Edwin P.

Re: UK Forces for Taking Iraq. I find that you normally need six units to take Baghdad. 1. Move the French Unit In Beruit to to Egyptian Territory after Italy enters the war (= 1 unit) 2. Move the French Unit in Algiers to Gibraltar and the UK unit in Gibraltar to Egypt (= 2 units) 3. Move Canadian Army to Egypt = (= 3 units, 3 more to go) 4. Send French Fench Units to Iraq after France Falls, Surround Baghdad and then attack so it can't reinforce above 5.

Perhaps, just perhaps a chance for that much needed Naval HQ? That will allow the game to reflect a nation's historical naval traditions, aka the United Kingdom, or focused investments in the naval arm, by increasing the readiness of "3" Naval Units, and only naval units, anywhere on the map. With a Naval HQ a UK battleship could have a greater combat readiness than a Russian or Italian Battleship of comparable technology. Naturally (?) you should only be able to assign Naval HQ support to a naval unit when it is in a port - while a Naval ship is at sea you can't reassign Naval HQ support to it - thus reflecting the planning associated with launching a naval campaign. How would a Naval HQ differe from the standard HQ unit? Standard HQ Unit - Supplies 5+ land and air units, within a range of X hexes, units supported can be manually selected each turn if the unit is within the support radius of the HQ unit. Naval HQ Unit - Supplies 3+ naval units, no range limit, HQ support can be assigned to a naval unit when it enters a port. [ March 15, 2005, 11:07 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Quick Note, it appears that; In SC2 the Spotting Range and Strike Range of air Units will be reduced. In Sc2 the LR tech will increase the attack range of a bomber by +2 for each level and that of a fighter by just +1. In Sc2 subs will have the ability to run silent and remain hidden from sight. In Sc2 air units will have a naval attack rating. If you do not research this then your aircraft will not be very effective against naval units. [ March 15, 2005, 07:53 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

With all of these options balancing this game will be most a interesting exercise in light of all of many implications that any option offers to the game. Who knows, it may lead HC to expand the list of minor and major countries in a future update. (so we can add an AI controlled Spain or Turkey - imagine, a semi-powerful country that neither the Axis or Allied player can directly control. ) More importantly, I am waiting to see what improvements in the AI are developed to deal with all of these changes - from Merchant Shipping to Diplomacy to Research to Battle Strategy and Tactics. [ March 14, 2005, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Historically, Turkey remained neutral in the war. When it thought Germany was winning it sent valuable raw materials to Germany in exchange for armaments, one source said that Turkey provided 30% of Germany's Chrome. When it saw that Germany was certain to lose it delcared war on Germany but undertook no offensive actions. Basically, I see Turkey as providing 10MPP per turn to Germany while neutral. If Turkey becomes pro-Axis (but does not join the Axis) I see this as increasing to 30 or 40MPP per turn. Conversely, if Turkey becomes pro-Allied (but does not join the Allies) I see Turkish trade with Germany dropping to zero. Tieing in with your other post on the effect of battles, if Germany achieves victory in Egypt then not only do they gain control of Egypt but trade with Turkey increases. Simiarly, the potential for increased trade with Turkey may encourage Germany not to attack Spain, if such an action would hurt relations with Turkey.

During WWII Turkey was a vital source of chrome for German factories, until it became pro-allied and the allies started a program to purchase chrome from Turkey to prevent it from falling into German hands. (in fact the British and Americans each had their own programs for purchasing Chrome from Turkey) Is it reasonable to say that if Turkey is 30%+ Pro-Axis that it should provide more MPPS to Germany? If Turkey is 30%+ Pro-Allied then it would provide no MPPs to the Axis. What would influence Turkey to become pro-axis? Diplomacy, yes. Bulgaria joining the Axis should make Turkey more pro-axis as they would want to forstall an German invasion by agreeing to German demands. If Germany takes Cairo and/or Iraq this would shift Turkey towards the Axis. Conversely, if the Allies defeat Italy, liberate Paris or take Berlin then Turkey would become more pro-allied. Diplomacy would also shift Turkey towards the Allied position. In fact, I could see three event pop-ups related to this topic: 1. "Republic of Turkey signs trade agreement with Germany" - When 30%+ pro Axis 2. "Republic of Turkey bans all trade with the Axis Powers" - When 30%+ pro Allied 3. "Republic of Turkey declares its neutrality in the European War." - When Turkey returns to a neutral stance; less than 30% pro Axis or pro Allied. The addition of this feature to the game would make control of Egypt more important to both the Axis and Allied powers. If the Axis can take Egypt then Turkey will increase trade with Germany. Conversely, the Allies must hold Egypt to prevent this. [ March 13, 2005, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

