Edwin P.

Does this mean that you can spend MPPs to build up the AA rating of specific city and resource tiles? And does this mean that in your beta testing games you have found a real use for bombers?

Personally, I like the concept of adding an additional reason for players to control oil resources. Great idea! So here are some of the oil related options to be considered: 1. Oil gives a bonus to readiness OR 2. Oil affects AP available for oil and gas fueled units - armor,mechanized air, naval units OR 3. Oil affects build limits of oil and gas fueled units. Which one is best? I like them all. They all give players an additional to capture or bomb oil wells tiles. [ October 06, 2005, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Here are a few I ideas I have been thinking about for player scripted events for Sc2. 1. Wendell L. Willkie, Elected President of US Chance: 5% One time chance, November 1940 Popup: Wendell Willkie defeats Franklin Roosevelt and wins election for presidency of the United States. Effect: USA War Readiness declines 10%(?) Reasoning: Wendell Willkie would not have embargoed the sale of oil to Japan. 2. Stalin Dies in 1940 Chance: 5% One time chance, January 1940 Popup: Joseph Stalin and ten members of the politburo slain by assassins. General Demitry Pavlov named chairman of the Communist Party in an emergency meeting of the Politburo. Effect: USSR receives Bonus HQ unit. Reasoning: What if the Soviet military killed Stalin and seized power. 3. Japan attacks USA Chance: 20% in December 1941 if USA is Neutral Popup: The Imperial forces of the Japanese Empire launched a surprise attack on the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor in Hawaii. USA declares war on the Axis powers. Effect: USA war readiness increases by 100%. Reasoning: A Japanese attack on the USA would automatically bring the US into the war against the Axis. 4. Japan signs Oil treaty with Russia. Chance: 5% in August 1941 Popup: The Soviet Union and the Empire of Japan sign an Economic Cooperation Treaty in Tokyo. Effect: Russia gains 2 corps. Reasoning: Peace with treaty allows Russia to transfer units west from Siberia. [ October 06, 2005, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Thanks for the update. With Germany able to see one; perhaps 2 tiles with air spotting, into Russia the advantage that Russia will receive by being able to move its units around is reduced and more accurately reflects history, where Germany knew the position of Russian units close to the border. And I assume, as was mentioned in an earlier post that Russian war readiness will be affected by the number of units it has along the border with Germany. Too few units and Russian war readiness increases at a slower or non-existant pace, thus allowing Germany more time to build its forces or deal with the English. [ October 06, 2005, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Great to hear that SC2 is being played is being fine tuned. Looking forward to reading some AARs. And Blashy, thanks for the commentary, especially the note re: MPPs.

Here's a post from June on a similar concept: Stalin Unit Post and Replies

Can you use diplomacy to convince a minor nation at war to pull out and return to neutrality? Example: Romania enters the war when its war readiness is 100%, if the Allies continue to invest diplomacy in Romania until it was reduced to 50%, would it return to neutrality and automatically operate its troops back home while expelling foreign troops. I assume not, but who knows what lurks in the mind of HC, the shadow knows.

Can you use diplomacy to convince a minor nation at war to pull out and return to neutrality? Example: Romania enters the war when its war readiness is 100%, if the Allies continue to invest diplomacy in Romania until it was reduced to 50%, would it return to neutrality and automatically operate its troops back home while expelling foreign troops. I assume not, but who knows what lurks in the mind of HC, the shadow knows.

I like the diplomacy screenshot as it gives you a quick overview of all the countries and their leanings. Vveedd has a good point and I too would like to see other options for diplomacy, but my guess is that consideration of any enhancements to diplomacy will have to wait until after SC2 ships. ----------------------------------------------- What would I add to diplomacy? Most likely diplomacy related events where the player would have choice of how to respond? Example: At the start of a player's turn a diplomacy related event popup may appear: IF France has surrendered and USSR Neutral then 10% for: UK Popup: General Franco asks the UK provide assistance to resist German pressure. Mr Prime Minister, should we; 1. Deny his request. - Span becomes 1% to 10% more pro Axis as Franco is perturbed by the UK rejection of his request. 2. Send him some something (25MPP). - No Effect 3. Send him what he wants (Cost 100MPP) - Spain gains extra Corps, Axis Leanings decline 10%. ------------------------------------------- Example 2: UK Popup: The Ambassador of Turkey has suggested that they consider granting our warships free passage through the Dardenelles. 1. Reject the offer. - No Effect 2. offer them something, but not too much. (25MPP) - 50% Allied Ships can move through Turkish Port. 3. Give them whatever they want. (100MPP) - 95% Allied Ships can move through Turkish Port. [ September 28, 2005, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

A most welcome change. With the relative cost of subs going down I will assume that the price of those little used bomber and rocket units also dropped in price.

Looking good.

