Edwin P.

I understand. No need to apologize. Software product development often takes longer than expected - GGWAW, Longhorn, Microsoft's Project Green, etc. Looking forward to great improvements in the AI and reading the upcoming AARs. [ May 31, 2005, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Question - Can a script be limited to only occuring if a country is neutral on a specific date? Example: IF Dec 1941 & USA is Neutral, then 5% for: 1. Popup: "Japan leaves Axis alliance and begins withdrawal from China. Roosevelt allows oil exports to Japan." 2. & USA war readiness declines 20% 3. & USA gains 1000 MPPs This event aims to recreate what would happen if Japan agreed to American demands for their withdrawal from China and Indochina. It only happens 1 in 20 games as this was a most unlikely outcome given the value the Japanese military placed on honor. [ May 30, 2005, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

If the Soviets attacked Western Europe, would the USA have sought peace with the Japanese?

JerseyJohn, I agree, the Soviet supply was streatched and the infrastructure they controlled was devastated, as compared to the infrastructure in the West - France, Low Countries, Italy, which was relatively intact. But, the Russians had one big advantage - Russia is a lot closer to Western Europe than America. [ May 28, 2005, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I would like to see a 5% to 10% chance for the USSR declaring war on the Allies after the Axis is defeated. The AI assumes control of the USSR and the human player controls the Western Allies; France, the United Kingdom and the United States. Given the likely superiority of the USSR after Germany is defeated this should make for a most interesting and balanced game. The low chance of it occuring, just 1 in 20 (or 1 in 10) games, makes it something that will surprise and challenge the human player, and any game reviewer. [ May 28, 2005, 05:05 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC1 on occassion my opponent has launched a successful sea lion, and when neutrals join they join as British allies. Does it make more sense for activated neutrals to join a surviving major power?

Industrial tech affects all units equally and advancements occur by chance. This change would differentiate selected unit types by country and is not affected by chance. In reality countries focused their resources in in different areas. In the German navy you had the battle between those who favored submarine warfare and those that favored surface warfare ships. The French army doctrine, based on WWI favored Trench Warfare whereas the Germans favored mobile warfare units. Reducing the cost or production time or giving some other benefit would reflect these differences and make it less a game of the blues vs the reds. Potential Differences: 1. Cost 2. Production Time 3. Combat Readiness Bonus [ May 27, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

During WWII each nation had different doctrines that guided the training of its troops and the allocation of resources. It would distingish the major powers from each other if they had the option to select a military doctrine in each area (Air, Land, Naval) to follow at the start of the game. They could change to a different doctrine in each area for a high cost in MPPs, say 500MPPs. What does selecting a doctrine do? It reduces the cost or production time for a particular type of unit. Example: Naval Doctrines (Select one) a. Surface Combat - Surface ships cost 5% less OR Production time is reduced. b. Submarine Warfare - Subs cost 5% less OR Production time is reduced. c. Carrier Warfare - Carriers cost 5% less OR production time is reduced d. None Example: Land Combat Doctines (select one) a. Mobile Warfare - Armor and Corps cost 5% less. b. Massed Artillery - Rockets cost 10% less. c. Land Warfare - Army Groups cost 5% less. d. Trench Warfare - Engineer Units cost 20% less. e. Logistical Support - HQs cost 10% less. D. None Example: Air Combat (select one) a. Air Superiority - Air Fleets cost 5% less. b. Strategic Bombing - Bombers cost 10% less. c. Air Recon - +1 bonus to spotting range. d. Air Defense - 10% bonus to readiness when intercepting. d. None At the start of the game I would allow the major powers to select doctrines in the following areas: USSR: LAND GERMANY: LAND, NAVAL, AIR ITALY: LAND FRANCE: LAND UK: LAND, NAVAL, AIR USA: LAND,NAVAL, AIR A nation could change a doctrine in a specific branch of the armed services for 500MPP. [ May 27, 2005, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

On a related tack, I like the idea of seperate generals/admirals, especially if they could be attached to invididual combat units and or HQ units and transferred from commanding a combat unit to commanding a HQ unit.

Good original idea. I really like the idea of your opposing side not knowing if you have a Theater commander (unit or city) or not, though in real life I think that they would probably know. What if you can spot opposing theater commanders (or their city) at Intelligence Level 2 or higher. And at Intelligence level 3 or higher you can spot the HQ units that they support.