There was no bid. We felt that you did not need it if the Axis was only going to attack 2 countries before attacking Russia. The allies took Ireland, Norway, and Sweden in unopposed invasions. This was probably my opponents mistake. It delayed the entry of the USA and meant that I did not have to fear an early game invasion of France. When he did invade France he had Level 2, and later level 3 jets for support that forced me to operate all German Air units west from the the Russia front. At this point in time my opponent launched a series of counter attacks, breaking through in a few places. But I was able to reform a line and slowly eliminate the units the did slip through while reforming the German line. It was dicy for a few months on the Eastern front with both sides losing units each turn. [ March 12, 2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Yes, I did win. His; the Russian, problem was that he had too few units and that my units were able to quickly advance into Russia, as there were no units close to the border! He was unable to form a line until the Siberian transfer was triggered. Note that for my intial attack I had 5 air units, 3 HQ units and 2 armor units, the rest were corps and army units (level 1). As for the minor Axis allies they joined well after the attack was underway. [ March 12, 2005, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In trying something new I attacked Russia soon after taking France (and Denmark, the Low Countries and Greece). Me and my opponent was shocked, at how few Russian units he had.

Kuniworth, its true that I would like to create scenarios at a more operational level using the SC2 Editor. Sea Monkey, your point is a good one and I agree. Its just that I feel that the corps/division army commanders had a greater impact on the performance of their units than is reflected in SC, and When I think of Patton I think of him as commanding a single unit, not 5 corps or 5 armies.

Any chance for a terrain tile where the AP cost for armor units is higher than that for Infantry units which are better equipped for traversing very rough terrain?

Note: Although its not to be included in SC2, I would have liked to see Unit Commanders that would give a penalty and/or bonus to their specific unit. Example - You would purchase a unit and have the option to purchase a commander for it for an extra MPP cost. The assigned commander would affect the ability of that unit and that unit only. A unit commander would also enhance the ability of a unit to gain experience. Example: Patton might give a unit +1 AP. Another commander might give his unit a -1 AP penalty or a bonus/penalty to their attack rating.

It appears that with the new improved editor you can add HQs to the minor country neutrals. Edited: As HC stated above.

I would think that the minor countries would only mobilize a HQ unit and/or additional combat units if they felt threatened. Example: If Axis DOW Norway and Switzerland I could see Sweden mobilizing an HQ unit and perhaps an additional corps. From what I have read about scripting in SC2 this could probably be added as a custom event. Note: In my view HQ are not only military leadership, they represent above normal supply and coordination of military units via a centralized structure that gives preference to specific military units. Normally such structure are not present during times of peace, especially among minor nations. [ March 11, 2005, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Thats true, it would have to written so that if 3 French Cities are Free that the US would not enter the war, otherwise you would get these game strategies.

Update: Expert Level 2 Game May 1944 - Axis Sub in North Altantic Merchant Shipping Lanes June 1944 - 3 Italian Warships attack Free French Corps in Malta - Better Late than Never - Why so late? July 1944 - 4 Italian Ships attack Malta

In SC1 there are two options when playing vs the AI: One affects Plunder and the Other Experience. I would like to see three more added: AI Tech Bonus, AI Bonus Units and AI Diplomacy Bonus. This would allow players to easily vary the difficulty level of the AI opponent(s). AI tech bonus This would give AI nations a bonus number of free research chits based on the AI level and the major country or it could be a bonus (+0, +1, +2, +3) irrespective of country. Bonus Units The AI would start the game with a number of randomly selected bonus units (0, 1 or 2). Diplomacy Chits The AI would receive a bonus number of diplomacy chits (0, 1 or 2). [ March 09, 2005, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Another issue I have with the AI is that is seems not to invest as much resources in research as does a human player. Perhaps allow an option for AI tech bonus on the setup screen. This would give AI nations a bonus number of free research chits based on the AI level and the major country. Example: Intermediate: German AI: 2 Bonus Research Chits, Italy 1 Bonus Chit Expert: German AI: 4 Bonus Chits, Italy 2 Bonus Chits Genius: German AI: 6 Bonus Chits, Italy 3 Bonus Chits. [ March 09, 2005, 08:18 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

