Edwin P.

As for that 55 to 45, a better lead Germany would have; 1. Not declared War on the US after Pearl Harbor, but instead thrown Japan out of the Axis Alliance. Some might say that such an action would have delayed US entry into the in Europe for about another 12 months while the US focused on Japan. 2. Been more persuasive in convincing Franco to join the Axis. Without Gibraltar allied supply lines in the Med would have been fatally lengthened and Malta along with Egypt would have quickly fallen, in addition to stopping SOE aid to resistance forces in Yugoslavia and Greece. Thus freeing up more resources for the Western Front. 3. Constructed a larger submarine force. 4. Not ordered Generals not to retreat. In summary, Germany could have won if they had better leadership. They did not, and lost. That said, I still think that a game where both sides can win is just more fun to play, and WWII was relatively balanced in Europe except in the Pacific. The problem in SC1 was that it was too easy for the Axis to conquear all the neutrals before attacking Russia. [ January 05, 2006, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Quick Note: From my readings on this forum the Bear will not roll over so quickly in SC2 due to 1) USSR having 2 production centers, 2) unit build limits, 3) reduced plunder, 4) free setup for USSR, 5) weather effects and 6) partisans in more countries. Waiting for comments on new improved AI. [ January 05, 2006, 02:11 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Here are two (edited to three) simplified player choice events that give both players a way to experiment with changing history and make the game slightly less unpredictable. I know that this will not be possible in Sc2 in the form presented (with the player having to make a choice in response to the popup). Popup for USA Player August 1941 - Does the USA embargo oil and coal sales to Japan? Yes - 50% Japan Attacks Pearl Harbor Dec 1941, USA War Readiness increases. - 20% Japan Agrees to USA terms in Dec 1941, USA War Readiness declines, early Siberian Transfer as Japan withdraws from Axis Alliance, UK gains fleet in Persian Gulf. - 30% No Effect No - 20% Japan Attacks Siberia, No Siberian Transfer for Russia, US gets Pacific Fleet as bonus. - 80% No Effect Popup for Axis Player At end of first turn - "Should Germany ally itself with Italy, Spain or Turkey." Italy - Normal Game Spain - Spain becomes Axis Major, Italy becomes Neutral ---------- 50% Spain Rejects Offer and Remains Neutral, Standard Game with Italy as Axis Turkey - Turkey becomes Axis Major, Italy becomes neutral. ---------- 50% Turkey Rejects Offer and Remains Neutral , Standard Game with Italy as Axis Popup at French Surrender Upon the conquest of Paris the Axis player sees this popup: "Should we plunder France, accept their surrender, or welcome France into the Axis?" Plunder France - Increased plunder, no Vichy, 100% French Navy and French Algeria and French Syria join Allies as Free France. French Surrender - Normal creation of Vichy France. Welcome France into the Axis - No partisans, No Free French, no plunder, France becomes an Axis major nation. French Navy joins Axis. Russian war readiness increases. [ January 05, 2006, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

For a balanced game I think that it should be closer to 50%? Why? a. Basically the Axis player will not make all of the strategic errors that doomed the German war effort. 01. Invasion of Russia - The axis player will likely select one Axis of advance - either to the oil rich Causcaus mountain area or Moscow. 02. Egypt and Malta - Rommels push towards Egypt failed because a) the Allies controlled Malta and he did not receive the reinforcements that he requested. 03. Battle for the Atlantic - Germany started the war with only 50 subs, not the 300 that Admiral Doentiz wanted. Why - limted resources were assigned to build surface ships not subs 04. What if the Brits never broke the Ultra code? b. A 50/50 balances game is more fun to play. c. It should not be a cake-walk for either side. Both sides should have to struggle to win. d. That said, the Allies should be able to achieve the historical victory that they did if the Axis player's moves are effectively countered by the Allied player. PS: For those that play solo something needs to be done to make the AI a more competitive and less predictable Allied and Axis player at expert level. At Green to Beginner level I can accept a predictable AI. [ January 05, 2006, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Yes BL, as this will allow the Axis to better reinforce the Finish units. This bring's up the question of what rating Marshal Mannerheim's HQ should have. As HQ's are partially a reflection of the logistics tail of an army and partially a reflection of its leadership, I would say a 5. Why 5? Good leadership; certainly better than the French and Italian, but limited warfighting supplies during the Winter War with Russia. This contrasts with Patton who was rated 8 in Sc1. Patton was a good general with no shortage of logistical support.

