Edwin P.

I like how HC has designed the Diplomacy system in SC2 to reflect the random effect of diplomatic efforts on influencing a nation. In a future update or version (ie SC3) I would like to see this expanded to where a nation could also use diplomatic chits to achieve specific results short of convincing a nation to ally itself with you. For example: The UK would, in addition to being able to spend a diplomatic chit to encourage a nation to ally with itself could use it to select from series of actions that show up by selecting that nation on the world map. Example: UK Selects Spain Option 1) Convince Spain to mobilize an additional corps Option 2) Activate Spanish Partisans Option 3) Standard Diplomatic Activity Option 4) Spain Allows UK to station Air Unit in Spain for observation Purposes Only - ie UK can operate Air Unit to Spain and can use it to spot Axis troop movements. This unit is expelled back to UK if Spain later joins Axis. Option 5) Reduce trade with Axis UK Selects Turkey Option 1) Standard Diplomatic Activity Option 2) Activate Turkish Partisans Option 3) Transit Rights through the Bosphorous (10%) for British, French and American Units (not Russian!) Option 4) Stop Trade with Axis [ July 04, 2005, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

What if Germany is unable to break through the Allied lines in time to refocus its forces against Russia - would France accept a peace treaty with Germany? Example: 1) France withstands Axis Assault 2) Germany Offers a Peace Treaty so it can focus its forces on the Eastern Front. 3) 25% + Diplomatic Chit effect that France accepts (100% when the Axis is AI controlled), and becomes neutral, but can continue to build up its forces. The UK is left alone to face Germany. ie The Axis (Germany) offers a peace treaty with a nation. A popup appears at the start of that nations turn it (or its parliment over its supreme leader's objections) can accept it, and if so all Axis units operate from that nation and all of that Nation Units are expelled from Axis territory. Germany might make such an offer so it can refocus its forces elsewhere. A nation might accept so it can rebuild its army. The AI might make such and offer and the AI might force the Allied player to accept it to make for a more interesting game vs the AI. Futhermore, If no Axis units are in France or England then perhaps the USA does not enter the war in Europe? This would be a more realistic outcome than the situation where the USA enters the war when the Allies are winning the war in Europe. In my view, if the Allies (UK, France, and USSR) are winning the war in Europe then the US would likely have remained neutral. [ July 04, 2005, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

SeaMonkey, I like your idea for a randomizing factor, its makes it a lot less predictable and more realistic. Take Italy for example, if the Allies move transports or warships into the Adriatic there should be a chance, say 50%, that this causes Italian readiness to increase and triggers a pop-up: "Italy mobilizes to meet threatened invasion by British forces in the Adriatic." This would add an element of risk to such "gamey" operational deployments while still allowing players to take a chance with them. [ July 03, 2005, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In my view, scripted events are easier for users to modify to suit a particular scenario and require fewer lines of code.

Note: In SC2 since Gibraltar will not block the straits the Axis AI should carefully note the strength of the British Navy so that it can consider sending most of the Italian Fleet through the straits to the Atlantic, if the British Navy has been decimated. ------------------------------------- If Axis Controls North Africa + (Italian fleet > UK + USA Fleet) = Send Italian Fleet to Atlantic 90%. [ June 30, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I was thinking that if the Human player is foolish enough to takeon the Italian fleet in the early game and sees most of his ships sunk then the AI should consider cranking out subs to dominate the Atlantic. Conversely, if the human player decides to launch a battle for the Atlantic the AI should respond by building either long range naval bombers or a larger fleet. In SC1, it does neither and just sends transports out to be sunk by waiting Axis wolfpacks. As for the Human Axis player being able to sink most of the Allied fleet by early 1942 the problem is not that subs are not vulnerable to surface ships but that the AI does not know how to wage a fight for the Atlantic. It sends its naval units peacemeal into Battle and does not build bombers to support the naval battle (and station them in a conquered Ireland). --------------------------------------- If you really want to make it interesting: AI Novice: 0% Naval Intelligence AI Beginner: 40% Naval Intelligence (ie how many combat ships are in each ocean) AI Intermediate: 70% Naval Intelligence AI Expert: 100% Naval Intelligence Thus at higher levels of AI the AI is more likely to play a stronger game as it will more often than not know how many German Surface ships are in the Baltic or the Atlantic and can adjust its strategy accordingly. [ June 28, 2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I would be most interested, or perhaps a link to where information can be found.

