Edwin P.

"For instance, instead of playing a single Allied AI, how much different might it be to have separate AI players for UK, France, USA and USSR? Allies could be set to being cooperative or non-cooperative. This may all be possible in SC2. Will gameplay be better, worse, or just different?" It all depends on the AI. But for me it sounds great. I would really like to play a game vs the AI as the US/UK and let the AI handle Russia or play as Russia and let the AI handle the US/UK. Ideally the game has to allow for a limited amount of interaction with your AI allies - perhaps via a diplomacy screen. Idea 1: Option for Allies to share Views of their map or not. What if the US/UK player could not see what the Russian player can see. He can see the advance of Axis controlled tiles but not the units that the Russian player can see; Axis and Russian. Thus he does not know how many Axis air are committed against Russia and thus not available for the Western front. A devious Russian player might agree to give his allies access to his intelligence or not, perhaps in exchange for MPPs via lend lease or he might provide false information to his Allies - Ah, I am being blasted by 7 axis airfleets and the Allies believing him launch their invasion of France, too soon. A hard charging US AI player might not send any aid to Russia unless the Human Russia player agrees to share intelligence. [ December 20, 2004, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent point, the key here I think is to define what are the conditions for a Sea Lion. I have played in games where the Allied player left the UK undefended after invading France and other games where the AI player sent all of his units to the Mediterrean leaving the UK undefended. You also have games where the Axis strategy calls for an early Sea Lion and most games where the Axis focuses his efforts on defeating Russia first. So, I think that the AI has to begin by selecting a strategy and then altering that strategy based on events. Example: 20% SeaLion Strategy > Position Forces > Sea Lion doable? Yes then Launch, No then switch to Russia first strategy. Now what would encourage the AI to select a sea lion strategy - perhaps +10% if Most of UK navy is in the Med, perhaps +10% if UK is lightly defended, perhaps +20% if UK is totally undefended.

Many thanks for the comments Pzgnder. In SC2 it appears amphibious invasions will be much easier to an AI to launch with the new marine units. Here are a few simple AI invasion options for the Axis AI to consider when the allied player leaves the city and surrounding hexes undefended. 1. Edinburgh Raid - Axis Marine Unit moves Adjacent to Edinburgh and takes it in one turn. 2. Bucharest Raid - Russian Marine Units invades from the Black Sea and takes Bucharest. ( I have done this to overly confident Axis human opponents many times, of course it only works once with each opponent) 3. Scarpa Flow Raid 4. Cairo Raid 5. Icelandic Invasion where Iceland is undefended by Allied units.

The Baltic Sea is the sea bordering Germany, Sweden and Finland. This is where I placed the German subs in my mod. The Black Sea is the sea bordering Russia, Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. As for the Axis never invading England if it was undefended you are right, in SC1 the Axis would never attempt a Sealion as long as Russia was in the game, perhaps because it could trigger an early entry of the US into the war. I would like to see this oversight fixed in Sc2. The question arises is how to do it in a manner that the AI can handle or how to penalize the Allies for leaving the UK totally undefended. Perhaps, in a game with FOW on, for for the Human Allied Player each unit in the UK gives a 20% that UK units are protected by FOW (Fog of War). If you pull all of your units out of the UK there is a 100% that the Axis AI can see the location of all of your UK Units. If you leave only 3 units in the UK then the Axis AI has a 40% to pierce the Fog of War (FOW) covering all of your units. With 5 or more units in the UK your UK units are 100% covered by the FOW.

