Edwin P.

The chance to move land or air units to distant locations at reduced cost. Amphibious Movement was originally conceived to be a separate research category, but, in the end, Hubert opted for the KISS principle, IE, IF you have an argument with your wife or mistress or girl-friend, ALWAYS make it right, just as soon as you can, with a kiss... Ooooops, WRONG one I mean to say, Amphib is contained within the Infrastructure category since that allows ALL forms of movement to be in ONE category, thus... "keeping it simple, Senor." Amphib is EXPENSIVE (... twice the cost of plain old transport from port to port) and so researching Infrastructure will reduce the cost of amphibious movements, and, transport as well. It is supposed that you are not only improving roads and rail, but also port facilities and your transport network in general, no matter how done or whether across land or the 7 Seas. **[... having Amphib COST a LOT more is ideal in another way, as it prevents too many of those willy-nilly "nuisance raids"... IF you intend to amphib invade, you have to PAY for it; thus, it would most especially be something the USA Player would probably want to invest in for later invasions of North Afrika or France] And, it is for your usual Operational Moves. This could be an immense savings over the course of a 6 year war, especially for those countries that have far-flung territories, as Britain, or who would advance deep into enemy territory, as GErmany early, and Russia later. And, if you are using "home builds" as an option (... and it IS part of the default game) then Infrastructure would save you MPP's since you could only place newly constructed units that arrive off of the build queu in your HOME country. OK, what benefit? Well, it REDUCES cost of Op Moves and Naval movement of men and materiel by 15% for EACH level of achievment. IF you should reach level 5, you would consequently save 75% (... 5 Xs 15) for each and every Op Move or transport/amphibious movement. </font>

Blashy, on getting Spain to go Axis for 750MPP invested in Diplomacy:

Yep, I had Spain up in the 70 percentile. Then, I suspected wily (... and Diplo board attentive) Opponent had canceled my Diplomatic chit with one of his own, so I stuck another flyer in there. I was hoping for that occasional "large parlay" where you can get a 20-30% hit. At that point, it is Molly over the Windmill (... rather, in this instance - Don Quixote, kicked head over heels, I guess) Because... once you reach the magic number, IE, 90% leaning in your favor, well, then there are automatic and gradual increases whether you have a Diplo chit canceled out or not. Kind of like... the Minor has JUST ABOUT been convinced, and all that is required now is to roll out the red carpet, toss the garlands around, and open the back door of the waiting limosine. Mercedes or Packard or Rolls Royce, as the case may be. </font>

JJ, Yep, there surely is one in the game. Currently, it is only able to construct Fortifications. [... it is an Icon with two soldiers instead of 1 for Corps and 3 for Army; can be considered a place-holder also, in the event that the Modder wants to include some "special forces."] Bill had a fine suggestion recently. Allow the Engineer to act as a temporary port For supply purposes. This could be used to great effect During D-Day landings. Also, Once the forces are established ashore, Then help to dismantle any Fortress Europa Kind of bulwarks the GErmans might have built, With an EXTRA effect, IE, If they participate in an attack, Allow them to reduce entrenchment by 2, IE, They are using the flamethrowers And high explosives, etc. Earlier in the process I had suggested Two other uses for the Engineer: 1) It might build a SUPPLY DEPOT. This on-screen icon would take one turn to construct, last two turns and cost... ~ 50 to 100 MPP's. And it would then BOOST the supply of all units within range for the following 2 turns. It (... and the Engineer, during construction) would be vulnerable to air attack, should the enemy discover it by way of recon Ops. This would allow for all-out "summer offensives" and could also help to relieve the reduced supply state of units that are somewhat isolated, IE, have exceeded the normal range of a nearby HQ, City or Port. 2) The Engineer could build an Air Base. This might cost, say - 150 MPP's (... since it would be permanent unless and until over-run by the enemy) and would allow any Air Unit on or next to it to have a "bonus attack" on any turn. It might appear on the map as an icon with runways and maybe a control tower. Of course, this would "cluster" your air units within a confined area, thereby preventing wide-ranging Ops, but it could be yet another offensive boost during one of those planned "offensives." Though if you achieved sufficient long-range air, you could place Air Bases in a couple prime locations and cover a lot of territory. Now, NONE of these are approved by Hubert and therefore NOT coded as yet. They may never be; or, if enough people REALLY like some extra abilities for the Enginer unit, perhaps post-release, who knows? These are just some suggestions that Bill and I have made so that the Engineer might be more active and a sort of... "Jack of all Trades," eh? :cool: </font>