In SC1 the UK Allied always kept the UK fleet in the Eastern Mediterrean. Question: In SC2 is there any reason why the AI should not choose between more than one strategy; perhaps adding to the keep the fleet anchored at Cairo strategy the 1) withdraw this fleet to the Atlantic or 2) shelter it in the Red Sea options or 3) withdrawing east of Cyprus to ambush any Axis transports or 4)Concentrating the UK navy to sink the Italian Fleet. PS: I still think that the AI should know how many, but not exactly where, combat ships are in the Atlantic, Mediterrean, Black Sea, Baltic Sea, and Red Sea so that it can plan its naval strategy. PSS: In addition the AI should base its naval strategy upon how many combat ships that the enemy has. Example, if most of the UK fleet has been sunk the Axis AI should have a higher likihood to build a submarine fleet to wage a battle for the North Atlantic. Similarly, if the Germans have a large naval fleet the Allied AI should consider adopting a Naval Production Strategy. Example: German Fleet > 2x Allied Fleet = 100% Naval Production Strategy for the Allies German Fleet 1.0 to 2.0x Allied Fleet = 70% Naval Production Strategy for Allies German Fleet < Allied Fleet = 0% Naval Production Strategy for the Allies.

Agreed, just a nice simple short post.

6 months x 4 weeks x 3 shots per week = 72 screenshots. Thats too much. I would settle for 2 screenshots a month.

Thats a good idea, and in my view, perhaps one that can be created with the editor given the ability to modify this game. It would be a great project for someone after the game is released.

Should German air units, and only air unts, be able to spot the location of neutral Russia units? "Stalin ....... barred the Red Army from taking elementary precautions, like chasing off the German reconnaissance planes surveying their defenses." On a note of alternative history, if Trotsky, the founder of the RED Army, exiled by Stalin from Russia had won out over Stalin this would not have been allowed, Soviet Units would most likely have been deployed further back from the border and the Army officer corps would not have been purged. So here is an idea for a simple game changing alternative history variant: When the game starts there is an; 85% Stalin Rules Russia (17 of 20 games) ---------- German air units can spot Neutral Russian Units 10% Trotsky Rules Russia (1 of 10 games) ---------- German air units cannot spot Neutral Russian Units ---------- Russian units can deploy further back from the German border. 5% (1 of 20 games) Lev Borisovich Kamenev Rules Russia ---------- Russia has Industrial Tech Level 2 Similarly, what if someone else was the President instead of Franklin Delano Roosevelt? 95% - Franklin Delano Roosevelt is president of the USA ----------- No effect 05% - Al Smith is president of the USA ----------- USA War Readiness declines by 10% [ June 25, 2005, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

On a related note, should German air units along the border with Neutral Russia be able to spot the location of Russia units? I think so. "Stalin rejected these reports as Western provocations and barred the Red Army from taking elementary precautions, like chasing off the German reconnaissance planes surveying their defenses." Thus giving the Russian player new benefits if he decides to ( he may decide to build it or not) deploy the unit called: Stalin. Stalin Unit: Costs 0MPP / AP 6 / Strength 1 Pros: Increase Corps build limit by 20% ----------- Reflects effect of a Police State on recruitment. Cons: Axis Units can spot Russian units while Russia is neutral. ----------- Reflects Stalin's order to allow German recon air units to overfly Russian positions. Thus: Build the Stalin Unit: 20% Bonus to Build Limits on Corps while Stalin unit survives, Germans can spot neutral Russian units. Don't Build: Gain Randomly Selected Bonus HQ at start. [ June 25, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent points, but on a more historical note, how would the death of Stalin affected the war in Russia? I do not ask this question of the Roosevelt or Churchill as I see that their policies of opposing the Reich would have continued, but with Stalin would his death affected the course of the war in any way? Also, what if Russia had not experienced the purges that decimated the red army? Would they have avoided the loses that they endured early in the war?

