Edwin P.

Every Sunday?

Intel Tech Level 0 Diplomatic Report for UK Nordic Countries: ? Iberia: ? Eastern Europe: ? Middle East: ? Total Diplomatic Activity: ? ----------------------------------------------- Intel Tech Level 1 Diplomatic Report for UK Nordic Countries: ? Iberia: ? Eastern Europe: ? Middle East: ? Total Diplomatic Activity: 2 :cool: ----------------------------------------------- Intel Tech Level 2 Diplomatic Report for UK: Nordic Countries: 0 Norway ? Sweden ? Finland ? Iberia: 0 Potugal ? Spain ? Vichy France ? Eastern Europe: 2 :cool: Hungary ? Romania ? Bulgaria ? Middle East: 0 Turkey ? Iraq ? Iran ? Total Diplomatic Activity: 2 ---------------------------------------------- Intel Tech Level 3 Diplomatic Report for UK: Nordic Countries: 0 Norway: 0 Sweden: 0 Finland: 0 Iberia: 0 Potugal: 0 Spain: 0 Vichy France: 0 Eastern Europe: 2 Hungary: 0 Romania: 0 Bulgaria: 2 :cool: Middle East: 0 Turkey: 0 Iraq: 0 Iran: 0 Total Diplomatic Activity: 2 AI Benefit: With this system you could give the AI an Intel Tech level such as +1 (Intermediate) Level, +2 (Expert Level), or +3 (Hubert Level). Then the AI could be programmed to counter enemy investments a percentage of the time. Example: At Intel Tech level 1 if UK invests 2 chits in Diplomacy then 50% AI matches human investment and purchases 2 Diplomacy chits. At Intel Tech level 3 if UK invests 2 chits in Spain then 50% AI invests 2 chits in Spain. [ March 26, 2005, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I like the idea of requiring the Axis to garrison each city in the USSR after it surrenders to prevent the appearance of partisans. In fact, I could see this as affecting the chance for partisan units. Example: If no cities are garrisoned after the USSR surrenders then the chance for partisan units is 20 (cities) x 5% = 100%, if 13 cities are garrisoned then the chance for partisans = Non-garrisoned cities(20 - 13) x 5% = 35%. This reflects the fact that partisan activity increases if there are too few occupying troops. I would also increase the chance for partisans by 10% for each partisan controlled city. Example: IF Partisans control 2 Russian Cities and Axis garrisons 13 of 20 cities: Chance for Partisans = Non-Garrisoned Cites((20-13)x5%)+ Liberated Cities (2 x 10%) = 55%. Naturally, if the chance for partisans is above 100% then there should be a 100% for one partisan unit to appear with an additional percentage chance for a second unit to appear. [ March 26, 2005, 08:08 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

A single lousy partisan can only occur if you fail to garrison your rear. In fact, during Germany's invasion of Russia a sizable number of troops were tied up guarding the newly conquered areas. I think that SC1's model handles this quite nicely without a lot of complexity and forces players to adequately garrison their rear areas if they want to avoid the effects of partisans. Naturally, during the course of battle you may be forced to weigh the risks of drawing garrison units into the front lines vs risk of not doing so. A most delicate balancing ask that demonstrates the tradeoffs one must make.

