Edwin P.

For those interested in what it takes to develop an AI here is a link to an article covering the recent developments in the Galciv AI: GalCiv AI Journal This observation could also apply to SC1. Another weakness in Sc1, that I am expect will be addressed in SC2. In SC2 terms I wonder how much the AI will think and how much it will use scripted directives. From my perspective the SC1 AI did not use scripted directives enough. Example: Move French Corps in Beruit to Egypt after Italy enters war. Every human did it. Why not the AI? Especially, when there was no downside to this scripted response. [ January 23, 2006, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Your special rule would have been a big help to the AI in Sc1. I like it. I assume that if the Allies landed a corps in Bergan before the Axis unit appears then the Bergan Axis Corps would appear on the Norwegian Mine hex or elsewhere in Norway.

Lars,I would give each neutral nation within range a chance to entrench. Why? They don't know which neutral nation will be targeted. Example: Three (3) German amphibious transports are within invasion range of Norway and Sweden. Norway and Sweden would each have a base 3% chance to entrench. One, both or neither might entrench. If you are using the optional country specific mobilization modifier that I proposed then Norway (x1) might have a 3% to entrench and Sweden (x4) a 12% to entrench. JerseyJohn - what was your idea for handling a situation like Norway? PS: You could modify this idea to say that if Amphibious or Land units are within landing range the percentage change would also be affected by surface naval units within striking range. Thus would reflect intel detecting the buildup of a large invasion force at sea. Perhaps a fishing boat sighted the ships at sea. Thus: 3 Amphibious Units + 5 Naval Ships in strike range = 8% x Country Modifier (for Italy its 5) = 40% for Entrenchment Bonus. Question: Will any of this have any effect on the outcome of a battle? or the war? Perhaps it is not needed. [ January 23, 2006, 12:40 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Interesting idea; Are you suggesting that when a country surrenders you can select from among 3 options: 1. Plunder - normal plunder 2. Pillage - Increased plunder but greater chance of partisans 3. Be Nice - No plunder along with reduced chance of partisan activity Example: When a country surrenders, on your next turn you see a popup that gives you the three options. If you conquer Yugoslavia you may want to accept no plunder to get a lower chance of partisans appearing. If you conquer France you may want to pillage the Country to get more than the normal amount of plunder.

Are you proposing that if there are amphibious transports within invasion range of a neutral nation (or specific neutrals such as Italy and Sweden) there is a chance - say 20% - that the defending units entrench? This would reflect troops being placed on heightened alert. Or as Lars suggests the combat readiness of that nation increases for that turn. For a more complex solution: Percentage Change of Neutral Nation Readiness/Entrenchment Bonus = Number of Units on Border + Number of Amphibious Transports at Sea within Landing Range. Example: 3 amphibious units within landing range + 2 Corps on border = 5% neutral nation's forces gain readiness Bonus or Entrenchment Bonus for that turn. 6 Units (Army + Armor + Corps) on Border = 6% for bonus to neutral forces. You could have this adjusted by a multiple based on the country. This would reflect the relative willingness of each nation to mobilize its forces if it perceives a threat. Example: Netherlands x1 = 1 x 5% = 5% Sweden x4 = 4 x 5% = 20% [ January 23, 2006, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

True

Would you reallly want to leave a weakened unit behind your lines to disrupt supply? From what I read, and I may be wrong, units destroyed while surrounded don't count for the 60% rebuild. If not, then that's an interesting trade-off. PS: Good to hear that HC is focused on getting a playable game out and disregarding, for the moment, ideas for futher enhancements. [ January 22, 2006, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

As I recall, your ability to reinforce is reduced by the number of adjacent enemy units.