I have also noticed that the AI usually withdraws too soon or too late on the Russian front. Sometimes, it will begin a rapid withdrawal when Russia is close to folding and then other times it will hold onto its forward line in the south even while Russian Units sweep around swamp in its rear to cut them off. Often I have trapped 8 to 12 Axis units in such an isolated pocket. In playing the AI, I usally give it 8 unspent tech chits in the game setup and Industrial Tech level 2. I find that this compensates for the AI's tendency to invest very little in technology. I also give the AI 2 or 3 bombers. 2 if Allied (both to the USA) and 3 (to the Germans) if Axis. I find that this helps the AI in FOW ON games. If you really want a challenge give the German Axis AI 5 level 2 Rockets at Start along with an extra HQ. With this they can roll up the French even if you try the Corps defense and hold onto the Maginot line. [ December 15, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC1 the Naval AI never knew when to be aggressive and when to play defensively. Example: Italian Navy While playing with FOW off, naval and air superiority in the Med the Italian Navy would always assume a defensive posture and never seek to hunt down and attack allied naval units in the Med. During the same game when the Allied forces achieved superiority the Italian Navy would venture forth to attack Allied Naval units. To test the SC1 Naval AI in a custom 1939 Scenario I game the Axis 15 Subs in the Baltic Sea and they never ventured forth from the Baltic to attack Allied naval forces. Additionally, the AI would not use its naval forces to bombard shore targets, even when their was no chance of taking losses or being attacked, in order to gain experience and season its sailors for battle. On a "tactical" level in SC2 I am looking forward to seeing the AI utilize its naval forces in a more intelligent manner. Ideally, the Naval AI would be able to select from 3 or more AI instruction sets - an AI for Naval Superiority in a region, an AI for Naval Inferiority in a region, and an AI for uncertain superiority in a region. Naval Superiority = Aggressive AI Inferiority = Defensive AI Uncertain = Cautious Probing [ December 15, 2004, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

That's good, really good. I was so impressed by the different and unqiue depiction of each major capital city tile in the SC2 screenshots along with the new 3D units. that wanted the Pyramids for an campaign of the Ancient Roman Empire. Same map, capitals for Rome, Greece (Acropolis), Persia, Egypt (Pyramids), Carthage. Weather effects for non coastal tiles in the Mediterrean. Turns are bi-monthly. Ships become galleys, armor becomes cavalry, army becomes legions, Corps becomes light infantry, Roman movement advantage simulated by a renamed Motorized Tech, etc. [ December 14, 2004, 08:40 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Retributor you are correct. At this map scale you can't included every city or every port or every river. If you did then every third tile would have a port or a city and instead of simulating the WWII Blitzkreig the game would play more like a static recreation of WWI trenchware. Overall HC has made a good decision of what to include and has made many changes since SC1. For example; a 2nd port in Libya and a 2nd port in Egypt along with the Nile River. The one thing I do miss though, is seeing the pyramids of Egypt in the Cairo city tile or the Empire State Building in the New York City tile.

Cherbourg would be located along the central northern French coast. One problem with including a port in this location is that it may block the movement of allied ships, if the channel is only 1 or 2 tiles wide. On the otherhand it does give the allies another place to invade. It also increases French production and this would benefit the Axis. Adding Cherbourg would also make the French line too strong early in the war and the Axis line too strong late in the war given the scale of the map. It would be interesting to hear the designers comments on why some ports/cities were or were not included. See this location for a map of Cherbourg and Northern France: http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/BOOKS/WWII/utah/maps/Map2.jpg For a view of the English Channel in SC2: http://www.battlefront.com/products/sc2/screenshots/pages/add%20unit.htm [ December 13, 2004, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Although individual units will not have specific generals in Sc2 this might be a good feature to add and it could be done using the existing tech system that SC2 will have. How? Allow players to purchase a unit commander tech for a unit. This unit would be assigned one of 10 random Generals for a cost of 20MPP. No General can be assigned twice. Each of which would give the unit a special bonus and/or penalty. Example: Purchase Commander Tech for a Unit and this Unit Receives a Randomly selected Tech Named Patton. This gives the unit an extra Action Point. Purchase a Comander Tech for another unit and this Unit receives a randomly selected Tech called Montgomery. This gives the unit a 10% penalty to readiness and a bonus Action Point.

Cool, Sharks with Laser Beams. Another German secret weapon is revealed. More importantly, in SC2 units will collect individual honors based on the conquests they participated in; France 1940, Poland 1939, etc. I wonder if this will include honors for the unit that captures a city - such as Leningrad or Moscow? And the answer is: [ December 13, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

With the new combat system that SC2 offers it is likely that many new strategies will come to light after the games release. Will there be post release AI updates to ensure that the AI remains competitive?

