Edwin P.

In Sc1 the Axis AI always waited until after France fell to conquer Denmark. Most human players attacked Denmark on turn one or two. Historically, Germany conquered Denmark before France surrendered. In SC2 will the AI launch an early attack upon Denmark or will it always wait until after France surrenders? [ February 11, 2005, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I find armor units to be extremely useful in cutting off pockets of enemy units so they are pinned in place. This allows my armies and air units to destroy them.

Great answer, just hopiing to pry a few more more licorice stocks out of the candy jar.

I would like to see partisan unit occurance become a part of a players strategy. Example: 1. UK can Spend 600MPP to Activate Following Conquest Partisans in any one conquered country (besides Yugoslavia and Russia). Now the question is, do you activate partisans in a conquered Spain or a conquered Norway or do you use the MPPs to build more combat units. 2. A conquering Nation can adopt a policy towards the conquered nation at time of conquest - Soft or Normal. Soft - Chance for Partisans, if activated, decreases by 10% but you gain no production from the conquered nation's cities, although the conquered cities do serve as a source of supply and MPPs from their resources. Normal - Normal as per SC1. If you conquer Spain and select a Soft policy towards them and if the Allies choose to activate Spanish partisans then the chance for partisans appearing is only 5% a turn (Normal 15% less 10% for adopting a be nice policy). The flip side to this policy choice is that you do not gain any production from Spanish cities. [ February 05, 2005, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Cool, 1. Can you have Upon Invasion and Following Conquest Partisans for the same country - ie Russia. 2. Can you use a script to affect the chance of partisans occuring. Example: If Greece is Allied Controlled then Chance of Yugoslavian Partisans increases by 10% (from 15% to 25%).

Perhaps, each partisan occupied city increases the chance for future partisans. Example: Post Surrender Russia Basic Chance for Partisans = 15% For Each City Partisans Control this increases by 20%. 0 Cities = 15%/turn 1 City = 35% 2 Cities = 55% 3 Cities = 70% 4 Cities = 90% 5 Cities = 100% 1 unit + 15% for a second partisan unit

Question: Can an event be written in the new script editor that would allow a France liberated by the Western Allies (USA or UK) to annex liberated Vichy France if Vichy France was controlled by the Western Allies and not Russia? This would reflect the fact that Paris France would be given control over all of France and its former overseas territories by the Western allied forces. [ February 04, 2005, 07:27 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Interesting Analysis, but historically, the Vichy French forces fought against the Allied invasion of Algeria and hated the Free French Forces (along with the British). Why, the Free French Forces under DeGaulle viewed the Vichy Government as collaborators and called for their execution. The British Government supported the Free French view and was hostile to the Vichy Government. The Americans came to support it also after Operation Torch (Before Operation Torch the US Government sought to maintain relations with the Vichy Government). Based on this I don't think that the Vichy Government could expect to be recognized as the real French government.

SeaMonkey, I agree. You can get a good competitive game from the Axis AI in a custom campaign, but the Allied AI just does not know what to do with its forces. For the Axis I find that giving it more tech chits helps alot as it does not invest as much in technology research as a Human player. I also usually give the Axis control over more countries as it will not adopt the same conquer the world strategy that is required for the Axis to win (ie take Norway, Sweden, Greece, Vichy France and possibly Spain or the Middle East). Weaknesses in these two areas - the lack of research - and the - lack of conquests = greater MPP production - really hurt the Axis AI in SC1. I look forward to seeing improvements in these two areas in SC2.

Excellent point regarding Operation Torch. The problem as i see it is that Allied players will only feel a need to escort their transports if the Axis field a submarine force and wage a Battle for the Atlantic.

First, the cost will limit the number of amphibious units available. In SC1 you can build a lot of Ampbibious Transports, in SC2 the cost will limit the number. This reflects, in some degree, the lmitations associated with waging a long or short range amphibious invasion and limits the size of the force that can be offloaded. Additionaly, the effectivenesss of a long range invasion is reduced in Sc2 by the effects of being at sea for a longer period. Its just really hard to comment on this area without knowing the amount of degradation that HC envisions for amphibious units at sea for a period of time and the relative cost of those units. If a land units loses 25% of its readiness per turn at sea then many of the points raised above are moot. A long range invasion is doable, but as you said early the problem is the follow through with reinforcements.

In Sc2 you will have transports that can only land at ports and much more expensive amphibious assualt units. It would be helpgful to this forum if someone could comment on the relative costs of the two units - ie, will Amphibious units cost 20%, 50% or 100% more than transported units.

"Restrict the ability so they can only be conducted in the same turn the Amphib unit is created." "Gibraltar" - This would only support a one unit invasion. "The Scottish Port" - This would only support a one unit invasion and knowing that there is only one location where an invasion can come from would allow the Axis to deploy a wall of submarines to stop it.