Perusing the Wargamer.com site I came upon a review of an East Front game from Avalanche Press that included a unit counter for Stalin. What a cool way to differentiate a country that relied on a strong ruler - be it Soviet Russia, Genghis Khan or Ceasar. Now the question arises, what if SC2 Russia had a Stalin unit. What would be the effect of such a unit? Obviously it can not attack. But what if it is destroyed? Would the morale of the Russian army be affected postively or negatively? What would be the temporary effect on its Generals and supply lines? And as long as Stalin is alive is there any benefit that the Russian forces would gain? So here is my concept of a Stalin Unit(new leader unit, max of 1 per country, and in SC2 only Russia has it); Stalin Unit --- Increases Build Limit of Corps (and only corps) by 20% As long as the Stalin unit exists Russia gains a 20% increase in the number of Corps it can deploy as his dictatorial powers ensure that there are enough volunteers to fill the army ranks. If Russia has a limit of 30 corps, the Stalin unit increases this limit by 20% to 36. --- Reduces cost of Corps by 5% If play balancing determines that the Russians need some help, then one might consider saying that the Stalin Unit also reduces the cost of Corps by 5%. If the Stalin units is destroyed then this benefit is also lost. Thus in an abstract way the existance of the Stalin unit reflects the glue that held Russia together during the onslaught of its greatest enemy. Naturally the Russian player will seek to protect this unit at all costs and keep him far from the battle lines, but if he is careless and the Axis player bold then the Russians will face a major setback if this unit is destroyed. Should there be a downside to the Stalin unit I would have it be that Stalin overrides the players choice of which HQ unit to purchase and forces a purchase of a random one of lower value 20% of the time. This if the player wants to purchase a Lvl7 HQ unit, there is a 20% rhat he gets one of lower value instead. ------------------------------------------- And for a varied what if, what if Stalin did not win the power struggle, but Trotsky did? Say a 10% (1 in 10 games) Replacing the Stalin Unit with the Trotsky unit would give the USSR an additional 2 HQ units to start the game with, but if the Troksky unit is destroyed these two HQ units are purged and eliminated. [ June 25, 2005, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Cool, only 1 week to go.

Excellent, It also illustrates Road Tiles; in a future Add-on, would be most useful. i.e.: Road Tiles reduce the cost of movement to 1/3, allow units to travel 3 times farther when moving along a road.

Just played a quick game as Allies in SC1, and the Expert Axis AI has 3 German HQs and 2 Italian HQs in Italy supporting 4 Italian Ground Units and 1 German Air Unit. Leaving the rest of the German Army unsupported in the face of an allied counter attack. My guess is that HQ units from Germany operated to Italy when they were within range of my bomber in France or perhaps my taking Sicily encounraged them to move there. My suggestion, above, would have limited the German HQs (in this situation)to 1 in Italy forcing the AI to use the other 2 German HQs to support German units elsewhere. PS: Modify AI suggestion to allow unlimted number of HQ units to be stationed in country of origin. [ June 22, 2005, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I would like to see the AI in SC2 deploy HQs more intelligently. In many games vs the AI I see HQs stationed where they cannot support combat units or they are clumped together in a manner that limits their ability to support the maximum number of units. Many times I see a German HQ unit operated to Italy when the Allies have launched D-Day or German HQ units operated to South Eastern Europe, where they can only support Minor Allied or Italian units when Russia is advancing on Warsaw. Perhaps a simple rule would be that a HQ unit will not move to a Nation if it would result in more 1 HQ per 5 Combat units, with a miniumum of 1 HQ unit always allowed, and a HQ unit can only move into a Nation where there is at least 1 unit of its nationality present. Any ideas? Example: France has 5 German Units: Max HQ 1 France has 7 German Units: Max HQ 2 France has 4 German Units: Max HQ 1 France has 10 German Units: Max HQ 2 France has 11 German Units: Max HQ 3 If there are no Italian Units in France then an Italian HQ can't be moved to France. Any thoughts? Simarily when the Allies launch D-Day they often do so without landing a HQ unit after Brest is taken, and thus its forces in France and weakened and limited in their ability to defend and attack. [ June 20, 2005, 10:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Retributor - Great points. I will certainly be asking for ideas and input after the game is released, as a large part of any design will depend upon the functionality of the underlying game system. That said I like your idea for scouts. Perhaps Strength 1 or 2 Cavalry units, certain to be destroyed if they encounter something but just strong enough to give you an idea of where the enemy is, along with the tiles changing color as they advance. To a certain degree I see combat as being like like Rock / Paper and Scissors. Roman Legion Beats Phalanx Phalanx Beats Cavalry Cavalry Beats Legion To the extent that units will have Infantry Attack / Infantry Defense / Cavalry Attack / Cavalry Defense /Archry Attack / Archery Defense / Mounted Archers Attack / Mounted Archers Defense Perhaps: Legion Infantry Attack +3 Infantry Defense +3 Cavalry Attack +1 Cavalry Defense +2 Mounted Archers Attack +1 Mounted Archers Defense +2 Gauls Infantry Attack +3 Infantry Defense +2 Cavalry Attack +1 Cavalry Defense +1 Mounted Archers Attack +1 Mounted Archers Defense +1 Naturally Roman will face soft limits on the number of Legions that they can field and they will have the option to hire mercenaries from conquered nations. Persia will have a high limit on the number of units they can field, but they will not be as powerful as the Roman units. Movement across ocean tiles will be extremely risky while movement along coastal sea tiles will be much safer. Perhaps create a weather zone that covers only the ocean tiles not adjacent to a coastal tile? [ June 20, 2005, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Ancient Rome - Spotting Range: 1 tile - Limited Tech Advances - Limited Naval Units, No Air Units - Max Strength of Units varies by Country. - Each country is limited by type of units it can raise, except if they conquer other nations. - Rome, Greece, ,Persia, Egypt, Carthage - Spain, France and Germany overrun by Barbarian Hordes (ie Partisans on) - Turns - Quarterly? or Semi-Annual? - Generals such as Pompey, Sulla, Ceasar, Hannibal. - Politics, Politics - Events, Events [ June 20, 2005, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I believe, from reading earlier posts, that the answers are; Yes, Yes, so long as the number of unit types remains the same. As for me, I am looking forward to creating a scenario for Ancient Rome where the spotting range for all units is 1 and access to technology advances is severely limited.