I think that it would be cool to add a country specific history button to the War Map, especially if modders create new campaigns where players may not be familiar with the history of each neutral nation. Going to the war map, selecting a country and pressing the history button would bring up a paragrah about that country, giving the player background information on the political leanings of its political leadership and their allegiances, and perhaps a picture of the head of state. This is a hint that it will be very hard to sway the Danes using Diplomacy. This paragraph suggests that diplomacy might sway Greece into joining the Allied Alliance once again. [ May 25, 2005, 09:49 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

What if its range is unlimited? or increased? And if every unit comes looking for him it means that other areas are left undefended. But as you suggest, its an idea that needs playtesting.

Theater Commanders will not be so easily targeted if their range is 20 tiles. This would be reasonable as they represent a greater priority in supplies dedicated to selected Army Groups units - ie HQ Units. Of course, if you designate a HQ unit a theater commander they are not available to directly support combat units in battle. A most interesting balance.

Another option, based on the the current programming (like the intercept/no intercept commands for Air Fleets and run silent option for submarines) would be to give HQ units access to 2 command states: Army Group Commander or Theater Commander. When operating as a Theater Commander it could only support HQ units according to its Theater Commander Rating. When operating as a Army Group Commander it could only support Ground Units and Air Units. I agree. Some Generals are good at directing and leading combat troops while others are better at administration and logistics - see JerseyJohn's earlier post. In my view Patton while a great field commander probably would have made a poor theater commander. ----------------------------------------------- Another idea, is to allow players to promote a HQ unit to a Theater commander; perhaps with a randomized Theater commander rating, as SeaMonkey suggests. Who knows, Patton might have made a great theater commander or been awful at the job. The more experience (ie medals) a HQ unit has the better chance it has to be a superior Theater commander. Of course, specific Generals like Eisenhower should have a fixed rating due to their prewar experience. So, Eisenhower might have a fixed Theater command rating while that for Patton and Bradley would be randomly determined. Example: Randomized Patton Theater Command Rating 0 Medals - 50% Poor, 40% Average, 10% Good 1 Medals - 25% Poor, 50% Average, 25% Good 2 Medals - 15% Poor, 50% Average, 35% Good 3 Medals - 05% Poor, 45% Average, 50% Good 4 Medals - 00% Poor, 20% Average, 80% Good Futhermore, once promoted they can't return to being an Army Group Commander. If you want to replace them the unit must be disbanded. ------------------------------------------------ [ May 25, 2005, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Denmark and Belgian remained neutral until invaded despite France and Germany being at war. Why, small countries with small armies tend to remain neutral if at all possible, especially when faced by countries with much larger armies. [ May 25, 2005, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

That said, I really like JJ's idea of Theater commanders. It offers a simple way of demonstrating the superiority units derived from their high command allocating increased logistical support to a critical front. Players would have to choose between supplying all HQ units equally or diverting increased support to a select few. HQ units could have a Theater Command Rating assigned to them of 1 to 4; they could support 1 to 4 HQ units and give a +2 bonus to those HQs under their command. Even the French and Italians would get a bonus if they decided to use one HQ unit as a theater commander to boost the rating of other HQ units thus boosting a +4 rated HQ unit to +6; due to superior logistics, the bane of the Italian invasion of Greece. Of course a HQ that was used as a Theater commander could not directly support ground troops, even ground troops in supply range. I agree with JerseyJohn's proposed unit limits for Theater commanders; especially his limit as it applies to the USSR. I believe that these limits also reflect the superiority of the German command staff system in WWII and gives a needed bonus to German combat units in the new SC2. -------------------------------- Sample HQ Ratings for Army Group Commanders and Theater Commander Eisenhower.= HQ8 - Theater +4 (ie can support 4 HQ units) Patton..= HQ7 - Theater +1 (ie can support 1 HQ unit) Bradley.= HQ7 - Theater +2 Clark....= HQ7 - Theater +2 Hodges..= HQ6 - Theater +2 Catlett.= HQ5 - Theater +4 (Master of Logistics) Lucus...= HQ4 - Theater +1 Fredendall = HQ3 - Theater +1 Question: Should 1 or 0 be the lowest rating for Theater command ability? -------------------------------------------- Another option, based on the current programming (like the intercept/no intercept commands for Air Fleets) would be to give a HQ units access to 2 command states: Army Group Commander or Theater Commander. When operating as a Theater Commander it could only support HQ units. When operating as a Army Group Commander it could only support Ground Units. [ May 25, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