Thank You Retributor. Its good to see I am not alone in liking HOI. There are many features in HOI that would port over well to SC2 and not increase its complexity. Example 01: A single screen where players have the option to select the chief of staff for their army, navy and air departments for 25MPP each. Each chief of staff would offer a different bonus and related penalty. Once choosen you would see a picture of the selected branch chief along with a short text bio. Air Chief of Staff 1. General XXX - A Navy Man at heart, his selection gives air units a bonus when attacking naval units. 2. General XXX - A true Dog Figther, his selection reduces the build times or Unit Build Limit for Air Fleets and increases the build times for Bombers 3. General XXX - The Carpet Bomber, his selection reduces the build times for Bombers while increasing the build time for Air Fleets 4. General XXX - Grants no bonus or penalty. 5. General XXX - A consumate bureaucrat selecting this general gives a +1 build limit bonus to all air units and a -1 build limit penalty to naval units. Of course, changing a Chief Of Staff, once selected will cost you XXXX and may be rejected. Example: For USA to change their Air Chief of Staff would cost 50MPP and is 75% likely to be accepted. If it is rejected you lose the 50MPP. For the USSR to Change the Chief of Staff the cost is 75MPP but is 100% likely to be accepted (as no one argues with Stalin). Example 2: Expand this Screen to Include a Cabinet Official for Research If you elect to fill this position you gain a minister who may (1 in 4 chance) override your research investment decisions but gives you a bonus when researching the selected area. Cabinet Official A: Favors Air Defense and Gun Laying Radar with a +2% bonus to research in this area. IF you invest 1 chit in Armor there is a 25% that the chit is redirected to Air Defense or Gun Laying Radar. Cabiner Offical B: Favors Submarine Warfare with a 2% bonus in this area. If you invest 1 chit in Armor there is a 25% that the chit is redirected to Advanced Submarines. Perhaps allow a player to assign a HQ unit to research: Example: If you assign Eisenhower to Research (Armor) you gain a +1% bonus to your chance to develop a tech advance in this area. However, while commanding the research efforts this HQ unit cannot command or supply field units and must be based in their home country. A neutral US or USSR player may want to build a HQ unit and assign it to direct research while waiting for his nation to become active. PS: For each turn a HQ unit directs research its readiness/morale drops by 10%. MODIFIED: For each turn a HQ unit directs research its STRENGTH drops by 1 point, Min of 4. This reflects a focus on managing research efforts, not combat units. Thus in my ideal world HQ unit commands include: Promote - to support other HQ units Demote - assign to support combat units Retire - reclaim to purchase another HQ unit Research - bonus for research % at cost of Str Point Disband - to reclaim MPPs I would also rate each HQ unit for Land, Air, and Naval effectiveness. One General might be more effective at directing Air units, and another at directing Land units. Example: Rommel: Land (100%), Air (80%), Naval (50%) Example: Dolittle: Land (80%), Air (100%), Naval (80%). [ January 23, 2006, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

HOI2 is a good game; however, I as others simply find Strategic Command more fun to play and much less complicated. What I do like about HOI is: The historical chrome that the game is built around - including pictures of the generals and ministers of each country along with player selection of economic and military doctrines. The ability to accept or decline a diplomatic proposal. The editor. You can fine tune the AI and create new events. An economic system that places greater importance on controlling or trading resources - oil, metals and rare metals. ----------------------------------------------

From my readings of prior posts; 1. Bombers will have a reduce spotting range but a long attack range. They can attack cities even if they can't see what is in them, and they can attack ships at long range if the ships are spotted by another unit. 2. Each tech level in long range will give bombers a greater increase in range than air fleets. I am don't know if the ratio is 2:1 or 3:1. 3. Pzndgr mentioned that the Bomber's strategic attack has been increased to 5.