Good points as well. I would consider the strike range bonus a "feature" and as Edwin pointed out you still have the limited spotting range to deal with. One thing we are desperately trying to achieve is to break the idea that AFs are all-powerful. If you don't really "need" Bombers, if there's no inherent advantage to having them, then we're back to trying to fix this old SC1 problem. So it's worth keeping that in mind. We need a balance between AFs and Bombers, and giving the naval bomber advantage (despite the voodoo range) to Bombers helps in this regard. </font>

Correct. This is something players can experiment with. And as playtesting continues, we could consider reducing Bomber NA and CA from 4 to 2 to be consistent with AFs, and leave the real naval air expertise to the Carriers. Nothing is final, yet! But note that this naval attack capability of Bombers make them useful for both sides. Some players dislike Bombers since they believe they are not effective at anything, but hopefully SC2 can change that attitude. </font>

1024x768, 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 Hubert would have to comment about this. There's probably some sort of optimized sequence that the AI follows. To change this so it focuses on one map area at a time may be far more trouble than it's worth. Let's get a decent AI that runs well and THEN worry about how it looks. A playback feature is planned. </font>

Bill has it right on, There WILL indeed be immense differences In how you'll have to play The Russian Campaign. And I DO mean... immense. Greater open spaces there on them Steppes, AND very many choices to make In terms of S & T. I would differ with his excellent account, only on this score: I'm not so sure we have firmly established That 60% figure... could be higher, We'll have to see what Mr H decides. Yet, it IS an inspired idea, and will surely Be just one more feature that should cause The "defensive GP" to have some sooner Arriving reserves, which can also Be outfit with the latest Tech advances, thereby saving the turn Usually required to pull back from the line For re-fit. :cool: </font>

Maybe. Maybe not. There is an interesting new feature that was added not too long ago. I'm not sure if Blashy highlighted this during his AARs. Destroyed units that were in supply are repurchaseable at 60% base cost with 1/2 the production delay. Think of these as surviving unit cadres. Anyway, this helps Russia in the defense, and later Germany when they transition to the defense. And others of course. So the strategic decision you have to make as the Allied player is whether to sacrifice units as speed bumps until mud and snow arrives, or allow the panzers to zip straight ahead toward Moscow and be allowed to hit you full force in good weather. Loss of Moscow does not mean loss of game of course, but that's 30 MPPs per turn plus all the other eastern Europe resources you've given up without a fight. Every battle fought along the way inflicts some losses on the Axis, losses which take time and MPPs to recover. Rebuilding some Russian losses at reduced cost and production delay makes this a viable strategy. Giving ground and avoiding early losses may also be a viable strategy, and players will be free to explore this option without an artificial penalty imposed. In fairness, I previously advocated the Russian penalties. If these are needed for play balance, we can reconsider them later. With playtesting so far, the jury is still out. </font>

This gives the Russians a few more tiles and doesn't change much else. Statistically there's a slim chance it might not happen at all by Barbarossa... Just having the opportunity to conduct research and production for a neutral Russia and having the freedom to deploy as desired is fascinating. There may be other things we can consider later, like allowing neutral Russia to attack other neutrals like Turkey, but this is minor stuff. The important stuff is taken care of! :cool: </font>

Long post. I'm starting another thread for this topic. To illustrate some of the event capabilities, here's the basic structure for the unit event, which is typical of the structure for most other event scripts: The #FLAG can be toggled on/off at game start regardless of whether you set an event as default or not. So players could create a whole series of what-ifs which they can easily use or not use for each game. #TYPE is used to define single checks, multiple checks or reoccuring checks once conditions are satisfied. #TRIGGER sets the chance that the event occurs. Now, a random event could be easily added to the game to give Italy a free Tank Group, or USA a free Bomber, or whatever. This could represent an emphasis on a particular doctrine or perhaps that "light at the end of the tunnel." For example, Allied ground units within 3-5 tiles of Berlin could trigger a release of hidden panzer reserves. There's a lot that can be done with all this. A trigger of 1% per turn would have a very good chance of not occurring at all within a particular game, and could become that "unknown by either side." Ditto for a higher percentage but as a single one-time check only. Not only would this surprise human players, it would also introduce a new condition for the AI to evaluate and may prompt some interesting offensive/defensive reactions from the computer opponent. On the flip side, here's the concern about introducing too many random events. What if too many happen during a game which skews things one way? Unlike the old Third Reich variant chits where each player selects an equal number of supposedly balanced events, the fickle finger of fate in SC2 may deal an uneven hand. Statistically, even those 1% chances can occur quite frequently! So. My take is that SC2 will offer a few surprises but a lot of the more creative development will happen after release. Some folks will want a crazy anything-goes game while others won't. Some will want historically realistic what-ifs and others won't care. The good news is that the SC2 Editor offers enough flexibility for most everyone to be satisfied eventually. :cool: </font>

