Edwin P.

Sample HQ Leaders and associated build limit Bonus: General Dornberger (GER) - +2 build limit for Rockets Admiral Donitz (GER) - +2 build limit for subs General Kurt Student (Ger) - +1 build limit for parachutists Air Marshal Arthur "Butcher" Harris (UK) - +2 build limit for bombers General William Blanchard (US) - +2 build limit for bombers General Ridgeway (US) - +1 build limit for parachutists Admiral King (US) - +1 carrier build limit *Note: Only a few HQ units would give a build limit bonus for specific units. These HQ would in have a lower rating than other HQ leader units. This gives players a choice - select a leader with a higher combat rating or one that gives you a build limit bonus for; battleships, bombers, carriers, engineers, parachutists, rockets or subs. Example: As the Axis player (or AI) planning to launch a battle for the Atlantic I might purchase Admiral Donitz (5) as he would give me a +2 build limit bonus on submarines. Example: As the Allied Player planning to bomb the Axis into Submission I might consider purchasing General "Butcher" Harris (4) to secure a higher build limit for my bombers, knowing that he would not be very effective in supporting land units or air fleets. [ February 02, 2006, 06:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Summary of HQ ideas: 1. Different Combat Bonuses based on the commanding General - ie movement, attack, defense. 2. Variable Level of Effectiveness based on unit type - Air, Land, Naval 3. Variable Level of Units a HQ unit can support Example: Eisenhower can support 6 combat units, Patton 3, but Patton is rated higher for combat. 4. HQs can affect naval units 5. Soft Limit Bonus based on HQ Unit Selected Example: Donitz - Sub Build Limit +2 Example: Dowding - Bomber Build Limit +2 An Axis Player might purchase Donitz, a low rated combat HQ unit, in order to secure a higher build limit for submarines. 6. Portrait of Commanding General 7. HQ unit can be ordered to act as a Combat HQ unit or Supreme Commander HQ Unit (a Supreme Commander HQ unit gives a bonus only to HQ units that it supports, only one Supreme HQ unit per country).

I like both of StefMan's ideas. The Sub idea would certainly make subs more valuable for the Axis. Any enhancement that would differentiate the HQ units and make it more of a strategic choice in deciding which ones to pick would be appreciated.

Perhaps reaching a specified tile gives you victory points. Example: Occupying Paris before Date XX.XX.XX gives you 10 points, or reaching tile 23-24 (rambo's POW camp) gives the allies 4 victory points if accomplished before 1943. In other operational level games - you might get 20 points for occupying city B and 5 points for occupying city C at game end.

I wonder if the SC2 will occassionaly surprise the human player with an unexpected strategy? Example: Allied AI - 1 in 12 games - the Western Allied AI selects a Strategic Bombing Campaign strategy - the US researches Long Range and Strategic Bombing - and builds hordes of bombers. The goal is to destroy German production so the Soviet Army can destroy the German forces.

Any chance for an AAR on your 1941-42 North Afrika Campaign?

I know that these events actions are likely not in SC2, but here is a list of interesting options for events: 1. Linked Events Option for events to have a prerequisite event. Example: If Event 23 occurs then Event 24 or 25 could occur. If Event 23 has not occurred then event 24 and 25 can't occur. 2. Choice Events A player gets an event with a choice. He can choose option 1 or option 2 or option 3. Each option triggers a different event or sets a linked event flag. 3. Partisan Activation/Deactivation 4. Change Alliance Event 5. Siberian Transfer Activation/Deactivation 6. Surrender Event - Active Nation Surrenders 7. Neutrality Event - Active Nation returns to neutrality Example 01: Conquest of France Choice 1: Normal - Vichy Created Choice 2: Plunder France - Partisans Activated, Gain More MPPs. Choice 3: France Joins Axis - France switches from Allied to Axis Example 02: Germany Surrenders to Russia Event: 20% that Russia switches from Allied to Axis and now the battle is between the Western Allies and Russia. Example 03: US War Strategy with Pearl Harbor Event Choice 1: Europe First - Normal Game Choice 2: Pacific First - Siberian Transfer Activated Early, US War Readiness Reduced Example 04: German Pearl Harbor Decision Choice 1: DOW USA - USA enters War Choice 2: Do not DOW USA - Siberian Transfer Activated early as Japanese forces are diverted to fight the Americans. Example 05: Germany takes Gibraltar If Germany Takes Gibraltar and Spain is Neutral: Choice 1: Keep Gibraltar Choice 2: Give Gibraltar to Spain - Spanish relations with Axis improve Example 06: Germany conquers Vichy France and Spain is Neutral Choice 1: Keep Algeria Choice 2: Give Algeria to Spain - Spanish relations with Axis improve [ January 29, 2006, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Shortly?

