Edwin P.

A balanced addition is a good one if it changes the strategies of the players involved. You might select one option if you favor a stronger naval game or the alternative if you favor a land based campaign. Example: Attacking Russia soon after France falls is a balanced option when compared to attacking Russia when its war readiness is high, but it totally changes how the game plays out. Example: Convincing France to become a German ally gives you a Germany that is weaker than the Vichy French option, but also gives the Axis control of the French Fleet and makes for a much stronger Naval game. Its also a great way for the AI to change how the game is played by changing how; as the Axis player, a defeated France is handled (Vichy, Total Conquest, or Axis Ally) or by deciding; as the Allied player, if the USA imposes an oil embargo on Japan. The game is still balanced but the strategies required to win change for both players.

Excellent point - isolated units in North Africa desert hexes should experience double or triple the normal reduction in readiness when not in a city tile or adjacent to a rive; ie the Nile.

From my readings on this forum; You can have a hard unit cap, a soft unit cap or no unit cap. The cap is by unit type by country. Germany might be capped at 2 aircraft carrier fleets while the US is capped at 10. A hard cap is an absolute limit on the number of units of that type for that country that can be built. With a soft unit cap each unit built above the cap level costs more. This extra cost is a percentage that is set in the Soft Build Penalty box on the country screen. Example: If an Infantry costs 250MPP to build, building another unit above its Soft Cap level costs 300MPP if that country has a 20% Soft Build Penalty. [ May 08, 2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Can air units prevent the spotting of adjacent friendly land units? Ideally player would select CAP to assign this ability to an air unit. An air unit flying CAP cannot attack, move or intercept that turn. Land units adjacent to an air unit flying CAP (where the air unit has a strength 5 or more) could not be spotted by enemy air units. This would allow both sides, Axis and Allied, to surprise their opponent with unsighted reserves behind the front lines - ie Battle of the Bulge.

I agree that the scripted scripted strategies should not be few in number, but each one takes time to develop and bugtest, I believe that HC will have to focus on the most important ones or develop an AI routine that can develop its own viable strategies. An important issue with an AI changing its strategy or operational deployments is tha you don't want an AI that constantly switches from one strategy to another every turn or every few turns. Example: In SC1 I played a few games where the AI constantly operated its HQ between France and Italy and another game where units constantly operated between France and Russia. Example: You would not want the AI to initially prepare for an Invasion of Russia and then switch to preparing for a Sealion in 1941. That would leave it exposed to an Russian attack and waste MPPs from operating units West to East and East to West and then West to East again. Additionally, the Russia First Strategy is not just one strategy, it is the focal point of a set of supporting operational strategies. Example: Strategy: Defeat Russia First Force Structure Options (that also affect research decisions): Option 1: Balanced Air and Land Force Option 2: Armor Heavy Force Option 3: Infantry Heavy Force Option 4: Air Heavy Force Axis of Advance Options: Option 1: Broad Front Option 2: Stalingrad Option 3: Moscow Research Level Options Option 1: High Option 2: Medium Option 2: None The result of a Russia First Strategy could be: Force Structure: Armor Heavy; Axis of Advance: Moscow; Research: Medium or Force Structure: Air Heavy; Axis of Advance: Broad Front; Research: Low Ideally, you would want the AI to maintain a file containing the win/loss record for each strategy. There would be a greater chance for it to select a strategy that has a a record of winning. Thus as the human learns to counter one strategy the AI would likely switch to another strategy. [ May 08, 2005, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

1. Sinking the Russian fleet is an easy kill and aids the German advance. Futhermore, Italian units in the Black Sea can bombard any Russian units stationed along the coast. 2. I have played a few games against humans players where Turkey has joined the Axis. In those games I found that sending corps to conduct/threaten amphibious invasions of Southern Russia was more effective than trying to cross the Caucaus Mountains. Doing both forces the Russia player to commit more forces to this region.

Agreed, only exploring possibilities. Some of the ideas may be relatively simple to implement. Example: Popup June 1941: Mr President, Japanese aggression against China continues. Should we embargo the sale of oil to Japan. Yes - 75% Germany DOW USA on Dec 7,1941, 25% USA WAR Readiness declines 20% on Dec 7, 1941 as Japan agrees to withdraw from China. No - No Effect on Game

I agree that weather can be atrocious during the winter. And in SC2 weather zones, as I recall from previous posts, will reduce the range of aircraft operating in that zone during bad weather.

