Edwin P.

Sombra, thats a good idea. I too would like the option to purchase a HQ unit blind for a reduced cost in MPPs. Example: Buy Monty for 450MPP or Unknown for 350MPP. The unknown might have a rating of 3 to 7.

Do the playtesters have any comments on the battle for Russia. Too easy for Russia or too easy for Germany or just right? Does Russia have only one strategy to secure victory or many? Any last but not least will the Russian AI have the knowledge execute one strategy or many? [ January 10, 2006, 08:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

This is already accounted for in SC2. Units making a deliberate attack without moving first get a 25% readiness bonus for combat, and -1 AP for subsequent movement. Otherwise, units can move and attack "normally" as in SC. Call it a bonus for deliberate planning or a "wear and tear" penalty for movement to contact/hasty attack, the effect is already implemented. </font>

Good ppints all around, and most interesting tid-bit about those weather stations. Quite frankly it would have been impossible for Germany to supply any forces on Iceland in the face of Allied naval superiority. I jsut don't see any way to reflect that in Sc2. Perhaps if one could have the capital city function at Level 5 if Axis occupied and Level 10 if Allied occupied. --------------------------------------- I like your idea for Vichy France allowing Axis ships to resupply at its ports. I wonder if the USA provided a similar service to UK ships - allowsing them to be resupplied at meutral US ports.

In my view Iceland should become independent after Denmark surrenders and offer no opposition to any invading force. If you attack Iceland before while Denmark is neutral such an action should have negative consequences for your relations with the other Nordic countries. As for its production base, it should be minimal. My best guess is that the allies will maintain a force ready to invade Iceland once the Axis attack Denmark. Then they will station an airfleet on the Isle to aid in spotting and sinking any subs that pass nearby. [ January 09, 2006, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

http://stonebooks.com/history/iceland.shtml

Note: Iceland only became a US base after the Brits invaded, until then it was persuing a policy of neutrality. Of course, it did not have an army with which to resist an invasion. In my view, if you want to control Iceland you should be required to invade it. Invading Iceland will incurr no diplomatic penalty and you will face no opposition along with no partisans. [ January 09, 2006, 05:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JJ, I like your HQ ratings scale. Question: Which WWII Generals, if any, would you rate as inept?

Yes. :cool:

Any news on what the AI scripts can do? I assume that you can assign research and production priorities in addition to assigning research areas and units that a nation will not pursue. Am I correct? Example: Russia will not build naval vessels. Russia will not research ASW. Example: US Research Priority > IT then IT then Long Range then Mechanization then .....

Excellent point, I was just thinking of all of the Russian and German HQ units that were never purchased in Sc1. Though perhaps since battle is the true test of a general, perhaps the name of purchased HQ units, except for those whose qualities were well known, should remain unknown until its first test in battle. Another thought for another edition - perhaps a Civil War Edition? PS: Thanks for the status report on the TCP-IP feature, any news on the AI yet? [ January 09, 2006, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

No General John P. Lucus? With increased US Production, surely the USA should have access to more HQ Units, even if they are not the same caliber of Patton's or Eisenhower's.

I agree, JDF, we won't see anything like this until SC3, but I do like the concept. Mobility - +1 Action Point to controlled units. Indecision - 20% chance that the unit loses all action points that turn, and can't move. In fact, after Sc2 ships in the near future, I wonder what HC has in mind for Sc3?

http://www.aginc.net/battle/index.html http://www.aginc.net/battle/ops.html http://www.geocities.com/beckster05/Agincourt/AgMain.html http://www.familychronicle.com/agincort.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt http://historymedren.about.com/library/prm/blagincourt.htm http://www.crowddynamics.com/Battlefield%20Detectives/BattleField.htm http://www.crowddynamics.com/Battlefield%20Detectives/Agincourt.htm