Will the report screen remain the same in SC2? I always found it to be a useful gauge of my enemy's strengths (although the AI never used it as such) and proper use of it could help you identify weak areas in an enemy line. How? If the Allies have 12 fleets and 10 Allied Fleets are spotted or sunk off the coast of Italy it means that only 2 (12-10) are available to prevent a Sea Lion. Perhaps a new screen in addition to losses - ie Research Reports that shows the number of chits invested by nation. You could only see this report screen if you had Intelligence Tech Level 1 or higher. At intelligence tech level 2 you see the chits broken down by Air Tech (LR and Jets), Land Tech (Armor, Anti-Tank, Infantry), Naval Techs (Anti-Sub, Sub, Radar Guided Guns), General (Intelligence, Infrastructure). Thus, at Intel Tech 1 you know that Germany has invested 10 chits in research. At Intel Tech 2 you know that 8 of these are invested in Land Warfare research and 2 in Air Warfare research. For the Allied player this information could be most useful, as it means that the Axis player is not planning a battle for the Atlantic. It would also be most useful to the AI if it was programmed to counter Human tech investments. Of course, cooperative allies would share access to the Research reports screen. Non-cooperative allies could not share access to this report screen. You could do a similar screen for Diplomacy Reports. At Intel Tech 1 you see how many Diplomacy chits a country has purchased. At Intel Tech 2 you see the general geographic allocation of these chits: Nordic (Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland), Iberia (Spain, Portugal), Eastern Europe (Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania), Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Turkey). At Intel Tech 3 you learn which countries those diplomacy chits were used on. At Intel Tech 0 you would not know anything about Germany's diplomatic activities. At Intel Tech 1 you would see that Germany has purchased 2 Diplomacy chits but you can't see how they were used. At Intel Tech 2 you learn German has invested 2 Diplomatic chits in the Middle East, but not which country those chits were allocated to. At Intel Tech 3 you learn that Germany is using 2 Diplomacy chits to influence Iraq. A most useful tool for both human and AI players. If you do not have any tech levels in Intel you may not know your opponent is investing in diplomatic activity until it is too late. The same idea could be applied to unlocking greater levels of information on Industrial Production. At Intel Tech Level 0 you would see economic information for allied countries. At Intel Tech Level 1 you would know an enemy nation's total base production. At Intel Tech Level 2 you would know how many MPPs a nation is receiving via Merchant shipping (USA to UK) and trade agreements (ie Russia trading with Germany). Intel Tech Level 1 Report for UK Industrial Production: 134 MPPs Merchant Shipping Income: ? Trade Agreements: ? Total Production Estimate: 134 Intel Tech Level 2 Report for UK: Industrial Production: 134 MPPs Merchant Shipping Income : 100 MPPs Trade Agreements: 0 MPPs Total Production Estimate: 234 MPPs [ March 26, 2005, 03:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Perhaps a much more limited form of vveedd suggests? Each Oil resource you control increases the build limit for armor units by 1. You control 2 Oil Resource tiles and your build limit for Armor units is +2. You lose these tiles and your build limit for Armor units decrease. This would give Allied and Axis forces an incentive to seize Oil hexes.

I agree, I regularly surprise the AI with FOW on. In my view I would like the AI to know what the human player could know and to base his actions on that. Example: From the intelligence screen the Human player will know how many naval ships the UK has or how many ships the Italians have. The AI should use this information to guide their actions. Additionally, I would like the AI to know how many enemy units are in a region, but not their location or number. It can use this information to guide its actions. The regions I would use are: Nordic Countries (Norway and Sweden) North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Egypt) Middle East (Syria, Iraq) Iberia (Portugal, Spain) North Atlantic South Atlantic Eastern Med. Western Med. France & Low Countries North America Example: Norway is Axis controlled. 1 Axis unit in Norway = 70% Allied Invasion, 10 Axis units in Norway = 0% Allied Invasion Example: 1 UK Naval Ship in Eastern Med vs 6 Italian Ships = 90% Offensive Italian Naval Strategy in Eastern Med, 10 UK Naval Ships in Eastern Med vs 2 Italian Ships = 90% Italian Run Away Naval Strategy in Eastern Med.

Good analysis. My thoughts were that the USA player could ignore Japan and enter the war based on how German actions affect his war readiness, or he could take a calculated risk with influencing Japan. This might cause the USA to enter the war in Europe early (ie no later than Dec7,1941) or it might delay the entry of the USA while boosting UK MPP production. Both actions would dramatically affect the war. Naturally Germany could act to counter USA actions in this area. Or as you said, perhaps if US entry is delayed it triggers a large contingent of ANZAC and Indian forces appearing in the Middle East, so the Brits have the forces to defend Egypt, take Beruit, control Iraqi Oil and threaten Italian Libya. The key is to allow the USA player a way to influence when his nation will enter the war so that it is not totally dependent on actions by the Axis powers. As you said the key is how to maintain play balance while totally changing the standard cookie cutter strategy.

Good point, but Roosevelt and his advisers knew that they were taking a chance with their demands on Japan. They would either cave in to American demands or attack the Phillipines. They never expected an attack on Pearl Harbor. In either case the effect of their embargo against Japan lead to war. However, it was only becuase the Japanese military won out in the battles for governmental power. What if, the embargo's caused Japan to back down and withdraw from China and Indochina. Then they would not have attacked Pearl and the UK would have had more resources available to it for the War in Europe from the Far Eastern Commonwealth Nations. Perhaps, at 100% Japanese Anti-USA Rating 70% Japanese military interests win control of government, -------Japan Attack USA, -------USA Enters War, -------UK Merchant Shipping from Far East drops to Zero as Japan attacks Singapore and Malaysia 30% Japanese economic interests win control of government, ---------Japan Withdraws from China, ---------UK Merchant shipping from Australia Shipping Doubles to 60 mpp per turn as the threat to its interests in Asia are removed, ---------USA War Readiness declines by 20% with peace in the Far East. Any opinions? I think that these options are historically possible and relatively balanced (at least as balanced as is possbile without playtesting). And the randomness makes the result of pursuing an aggressive and demanding diplomatic strategy with Japan a calculated risk. --------------------------------------------- References: http://www2.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/wwii/Sp1941-42/chapter3.htm - interesting information on the British View of War Strategy (from Jan 1941): 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. [ March 23, 2005, 06:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

The key is that such events have to be balanced.