A few thoughts on diplomacy: Idea: Simple Sample Diplomacy Strategy for France: 01-80 No Diplomacy 81-90 Iraq 91-00 Influence USA: Goal is to influence USA before France falls and the diplomacy chits are lost. Idea: Simple Sample Diplomacy Strategy for UK: 01-50 No Diplomacy 51-60 Influence Iraq 61-70 Influence Sweden 71-75 Influence Spain 75-00 Influence USA: This strategy seems to be favored by the playtesters. Idea: Allied AI invests additional chits to reinforce any diplomatic breakthrough achieved by the French. Idea: Simple AI Strategy for Allies 50%: No Diplomacy 20%: Influence USA - France 1 Chit, UK 2 chits 10%: Influence Iraq - France 1 Chit, UK 2 chits 10%: Major Influence on USA - France 2 chits, UK 3 chits 10%: Counter Axis Diplomacy Question: Does the AI get bonus diplomatic chits at higher AI levels? [ January 20, 2006, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I like John DiFool the 2nd's idea for a Battle for the Atlantic Campaign. My thoughts are that victory points for this scenario should be based on on Ships Sunk + Merchant Shipping Losses. This would accurately reflect the German goals in the Battle for the Atlantic.

Can tonnage sunk (ie Merchant shipping MPPs lost) influence the victory point total? Example: You sink 500 Mpps = +50 victory points

In Sc2; 1. Atlantic Ocean is larger 2. Subs are cheaper 3. Diving chance is higher 4. Intercepting Merchant shipping may be more rewarding. In Sc1; Vs AI (not humans) you can dominate the Atlantic and prevent the AI from launching a D-Day invasion by; sending Italian Fleet to the Atlantic in support of German subs built in Southern France under the protection of a bomber. Then sink all transports heading towards the UK from the USA. Works all the time. This may not work in SC2 as AI will be smarter.

Will the AI "sometimes" use diplomacy to accelerate or delay American entry into the war? This appears to be a favored strategy of the playtesters.

Any AI news?

If you want a realistic situation - add a random Event where the Fearless Leader (Hitler or Stalin) orders units on the Eastern front not to Retreat that turn. Then you will see why the Russians and Germans lost so many soldiers during the war.

Any news on whether the AI will sometimes use diplomacy to delay or accelerate US entry, or affect the entry of other neutrals? If so will it have more than one diplomatic strategy to select from?

Getting back on topic, In SC2 I would like to see an AI that really knows how to use bombers. In SC1 too often the AI would bomb a city or port which a friendly unit could seize. In one game the German port near Denmark remained in Allied hands, while a German air unit bombed it each turn. The AI never moved a ground unit next to the port to take control of it. How would I handle the AI for Bombers; Allied Logic 1. Is there a Battle for Atlantic ------Yes then Go to 2 ------No, then go to 3 2. Battle for Atlantic ------Position bombers to support Naval forces and attack ships that spot enemy naval forces in Atlantic 3. No Battle for Atlantic 3.1 Postion bombers to attack targets in Europe from UK. 3.1.1 If AI plans to launch D-Day in 5 turns do not attack ports or coastal cities 3.1.2 If AI does not plan to launch D-Day in 5 turns then add ports and coastal cities to target list. 3.2 If Bombers are intercepted switch to new Target [ January 17, 2006, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree with Retributar. Galactic Civilizations is not hard to learn. Moreover, winning is not easy as the map changes from game to game and the AI is pretty good. Its definitely on my short list of games to purchase this year, along with Sc2. One feature from it that I would like to see in SC2 is events that give you a choice. In Galciv this involves choosing between a good action, a neutral action, and an evil action. Your choices affect your relations with the other AI controlled players.

I believe that in SC2 you can only build units in your home country.

1. Amphibious Transports - You board on Turn 1. You can move and land on Turn 2 - as I recall. 2. Strategic Bombing - Sc2's AI definitely needs to include routines for the proper use of bombers as outlined in this thread including: Move to new targets if you are intercepted, bombing Russia oil fields, and helping to control the Atlantic or Mediterranean. [ January 17, 2006, 06:10 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Interesting, it seems as if Russian production, (ie 252) is below the production from Sc1 at a similar point in time. One turn raids, I wonder if this could work against Bucharest too? Do you see strategic bombing as an effective strategy?

Reducing the initial attack range and spotting range of air fleets in SC1 would have helped alot while being easy to implement. Why easy to implement? It would have involved changing only 2 values: Attack Range and Spotting Range for air fleets. No additional code would have been required. PS: This is being done for SC2. [ January 16, 2006, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]