Eisenhower (USA) - 8, although he would be rated a 5 as a field commander his control of logistical support warrants an 8. Patton (USA) - 8. If it were possible I would rate him an 8 when commanding land units and a 6 when commanding air units. Omar Bradley (USA) - 6, for the reasons mentioned aboved. John P. Lucus (USA) - 4, a rather conservative general much berated for not advancing inland from the Anzio beachhead. George C. Marshall (USA) - 7, US Chief of Staff during WWII. Frank M. Andrews (USA) - 5, one of the founding fathers of the US Air Force he effected a single unified command over all air units. If it were possible, I would assign him a 5 when commanding land units and a 9 when commanding air units. If HQ units could be assigned two ratings - one for land and another for air units, my ratings would likely be: Patton (8/6) Marshall (7/7) Lucus(4/4) Eisenhower (8/7) Bradley (6/6) Frank Andrews (5/9) [ January 09, 2006, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Rating Patton as the equal of Rommel is correct, as both knew how to lead their men on the attack, better than most other generals of ther period. Lowering Montgomery's rating will probably draw howls of protest, but Patton was a more aggresive commander than Monty who believed in detailed planning and relied on the availablity of superior firepower to win battles, not superior tactics. It should also be noted that Monty's rating also reflects his ability to secure greater levels of logistical support for his armies.

[ January 08, 2006, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JJR- What more do you want? The A-Bomb? :eek: [ January 08, 2006, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In Sc1 the Axis could win without battling for control of the Atlantic. What do the playtesters see as the relative importance for the Axis of the Battle for the Atlantic?

Moreover, the AI needs to be able to select a stragegy that will guide its actions. As the AI gets more intelligent it should know of more strategies and offer a less predictable game. Example: 1942 Scenario Allied Western Allied Strategies 1. D-Day Invasion of France 2. Liberate Nordic Countries 3. Control North Africa 4. Invade Sicily Beginner AI may only know the D-Day strategy. While the Expert AI may select from all 4. Select D-Day Invasion of France This leads to: 1. Operate Air Untis to UK 2. Take Brest Strategy after US builds HQ unit Select Control North Africa Strategy This leads to: 1. Move UK Fleets to Staging Area off Gibraltar 2. Move Transports to Staging Area behind Fleets 3. Move to Take either: Sicily or Italian Libya or Engage forces attackig Egypt from behind. [ January 07, 2006, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In Sc1 the AI will never use the strategies favored by humans to win. Why not give the AI a chance to know these strategies and the fuzzy logic to employ them? Example: Human Axis will often withdraw German units and excess Italian units from North Africa to Europe and so they can be used on the Eastern Front. So: Green - 0% AI Knows this strategy Beginner - 50% AI knows this strategy Expert - 100% AI knows this strategy and may use it. Simarily, the Allies will often send their Navy to the Med after Brest falls to the Allies. Green - 0% AI Knows this strategy Beginner - 50% AI knows this strategy Expert - 100% AI knows this strategy and may use it. Likewise the Human Western Allied player will often operate all air units to the UK to support his D-Day invasion of France. Green - 0% AI knows this strategy Beginner - 50% Ai knows this strategy Expert - 100% AI knows this strategy Thus at higher AI levels the AI will have a wider range of options for its fuzzy logic to consider. Example: At Beginner the Western Allied AI may know: 1. Withdraw Air Fleets to UK and not know 1. Send Navy to Med. Thus the Fuzzy logic will say: IF Goal is D-Day then - Withdraw Air Fleets to UK [ January 07, 2006, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Nope, you can plan around the seasons, obviously at times it is a hinderence. Like moving into France after Poland. It is the fall, so you can get slowed down by the mud and a slight possibility of snow. But it is definitly not a game breaker by luck. No one wanted the "tech luck game" SC became. Even tech in this game is no longer a game breaker. Russia can have no planes and put up a fight. </font>

USA does not start off with anything big, 1 corps and 2 armies. With that said, by the time USA joins the war you can easily have 2 HQs & 8+ Armies. I had 2 HQs & 8 Armies at level 3 infantry weapons and level 2-3 motorization the turn before USA joined the Allies. I also had level 5 Industrial Tech. 2 Battleships and 1 cruiser which are in the production queue by default.</font>

Not currently. This would be nice to have as an enhancement later. Allow units on coastal tiles to select Transport but at double the cost and something like 25-75% random losses inflicted? You'll find that the unit costs and reinforcement costs start to add up more quickly in SC2 for these high techs. I still have a tendency to upgrade most all my units when I can, but then find I don't have enough MPPs to sustain them. Unlike SC1, players will have to make some tough decisions about how to spend their MPPs. And with production delays, you also need to correctly predict what you will need in the future. </font>