Edwin P.

Surprise Perhaps the hardest task for the AI to learn will be how to surprise the enemy. Example: If you move a ship in range of an AI airfleet it immediately attacks. Whereas a human will delay an attack for a turn or two in hopes of luring more targets into range and proceeds to quietly moves more air units into range for a surprise attack that will sink, not just damage the enemy unit. Once in a game vs a human opponent I stationed 3 air fleets and a bomber in the Sinai. They held their fire as enemy transports approached the Syrian coast. When their HQ unit came in range my air units sunk the HQ unit and then damaged the transports carring the combat units. [ December 14, 2005, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Kuniworth, Many thanks. Now I understand. You have to click on the unit to see where it can move, unlike SC1 where the movement range is clearer to the player.

I believe that that is incorporated into SC2. Have a look at the screenshots. Screen Shot with Overlay Showing Another Screen Shot [ December 13, 2005, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

How will SC2 handle MPPs accumulated by the minor powers of a conquered major power? Will Canadian MPPs go to us? or can Canada use them to build its own units? If Russia liberates Iraq will it get Iraqi oil or not? If Germany surrenders will German minor country allied MPPs go to Italy?

Deleted - post was repeated.

Perhaps, this situation will be addressed in Sc2?

From the screen shots it appears that you can see the strike and movement ranges of each unit when it is selected.

It would be interesting if SC2 had a random alternative history scenario selector; a. You would select Alternative History (or Random Scenario) when the game starts. b. The game randomly selects a scenario. c. You see a pop-up with a summary of the historical background to the scenario. (perhaps a seperate pop-up related to which side you select) Example: d. The game begins with the player having to react to the situation at hand be it the traditional Fall Weiss scenario or JerseyJohn's Brest-Litovsk Aftermath or his Z-Plan scenario. [ December 13, 2005, 02:25 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Here is an interesting Variant to make playing the Axis harder: Set Italy to Neutral. See if you can win without the support of the Italian Army.

Perhaps Germany would have done better if Italy had remained neutral throughout the war. Then Germany would have avoided the diversion of resources to Greece and North Africa. In fact, this can be recreated in Sc1 by setting Italy to Neutral. Would the USA enter the war if Italy remained neutral? It would be interesting to play a game with Italy and USA neutral throughout the conflict. [ December 12, 2005, 05:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Battle for the Atlantic In the battle for the Atlantic I would like to see the German subs not only target convoy routes in the North Atlantic but also those in the South Atlantic. It would be interesting if a sub on occassion positioned itself to hit transports heading to or from the Cape instead of always staying in the North Atlantic.

Italian Subs In Sc1 the Italian sub would never attack Merchant shipping in the Med, even if there were no UK ships or air units in the region. I would like to see this change in Sc2. If Allied ships approach it can always retreat to the Adriatic.

Middle East Allied Strategy In Sc1 the Allies (and also the Axis) lacked a strategy for North Africa, Egypt and Iraq. Perhaps in Sc2 the Allied Forces will select from a range of Strategies to employ in this theater: 01. Defend the Middle East A strong defensive force is positioned to defend Egypt with reinforcements arriving from the Cape and Allied forces withdrawing via the Cape only if the cause is hopeless 02. Abandon the Middle East Minimal forces are sent to Egypt to defend it against an Axis attack. Naval forces are withdrawn to the Atlantic. 03. Conquer North Africa & Iraq A large task force is mobilized in Egypt to liberate North Africa from the Axis and conquer Iraq. 04. Liberate a Conquered Egypt After the Axis conquers Egypt and redirects its attention elsewhere, a large Allied task force arrives via the Cape to liberate Egypt, Iraq and North Africa from the Axis. Ideally in case 4 the AI would decide between liberating Egypt and Liberating Algeria (Operation Torch), perhaps landing a diversionary force at the site it does not intend to invade, thus forcing the Axis to waste MPPs operating units to meet a non-existent threat. [ December 12, 2005, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