Merchant ship convoys are large targets and lack effective anti-air defenses. Should air units allowed to attack merchant shipping routes? I think so. Example: A fighter wing stationed in Norway should be able to attack Allied Lend Lease Routes going to Russia if one is within range. Attacking merchant shipping means that it can not intercept or attack another unit that turn. In practical terms, a fighter wing sends out a patrol, a merchant ship convoy is spotted and the fghter radios in their location to the rest of the air wing and the attack begins. Adding this feature would give greater importance to controlling Norway and Iceland. [ May 07, 2005, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC2 some of my most exciting games have been when an Axis human player launched an early attack on Russia. Attacking Russia when it has few units on the map really changes the dynamics of the game. I would like to see the Axis AI in SC2 occassionaly follow this strategy. It really affects the prewar actions of the Russia player as he can no longer count on the Axis AI only attacking after he has built up his forces. Perhaps if France falls quickly to the Axis the AI would consider this option 25% of the time, 1 out of 4 games. Example: France Surrenders BEFORE XX/XX/XX AND UK Navy in Atlantic --- Early Axis Attack on Russia Strategy 25% --- Standard Axis Attack on Russia 75% France Surrenders BEFORE XX/XX/XX and 80% of UK Navy in Med and few Allied Units in UK --- Early Axis Attack on Russia Strategy 25% --- Axis Sealion 25% --- Standard Axis Attack on Russia 50% France Surrenders AFTER XX/XX/XX --- Standard Axis Attack on Russia 100%

I agree, a dynamic would be preferable; however, it would also take more time to program and, based on SC1 the AI was very scripted at the Strategic Level. I would also like to point out that in going to war nations choose strategies to follow as a guide before they begin operations. Futhermore, at the lowest level you want to keep it simple until the human player learns how to play the game. Perhaps at the lowest AI level you would only see the Axis prepared to attack Russia when it readies for war. Then at the next level the AI might attack Russia early in the game (25%) or later when it prepares for war (75%). I found that an early attack on Russia really changes the dynamics of the game in Sc1. Of course, the Attack Russia Early option would only occur if France fell quickly to the Axis powers. Then at the next level and higher levels the AI would become much more dynamic and adjust its strategy based the opposing sides actions. Choosing between an Early Sea Lion, Conquest of the Middle East, Conquering the Nordic States, Battle for the Atlantic, Attacking Spain, Using Diplomacy and more. It should also be noted that as HC said (and I am paraphrasing his comments) something to the effect of - its best for the AI do to a few things great than many things poorly. [ May 07, 2005, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

When I play the AI at Expert level it always selects the same countries to attack. First Vichy France > Spain > Portugual > Hungary. It would be a big improvement if the AI did not always select the same strategy. Example: Beginner Level ---- 100% Strategy 1 Intermediate Level ---- 50% Strategy 1 ---- 50% Strategy 2 Expert ---- 25% Strategy 1 ---- 25% Strategy 2 ---- 25% Strategy 3 ---- 25% Strategy 4 [ May 05, 2005, 07:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

With all the changes in Sc2 the game may not need any scripting for play balance. Keep in mind that air power will be much reduced, Russia will have two production centers, and there will be limits on the operational movement of units. Although I have a long list of ideas for new events, I want to see how the game plays before introducing them. Besides HC and company might have incorporated some of them into SC2. [ May 04, 2005, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Lars,interesting. It really demonstrates the value of the Vichy France option to the Germans and leads me to think that the 2 key diplomatic decisions that had the most impact on the war and could be modeled in SC2 are; 1. The German decision on how to handle a defeated France. ----- Vichy Option: Plunder, Income and Increase in Limit of Units or Bonus to Industrial Production Tech Level due to French labor force contributions. In fact the increase to Axis force pool limits or the increase to the Industrial Production Tech might be the balancing factor needed to make this option superior, if not equal to the other proposed options. 2. The USA decision to embargo the sale of oil to Japan. For me, this is the critical factor that resulted in the USA entering the war in Euriope in Dec 1941. Without the oil embargo, Japan would not have attacked the USA and American entry into the war would have been delayed. HC, any chance of including event scripts that would allow players to choose between 2 options? [ May 04, 2005, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

One should keep in mind that initially the French viewed the German occupation as temporary. There would be no major changes except for reparations and minor loss of territory. This was based on the previous history of conflict between the two nations over the last 200 years.

Korut Zelva, Good point, but what if the Axis player manages to take Paris before he can do so. Its a tough balancing act. Disband your units too soon and France falls early. And there are costs to selecting France as an ally. Germany loses access to the Plunder and the increased MPPs don't benefit their economy. [ May 03, 2005, 07:11 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Starting the Soviet war clock ticking is a good idea. Or, if France allies with the Axis then does the UK seize French Indochina and gain more MPPs via Merchant Shipping?

Lars, RE: France goes Axis 1940 Excellent point, so what can be done to balance this option? - Keep in mind that Germany does not receive the MPPS from French production. This limits Germany's ability to purchase new units and finance research. Taking this into account, may give you a relatively balanced option. To finetune this you could, - reduce production of French cities from 10 to 8 to reflect reparations to Germany. - Keep French Force limits low to reflect reduced availablity of manpower from WWI losses. Any other ideas?

