Edwin P.

Very true, and I think that the AI in SC2 will be much improved over that in Sc1. Perhaps the one item that annoys me the most, is that the AI in the 1942 Scenario (or any other scenario for that matter) never invades the UK, even when I left it totally empty of Allied units! Now, I am not saying that the AI should invade the UK every time when there are no Allied units present but the threat should be there. And to continue with my list: North African Front h. AI sent one battleship to attack one UK battleship in the Western Med, when 2 allied warships were a few hexes behind the first. The AI ship attacked, did some damage and was damaged in return, the Allied ships countered attack and sunk the Italian ship. No Allied Loses. In the meantime it left one Italian ship alone off the coast of Africa and antoher in Athens. Naturally my 2 UK battleships and carrier moved in to sink the isolated Battleship. Edwin's Naval Rules Move Naval Fleets to attack in groups of three or more. Three fleets will sink one enemy fleet. Sending one ship out alone is suicide. [ April 06, 2005, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In 1942 Scenario I noticed several things about the AI. 1. North African Front a. Axis HQ jumps back and forth between the two Italian cities in Libya when Allies advance and retreat towards Tobruk. As a human player I would have transported it to Italy and used it in Europe, and never operated it to an isolated city without a port. b. Even though I reduced my garrison in Egypt to just 1 corps holding Cairo the AI was never able to take Cairo as it never sent a corps to Flank the City, even when there were no allied fleets in the Area. c. When the entire UK and American Fleet entered the Western Med after helping to liberate France the AI did not withdraw units from North Africa to protect Italy, instead it reinforced Italy with another Italian air unit, a step that it should have taken long ago if it wanted to take Cairo and it should not have taken late in the game. d. The AI seeing that it could not take Cairo should have withdrawn units from Libya to Europe, the main front of the war and left only, at most, 2 units guarding Tobruk. The German and Italian HQ units, the German Armor unit and the Italian Air Unit would have been more effectively used in Europe. e. Why did 2 battleships from the Italian Navy attack a battleship instead of attacking a weakened Str 6 Carrier? Why did the Italian air unit attack a corps instead of the UK Carrier fleet? f. Even though I played with FOW off I was able to land Allied corps unsupported by naval units to take the 2 cities in Southern Italy unopposed. g. Even with FOW off 2 Italian Battleships did not move to engage UK carrier moving alone and unsupported towards Italy. 2. Northern Front. a. Why did the AI station 3 air units in Norway, far from the battle for Germany? b. Why did the AI allow 2 HQ units to be cut off adjacent to Riga instead of operating them or transporting them to Germany? c. Why were there no HQ units in Germany to protect the home country? They were in Yugoslavia or cut off and isolated in Riga and Sevastapool and none were used to help defend France. The Axis AI had three Level 12 Armor units in France without HQ support and supported by only Level 11 Air unit. If the AI had moved 1 or 2 HQ units to France and focused all of their experienced air units on the Battle for France they could have decimated the Allied invasion force, and destroyed several allied air units (since I moved all the Allied air into France), and then redeployed to the east to roll back the Soviet advance. [ April 06, 2005, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I wonder if you could have an event where if an Axis unit was on Tile X AND Tile Y AND Tile Z along the Swedish Border then you may get a Swedish 20-50% change towards the Allies or an extra Corps? This would also apply to Allied units being concentrated on the Swedish border;however, this could change them towards the Axis. Thus countries, other than Russia, could respond to forces being amassed on their border. Additionaly, could an event be triggered by a tile being empty. Example: If Gibraltar is not garrisoned there is a 1% that Spain annexes Gibraltar or if the Warsaw tile is not garrisoned there is a 1% that a Polish Partisan unit appears in this tile (aka Warsaw Uprising). Example: IF Gibraltar AND its Port are not Garrisoned then 1% (1 in 100 turns) Spain Annexes Gibraltar AND value of Gibraltar port is reduced to ZERO, thus allowing ships of any nationality to transit the straits. [ April 05, 2005, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

John Hugo, how true. If Turkey had joined the Axis it would have changed everything, and in SC2 with diplomacy chits this is much more likely to occur than in SC1.

