Edwin P.

Jsut click on the unit and it will ask you if you want to spend XX MPP to build a transport. Say yes and the unit appears in a neighboring sea/ocean hex. Then Move the unit adjacent to the shore and next turn you can then move it onto land. Or move it onto a friendly port and you can disembark right away.

1. Air Power helps, alot. Once Poland and the Low Countries fall use the MPPs to purchase an air unit or two. 2. Move a unit next to a port and then build a transport. Then the unit can move accross open water.

It will be interesting to see how the AI takes advantages of these new features. Will it bomb cities behind enemy lines to prevent reinforcements from being operated in? Will it build bombers to facilitate this strategy? Will it no longer operate units back and forth between Italy and France in the opening part of the game? What will it do to guard against an allied D-Day?

I like the disband feature as it allows you to reallocate resources - for a hefty price. This price is 50% or more of a units cost. Sure you can do it, but you better have a good reason. I should also point out that in SC2 producing units will take time. You can no longer disband a unit and purchase a new unit with the MPPs gained in the same turn.

Excellent point, but I should point out that a major portion of a corps assets can jump into a foxhole or a ditch when under air attack. A fuel dump can't move or dig itself foxholes. Its just that I think that a corps unit has more protection against an air attack than a supply unit.

Also, you have to realize that HQ units also represent supply depots which are easier to destroy than combat units as they are large and immobile. Thus I see no problem in HQs being targeted by enemy air. I also disagree with the suggestion for HQs having an increased Air Defense rating, for in practical terms the best air defense is another air fleet.

I agree with you. In SC2 I believe that there will be two options that players could edit in: 1st - The political capital of the Commonwealth moves to Canada or 2nd - When the UK falls Canada allies it self with the USA. As for the Royaly Navy I would like to see any Royal Navy Ship in a US or Canadian Port when the UK falls become Free Brits - 100%.

Just before France surrendered some French units fled towards England, not Vichy France as they did not know that there would be a Vichy France. [ January 15, 2005, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent point. And its not a preprosterous idea, but I don't think that HC wants to get that realistic with the area covered and a persistance factor and seasonal wind currents. To a limited degree this is already factored into SC2 with weather related effects on spotting distances. If not, and to keep programming simple, I would just allow for bad weather to reduce the spotting distance, for air or naval units to 0 in this area during the weather effect. Example: Per Turn Check for North Atlantic Normal Winter Effects 80% - Normal Spotting Reduction Severe Winter Effects 20% - Spotting Reduced to Zero Or one could divide the North Atlantic into more weather zones, thus allowing for severe weather in one zone and less severe weather in an adjacent zone or severe weather in both zones. Also, keep in mind that each winter turn covers 1 month of real time.

Perhaps, King Kong climbing the Empire State Building in New York City? Or iceburgs in the North Atlantic during the winter?

Many thanks for the feedback Hubert and I will wait patiently as development continues. Note: I would like to see the AI controlled British Fleet sometimes, not always, position itself to sink the Italian fleet when it enters the war and then head back to England at full speed to stop any Axis Sea Lion. And sometimes withdraw its carrier from the Med before Italy enters the war to reinforce its position in the Atlantic or at least hide it in the Suez canal so that the Italian Navy can't easily sink it.

Question: Do you know if the new Allied AI will always follow the same strategy in the opening part of the 1939 Campaign? or does Hubert plan to give the Allied AI a choice of widely different strategies to select from for the opening game. [ January 10, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

No, dictatorships like Germany and Russia would not have the same restrictions, however, they could offend their allies. Example: Germany attempts to influence Spain by giving Spain territory that Italy wants. If Germany Gives Vichy France to Spain then Italian War Readiness declines by 10% to 30%. If Germany Gives Vichy Algeria to Spain then Italian War Readiness declines by another another 10% to 30%. If Germany Gives Egypt to Spain then Italian War Readiness declines by another 10% to 30% and Turkey becomes 10% to 20% more pro-Allied. The Effect: Italian War Readiness 30% to 50% Then Any Italian Units Outside of Italian Territory may only move towards Italy, Units in Italy may not leave Italy. Italian War Readiness LESS than 30% Then Italy Returns to Neutrality and withdraws from the war. The possibilities: Germany Gives Spain Vichy France + Vichy Algeria + Egypt 10% + 10% + 10% = 30% Reduction in Italian War Readiness = No Effect 20% + 20% + 10% = 50% Reduction in Italian War Readiness = Italian Troops are called home, but Italy remains in the War. 30% + 30% + 30% = 90% Reduction in Italian War Readiness = Italy Withdraws from the War

No Updates Since August 2004.