Cool, Partisans, partisans everywhere. :eek: Historically speaking there would be no partisans in Egypt or Iraq to face the Germans as the general populace was largely pro-German and anti-British, which is why the British invaded Iraq and kept a garrison in Egypt. And am I to assume that Egypt begins the game as a conquered territory and if the UK abandons Cairo, partisans might rise up to take over the city and welcome in the Germans (but not the Italians whom they did not trust. ). Via the editor this can be turned on-or-off by country. I wonder if the chance for partisans can be set seperately for each country. Ie 15% for Turkey and Yugoslavia, and 5% for France. I say this because in general French partisans were not very effective, until after the Allies invaded. Now that Germans nor Allies can no longer run roughshod over the world and not leave a garrison behind what choices will they make. It will be most a interesting game once it is released. Unpredictable with many choices and tradeoffs. Most unlike SC1 where the Germans had a road map that lead to victory - Conquer All (Spain/Nordic Countries/Middle East), Research Jets and Long Range, and then Take Russia by dividing it in two so no units can be built in Southern Russia. Sounds so good, so close, and yet so far. Or perhaps not so far? [ January 04, 2006, 01:06 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

DD says "So many choices to make" I wonder how the new AI will handle Norway - at a strategic and operational level. Perhaps: 50% Go after Norway ------ If so: 20% via Diplomacy ------ and 80% via Invasion 50% Ignore Norway and if the UK takes Norway first, what does the AI do? ------ 40% Ignore UK Control ------ 50% Axis Liberation Task Force ------ 10% Sea Lion and once Germany controls Norway what does it do then? ----- 50% Garrison It Lightly or Heavily? ----- 50% Base for Raids on Artic Convoy Route ------------- 50% Station a Bomber in Norway So many choices. So little time. Only one head and two hands. :confused: What will HC do?

1. There is a Murmansk convoy route and the western allies can decide how much MPPs go to Russia, as I recall from prior posts. Perhaps a good reason for the Axis and Allied AI to take Norway? 2. Yes, John DiFool the 2nd, let the location of the "single" sub or subs starting the game in the Atlantic be randomized. Otherwise it is too easy for the allies to locate it. Example: 25% Loc A, 25% Loc B (Mid Atlantic), 25% Loc C (Near Iceland) and 25% Loc D (South Atlantic). [ January 04, 2006, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent point on the replinishment SeaMonkey. I was also thinking about how the movement of Subs in Sc1 were so very predictable. After a few games in each scenario you always knew where they would go even with FOW on. In Sc2 I would like to see this movement pattern randomized. Example: In Sc1 the 2 subs in the North Atlantic would always move NE. more on this later....

I have talked about the AI using Bombers and Diplomacy, so now its time to offer some ideas on the use of submarines, though HC has probably thought of these ideas before, weighed them carefully and ............. First, note how there is more than one merchant ship convoy route on the map. Many targets. Second, note the Middle East transit tiles at the map bottom. This got me to thinking about what if the Axis AI occassionally decided to interdict these two areas instead of remaining in the North Atlantic all the time. Perhaps it moves to the South Atlantic to await transports coming or going to the Middle East. Or perhaps it strikes a merchant shipping route, moves off and then returns to strike it again.