Note: The Nile is in a SC2 screenshot. Note: I believe that Iceland will have a port, as this issue was covered in a prior post. Also note that at the scale of this game that some of the features you mentioned are geograhically located in an already existing hex along with another port/city.

If you put in every historical port in the game every third or fourth coastal hex will have a port. I would only include those that are strategically important, much as HC has already done. (and he has already added extra ports).

Its true that Sc2 does not reflect the importance of oil resources and I wish that it did. The question arises is how to do it in a way that maintains the simplicity of the game. Perhaps, every oil hex a country controls increases its force pool limit by one unit. Thus if a country is limited to 20 units they they could build 22 if they controlled 2 oil tiles and 24 if they controled 4 oil tiles. This would make Iraq and the Caucaus mountain region of the southern USSR more important. PS: I still think that the New York City Tile should feature the Empire State Building. [ December 09, 2004, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

AI for individual majors, now that would be a true work of art considering the conflicting interests of each major power.

The Case for 8 Major Countries (instead of six) 1. WWII - add China and Japan 2. WWI - add the Austrian Hungarian Empire and Turkey 3. The Napoleonic Wars - add Spain and the Austrian Hungarian Empire 4. Ancient Rome - Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, Carthage, Vandals, Huns However, I know that this is not to be and accept the six major limit in the current design specs along with the absence of railroad tiles (needed for my civil war mod).

You could view the UK attack on Ireland as reflecting, not an actual attack but the training of its forces and the resulting plunder the result of shifting its economy to a war footing, besides it gives the UK player something to do besides hitting the next turn button.

Excellent refinement. Especially, noting that all MPP enchancements are subject to a randomizer and the variations to the diplomatic model.

Or could it be that plunder depends unpon the policy that one adopts towards the locals when the country surrenders? Policy 1: Take it all = Maximum Plunder but increases chance for partisans. If No Partisans then Partisans are activated for that country, if Partisans already turned on then chance for them occuring increases. Policy 2: Standard = Normal amount of plunder and normal chance for partisans Policy 3: Lets be nice = Minimum plunder but reduces chance for partisans Example: France surrenders. Normal plunder is 800MPP with no partisans. If you decide to adopt the Take it All Policy then you get 1100MPP but French Partisans are activated and chance for Free French increases from 25% to 50%. Example: Yugoslavia Surrenders. Normal plunder is 300MPP with Partisans. If you decide to adopt the Take it All Policy then you get 400 MPP but the chance for Yugoslavian partisans increases from 15%/75% turn to 25%/90% per turn. If you adopt the Lets Be Nice policy then your plunder is reduced to 100MPP and the chance for Yugoslavian partisans is reduced to 5%/25% per turn. [ December 07, 2004, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

SeaMonkey, Excellent point. I was just thinking about the standard scenario and having it start in say 1935 giving both sides time to build there armed forces, armed doctrine developments, the maginot line and use diplomacy as you stated above. -----------------------------------------

Excellent idea. I would like to see this added, but only after HC has completed programming the current game specs.

Idea - AI gives human player opportunity to switch sides in 1942 or 1943 if the AI calculates that it is losing. AI will only make this offer once. AI will not give human player this oppportunity if it perceives itself to be winning the game. A human player that accepts the AI proposal gets a 100 point bonus to their game score. Example: Allied AI Triggering Conditions: Date: Jan 1942 to Dec 1943 AND (UK has surrendered to Axis OR Moscow has been taken by Axis OR Stalingrad has been taken by Axis) AND Axis Production > Allied Production. [ December 05, 2004, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Blashy I like your idea of using diplomacy to influence resistance. I would like to see players have the option (and I know that it is not included in the current game specs but I wish it was) to use diplomacy chits to activate partisans in specific countries such as the Norway and Greece for a cost in MPPs. As for the French Resistance I don't know how effective they really were defore D-Day. After the war everyone claimed to be part of the resistance. In my view their efforts never rose to the same level of resistance as occured in Yugoslavia or Russia and I remember reading somewhere that the resistance in France, based on population, was below that of other occupied nations. Perhaps JerseyJohn can shed some light on this topic. [ December 03, 2004, 01:38 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]