1. I agree with Random selection, for the generals that were promoted later in the war, as the ability of one's generals only became apparent in war. 2. The Russians should have the ability to disband HQs as Stalin shot Officers that did not perform. 3. Maximum limit per nation, agreed. 4. Interesting idea for Joint HQ's. [ May 24, 2005, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, Good Idea! So, I take it that a Theater Commander would give a bonus to Army group commanders. A HQ support could be assigned to HQs OR to Combat Units within Range. A HQ that supports HQ units cannot also support a combat unit. A HQ that supports combat units cannot support HQ units. Effectively, a HQ unit can operate as a theater commander or an Army Group commander. Example: 01. Eisenhower HQ is assigned to support 3 HQs; Patton, Bradley and Clark. This raises their effectiveness level from 7 to 9. 02. If Eisenhower HQ's support was instead assigned to combat units, then the Other HQs level would remain at 7, and not be increased. 03. The range for a HQ unit to support combat units would be 5. The Range for a HQ unit to act as a theater commander would be unlimited(?). To act as a Theater commander the HQ unit must trace a line of Supply to a Friendly capital. 04. Eisenhower operating as a theature commander can support 5 HQ units. Patton operating as a theater commander can only support 1 HQ unit. Essentially, Eisenhower might be only a Level 5 General but he could give 5 HQ units a level bonus if operating as a Theater Commander. Pattion would be a Level 7 General but he can only give 1 HQ unit a level bonus if operating as a Theater commander. Players must then decide whether to use a HQ unit as an Army Group Commander or a Theater Commander. Is this what you were thinking? [ May 24, 2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Re: the American Generals, lets ask HC for the definitive answer. HC, why did you limit the number of American Generals in SC1? Re: Italians, there I agree with you. They could never afford more than the 3 they have, although I would rate Bilbao higher than the others, even though he died early in the war, shot down by Italian Anti-Air gunners.

I agree that McArthur had his good decisions and bad decisions, certainly not a 9. He's the one General who should have his rating randomly determined each turn - 50% 7, 50% 5. As for too many USA Generals, I believe that USA production will be greatly increased in SC2, and the strongest industrial power in the war should have more options for HQ units, although few players will choose the lower rated HQ units (except if HC incorporates my Idea for the "random unwanted general" :mad: ). [ May 24, 2005, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Should the US have access to more HQ units? If so who should they be and how should they be rated? Eisenhower - 8 ------------------- Patton - 7 Clark - 7 Bradley - 7 -------------------- Proposed NEW American HQ Units: Catlett - 5 (a master of logistics, lacks the combat experience of other more combat experienced generals) Hodges - 6: Lucus - 4 (too cautious, replaced after the near disaster at Anzio) Fredendall - 3 (a superb staff officer that lacked the ability to command, after the disaster at Kasserine Pass he was replaced by Patton) -------------------------------------- Should SC2 include small portraits (public domain images) of each general in the popup box that reveals their stats? I for one would like to see this, even though it will not effect game play. -------------------------------------- Why not have a 20% (1 in 5) that each time a player attempts to purchase an American HQ unit rated 7 (Patton, Clark or Bradley), politics intervenes and a randomly selected HQ: Fredendall (3) or Lucus (4) is purchased instead, if they are available. This would add unpredictability to the purchase of HQ units and recreates the mistakes that occured in selecting Generals to command during WWII. -------------------------------------- [ May 24, 2005, 05:56 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Here's an interesting consequence of the UK or USA subjecting a nation to plunder: 5% News Flash - General [Montgomery/Eisenhower] refuses order of [Prime Minister/President] to plunder Belgium and resigns. (If HQ is in play it is replaced by another randomly selected HQ unit or if not in play the specified HQ is removed from list of selectable HQ units). This would be especially effective if one or two level 5 HQs was included in the USA and UK HQ lists. [ May 24, 2005, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Seamonkey, I agree with your view for other conseqences. Question - what could they be? Perhaps a high level of plunder gives a percentage chance for partisans to be activated in that neutral nation. Perhaps a high level of plunder gives your opponent a free diplomacy chit. Futhermore, your idea of using a diplomacy chit to increase the output of a conquered country is a good idea, and represents investment in rebuilding their industry.

I agree with Avatar, plunder as it is now is nice and simple. The only change I would consider is allowing the conquerer to choose between 2 levels of plunder (low and high). If you are aggressive and take it all this has a strong negative effect on how other countries view you. If you are nice, rebuild the country and feed the people; as JJ mentioned, you get less plunder but other countries don't view your conquest so harshly. Example: UK Attacks Neutral Ireland Plunder High = 360MPP + USA War Readiness -20%, Spain +5% to 15% Pro Axis, Sweden +5% to 10% Pro Axis Plunder Low = 120MPP + USA War Readiness -10% [ May 23, 2005, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]