In a recent SC1 Game vs the AI I gave Turkey to the Axis. What Happened? Turkey conquered Vichy then moved onto Egypt. When France surrendered Turkish units (1 army and 1 Corps and 1 German HQ) in the Sinai were isolated. They took the Suez (I found out here that the transit hexes in the Atlantic vanish if this happens) and then began a long series of useless attacks on Cairo. When Germany DOWed Russia, no German units attacked Russia from Turkey. Only 1 Turkish corps advance into Turkey. ------------------------------------------ Suggestions for AI & Game Improvements a. If Turkey takes Beruit prior to French Surrender Turkey should annex Syria and this territory should not become a part of Vichy France. b. If Turkey takes Syria the Axis AI should select from 5 Strategic Possiblities for future Action: </font> Conquer Iraq</font>Conquer Egypt</font>Prepare to Invade Russia from Turkey (if Russian War Readiness > XX%)</font>Prepare to invade Russia from the Black Sea & Turkey (if Russian War Readiness > XX%)</font>Place Minor Force on Russian Border to force Russians to guard Border Area (if Russian War Readiness > XX%)</font> c. Although the Turkish AI did advance on Cairo and laid seige to it with the assistance of a Bomber in Turkey, the Italians never advanced from the West to cut off Cairo from reinforcements. So every time the Corps holding Cairo was reduced by attack the human player merely reinforced it during his turn. d. If Turkey joins the Axis after the Frence Surrender the the Axis AI should consider mounting a compaign to conquer or liberate Iraq as this will give it added production and prevent its use for Lend Lease shipments to Russia. e. The Italian Navy should consider venturing into the Black Sea (if Turkey is Axis Allied) to attack the sole Russian Navy unit and perhaps send a lone corps or two via transports to invade the Russian rear and seize its oil resources. [ April 05, 2005, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Shaka of Carthage, thanks for the background information. I never realized that this was the mindset of military officers of the day and how this effected their thoughts re: Pearl Harbor. Since Sc2 will not have the proposed events in the initial release it looks like I will have to create a few interesting events to create this possiblity; This should be a relatively balanced option although the amount of decline in USA war readiness and the units that the UK receives will have to be adjusted after playtesting & historical research. This event unexpectedly (only happens 1 in 20 games) switches the focus of the campaign from American entry into the war to Egypt where the British reinforcements will arrive. Thus, affecting both Allied and Axis strategic planning. One question for the designers. If this event is triggered can the arrival of UK reinforcements to the Middle East be staggered over several turns? Example: Turn 1 - Popup announces event; Turn 2 - UK Battleship Fleet (Prince of Wales) arrives in Red Sea from Singapore; Turn 3 - 1st Australian Corps ( I Corps) Arrives in Egypt; Turn 6 - 2nd Australian Corps Arrives in Egypt; Turn 8 - 3rd Australian/New Zealand Corps arrives in Egypt. [ April 03, 2005, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

When you want a game send me an email: edwinfager1@msn.com

Yes I do play PBEM on occassion. Though I tend to change my strategy every game. With one player I used the Turkish gambit (land a corps to seize the straits to the Black Sea and send through a horde of Italians) to great effect then I switched to the Syrian Ambush (let the enemy close in, don't attack right away, and then when you see his HQ sink it) and then to the Norwegian Liberation Campaign on game three with a surprise landing near Berlin coordinated with an invasion of France. I guess that I win about 50% of the time, lose 50% of the time as I play without a bid.