One issue I have with the AI in SC1 is that it does not know how to deploy and use HQ units. In a game vs the AI at Expert Level 2 (+2 Experience) the AI successfully took Spain, Portugal, Gibraltar, Denmark and the French part of Vichy France (it never attempted an invasion of Algeria). Yet in attacking Russia it allowed 4 HQ units to be cut off in the Southern part of Russia along the coast (all were adjacent to each other). When the Allies advanced in the West and East it kept a HQ units in Yugoslavia and Spain instead of using them to support the Axis units facing the Russian advance in the East or the Allied invasion in the West. There were no HQ units in Germany or France or Italy! [ March 09, 2005, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Good idea

Excellent point JerseyJohn, and as my post says "Japan Attacks Russia ......and Russia mobilizes for war. Thus placing pressure on Germany to attack Russia." I tried to say that Germany is not automatically at war with Russia, its just that the Russian economy switches to a war footing and Germany, as a consequence, has a strong incentive to attack Russia ASAP, as you have stated. Of course Russian war readiness will also be affected by other factors such as German actions against other nations, the numbers of troops on the border, etc.. All important events, but they all ignore the important role that Japan played in WWII. [ March 07, 2005, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree, so set the % of a Japanese attach at say 95% with a USA Oil Embargo. I was thinking more along the lines of an event that could turn the Siberian Transfer Off or cause it to occur early. OFF if Japan Attacks Russia and early if USA is a war with Japan without entering war with Germany and Italy. Its just that I think a game is more interesting, for both the Allies and Axis, if you don't know if the Siberian Transfer will be on or off.

Good points. As for why would Russia declare war on Germany if it is attacked by Japan, its more likely that Germany would be forced to declare war on Russia. Why? Once Japan attacks Russia will begin to mobilize its country for war. This will strengthen it against any future attack by Germany. Germany must attack now, before Russia has a chance to strengthen its armed forces. Of course, it would be best for Germany if they never attacked Russian and concentrated there forces on securing control of Western Europe and the Mediterrean.

Except, if the unpredictable Japanese attacked the US sooner than 1943 (ie Dec 7, 1941) or Japan attacked Russia (and Germany met its obligations under its alliance with Japan), both of these events apparantly could be scripted into the game. Example: % Japan Attacks Russia on Date XX/XX/XX and Russia mobilizes for war. Thus placing pressure on Germany to attack Russia. Popup: News Flash: The Empire of Japan invades Eastern Russia. Russia mobilizes for war. % Japan Attacks USA on Dec 7, 1941 and USA moblizes for war. If this occurs and Germany does not DOW USA by June 1942 then, perhaps, Russia should receive an early Siberian Transfer as the Japanese would be facing the full weight of American military power. Popup: News Flash: The Empire of Japan attacked the US Naval Base at Pearl Harbor. America moblizes for war. Of course, ideally I would like to see these percentages affected by American/Russian policy decisions vs. Japan. Example: If USA imposes oil embargo on Japan then greater chance for Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and much reduced chance for attack on Russia. Example: If Russia pursues trade agreement with Japan then reduced chance for Japanese attack on Russia = Early Siberian Transfer at cost of lower production as resources are going to Japan. Perhaps give the American player a popup with 2 or 3 policy options affecting relations with Japan. The American player selects one and this affects the % in the above mentioned scripts. [ March 07, 2005, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Could it be scripted that that US remains neutral if France is free even if US war readiness is high? I suggest this as it would make for a more interesting game vs the AI or humans in those cases where the Allied player has prevented the Axis AI or human player from taking France. [ March 06, 2005, 10:38 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]