Lars - Historically, the USA did undertake actions that increased Japanese hostility towards the USA. "Why the heck would the US do that?" So it could enter the war in Europe against Germany sooner, rather than later. Without the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor the US would have probably entered the war in Europe about a year later, if at all. The sooner that the USA enters the war the sooner its economy will be on a warfooting and better able to support England and the Soviet Union in its war against the Axis. Historically, I believe that Germany preferred that Japan not attack the USA. [ March 23, 2005, 12:29 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Yep, Avalon Hill's 3rd Reich and other similar games had random event chits. Add 30 random events to the game start;1 of 15 for the Allies and 1 of 15 for the Axis, and you could really shake up the game.

Idea: Off-Map Japan a. USA could spend Diplomacy Chits on Japan to increase chance for Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, thus bringing the US into the war early. Japan 25% Anti-USA: "USA Congress embargos Oil shipments to Japan" Japan 50% Anti-USA: "USA Congress embargos rubber shipments to Japan" Japan 75% Anti-USA: "USA Congress embargos steel shipments to Japan" Japan 100% Anti-USA: "Japan attacks Pearl Harbor", USA war readiness jumps to 100% b. Russia could spend Diplomacy Chits on Japan to allow for an early Siberian transfer. c. Germany could spend Diplomacy chits on Japan to encourage it to attack Russia (and not attack USA) and thus delay any Siberian transfer while preventing the entry of the USA into the War resulting from a Japanese attack. Note: USA war readiness would be affected by Axis actions in Europe and American relations with Japan. Now, the USA player could attempt to stroke Japanese anger and provoke an attack on the USA. The Russian player could pursue peace with Japan while the Germans aim to get the Japanese to attack Russia in Siberia. How would this be implemented? The USA, UK, Russia and Germany could purchase Japanese Diplomacy chits. The UK would be limited to one chit in this area to reflect the UK joining the USA economic embargo against Japan. USA and UK chits would increase Japanese Anti-US rating. At a 100% rating Japan would attack the USA and America enters the war in Europe. The Russian chit would improve Japanese relations with Russia. At a high enough level this would lead to a 5 year neutrality treaty that allows a Siberian Transfer to occur. The German chit would decrease the Japanese Anti-US rating while harming Japanese relations with the USSR. If Japanese relations with Russia drop low enough then chance for a Siberian transfer declines. [ March 22, 2005, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Will it be affected by USA neutrality? ie a Neutral US would allow Japan to concentrate its forces against China or Russia? An America at war would draw off Japanese Army forces that could threaten Soviet Siberia. Or could it be affected by Russian relations with Japan? Example: If Japan is 50% pro-Russian then Siberian Transfer can occur. Thus a reason for Russia and Germany to spend diplomacy chits on Japan; a nation that does not appear on the map. One to accelerate a Siberian transfer, and the other to prevent one. Of course, each Soviet Diplomacy chit purchased means less MPPs available for purchasing new combat units. - Since Japan is not in the game this second idea will most likely not be included in SC2. Idea: Off-Map Japan a. USA could spend Diplomacy Chits on Japan to increase chance for Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, thus Brining the US into the War. b. Russia could spend Diplomacy Chits on Japan to improve relations with Japan c. Germany could spend Diplomacy chits on Japan to encourage it to attack Russia. [ March 22, 2005, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