1. Software release dates always slip. I have seen it happen at large companies and small ones. 2. I admire BF and HC for not releasing the game until its ready. 3. It would have been nice if Battlefront released a "simple" update to the Expert level AI for SC1 in Christmas 2004 after finding out about the delayed release. This could have been as simple as a 20% (1 in 5 games) chance for Turkey & Iraq and/or Spain to join the AI side at Expert level. Or perhaps a 20% for the AI to receive 4 bonus tech chits and/or 4 Bombers Level and/or 4 bonus Air Fleets. Or a 20% that the USA gets a random bonus (if Allied AI) or penalty (if Axis AI) to their war readiness or reinforcing the UK forces and fleet in Egypt. [ January 03, 2006, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Ah, Good Terrain. Reminds me of Agincourt - I will have to check the spelling - where the British Longbow men cut down the Knights of France as they charged forward on a narrowing field flanked by forests on both sides. PS: Its good to see new blood on these forums. And don't take any personal comments you read here too seriously. Just people having fun. [ January 03, 2006, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I don't get that channel but did read a good novel on the battle last year - Gates of Fire, and I am a sucker for battles where a brave few fought despite great odds - Custer's Last Stand, Alamo, Masada, Roarke's Drift, Spanish Civil War siege of the Toledo Alcázar, Seige of Kartom, Seige of the Diplomatic Quarter during the Boxer Rebellion in China. [ January 02, 2006, 08:35 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

How will HC's SC2 AI handle diplomacy in Sc2? Will it invest in diplomacy or not? If so how much? Will it or will it not respond to human investments in diplomacy? Which country or countries will it favor? Which country or countries will it ignore? Will it have strategy for diplomatic spending so that it does not make ineffective investments. Thought 1. The AI at Green and Novice levels should largely ignore this aspect of the game to keep things simple for the human player. Thought 2. The Axis AI should probably not take the diplomatic initative in Switzerland, Iceland, Ireland, Portugal and Persia. Thought 3. At Expert level and higher the AI should focus diplomatic spending on Spain (45%), Turkey (45%) or Sweden (10%) if it decides to invest in this area as they are the most powerful neutrals in terms of location, production and the size of their national army. Thought 4. In the AI level chart add a column for bonus diplomatic chits - +0 chit (Green to Beginner), +1 chit (Intermediate), +2 chits (Expert), +3 chits (Genius), Random (+0 to +5). Thought 5. Can Russia can swing Finland to its side using diplomacy? This would secure its Northern front. Thought 6. Would swinging Portugal to the Allied side be worth it. The Allies would gain an airbase that could support the defense of Gibraltar or Spain. Though 7. The Allied AI should probably counter any Human diplomatic efforts in Turkey as an Axis Turkey would greatly complicate matters for Soviet Russia. Perhaps the beta testers can offer some insight on their diplomatic strategies, diplomatic counter strategies, or reasons for not pursuing diplomacy (as it does take away resources that could be used to construct a larger army). [ January 02, 2006, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Thanks for the update Blashy. Its good to know that one will be able to use the AI scripting to write randomly selectable Post Russian Surrender Routines for the AI. As Blashy said the game is over when the UK and Russia have both fallen to the Axis, and I like this option as it prevents a long drawn out game when a human player refuses to concede defeat. At the same time I think players will use the threat of invading America to force the Allied player to use some forces to guard North America, especially Newfoundland against invasion. [ January 03, 2006, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, thanks for the detailed background on the Maginot line. I agree, the Maginot line did what it was intended to do. Being too strong for the German Army or Airforce to breach it forced them to go elsewhere. The French were not prepared for this alternative German strategy, kina reminds me of the 300 Spartans at Thermapolye where the Persian forces outflanked them by using an old goat trail. One might think the French commanders never learned to apply the lessons of this historic battle which is a staple of history courses at European and American military acadamies where it is used to show: 1. How a small group of well-trained and well led soldiers can have an impact out of all proportions to their numbers. 2. Importance of good terrain and good strategy. [ January 02, 2006, 08:34 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Having outline a possible post Russian Surrender strategy for the AXIS AI, now its time for one for the the Allied AI. An Allied AI strategy, given the surrender of Russia is much harder, but lets give it a try. First, what would be the likely building blocks? Possibly; 1. Fortify the UK Isles (to better repel an Axis invasion) 2. Maximize Air Defense Research (to resist the forthcoming Axis Air attacks) 3. Maximize Merchant Shipping Aid to the UK 4. Control the Atlantic 5. Conquer Ireland as a Base from which to Defend the British Isles with American Air Power. 6. Relcaim Tech chits in unneeded tech areas (ie infrastructure, Intel). 7. Destroy Ports close to the UK Any more ideas? Re: 5. Conquer Ireland I wonder what the playtesters think of this strategy for defending the UK after Russia surrenders. Pros: 1. Easily defended by land units. 2. It's outside the range of most Axis air units in France, but close enough to support the defenders of Manchester. 3. Easily defended by Allied Naval Fleets. 4. Small MPP bonus via plunder and production. Cons: 1. If the single port is lost or damaged allied land units on the Isle can't leave. 2. A HQ unit must be deployed on the Isle to allow for maximum reinforcements of damaged units. Perhaps, an engineer should be deployed on Eire to fortify it? [ January 01, 2006, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Question - could one write a unit event that would only trigger if the USA was at war? Example: Event: MacArthur arrives at Cairo IF Axis units within 3 tiles of Cairo before Oct 1941, 3% chance that General MacArthur (HQ Unit), his Marines from the Phillipines (Corps), and the US Battleship Iowa (Battleship Fleet) arrive in the Red Sea if the USA is at war. This would simulate what could have happened if the USA entered the war early and the fleet was not occupied with the threat from Japan. #Name=MacArthur arrives in Egypt #Popup=American reinforcements lead by General MacArthur have arrived in the Red Sea #FLAG=0 #TYPE=0 #COUNTRY_ID= #TRIGGER=3 --------------------------------------------- PS: With the current structure one could have the AI issue appropiate pithy comments to the human player, if only there was a condition check for the AI. But this may not matter as the AI will simply ignore the popup. Sample: #AI= Will this event occur for all players, only for the Allied Human, for the Axis Human, for the Allied AI, for the Axis AI (values range [0, 1, 2, 3, 4]; All=0,Allied Human= 1; Axis Human = 2, Allied AI=3, Axis AI=4) Example: IF Axis AI Units are in Paris before date XX/XX/XXXX you could have a 25% for a popup to the human player that says - "Human, to win you must fight harder to defend France." Example: If AXIS AI Units take Moscow the AI may say "Human, the end is near." [ January 03, 2006, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