Does the event editor in Sc2 support a neutrality event - ie an event that turns an active major nation into a neutral nation (aka the Vichy France event) if it occurs? Example: Human Allied player successfully defends France and finds that when Russia enters the war, France and the UK declare neutrality and become neutral nations (USA war readiness declines). Now its Russia alone vs the AI Axis. Human Axis player is on verge of conquering the world when Italy withdraws from war and becomes a neutral nation once more. I suggest this as it has the potential to enhance a game vs the AI. It also allows player built scenarios to more accurately reflect the nuances of conflict in earlier time periods.

You can't do this in SC1, but you can do it in Sc2, when it is released.

A book, Military Misfortunes, has an interesting chapter on the Battle for the Atlantic. It shows a map detailing where most ships were sunk by German U-boats. The most sinkings occured along the coast of the USA down to New Orleans, around Cuba, the Bahamas and the West Indies. "in March 1942, for example, the Eastern and Caribbean Sea Frontiers, together with the Bermuda area (where the US had naval and air bases), witnessed losses of over 380,000 tons of merchant shipping - this during a month when total Allied and neutral shipping lsot 840,000 tons to all causes in all theaters of the war, including the Pacific." "In May, for example, more than 85 percent of the merchant shipping losses suffered by the allies occurred in American eastern and southern waters." Perhaps the American convoy route should extend from New Orleans up the Atlantic Coast and then over to England. This might better reflect the range of targets available to the U-boat fleets of the period (in addition to giving the Axis player a much larger target zone for sinking allied shpping). Any comments? I think that this change may prove interesting in a future mod using a map that extends further south. [ January 26, 2006, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I wonder if HC would consider, after releasing SC2, doing a battle oriented version which would support unit activation/unit command activation? This would really work well in recreating battles ranging from the Ancient Times through the American Civil War. OF course, a few more terrain types would have to be added - roads - Ie move from 1 road tile side to another road tileside costs 1/3mp, elevations - bonus when defending on a higher elevation or spotting from a higher elevation, forests block line of sight, - but nothing major. The core game system would remain the same as for SC2. 1) Unit Command Activation --- A unit must roll a X (5) or lower to move. --- A HQ unit must roll its rating or lower for the units attached to it to move. 2) Terrain --- Roads - lower AP (1/3rd) cost for moving from 1 road tile side to another. --- Elevation - block line of sight for units at a lower elevation --- Forests - block line of sight --- Swamp - Greater AP cost for cavalry 3) Battle Results --- Rout - Routed unit flees towards rear and if moves off map is removed from the battle. Unit must make a rally check to recover from a rout. Bonus to rally check if HQ unit is within range. --- Retreat 1/2 4) Rail Movement --- Based on number of rail movement points 5) Supply Center Unit or Mapside --- ie must trace a supply line to a supply unit or mapside to be in supply. 6) FOW determined by Line of Sight and Range --- Example Base Range might be 10 tiles across clear terrain, but forests or elevations or city tiles block line of sight at 4 tiles distance, so you can't see beyond the blocking tile, except if you had a balloon recon unit. [ January 26, 2006, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Otto von Bismarck

I remember those to. Perhaps the best games I played where where you had to draw activation chits - SPI's War Between the States Game - You could use it to activate one unit, or a HQ unit that would activate X units under its command. I also remember playing battle games -especially in the ancients and Napoleonic era - where you had to roll a number or higher for that combat unit (or units commanded by that HQ) to move that turn. They were usually very well founght games, as you were uncertain if the unit would obey your commands.