I believe that the Diplomacy aspect as planned is limited to affecting the leaning of countries. However, I would like to see the aspects that you listed Roosevelt45 also shown along with other aspects. For example: I would like to see a possibility of Neutral Spain asking the Allies for Military Assistance after France falls. The Allied Response could be: 1. We are with you in spirit but can not spare any resources at the current time. (50% Spanish Relations with Allies Deteriorate) 2. Give Spain 75MPPS (Spain Gains 1 Corp Unit and 50% Spanish Relations towards Allies increase) 3. Give Spain 25MPPS (Spanish relations with Allies do not change For Example: I would like to see Pro-Allied Neutrals that allow Allied forces basing and transit rights without themselves entering the war. 1. Allied Land and HQ Units can operate through a Pro-Allied Neutral Nation but can not stop in or attack from the Neutral Nations Tile. 2. Allied Air Units can be based in Pro-Allied Neutral Nations, for spotting purposes but can not attack or intercept while based in a Pro-Allied Neutral Nation. Additionaly, I would like to see, as you suggested, that countries be allowed to offer territory, but that your nation's government may reject this offer if it is against the nation's historical interest and there is a penalty associated with making an offer that is rejected by your government. Perhaps, if you make an offer that your government rejects then the recipient is deeply offended and relations with that country decline instead of improving. Or perhaps, government operations are paralized with political infighting and military spending slows down. Example: ------------------------------------------------ UK Offers Gibraltar to Italy - 99% UK Parliment will Reject Offer. IF Rejected: LONDON TIMES UK Parliament Overwhelmingly Approves No-Confidence Vote Againt Prime Minister for Offering Gibraltar to Spain. Government Operations Paralized. Prime Minister struggles to retain position as head of government. Effect: UK can't spend MPPs this turn OR Relations with Italy Decline (instead of improving) ------------------------------------------------ UK offers Malta to Italy - 80% UK Parliment will Reject Offer. If Rejected: LONDON TIMES UK Parliament Overwhelmingly Approves No-Confidence Vote Againt Prime Minister for Offering Malta to Spain. Government Operations Paralized. Effect: UK can't spend MPPs this turn OR Relations with Italy Decline (instead of improving) ------------------------------------------ UK recognizes Turkish Control Over Iraq - 10% Parliment will reject offer ------------------------------------------ In Summary; UK Gives Gibraltar to Italy - 99% Rejected by UK Government UK Gives Malta to Italy - 80% Rejected UK Gives Iraq to Turkey - 10% Rejected [ January 07, 2005, 08:03 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Interesting, I never thought of that; however, I believe that the proposed system covers this to a certain extent. In SC2 although you can purchase increased Tank Tech for a unit, purchasing increased mobility also costs more. Thus a Fast Moving Powerful Armor Unit will cost more than a Slow Moving Powerful Armor Unit or a Fast Moving Less Powerful Armor Unit.

I would like to see false units too. False Units 1. Limited to 2 units per nation. 2. Cost 25MPP for a corps and 50MPP for an air unit. Can move only 1 tile per turn. 3. Vanish if an enemy unit moves adjacent to them 4. Exerts no zone of control and do not affect the appearance of partisan units. 5. Vanish if an enemy that can spot them has Intelligence Superiority of 2 or more. Example: If you have intelligence level 1 and the enemy has intelligence level 3 your false units are disbanded if spotted by one of their air units. [ January 01, 2005, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In Sc2 you will have amphibious units that can land at any hex in the SAME TURN that they move adjacent to it. No longer will you opponent want to delay moving units to a front until he sights your transports lined up along the shore. Now the Germans have a reason to garrison France and the Low countries.