Naval AI Wish List. SCATTER TACTIC (aka HIDE and SEEK) In SC1 human players often try to save their subs from certain destruction by sending one sub to the northwest and another south. The Axis AI never tries this. Their subs always head towards the Scarpa Flows. South Atlantic Ambush Tactic In several games I have seen players build one or two subs in Southwestern France if UK naval units were spotted elsewhere and send them to the South Atlantic. There they await transports heading towards the transit hexes. They engage and usually sink one or two transports and then then run off to hide before returning to the Transit Hexes or to South Western France where there shelter under the protection of a German or Italian Bomber and/or air fleet. Save the Navy Tactic In SC1 many Allied human players attempt to rush their Egyptian naval units to the atlantic before the Italians enter the war. The AI never does this, their naval units wait to be sunk by the Italian navy that outguns them 2 to 1. At the same time if the Human player has moved the entire British and French navy to Italy to engage the Italian Navy the rush out to meet their doom and does not seek the safety of the Adriatic like Human players do. Pack Move Human players tend to advance their naval units in packs. The AI will send forth Fleets piecemeal and see them sunk one by one. Limited AI Intel As I have said in other Posts I think that the AI should know the number of enemy naval ships in various seas/oceans but not their location. Example, the Italian AI would know that there is 1 Russian Naval unit in the Black Sea, 3 Allied Naval units in the Eastern Med and 0 Air, 1 Naval Units in the Western Med and 1 Allied Air in Malta, and 0 Allied Naval units in the South Atlantic. Knowing that it has six naval units it would logically arrive at the following conclusions: 1. Can not access Black Sea so does evaluate this 2. Can not access South Atlantic so do not evaluate this 3. 6 to 3 advantage in the Eastern Med so it considers moving in PACK FORMATION to eliminate this threat, possbily bringing in an Air unit as support. (2 to 1 odds) 4. 6 to 1 Naval advantage in the Western Med so it considers moving in 3 units in PACK FORMATION to sink the allied naval unit. (3 to 1 odds) Now, if the AI Navy could access the Black Sea it would evaluate the situation as giving it 6 to 1 odds and may consider eliminating the Russian Fleet with 3 ships (3 to 1 odds). Of course if the AI determined a large Allied Fleet moving from the North Atlantic to the South Atlantic (ie Number of Naval Units in North Atlantic Down, Number of Units in South Atlanitc Up) it may consider.... ------------------------------------- AI Wish: AI has chance to know number; but not location, of enemy naval units in Atlantic, Baltic, Blacksea, and Mediterrean. Novice AI - 0% Beginner AI - 25% Intermediate AI - 50% Expert AI - 75% Genius AI - 100% [ August 07, 2005, 08:22 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Can you have events that will give the player a yes or no choice and trigger a result based on the choice? Example: 30% Event triggered by Axis DOW on Vichy France UK: Franco has asked us for military aid. Should we give it to him Prime Minister? (cost 50MPP) Yes - UK loses 50MPP, Spain gains 2 corps No - 50% Spain moves 10 to 20% pro-axis, 50% No effect Example: 30% Event occurs on March 1, 1941 USA: Mr. President do you want to embargo oil sales to Japan? No - No Effect Yes - 70% Pearl Harbor Event Triggered on Dec 7,1941, 30% Japan aggrees to US demands. USA War readiness declines by 20% [ April 01, 2005, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, I agree with you, especially since the US government (the Army and Navy staffs in the Pacific at the very least) began preparing for a Japanese attack after the American Oil embargo was declared. I think that although the US government expected to be attacked they never expected that it would occur at Pearl Harbor as the documents below show: http://www2.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Sp1941-42/chapter4.htm - Interesting information on how washington begain preparing for a Japanese invasion of the Phillipines after Roosevelt ordered the oil embargo of Japan. [ April 01, 2005, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

A minor point re: Naval AI - In SC1 if the Turkish straits was Axis controlled (in a Mod) the Italian fleet never ventured into the Black sea where it would have a 6:1 advantage and could support the advancing Axis armies. Likewise, if the Turkish straits were allied controlled (in a Mod) the UK Egyptian fleets never ventured into the Black Sea where it could have attacked German units on the coast. It would make for interesting gameplay vs the AI (at Expert Level) if on occassion neutral Turkey would grant the AI player fleets passage through the Turkish straits and the AI had the capability to take advantage of this. More importantly, if the AI controlled Axis takes Gibraltar the Italian Navy will never build additional naval units (ie low cost subs) and sally forth into the Atlantic, even if the Allied naval forces were decimated earlier in the war in an attempt to defend France. A strategy that many human players use and these Human players also build subs in South Western France under cover of German Bombers that will join up with the Italian Fleet to place a wall between the Britain and the UK. [ April 01, 2005, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Hubert, any chance for the effects of diplomacy on Japan, with 3 or 4 possible outcomes, being included in SC2. It would give the neutral American player a diplomatic option to explore and adds more unpredicatablity to the standard game.

Lars, now we have 4 possible outcomes that could change the game in different ways: 20% Japan accepts US demands --------USA War readiness declines by 20% but war production continues to increase allowing for greater lend lease contributions. 65% Japan attacks Pearl Harbor --------USA enters war in Dec 1941 even if war readiness is below 100% 10% Japan attacks the East Indies. ------- No effect on USA war readiness ------- No UK reinforcements from Australia or India ------- UK Mpps from Asia eliminated ------- American Atlantic fleet gains 1 carrier 5% Japan breaks Alliance with Axis and signs treaty with Dutch Government in Exile ------ USA war readiness declines by 30% ------ Early Siberian transfer, as Russia no longer plans for an attack by Japan. ------ USA Pacific fleet transferred to the Atlantic - Ie US navy gains 3 carrier fleets and 2 battleship fleets and McArthur HQ unit.