And so, EP, you bring up another VERY troublesome aspect for the SC-2 player. There are force pool limits. There is only so much gained ground the GErmans can cover, garrison wise. Last night when I played the game, the GErmans got raked over by those Norwegian partisans... with substantial damage to the iron ore mines. :eek: Let's see... you'll likely need 4 corps to cover Norway sufficiently (... UK can spare this many low-tech militia type units? I wonder?) How many more in France, would you suppose, with the "Free France underground?" How many more in mountains of Greece? With those fierce Spartan descendants? How many more in Tito's Yugoslavia? How many here, there - everywhere at once! :eek: In truth: GErmany has a problem, one among many. Sure, you CAN take damn near any Minor you want, and usually, not a major problem. But, as above, and as it will be with Spain (... or Egypt or Ireland for the UK) you always gotta watch out for those partisans... some of which appear on board, with that cool new partisan sprite, while others do their sly sabotage invisibly. :cool: </font>

You recall correctly, EP. And JdF2 need be worried no longer. Only, it is not "Murmansk Convoy" but "Arctic Convoy" since the destination is the (... occasionally "iced over") Russian port of Archangel, and not Murmansk, which does not fit on the default map. [... GErman player may decide to send more Panzers and grenadiers NORTH, by way of Vologda, so to cut that potentially lucrative convoy? And yep, that depends on how generous UK can be, at any given point in the game...] And sure, the small, isolated port of Trondheim is VITAL to the GErman game player, should he or even, she, opt for active shadowing of those ice-rimed transports. In fact, I can foresee this particular strategy as causing quite a fierce contest. Should UK player be prepared to land in Trondheim? Should GErman player be prepared to RISK their meagre Kriegsmarine... BEFORE Bismark arrives on the sea-going scene? Would that delay be just enough to allow UK to carry the day, IE, conquer Norway BEFORE the GErmans can do so? And if THAT happens, is UK then more vulnerable to See Lowe? Typical, I tell you true. Of SC-2. SO-o-o-o VERY many choices to make, WRT to EVERY single... action-reaction escapade! :cool: </font>

Yes and no. No, in that Hubert probably will not code a feature to randomly select certain events. There are a lot of events! But yes, in that players can toggle certain events on/off at game start up from the menu screen. I can envision mods where additional events are provided which would be like the old variant chits in Third Reich, and players can randomly select those themselves. Not quite the surprise during the game when something happens, but it is an option. </font>

DesertDave and I plead GUILTY, your honor! One thing both Dave and I miss from 3R is that ebb and flow that took place. Force pool limits that restricted the Axis at their peak and an economic model that allowed the USA/USSR to rapidly expand their production helped create this effect. This was lacking in SC1, but we're working like beavers to try to make it happen in SC2. So far, it's looking good!! :cool: </font>

EP, you CAN re-arrange and re-adust the "activation scripts" so that USA would not join, given the cirumstances you've alluded to. IE, should the GErman player opt to invade Russia immediately! following conquest of Poland, for instance, and allow the Western Allies to do what they will... with the WILL that they've got, militarily, economically or diplomatically, well, That is an interesting "what-if" scenario that you might fee-fie fiddle around with. Thing is... you CAN do just about ANYTHING with this Editor. NOT everything, but quite a LOT. </font>

A collection of posts with interesting information about SC2. [ January 06, 2006, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Conquests would be more strategic if controlling an iron mine or oil field increased your force pool limits. ie: If you control a mine tile you gain a +1 bonus to your naval and/or armor build limits.

RE: IT Research growth rates for USA and USSR. How do they differ from the standard 5% in SC1? Will the AI know to invest in IT? In SC1 AI investments in research never matched the human players', and would sometimes be in areas where it would never or could never afford to build units.

Idea: Allow a human Allied Player to play with a Russian AI against an Axis AI. The Human player would not control the Russian AI. He could adjust the amount of lend lease support that he provides to Russia and he would see the extent of the Axis advance on the map, but he would not control Russian units.

I agree. This became especially evident after the USA entered the war and long range bombers began arriving from the USA. Based on my reading of the forum, SC2 better reflects this. USA production is increased and can can exceed 200% of its starting production. The USA can also decide how much lend lease support the UK receives.

Can I write an event that says if France and UK have not surrendered the USA does not enter the war? Why? When playing against the AI it seems most unrealistic to see the USA enter the war if the UK and France have sucessfully replused the German invasion.