As I stated in an earlier post, I would like to see the Axis AI have a series of Post Russia Surrender game strategies that it would execute in a random order. POST RUSSIA SURRENDER AXIS AI STRATEGIES BUILDING BLOCKS 1. Conquer the World - Conquer remaining neutral nations. 2. Operation Sealion - invade England 3. Control the Atlantic - Naval superiority in the Atlantic 4. Take Gibraltar and send Italian Fleet to the Atlantic 5. Invade America (USA 50%, Newfoundland 50%) Thus the AI may decide to follow any one of the follow strategies: POST RUSSIAN SURRENDER AXIS AI STRATEGIES 1. Operation Sealion 2. Conquer the World THEN Operation Sealion 3. Control the Atlantic THEN Operation Sealion 4. Conquer the World THEN Control the Atlantic THEN Operation Sealion 5. Conquer the World THEN Control the Atlantic THEN Invade America THEN Operation Sealion 6. Take Gibraltar THEN Control the Atlantic THEN Operation Sealion 7. Take Gibraltar THEN Control the Atlantic THEN Invade America THEN Operation Sealion 8. Control the Atlantic THEN Conquer the World THEN Operation Sealion Taking this One step futher; Invade America Feint (a weak invasion of America/Canada designed to draw forces away from the UK) Invade America Massive (a massive invasion of America) Thus 5a. Conquer the World THEN Control the Atlantic then Invade America Feint THEN Operation Sealion 5b. Conquer the World THEN Control the Atlantic then Invade America Massive And when it comes time to select Operation Sealion after the Atlantic is controlled; > Control the Atlantic THEN 80% Operation Sealion or 15% Invade America Feint > Operation Sealion or 05% Invade America Massive (and if this fails the AI then exectures Operation Sealion) This would make the endgame less unpredicatable. Although the invade America option is not needed for victory, it adds variety to the game for those that play against the AI and penalizes the HUMAN player if he leaves North America undefended. What is the Conquer the World End Game Strategy? After Russia surrenders the AI will randomly select a neutral nation to conquer and execute that conquest. After each conquest their will be a 75% chance (35% at Green AI, 45% at Novice AI, 55% Beginner AI, 65% at Intermediate AI, 75% at Expert AI, 85% at Master AI, 95% at Genius AI) that it will continue its conquest strategy and a 25% that it will move onto its next Endgame building block. Example: Conquer the World Strategy > Select Vichy France (if Neutral) --- Then Conquer Vichy --------- 75% Select another Nation (ie Spain) ---------------- Then Conquer Spain ---------------------75% Select another Nation (ie Switzerland) ---------------------25% Control the Atlantic or Operation Sealion --------- 25% Control the Atlantic or Operation Sealion This structure makes the Axis AI end game strategy rather unpredictable. It may decide to conquer just 1 neutral nation, most likely 3 and occassionaly all before moving onto the next stage of its plan for world conquest. What is the Control the Atlantic End Game Strategy? With this strategy the AI; after conquering Russia, builds a huge naval fleet to take control of the Atlantic and disrupt merchant shipping to the UK. Part 1: German Naval Building Part 2: IF Gibraltar is Axis Controlled the German ship building effort is supported by Italy with Italian ships that are sent through the straits to await orders in the Bay of Biscay. Strategic bombers are stationed along the Spanish coast to support the Italian Navy as it moves to the Bay of Biscay where German bombers will protect the growing Axis fleet. Part 3: Battle for the Atlantic The Joint German/(Italian) Naval Fleet sets sail from the Bay of Biscay to battle the Allied Naval Forces. --------------------------------------------- Of Course the Smarter AIs should be more likely to select a winning combination of Building Block End Game Strategies. Thus: Green AI Building Block #1 - 10% Conquer the World, 50% Sealion, 30% Control the Atlantic, 10% Conquer Gibraltar (the Green AI will likely launch a Sealion without adequate preparation) Expert AI Building Block #1 - 50% Conquer the World Genius AI Building Block #1 - 70% Conquer the World (the Genius AI will likely seek to maximize his production base before launching a Sealion) [ January 01, 2006, 07:29 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