JerseyJohn, interesting observation on Japan's other possible action, that would not have involved an attack on Pearl Harbor or acceping US demands and withdrawing from Indo-China and China. That gives three options for a Japanese response to an American oil embargo: 20% Japan accepts US demands --------USA War readiness declines by 20% but war production continues to increase allowing for greater lend lease contributions. 70% Japan attacks Pearl Harbor --------USA enters war in Dec 1941 even if war readiness is below 100% 10% Japan attacks the East Indies. ------- No effect on USA war readiness ------- No UK reinforcements from Australia or India ------- UK Mpps from Asia eliminated ------- American Atlantic fleet gains 1 carrier The one question is; What should have been the chance for each of these options? and are proposed consequences reasonable; ie historically possible, and not unbalancing to game play? Shaka of Carthage, what I am looking for is a historically possible way for the USA player to directly affect the conditions surrounding his entry into the war with diplomatic chits and to make the result somewhat unpredictable. Randomization of USA entry is already included in the game to a certain extent with Axis and UK actions affecting war readiness. The method I propose would allow the USA player to effect their entry into the war, to a limited extent (ie no later than Dec 1941) if they are willing to take a calculated risk. Thus American entry into the war can be affected by British, Axis and American actions. Of course, a good USA player would not take a calculated risk on the reaction of the Japanese government to an American oil embargo if Axis actions appear to ensure an early American entry into the war. [ April 01, 2005, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

16. Most of all, I would like each AI (Axis and Allies) to have at least 3 general strategies for fighting the war so the human player would face a more unpredictable opponent. Example: Axis - 1) Conquer Russia Axis - 2) Control the Meditterrean Axis - 3) Sea Lion Allies - 1) Standard Normandy Allies - 2) Control the Meditterrean - First Africa, then Sicily, then Italy Allies - 3) Super Russia (ie USA sends all possible MPPs to Russia) and Strategic Bombing of Germany Edited - (While waiting for a long file conversion to complete) Sealion Notes Of course the AI should evaluate its situation and only consider this when the circumstances are opportune. And, more importantly, it should not always do a Sealion when opportune circumstances present themselves otherwise the AI will become too predictable. And if circumstances change it should know when to call off the operation and send these forces to the Eastern front or elsewhere. Example: Most of Allied Fleet in Mediterrean & few units in UK = 30% Sealion Most of Allied Fleet in North Altantic and few land units in UK = 5% Sealion And of course the AI will have to prepare for an early Sealion by moving all Airfleets to the French Coast and screening its transports with its Navy. Now, perhaps, with the new Amphibious Unit there exisits a chance that the Axis can take London and 1 or 2 other British cities in a single turn if cities are left ungarded. If it can do this it should be ready to rapidly reinforce this position from Antwerp. I can see a case in which the UK player leaves 2 port cities ungarded. The German player sends in his fleet to clear the way and spot any naval ships that may intercept the Amphibious units. Then, if the path is cleared, the German AI sends forth two Amphibious units to seize these Brtish port cities in a daring surprise attack. [ March 31, 2005, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Question - Is there any progress to report with the Naval AI? Any feedback on battles vs the Naval AI?

1. Can you have an event where Turkey would have a chance, say 25%, to become 10% to 30% more pro Axis if a Russian unit entered Iraq? (Reflects historical Turkish-Russian rivalry) 2. Can you have an event where Sweden would have a chance to, say 20%, mobilize a HQ unit and an extra corps if the Axis attacked Norway? 3. Can you have an event where Spain would have a 5% (1 in 20) to annex Gibraltar if there was no allied unit in the Gibraltar tile or the Gibraltar port tile? And if Spain controls Gibraltar then all units, allied and axis could pass through the Gibraltar port tile. 4. Can you write an event that would allow Axis or Allied transports and ships to transit the straits to the Black Sea while Turkey remains neutral? Example: If Turkey is 50% pro Allied (but still neutral) then 25% that Turkey allows Allied transports to transit the straits to the Black Sea. 5. Can you have an event dependent on Axis or Allied units being in Tiles 1, 2, 3, and 4. Example: If Axis units are in 4 tiles along the French border with Spain their is a 33% that Spain gains 1 corps in a tile adjacent to the French Border. This reflects the fact that news of a German buildup on their border may cause Spain to mobilize for war and order units to the border with France. [ March 29, 2005, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I hadn't thought of the Ukraine not producting pro-soviet partisans if they were an independent minor nation. In fact, I really like your idea of the Axis player being able to choose to have the Urkaine be an independent nation. The key would be to assign costs and benefits so there would be a reason not to follow this path. Perhaps, no production from an independent Ukraine (I assume that all production would go towards maintaining good relations with the local populace) but you can purchase Ukrainian units and thus increase the size of your force pool. The popup to create an independent Ukrainian state would occur only once, and only when no Soviet units are in Ukrainian territory. This would force the German player to make an early decision. Do I want to recruit Ukranian troops or do I want the Ukranian production? [ March 29, 2005, 07:39 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, I understand. The problem as I see it is that the number of minor countries in the game is limited. If HC were to increase this you could have the Ukraine be a Minor Axis ally when liberated from Soviet control. They could then contribute a limited number of troops to the Axis cause. Ideally, I would like to see functionality for 4 more minor nations and 2 more major nations added, even if they are not used in the default version of SC2. Why 2 more major nations? 1. For a WWI Mod (adding the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Turkey). 2. For a WWII Mod adding Turkey as a Neutral Major Power that is non-cooporative with most other major powers if activated - ie Russian, French, British and Italian forces can't enter Turkish territory due to historical reasons dating from WWI. German and American forces can. [ March 28, 2005, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I believe that in SC2, minor allied nations will have their own force pool limits and troops may be recruited from these nations. Although, as I understand it (and correct me if I am wrong), major nation research advancements will not apply to units from minor nations.