My thinking was that nations usually prioritize the production of one type of unit. If you give priority to the building of submarines they get the best welders, the first pick of construction workers, the best engineers and a guaranteed supply of raw materials. The production of other types of units - battleships, aircraft, etc suffer. This means that this type of unit, can be produced faster and cheaper that other types of units. I thought that allowing players (and the AI) to adopt such a policy would make for a more competitive game as it would instantly reduce the cost of these units; faster and substantially more than if he had researched industrial technology, if the player wanted to focus his resources in this area. Of course its risky and its costs MPPs to make on area a priority for your economy, and you can only give priority to the production of one type of unit. Furthermore, to make it pay off you have to plan on producing at least 5 units of that type; if the cost savings is 25%. If you plan on launching a massive build program of submarines its a worthwhile investment, but if your plans change you have thrown away the 200MPPs you spent too tool your factories and allocate your resources to support this industrial policy. [ September 26, 2005, 09:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Blashy, I agree that U Boats are too expensive. But perhaps the high cost reflects a decision not to focus German industrial on U boat production and the diversion of materials and labor to other production priorities. Likewise the cost for US Bombers is too high as the US devoted more resources to bomber production than other nations. Although it will not be included in SC2 I would like to see the ability for each nation to purchase a single industrial policy that would affect the production costs for the least produced units (Carriers, Bombers, Subs, Rockets, and Surface Warships). Example; Industrial Policy Options (Cost 200MPP): Strategic Bombing - Reduces cost of Bombers by 25% Submarine Warfare - Reduces cost of Submarines by 25% Rocketry - Reduces cost of Rockets by 25% Carrier Warfare - Reduces cost of Carriers by 15% Surface Warfare - Reduces cost of Battleships and Cruisers by 15% Thus a nation that selected a Strategic Bombing Policy for a cost of 200MPP would see the cost of producing bombers drop by 25%. Naturally a notion could only follow one industrial policy at a time and changing to a new one would cost 200MPP. Thinking about it some more - an industrial policy would 1) reduce the cost of producing a specific type of unit and 2) reduce the build time for the selected unit. Then Germany might decide to focus its industrial might on submarine production and see production costs for this type of unit decline. The US might focus its production policy on Carrier and see the cost of producing these units dramatically decline. The question then arises is should other nations know of the industrial policy you have chosen to follow? I think so, as such a major focus of industrial resources could not be kept hidden for long. Or it could become general knowledge after 10 turns, or to enemies that have Intel Tech 1 or higher. Just another idea to consider for SC3.

One, I do agree that U Boats are too expensive. At the same time I think that the cost could reflect a decision not to focus German industrial on U boat production. Likewise the cost for US Bombers is too high as the US devoted more resources to bomber production than other nations. Although it will not be included in SC2 I would like to see the ability for each nation to purchase a single industrial policy that would affect the production costs for the least produced units (Carriers, Bombers, Subs, Rockets, and Surface Warships). Example; Industrial Policy Options (Cost 200MPP): Strategic Bombing - Reduces cost of Bombers by 25% Submarine Warfare - Reduces cost of Submarines by 25% Rocketry - Reduces cost of Rockets by 25% Carrier Warfare - Reduces cost of Carriers by 15% Surface Warfare - Reduces cost of Battleships and Cruisers by 15% Thus a nation that selected a Strategic Bombing Policy for a cost of 200MPP would see the cost of producing bombers drop by 25%. Naturally a notion could only follow one industrial policy at a time and changing to a new one would cost 200MPP. Thinking about it some more - an industrial policy would 1) reduce the cost of producing a specific type of unit and 2) reduce the build time for the selected unit by 1. Then Germany could decide to focus its industrial might on submarine production and see production costs for this type of unit decline. The US might focus its production policy on Carrier and see the cost of producing these units dramatically decline.

Most interesting. As for SC2 If Germany and USSR were noncooperative allies, with their troops prevented from venturing into the territory of the other this could be a balanced scenario, except for the fact that Russia would build up such a huge army so as to be unstoppable since it would only face threats on a very narrow and isolated Fronts. Perhaps; USA - UK - France: Cooperative Allies Italy - Neutral or Pro Axis. Let diplomacy decide. Spain - Leaning Allied, due to Franco's hatred of communists. Turkey - Leaning Allied, due to Turkish hostility towards Russia. Russian mobilization growth is limited as their existing armies could deal with the UK in the Pacific and Middle East. [ September 24, 2005, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Its probably too soon to ask this question but here it goes - In SC2 do you think that the AXIS default strategy of conquering Norway and Sweden will remain the preferred strategy? And will the Allies likewise continue to invade Ireland for MPPs and Experience?

It surely will. More Suspense = More Fun I assume that the stationing of Russian troops or lack thereof will not affect their annexation of the Baltic states, or does it? And does Russia have to annex the Baltic states? or is it a choice? - ie Can Russia DOW Baltic States while neutral or is it an automatic annexation as in SC1.

Thanks for the update. Looking forward to the AAR and information on any limits on the movements of Neutral Major units, especially for Russia. Is their any incentive or restriction that influences how many units they must have on their Western Border? As the Russians I would not want to make the mistake of Stalin and station the majority of my armies forward along the border with Germany. [ September 21, 2005, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC2 can the Allied (UK and French) naval forces still execute a decimation of the Italian navy in the opening game turns, at the risk of an Axis Sea Lion? And can the neutral Italians move their navy to the Adriatic to avoid this early game death that prevents any subsequent invasion of Egypt?