A futher refinement: HQ rating for: Land, Air, Naval and Command Land - effectiveness when commanding Land Units Air - "" Naval - "" Command - Base number of units the HQ can command. Example: Eisenhower might be able to support 7 units at once - not a good a combat general as patton, but better at coordinating the supply of multiple armies. Patton may only be able to support 3 units at once - ie a great combat general, but better suited to commanding 3 or fewer armies. This refinement really offers players a wider range of choices among generals. [ January 26, 2006, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

HC - A game designer who knows how to manage scope creep.

I view that as being included in any attack by an army or corps. All had artillery brigades attached to them. Anti-infantry tech could reflect improved accuracy and delivery of munitions from artillery. It certainly does not only reflect improved rifles and grenades. HOI does this by allowing you to attach various units (including artillery brigades) to a division. The SC method is simpler and achieves the same result. [ January 24, 2006, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

At lower level scenarios I have seen artillery units (really renamed rockets). At the level of the campaign game artillery units were attached to armies and corps and are included in those units.

SC2 is different from SC1. In SC2 each Armor tech advance increases its Anti-Infantry and anti-armor strength. In SC1 each armor advance only affected its anti-armor rating. Thus in SC2, armor will be more powerful.

Too complex for me. To a certain extent prepostioning your HQ units prepares you for an offensive, and given their lack of mobility you generally have to operate HQ units to shift HQ support along a front. Though I can see where something like this would make sense for a more tactical level game - kinda like the initiative chits used in wargames that control how many units you can move that turn.

I agree, any retreat should be automatic with the computer selecting the direction. Why? In a PBEM game I don't want to wait for my opponent to retreat his unit, after each combat.

Another Update on AI from GalCiv that I found interesting:

I am planning to make a Korean War Mod, a Yom Kipper War Mod and a WWI mod. WWI - France, UK, US, Italy vs Germany, Austria/Hungarian Empire and Turkey. WWI Limits: No Bombers!, No Armor!, No Carriers!, Level 5 (max) Air Fleets!

Perhaps, you are right Kuniworth. :cool: 1) The commander would get the sole rating or a very low rating in the area they are not proficient in managing. Example: Army General Lucus would might get a low rating (20%) or a zero (0%) rating when he is used to command Naval units, but a higher rating when he commands land units. 2) I would allow HQ units to command units at sea if they had a naval rating. A HQs range for the purpose of commanding a naval unit is unlimited and a naval unit's HQ support could only be changed (reassigned) while it is in a port or when that naval unit is destroyed. Think of it as a benefit of a naval unit being manned by a better trained crew - ie an English crew vs a Russian crewed Battle Fleet. GAME IMPACT: Imagine a HQ has elected to support a naval unit. It can't switch that support to an air or land unit until the unit has returned to a friendly port. This partially reflects the differences between a naval and land logistics unit. As Mockylock says I would like to see some feature added that differentiates the HQ units. In Sc1 you always purchased the highest rated HQ units. This makes it more of a studied choice as to which one to purchase. If I am the Germans planning a battle for the Atlantic I might want to purchase a HQ unit skilled in Naval Warfare, knowing that he would not be as effective in managing ground or air units. Similarly, as the Allies planning a strategic bombing campaign I might want to purchase a HQ unit commanded by a General skilled in managing air units, knowing that he will not be as skilled in managing land forces when D-Day occurs. Sample Ratings: Montgomery 8: Land (100%), Air (75%), Naval (0%) Donitz 7: Land (50%), Air (50%), Naval (100%) (ie land 4, Air 4, Naval 7) Konev 6: Land (100%), Air (75%), Naval (0%) Hugh Dowding (UK) 8: Land (50%), Air (100%), Naval (0%) (ie Land 4, Air 8, Naval 0) [ January 23, 2006, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Though this will not be included in Sc2, here is an idea: Rate each General's HQ unit for their effectiveness in managing the 3 different types of units; Air, Land, Naval, and also allow them to command Naval units. Example: Rommel - Land (100%), Air (80%), Naval (20%) Nimitz - Land (40%), Air (80%), Naval (100%) Rommel (8) would have a rating of 8 for a land unit (100% x 8), 6 for an air unit (80% x 8), and 2 for a naval unit (20% x 8). Nimitz (8) would have a rating of 3 for land, 6 for air and 8 for naval units.