SeaMonkey, I could not have said it better.

In Sc1 the Axis AI never attempts an invasion of the US, even when it has amassed over 12,000 MPPS and has conquered all of Europe (after I DOW'd every nation including Iraq, Switzerland and Portugal). I attempted to see if I as the US could defeat an Axis invasion fleet, yet one never came. And after conquering England (which I left undefended) and Russia (whose units I disbanded) it did not proceed to attack the other neutral nations, which any meglomanic focused on world conquest surely would have done. Nor did it build an invasion fleet. It merely accumulated MPPs and moved most air units to England. [ January 02, 2006, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I regarded the lack of a port in Ireland as a way to force the British to garrison Erie against the Irish resistance.

Alternative German Naval Strategy What if Germany instead of using steel to build surface warships used these resources to build subsmarines? Example: German Submarine Warfare Variant Germany gains 6 more sub fleets (for a total of 300 subs vs the original 50 subs Germany started the war with) but loses its surface warfare fleets. I can use Unit Scripts to give them extra sub units, but can I use the scripts to take away surface fleets and surface units in production? PS: What the editor really needs; if it does not have it, is some sort of decision tree support (ie IF..Else or Case). [ December 31, 2005, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Alternative French War Preparations: 96%: Maginot Line Built - Historical 2%: Maginot Line Not built, France gains 2 Armor and 2 Air Fleets 2%: Line of Fortifications built from Switzerland to the English Channel

During Blashy's AAR he had the French abandon the Maginot line. In a recent game vs the AI at Experience +2 my French units manning the Maginot line were destroyed by an air land campaign. I wonder if the Maginot line tiles, unlike other fortifications, should have a higher air defense rating. Perhaps an air defense rating of 4 or 5? [ January 01, 2006, 06:19 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]