The Sc1 AI is too predictable. It does its job well, but once you know that it will never invade Norway or England or Egypt or breakout into the Atlantic or send a lone corps to conquer Canada (which I have done in HvH games) or launch an early invasion of France you can safely deploy your resources without worrying about the conseqences. I am looking forward to a more unpredictable AI in SC2.

I would like to see the Western Allied AI consider an operation Torch (invasion of Vichy Algeria) if 1) the Axis has not attacked Vichy France and does not threaten or control Egypt OR 2) has ignored the North African Terroritories AND France is too heavily guarded to invade AND THE ALLIES CONTROL GIBRALTAR. With simultaneous attacks on Vichy Syria and Vichy Algeria the allies would gain productive resources and most importantily a staging area for conquering Libya and Sicily. This would force the Axis to divert resources to guard Italy. Note: By consider I mean that the AI would sometimes, not always, execute this strategy. [ January 31, 2005, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

"Restrict the ability so they can only be conducted in the same turn the Amphib unit is created." This would make it impossible to recreate Operation Torch - the Allied Invasion of Vichy Algeria or any other invasion more than one turn away from a port. With this rule the US could have never retaken the Pacific from the Japanese. Amphibious units could not ship out from Manchester England to invade Norway. "Seperate Amphib from Transports... and only allow units that are Transported to go from Port to Port." This feature is included in SC2. In SC2 the longer a unit is at sea the weaker it becomes. [ January 30, 2005, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Many thanks for the background information. Most interesting and informative. In SC2 terms, such an invasion would have been possible if the UK had followed the strategy of some allied players and sent all of their resources and troops to Egypt thus leaving England undefended. In SC2, perhaps the improved AXIS AI will consider invading and conquering an undefended England if they are not otherwise engaged in preparing for an invasion of the Soviet Union.

I like Korut's idea of France absorbing Vichy France if both are Western Allied (UK or USA) controlled and liberated as it is most realistic. If the Western Allies have liberated France and the USSR has liberated Vichy France (highly unlikely but possible) I don't think that the merger would occur; aka East Germany. As for a Neutral Vichy joining the allies if Paris is in danger of falling, I don't agree with this idea for the several reasons: 1. I have been in several games where Paris changed hands several times. US Invades, takes Paris, Germans retake Paris, Allies Retake Paries, etc. 2. I think that the Vichy Government would wait until Paris actually fell to avoid being on the losing side if the Germans launched a successful offensive to push back the allied forces. In fact, I would probably have them wait a few turns after Paris was liberated before deciding to join the Allies. 3. The Game is more interesting if after the Allies Invade Italy is shielded by a Neutral Vichy. That said - for Human Axis vs AI Allied games (but not for Human Vs Human games) I would like to see Vichy France join the Allies if Paris is liberated. [ January 28, 2005, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Malta - usually I bomb it with surface ships until the unt is so weakened that an air unit will destroy it. Then make an amphibious landing into the empty square. Reinforce Units in Enemy Territory - Make sure that they are supplied by a HQ unit (ie an HQ unit supplies the 5 closest land or air units).

Malta - usually I bomb it with surface ships until the unt is so weakened that an air unit will destroy it. Then make an amphibious landing into the empty square. Reinforce Units in Enemy Territory - Make sure that they are supplied by a HQ unit (ie an HQ unit supplies the 5 closest land or air units).

SeaMonkey, The supreme axis (or allied) commander can now order his units not to retreat, even if faced by impossible odds and they will obey - 100% of the time. In fact, in most military units from the 1st world if you order units not to retreat they will, in some cases foolishly, obey. As for 3rd world armies, if you order them not to retreat they will probably break and run if they think they are losing the battle.

In game terms a co-prosperity sphere between the US and Japan might encourage Japanese aggression against Russia, thus preventing the Siberian transfer while allowing the US to send more resources to the war in Europe.

I agree, the problem is how to reflect the unwillingness of military units to follow these commands while giving the overall commander the ability to order it. Perhaps - If you give this order there is a 75% that it will not be followed. Now, do you give an order that may not be followed knowing that the unit so ordered can not move or attack this turn. Note; Scorched Earth Order Chance for Russian Unit following this order is 100% Chance for German Unit following this order is 25% Chance for Italian Unit following this order is 0% Chance for UK unit obeying this order is 0% Chance for USA unit obeying this order is 0% [ January 26, 2005, 12:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

During WWII Germany considered executing a scorched earth policy as it was being forced back on the western and southern fronts. The High Command even considered burning down Paris. Perhaps German units, and only German units, should have the ability to conduct scorched earth on controlled cities after the USA enters the war. I suggest that a German unit in a city hex wanting to raze that city could do so if it does not move or attack that turn and is under the command of a HQ unit. Limiting this ability to units under HQ command reflects the reluctance of field generals to execute such a policy.

Has the developer diary been canceled?