I propose a set of "What If" semi-historically plausible options that players could turn on or off. During the course of the game popups would occur linked to specific events that would give players a choice of options to select from. 1.0 France (Popup When Paris Surrenders) 1.1 Historical Vichy 1.2 Conquer France (No Vichy, French Overseas Departments and Navy join the Allies) 1.3 Convince France to Ally with Germany ( France becomes Axis Major Country, No Plunder) 2.0 USA Prewar Options (Popup in June 1941) 2.1 American Oil Embargo of Japan > leads to war no latter than Dec 7,1941 but resources diverted to fight Japan. OR for a more unpredictable result: ----80% Japan Attacks USA on Dec 7 ----20% Japan; on Dec 7, 1941, agreees to USA terms and USA war readiness declines by 20%. 2.2 No Oil Embargo vs Japan > More forces available to fight Germany but no guarantee of USA entry by Dec 7, 1941. 3.0 USA At War Options (Popup when USA Readies for War) 3.1 Historical Europe First Strategy 3.2 Japan First Strategy = Early Siberian Transfer + Reduced USA Production 3.3 Peace with Japan = No Soviet Siberian Transfer + Greater US Production 4.0 German Ukrainian Option (Popup when Axis controls all (3?) cities in Ukraine) 4.1 Historical Income from Captured Cities in Ukraine 4.2 Ukraine Independence - No Income From Ukrainian Cities and reduced chance for partisans in Ukraine 5.0 UK Partisan Support (popup in Jan 1942) Mr Prime Minister, should we support partisans (for a cost of 100MPP) in 5.1 Greece or 5.2 Norway 5.3 Neither This option activates post surrender partisans in one of the listed countries for a cost in MPPs. 6.0 Soviet Post Surrender Option (Popup when Moscow falls to Axis if Russia has 200MPP) Premier, should we prepare for a guerrilla war, like our communist brothers in China? 6.1 Yes - Cost 200MPP, Activates Post Surrender Soviet Partisans 6.2 No 7.0 Siberian Transfer Option Should we delay the Siberian transfer until German Forces are sent West to fight the Americans and British? Yes - Reinforced Siberian Transfer occurs 5 to 15 turns after Russia Surrenders No - Siberian transfer occurs normally [ May 03, 2005, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, I like the addition of the 3rd option - (your number 2) for a total conquest of France, especially as it seems to be relatively balanced; with the UK gaining the overseas French Departments and any surviving Naval units, and is substantially different from the other two. Now, as the Germans I can: 1. Go for a total conquest of France so I don't have to deal with Vichy in the Future but then the UK gets the French overseas departments and whats left of the French navy. OR 2. I can encourage (force) the French to join the Axis alliance at the cost of all that plunder. THis might leave me too weak to mobilize a large force to take the Egypt while also financing increased research into new weapons technologies. OR 3. I can plunder France and accept a Vichy government in Southern France to deny the allies Axis to the French overseas territories. (The Historical Option). I do wonder; however, as SeaMonkey says, how well the AI be handle such variances such as managing a France as a Major Axis Ally and defending a UK Controlled Algeria and Syria if the Human opponent selects the total conquest of France option. [ May 01, 2005, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

The AI could use a mathematical formula to adjust the probabilities of deciding which option to select - based on the MPP value of surviving French units - so the decision would not be totally random. Note, I assume that French units evacuated to the UK when France joins the Axis would be automatically disbanded with the MPPs going to the UK. Is this assumption correct?

Good point on the Allied liberation of an Axis France. France, as you said, should be allowed only one jolt each way. "it's (French Axis) MPPs count as French MPPs and not German!" This makes it extremely balanced as French units will not benefit from German research advances. And I like your detailed description of what happens to French units. Its realistic and sets out detailed parameters for programming. [ April 30, 2005, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Agreed, plus adding this option would make it easy to make a game against the AI a bit more unpredicatable. Most of the time the AI would choose to plunder France, but sometimes it may choose to forsake the plunder and have France as an ally and thus gain indirect control of Syria and French Algeria along with any surviving units of the French Navy. Any thoughts HC? ie: [ April 30, 2005, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

You are right, the historical animosities were too great and too recent to have been forgiven. I do like your refinement; 2. France Joins Axis - No plunder but France joins the Axis. Given the lack of plunder + the low French production this should not be an unbalancing option and if so French production could be reduced to reflect the reparations paid to Germany.

Here's an interesting What If: Germany captures Paris and the following popup appears to the conquering player (usually Germany, but sometimes Italy); Although most players will choose to plunder France, ensuring French Neutrality does have its value. USA war readiness declines, the Brits don't benefit from Free French Units and if they (the allies) attack French territories then France and its Navy joins the Axis. The decline in USA war readiness could give the Axis the extra time it needs to conquer Russia. Just something to make the game less predictable in a historically possible scenario.