For a simpler solution, why not add impassible mountain tiles to the tile mix? Like the Depression Tiles of the Sahara, but only these are glacier capped mountains. [ June 19, 2005, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

One of my pet peeves in Sc1 was that the AI never reclaimed Tech chits like a human does to reinforce the line or lend needed support to a D-Day Invasion. Example: The Italian AI has Jets 3 (I don't know why but the Italian AI always seems to get more tech advances than the German AI). When the Allies invade Italy it should consider (Beginner AI - 0%; Intermediate 50%; Expert 95%)reclaiming those tech chits as it can never afford to build/reinforce new air units. Simarily, the Germans should reclaim its Tech Chits to stop/delay an Allied or Soviet advance into Germany. Yet it never does so. What rules would I use to guide this action of last resort? Perhaps: UK: If Axis Controls London = Reclaim Tech Chits and purchase Corps to delay Axis advance until American reinforcements arrive + Do not invest in Tech until London is liberated (to prevent AI from using MPPs from reclaimed chits to invest in new tech). Italy: If Allies control 2 Italian Cities = Reclaim Tech Chits to reinforce a last ditch defense + Do not invest in Tech until Allies driven from Italy. -------------------------------------------- More importantly is that the Axis AI does not know how to employ the cookie cutter conquer the world strategy that will give it the production base that it needs to seriously contest the Human Allied Player. As for the Allied AI, it does not know how to mount a proper invasion of France. Without a HQ unit the Allied invasion is going nowhere. [ June 20, 2005, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

And Fuzzy Logic to the rescue - where the AI will select Strategy A 75% of the time and Strategy B 25% of the time. ------------------------------------------------ Furthermore, you could add two variables that would track the likliehood of the human player launching a sealion. Variable 1: Number of Games Played as Allied AI Variable 2: Number of Times Human Axis attempted Sea Lion before Russia DOW. The more often that the human launches a sealion the more likly that the AI selects Strategy A over Strategy B. If the human player does not select sealion the AI "learns" to select strategy B over strategy A. Example: Should the AI select Strategy A(Sealion) or B(Defend Egypt) Axis Human Launches SeaLion: 0 of 0 games: Select Strategy A 50% for game 1 1 of 1 games: select Strategy A 100% for game 2 1 of 2 games: select strategy A 50% for game 3 1 of 4 games: select Strategy A 25% in game 5 2 of 5 games: select Strategy A 40% in game 6 2 of 20 games: select Strategy A 10% in game 21 2 of 40 games: select Strategy A 5% in game 41 Thus the AI adjusts its actions based on the actions of the Human player when it has to decide between the two strategies in question. --------------------------------------------- I do agree that the Heirarchical Structure is best, but I do see areas where it can be improved to give a more interesting and varied game. In SC1 the Heirarchical approach used was quite simple, the AI would always follow the same strategy for defending France. What if it slected among a group of varied strategies for defending France? For example: Step 1: Decide on Overall Strategy and select supporting strategies. A1. Defend France (60%) A1.1 Corps Defense A1.2 Massive Defense A1.3 Armor Defense A1.4 Standard Defense Related Naval Strategies to Select From -------A1.4.1 Sink Italian Fleet -------A1.4.2 Preserve the Fleet (move egyptian fleet to Atlantic) -------A1.4.3 Control Atlantic -------A1.4.4 Sink German Fleet -------A1.4.5 Navy aids in Defense of France -------A1.4.6 Egyptian Ambush (send addtional fleets to Egyt and hide in Red Sea) A2. Egypt First (reinforce Egypt) (20%) -------A2.1 Control Atlantic (50%) -------A2.2 Egyptian Ambush (50%) A3. Run Away (20%) Related Naval Strategies -------A3.1 Preserve the Fleet (80%) -------A3.2 Sink German Fleet (20%) A4. Conquer Spain (5%) -------A4.1 Support Spanish Evasion (100%) A5. Conquer Norway (5%) -------A5.1 Sink German Fleet (100%) [ June 19, 2005, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]