisan units will spring into action. If there are several liberated cities the chances for a partisan uprising increases even more. So if 15 cities/resources were left ungarrisoned there would be a 30% per turn for a new Partisan unit to be created that turn. These partisan units would appear next to any unoccupied city/resource hex. If there are 10 cities ungarrisoned and 5 liberated cities occupied by 5 partisan units then the chance for a new partisan unit being created is 20+25(5 paritsan units)+60 (liberated cities bonus) = 105% to create a new partisan unit each turn. Furthermore, if 4 or more Russian cities are liberated I would; 1> Give the Russian Partisans a Free HQ Unit reflecting the rise of a new leader skilled in guerilla warfare. (the ability of this unit should be created randomly with a chance for a 3 to 4 Medal Leader with a 5 to 9 Supply rating). 2> Allow the Allies to declare 1 Liberated city as the New Russian Capital. 3> Give the Russians a free Armor unit (of 2 to 4 medals), reflecting the tanks salvaged from the battle field and hidden in forests and barns and staffed by experienced veterns of the lost war. This would make life really interesting for the Axis player. Just a thought.

---------------------------------------- this is the way it is in every sc game. do you want to try for at or hvy bombers? YOU decide what is important to you. where are all the "has to be historical" sc players comments? if overlord had bought the farm, and the war stretdched until 1946 would the us have nuked berlin? better than 50-50 in my opinion." Disorder Disorder ---------------------------------------------- RE:American Atomic Bomb If SC2 is a Europe only game I would give the USA a 50% to automatically obtain the Atomic bomb technology in 1945 along with a Free Strategic Bomber. Additional Chits in Atomic Bomb Research would increase this chance, but the bomb could not appear earlier than xx/XXXX. Of course, to use this bomber effectively they would have to get it in range of Berlin or Rome. This increases the importance of; 1> Holding GB or 2> Liberating the Nordic countries or 3> Convincing a still neutral Sweden or Norway to allow the US to base a bomber in their country.( Thus increasing the value of diplomatic points and neutral countries).

--------------------------------------------- "that very uncertainty would ENHANCE the game. if you were killing germany you would wonder if somehow they had a "secret" weapon that you didn't know about. and if it was tied to "delivery" of a weapon, so much the better!" Disorder --------------------------------------------- I strongly agree, and "if tied to the delivery of a weapon" - via a Strategic Bomber (which can be intercepted) or a Rocket (which can not be intercepted) Not knowing if your opponent has this weapon would make it of the highest importance to target any Bombers or Rocket units within range of your capital. This might also make the importance of AA research more important. Why? AA15 and Jets 15 might be able to down a bomber before it has a chance to drop its bomb. Just a thought.