One AI improvement that I would like to see is allowing the AI to know, not the location of enemy units but how many there are in a region. For example: I would like the AI to know how many Allied Naval units are in the Med. without knowing their location. Based on this it could select a strategy. Example: Italian AI has 6 ships in the Med. Allies have 1 ship = Italian AI selects Aggressive Strategy 90% of the time. Italian AI has 6 ships in the Med. Allies have 12 ships in the Med = Italian AI selects defensive strategy 90% of the time. With this system you can still surpise the AI as it does not know where your ships are but it will adjust its strategy according to the perceived balance of forces. From a naval point of view, I would like to see the AI know the number of ships deployed in the Med, N. Atlantic, S. Atlantic, Baltic and Black Seas. This knowledge would also be useful in writing AI scripts that select from a list of AI postures in a region - Highly Aggressive vs Aggressive vs Defensive vs Highly Defensive. [ December 30, 2004, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I recall that each player will have the opportunity to position his initial Russian units within specific limits and the placement of these units, along with the actions of the German player, will determine how soon Russia mobilizes for war. [ December 30, 2004, 07:05 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

With the fabulous new editor you can turn partisans on or off for any country and have pre and/or post surrender partisans. Personally, I would like the option for players to expend diplomatic points to activate partisan activity in specific countries. Then the Allies or the Axis could decide if they want to expend the resources required to support the activitives of Spanish or Greek or Norwegian partisans or not. [ December 28, 2004, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Note that in SC2 Egypt will have another city and units defending in Cairo gain a defensive bonus from the Nile River. Supply level of 10? Egypt was not a developed country and it lacked the rail network that covered most of Europe.

Another concept, to consider is a National Doctrine aside from Tech Levels. Each nation starts with one doctrine that affects its units. This doctrine reflects the different emphasis that each nation placed on the training and organization of its units. You can change or adopt a doctrine for a cost of 1000mpp. Historically, the UK favored Naval Warfare, the Germans emphasized Armor, the Russians Mass Production and the US Air. Example: UK - Naval Doctrine - 5% Readiness Bonus to Naval Units USSR - Production Doctrine - 5% Reduction to costs of Production GE - Armor Doctrine - 5% Readiness Bonus to Armor Italy - None USA - Air Doctrine - 5% Readiness Bonus to Air Fleets FR - Fortifications - +1 AD Bonus to Units in Fortifications and Fortresses Another issue is Governemts, as Shaka says now its a game of Reds vs Blues. Why not add features that highlights what differentiates Staln's USSR from the other nations. Example: Only Russia and Germany can give their Units the No Retreat Command. Example: Russia can can replace a HQ unit X (5?) turns after purchase with a randomly selected HQ unit at no cost. (As Russian Generals where shot for non-performance). The old HQ unit is considered KIA. Of course the new HQ appears in Moscow and it will take a turn or two for it to reach the front lines. Thus reflecting the distruption caused by shooting commanding officers in the midst of a war. [ December 22, 2004, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I like you refinements, in fact, increasing the readiness range of the port would also affect the effective range of transport units, I believe(?). Your idea of designating only one 1 naval unit as Fleet Command is good , I like it. Basically, with the Naval HQ I was trying to reflect the emphasis and resources that a nation placed on Naval Warfare. With the UK being at the top of the list and the Russians/Italians at the bottom. For a similar type of ship the UK ship will be staffed by a better trained crew that is supported by a better infrastructure ashore.

Ideas (for updates after the game is released): First, The option to dock three fleets in a single port tile of strength 10 and only 1 in a port of 5 or less (so I can simulate Pearl Harbor) Of course, there are pros and cons to this. CON - Only one fleet can defend but all will take damage from any attack. PRO - All fleets can be repaired at once. Then there is the question about how to handle this in game terms. You move a ship into port and it goes to the top of the stack. You click on each fleet to make the next fleet in the stack visible/active. Second, I would like to see the UK have to option to dock and repair its ships in the ports of a Neutral USA once US war readiness is above 50%.If the Axis attack a UK ship in a Neutral US port then the USA enters the war. I would also like to see Allied Ships able to transit the Bosphorous straits if Turkey is leaning towards the allies and Axis ships able to transit the straits if Turkey is leaning towards the Axis. Third, another plug for a Naval HQ unit - ie an HQ unit that only benefits Naval units. This would reflect an increased amount of resources devoted to naval warfare, intelligence and training of naval officers. One Naval HQ unit can benefit X naval units anywhere on the map. [ December 21, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]