D. Reclaiming Research Chits The AI should know when to reclaim research chits to finance the construction/reinforcement of combat units or when it has reached the maximum or optimum research level in a tech area. Example: If the AI reaches Level 5 Anti-Tank Tech (the maximum level in this area) it should reclaim all of the chits in this area AND NOT Invest more in this area. Example: If the AI knows that it does not want to build Lvl 4 Anti-Tank units (because they are too expensive) it should reclaim chits in this area when it reaches level 3 AND NOT Invest more in this area. Example: If London has fallen, the UK AI should reclaim all research chits, except for perhaps AA, so that it can better defend Manchester. How to implement this? Each AI stategy could have a linked Optimum Tech Tree Chart. When a tech level reaches the optimum level in a tech area the AI reclaims all chits in this area and does not invest more in this area. When the Western Allies launch their D-Day invasion in France the AI should consider reclaiming tech chits to reinforce damaged units IF doing so will likely give them victory in the West. This can be decided by looking at the Ratio of Units in France. If the Allies have the advantage then the AI should consider this. If the Axis outnumber them and the chance of victory is small then the AI should not do so, but consider a withdrawal of units back to the UK. [ December 11, 2005, 07:40 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

C. Use of Air Fleets Basically, the AI needs to focus air fleets on destroying units and not damaging resources, units not on the front line or empty cities that Axis units will occupy. Many times I have seen the AI land units destroy the Beligan corps in Antwerp only to see AI air fleets bomb an empty city instead of adjacent land units that were damaged. Many times I have sent corps to tiles behind the maginot line to draw fire away from the units in the Maginot Line. The AI should also use Air Fleets to prevent the evacuation of Allied or Axis units. Bombing the port of Brest can prevent the Allies from evaucating units from a failed D-Day invasion or constantly replacing the unit holding this city with a new unit at full strength. In my view the AI also needs to concentrate the majority of its air units on one front. All too often I would see 4 or Axis air units in France when the Axis AI declared war on Russia. Attacking Russia with 8 air units concentrated in one front would have been far more effective than keeping half the Axis air force in France while the USA was still neutral. [ December 11, 2005, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

B. Engineers in SC2 In SC2 I would like to see the Axis AI have a choice of strategies for utilizing engineer units. Example: 40% Fortify the Eastern Border of Poland, north and south of Warsaw to halt a counter attack by the Soviet forces. 40% Fortify the tiles along the Rhine to defend Germany from a future invasion by the western allies. 20% Use the Engineer unit to build a defensive line in Russia. RE: UK AI Engineer Units I would like to see tha UK AI know how to use Engineer units. Perhaps it tracks the results of several games. Game 01: Sea Lion, No Mid East Invasion Game 02: No Sea Lion, Egypt Conquered by Axis Game 03: No Sea Lion, Egypt Conquered by Axis Game 04: No Sea Lion, No Mid East Invasion Based on this data base it uses an Engineer unit to fortify its position in Egypt 50% of the time, England 25% of the time, and in 25% of the time does not build an engineer unit. As the human player adjusts his strategy so will the UK AI adjust its decision to build and use an Engineer unit. If the Human player's game history shows that he launches a Sea Lion Invasion 80% of the time then the UK AI will use an Engineer to fortify England 80% of the time. [This would be a simple text file database that would track human actions and convert this to a percentage term: # Sea Lion Launched, # Egypt Conquered, #D-Day in Early 1942, #D-Day in late 1942, #D-Day in early 1943, etc.. By tracking when the Human player launches his D-Day invasion the AI can increase the chance of being prepared for it.] [ December 11, 2005, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Desert Dave mentioned that HC is busy at work on the AI. Here are some areas where I think the SC1 AI could be improved. A. Utilization of HQ units. The use of HQ units is very important in SC, yet the AI seems be oblivious to this fact when on the defensive. In SC1 I would often see 4 or 5 HQ units clumped together in locations where they could not support front line units, after the Allies launched their offensive. Example: In numerous games vs the AI I have seen 4 to 5 HQ units clumped around Athens in Greece or several German HQ units in Italy where only 1 or 2 units were in range of HQ support. There would often be no HQ units positioned to assist German units defending Paris. Simarily, in playing against the Russians I would often see HQ units evacuated to the Ural Mountains while none were located in Southern Russia to support the Soviet forces defending Stalingrad and Rostov. ---- Solution: Use a formula to prevent HQ units from being clumped in areas where they can't support the maximum number of units or (Max-1). The AI constantly ignored the need to move or operate HQ units to safer areas when they were in danger of being cut off by advancing enemy lines. Many times I have encountered a lone HQ unit or two just southwest of Lenningrad on the south shore of the Baltic. Futhermore, when the Allies invade France and are pushed back if there was a HQ unit in Brest it would never be transported back to the UK. It would wait in Brest to be destroyed. -----Solution Idea: Routine to Evacuate HQ back to UK if Allied forces are outnumbered 3:1 in France and there are 3 or fewer Allied Units in France. Simarily, the AI in later scenarios would not transport unneeded HQ units from Northern Africa back to Europe where they could aid in the conflict vs Russia. ---- Solution Idea: AI should decide on its strategy for northern Africa in the later scenarios. Either Hold the Line and evacuate un-needed units back to Europe or Offensive and reinforce the African units so Egypt can be conquered. [ December 11, 2005, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