Excellent points, pzgndr and Lars. a. As to how to code the AI to take advantage of this? Perhaps, and this is just one idea, the knowledge gained could help the AI to direct its research/diplomacy expenditures to counter the human's expenditures. Axis is researching & building Subs = Allied AI 75% likely to research antisub tech. Russia research is 100% Anti Armor = German AI 50% likely to focus on researching Anti-Infantry. b.As for neat things that could be based on Intel level to enhance the AI there are many. Perhaps at Intel Level 1 the AI (and only the AI) knows if a city is occupied, at Intel Level 2 the AI knows if any of the titles surrounding a city is occupied, at Intel Level 3 the AI knows how many naval warships and transports are located in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic, Baltic, Western Med, Eastern Med and the Arabian Sea, at Intel Level 4 the AI spy network knows the location of all enemy air units and at Intel Level 5 the Ai knows how many enemy units are in each country. Intel 5 Example: AI knows that Axis has only 1 unit in Norway and Sweden and thus Western allies are 90% likely to launch Nordic Liberation Campaign. AI knows that Axis has 5 units in Norway and WA are 5% likely to launch Nordic Liberation Campaign given this information. By Gradually giving the AI access to more information it can, to a limited extent, make better decisions and yet the overall effect of the FOW is preserved so that the Human player can still surprise the AI. PS: HC, keep working on that base system. [ September 19, 2005, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Cool and most realistic consequences to acts of aggression. Diplo Map? What does it tell/show you? Persian Lend Lease Route? Does this appear after Iraq is liberated by the Allies?

Idea: So that one can see the effect of intelligence tech have a popup when you discover something or prevent an enemy from discovering an advance due to your intelligence tech bonus/penalty. Example: If your enemy fails to discover a tech advance due to your intel tech level effect on their research bonus have a popup - "[German] Counter Intelligence reports the capture of [American] enemy agents." Simarily if your; [German], normal chance for discovering a tech advance is 6% and you get a 1% bonus for your Intel Tech for a total of 7%, let there be on a roll of 7 (not 1 thru 6) a popup that says - "[GERMAN] agents acquire [submarine] design secrets." This enhancement makes the effect of this tech visible to players while preserving its simplicity. [ September 17, 2005, 06:46 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Many thanks for the update. It was just that I was hoping for something that would help the AI. For example; in SC1 the Axis AI would ignore Cairo or London when it was undefended and no Allied units were in Egypt/England. If the Axis AI knew that there were no units in or adjacent to Cario it could be coded to invade Egypt a percentage of the time. The increase/decrease to the research bonus is good and I like it, though I wish that Intel offered something more - such as a chart that gradually uncovers the fog of war in the level of investment for each research area and tech level in various areas. This would give me a more visible return for my investment in Intel. Example: Intel Tech Level 0: Total UK Research: ? Unknown Intel Tech Level 1: Total UK Research: 3 Intel Tech Level 2: Jets - Research Spending: 2 Armor - Research Spending: 1 Total UK Research - 3 Intel Tech 3: Jets - Research Spending: 2, Tech Level 1 Armor - Research Spending 1, Tech Level 0 Total UK Research: 3 [ September 17, 2005, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Increasing the your research bonus and decreasing your opponent's is good as it more accurately reflects the impact of intelligence and counter intelligence efforts on protecting and stealing research and manufacturing secrets. Question; Does Intel Tech also allow you to see units in or adjacent to a city tile, as mentioned in an earlier post? [ September 17, 2005, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

It will be interesting to see what benefits the Intel tech offers, besides seeing units adjacent to a city hex. Perhaps: At Intel Tech 00 - MPP production of each nation as a time chart, as this should be publicly available knowledge. At Intel Tech 01 - How many research and diplomacy chits a player has & lend lease MPPs income. MPP Production - Lend Lease Expense + Lend Lease Income Net MPP Income At Intel Tech 02 - Location of 1 Randomly selected Enemy HQ unit & how many research and diplomacy chits a player has. At Intel Tech 03 - Location of 2 Randomly selected Enemy HQ units and how many research and diplomacy chits a player has. ============================================== Will your effective Intel level be reduced by your enemy's intel level? Example: Germany Intel 2, UK 0, US 2 Effective Germany Intel vs UK = 2 - Germany can see 1 UK HQ unit. Effective Germany Intel vs US = 0 - Germany can see 0 USA HQ units. ------------------------------------------- I know that its not going to be included in Sc2 but I would like to see a Partisan Investment Area (Max 2 levels) that would allow selected nations to activate Partisans in one conquered neutral nation per Tech level and/or increase (or decrease) the chance for partisans in an existing nation subject to partisan activity. Example: Russia could increase the chance for Russian partisans to occur, but could not activate partisans in other nations. Example: UK could activate partisans in conquered neutral nations. Example: France & Italy could not invest in Partisan development. [ September 16, 2005, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]