1. In a recent game vs the SC1 AI the Axis units continually, until May 1940, battered themselves against the Maginot line reducing the strength of defending units to 3 or 4 while Axis air units continually targeted units behind the line. I would like to see the AI concentrate its air strength on eliminating front line units rather than wasting attacks on units or empty resource hexes behind the front line. 2. In SC1 the Axis AI will never attack Denmark before conquering France. I would like to see the AI sometimes follow the standard human human strategy and launch a lightning conquest of Denmark early in the war, for both experience and plunder. 3. I would like the AI to know how many Allied naval units are in the Mediterrean; but not where they are, and use this information to in select a strategy for the use of Italian naval forces. (ie Defensive deployment, Hunt Strategy, Deliberate Offense) 4. The AI needs to deploy and use its HQ units in a more effective manner. In Sc1 all too often HQ units would be located in areas where they could not support friendly units. 5. The German AXIS AI needs a fighting withdrawal strategy to follow when the Russians go on the offensive. All too often they will allow valuabe units to be cut off and surrounded. 6. The AI never invests enough in Research. 7. The AI always follows the same build strategy. I would like to see an Axis offensive using Lots of Infantry, or Armor or Rockets or Air Fleets or a balanced combined arms approach. 8. AI knows how to conquer Vichy France by Invading Algeria. 9. AI will take Cairo if no Allied units are in Egypt. 10. AI will use knowledge of Enemy Naval strength on the intelligence screen to help determine its naval strategy. Example: If UK disbands naval forces AI will build Naval units. 11. Axis subs placed in SA will sometimes attempt to block route around Africa and not blindly head north to the English channel only to be sunk by air units in the UK. 12. AI will sometimes attempt to hide 1 Amphibious Corps in Western Med, prepared to seize Rome in a 1 turn invasion if that city is left empty. (PS: I managed once, to take Rome via an amphibious invasion when my opponent left it ungarded - I moved a corps transport next to land out of spotting range, landed and advanced to take Rome - Italy surrendered and my opponent was quite surprised. Never again did he leave Rome ungarded.). [ March 22, 2005, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

1. I would like to see Italian AI offer to surrender if Germany surrenders. The Allied player should have the right to accept or reject this surrender. 2. I would also like to see the USA AI offer peace to the Axis if the UK and Russia are defeated. If this is rejected I would suggest that the USA transfers its pacific fleet to the Atlantic and that its production increases.

Of course, if Germany was to collapse every ally would switch sides. The question what would trigger this in the game. Too easy and you could find implausible situations occuring all the time.

I was thinking that Active nation Hungary, adjacent to Germany, would not make peace with Russia with Germany right next door.

Exel, I like the idea of using the diplomacy engine to make peace with selected neutral nations. In my view, this should possible if your side is winning and much harder to achieve if your side is losing. Example: Russia might seek peace with Finland while it is fighting Germany or Germany might seek peace with Norway (to prevent the basing of Allied Air Units in that country).

Will the Ai consider evacuating a theater if it is outgunned and faces certain destruction? Two cases come to minde - Egypt and France. In games against the Allied AI in France although the AI units are outnumbered 3 to 1 and are steadily being push back they will continue to hold out instead of evacuating units, including HQ units back to England via Brest. This occurs even when they are reduced to 1 to 3 units around Brest. [ March 18, 2005, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

1. True - but its a strategy that many human players use 2. Sending in fleets one by one allows the opposing side to destroy them all. The AI should not send in one or two fleets to attack one fleet when the human player will counterattack with 3 to 4 fleets. [ March 18, 2005, 08:08 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In the Mediterrean it would be good if the Italian AI; 1. Used a corps transport to scout out the location of enemy fleets. 2. Engaged the enemy fleets in a mass attack involving all of its units instead of sending in units one or two at a time. 3. Kept its fleet concentrated for offensive actions and did not leave one or two fleets alone and exposed. 4. Made better use of air units to locate enemy units.

I favor retaining the capitals of countries like Ireland and Portugal but increasing the penalty for attacking them and making the penalty unpredicatable. For example; UK Attack on Ireland 30% - "News Flash - Over 500,000 people in Boston, Chicago and New York City march in protest against British attack on Ireland." (USA war readiness drops by 20% to 30%) 30% - "News Flash - US Congress angered by British Attack on Ireland halts all Lend Lease assistance to the United Kingdom." (until the USA enters the war all lend lease assistance to the UK is stopped and US war readiness drops by 10%) 10% - "News Flash - The Government of Spain, horrified by the British Attack on Ireland has joined the Axis Alliance." 30% - "News Flash - Over 100,000 people in New York City march in protest against British attack on Ireland." (USA war readiness drops by 10%) As for Portugal, if the Axis attacks Portugal Turkey becomes more pro-allied, may join the Allies and may stop all trade with Germany in protest. 50% - "News Flash - The Republic of Turkey in protest against the Axis attack on Portugal has halted all trade with the Axis powers." [ March 17, 2005, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree, air units should have a chance not to spot a naval unit, especially at their extreme range.

Can minor nations change sides in Sc2? or return to Neutrality? Example 1: Finland initially joins the Axis. When Russia takes Warsaw it withdraws from the war and returns to neutrality or perhaps it joins the Allies. Example 2: Spain joins the Axis. The Allies return and liberate France and the Low Countries. Can Spain return to Neutrality or perhaps join the Allies?