After completing the AI, HC might, just might (1% chance) , consider adding one or two diplomatic options if they are simple to implement and add variety to the game without adversely affecting play balance. a. The French Surrender option would be at the top of my list for the Axis. b. US Relations with Japan would be at the top of my list of diplomatic options for the Allies. August 1941 Popup: Mr. President, should we pursue peace with Japan? No = Standard Game Yes = No Russian Siberian Reinforcements as Japan is free to threaten Siberia AND Increased US Production as the USA does not have to divert resources to the Pacific Front. EDITED: If a player selects the peace with Japan option it weakens Russia while strengthening the US, but there could also be a side effect that occurs part of the time; (30%) - USA war readiness is reduced by 20%. [ December 12, 2005, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, good analysis and thanks for your support. As for France, in my view the French didn't much like the British and at the time blamed them for their defeat. If offered a choice of joining the Axis as a full partner or being subjugated they may have chosen to join the Axis. I doubt that these features will be included in SC2 but if they were it would make the game less predictable. On the allied side I would like to see the US player having a choice of foreign policy options vs the Empire of Japan: Do we embargo Japan or not? Why? This was the key casaul event that lead to the US entering the war in December 1941. [ December 11, 2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

One key difference between Germany/Italy/Russia and the UK was that the UK was naval oriented.Another issue that JJ brought up is the different types of planes used in naval attacks. The question arises how best to reflect this. Perhaps creating a Naval HQ units that raises the CTV of attached Air Fleets & Bombers vs Naval, Carriers and Subs by +2, thus reflecting their orientation towards naval warfare and reducing its AA by -1. Only the UK would start the game with a Naval HQ unit and one could only attach 3 units to a Naval HQ unit. Then you could have bombers or air fleets with a naval orientation, each with its own advantage. If attached to bombers the GP would also have the advantage of its longer range. Thus most air fleets would only be +2 vs Naval units, but if attached to a Naval HQ they would become +4. Of course these attached units would see their AA ability reduced by -1 and thus be less useful in interception roles. Naval HQ Summary --- Can Attach 3 units: Naval, Sub, Carrier, Air Fleets or Bombers to it. --- No range restriction on attaching units. --- Attached Air Fleets gain +2 NA, +2CA (from +2 to +4) and -1 AA (air attack) and -1 TA. --- Attached Bombers gain +2NA, +2CA (from +1 to +3) and -2 RA (resource attack). --- Attached Naval, Sub and Carrier units gain +15% combat readiness. Essentially, if you configure an air unit for naval attacks by attaching it to a naval HQ it will be less effective at executing its other missions. [ December 11, 2005, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

If Air Fleets, don't include Naval bombers and bomber fleets do, perhaps the only change I would make is to reduce the Air Fleet Attack Value against subs to (1), as they can't hit what they can't see. As for the low carrier SA and TA strength that is understandable as Carrier fleets were much reduced in size and striking power when compared to land based air units.

Rockets were one of the most underutilized units in Sc1 in addition to bombers. Against human players I would never use them. Any comments on their use and combat stats in SC2?

Your points are well taken and present an excellent summary of the AI weaknesess. HC is aware of these shortcomings and the AI in SC2 should be much stronger. Any comments HC? PS: I just gave Germany 3 Rockets Level 5 in a game and unlike air units it focused rocket attacks against one unit at a time until it was destroyed. [ December 10, 2005, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Thanks, Qyusson. Any thoughts on how to improve on it? Perhaps the option for France to join the Axis appears only 50% of the time, so that the Axis player can't choose it all the time. Or having the French reject the offer to join the Axis 30% of the Time. Option 1 - Plunder France 100% Germany Plunders France, Vichy France Created. Option 2 - Offer France Opportunity to Join Axis 70% France Accepts the Offer, switches to an Axis Nation. 30% France Rejects the Offer and Germany Plunders all of France, overseas colonies(Algeria and Syria) join Allies along with the ENTIRE French Navy. [ December 11, 2005, 08:05 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Agreed, the key problem is the Axis production base. Try playing as Alled +2 and starting the game with Bulgaria, Turkey, Iraq, Sweden and Finland as Axis and giving the Axis AI 4 unused tech chits. [ December 10, 2005, 07:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]