One strategy works against the AI is to retreat 3 or 4 Polish units out of the Axis spotting range into Eastern Poland. The Axis AI does not hunt these units down. This may delay the surrender of Poland for a number of turns, depriving the Axis of much needed plunder. Will the Axis AI be better programmed to handle this? Example: Novice AI: 0% will hunt down Polish units in hiding. Beginner AI: 0% will hunt down Polish units in hiding. Intermediate AI: 50% will hunt down surviving Polish units in hiding if they number 3 or more. Expert AI: 90% will hunt down Polish Units in Hiding if they number 3 or more. (As I assume this is the optimal strategy)

I wonder if it is possible to tie Merchant Ship Interdiction to an Event? Ie: Germany attacks Merchant Ships = 1% US War Readiness Increases by 5% and popup of: "Americans angered by Axis submarine attack on US oceanliner."

Good observation and I would agree if there was no cost to doing so. But if the Diplomatic chits to affect entry via Japan are expensive that means that the US player will be paying MPPs to enter the war early or he can wait unit his war readiness brings him in naturally. If he used the MPPs to influence Japan then his spending on merchant shipping, research and military units is reduced. Of course, this would have to be extensively playtested. Effect of Using Diplomacy Chits with Japan Diplomatic Cost: ? MPPs ---- 75% USA Enters war no later than Dec 7,1941, regardless of Axis actions in Europe Popup: "Japanese Attack Pearl Harbor on Sunday December 7,1941" ---- 25% USA War Readiness Declines 20% on Dec 7,1941 Popup: "Japanese agree to American demands and will withdraw from IndoChina and China." Note, in the example above, the chance (25%) that diplomatic efforts may reduce USA war readiness rather than increasing it - if the Japanese backdown and accept the loss of face associated with American demands to withdraw from China and IndoChina. Also, note that Germany may choose to temper Japanese anger at American demands with diplomatic chits. I think that this option adds historical flavor to the game. Possible Outcomes Japan +100% (with Allied Diplomatic Chits) 75% USA enters war on Dec 7,1941 25% Japanese accept American demands, USA war readiness declines by 20% Japan -100% (with Axis Diplomatic Chits) 75% Japan attacks Russia (No Siberian transfer, increase to UK merchant shipping from Asia) 25% Japan Russia Trade Treaty - Normal Siberian Transfer [ March 27, 2005, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

13. Naval AI will attack sighted enemy ships if it has overwhelming combat advantage and enemy ships are far from land. In a game vs the AI with FOW OFF the British Navy never hunted down the 2 German Subs in the North Atlantic, even though it could see where they were and the UK was not threatened with Invasion. A simple rule to use would be if AI had a 3:1 Naval Advanatage it should hunt down enemy ships in the Atlantic. 14. AI Naval Units will not stay on one place if Under Air Attack and Naval units are not attacking any units. Why? In one game with FOW OFF I gave the Axis AI Six Subs in the South Atlantic. The Subs moved to Brest and Stopped. UK land based Air Units in South Western England attacked them for several turns. The Subs never moved, they just remained in placed until all were sunk. In this case the Axis subs should have moved south, out of range of the Allied Air and waited until the Allies launched D-Day under the protection of an Axis long range spotting Bomber unit. 15. Allied Naval AI will USE Navy to Hunt for enemy naval units in the Atlantic. I would suggest the the Allied Naval AI send out a fleet equal to 3x or 4x the number of Axis naval ships in the Atlantic to hunt them down. Example: If Axis has 1 Sub in the Atlantic the Allied AI will send out 3 ships in a semi random multually supporting search pattern to locate this ship. (ie Each ship will end its turn no more than x tiles from another ship in this group.) [ March 28, 2005, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]