Edwin P.

French resistance never developed to the level of resistance movements in Yugoslavia and Russia partly due to the nature of the Terrain and partly due to the general acceptance by the population of German occupation.

SC1 was good and SC2 will be great. I am especially looking forward to an improved AI. One that will try more than one strategy, perhaps even, as Augusus said, selling off the Frence AIR and naval units to buy tons of French corps, a human strategy that the AI never copies. Of course, my demands for an improved AI might be why the game is delayed.

For Axis player choice - could you invest Diplomatic Chits in a Surrendered Poland and if it reached that magic number then as you stated Ukraine would be transformed into Polish territory? The Axis would have to expend a diplomatic chit or two to make this option occur. ----------------------------------------------- It would be interesting if each major nation had a national policy screen where the player could select, for a cost the policies that thay choose to follow. Each policy would have an effect on the game. For example: Axis Russian Policy Option 1: Conquer Russia Option 2: End Communism in Russia (aka Vichy Russia) Option 3: Ukrainian Independence American Policy Option 1: Accept Japanese Expansion (= No Siberian Transfer for Russia, Greater US Production) Option 2: Resist Japanese Expansion (= Siberian Transfer for Russia, and Reduced US Production) --------------------------- Regarding Major and Minor Nation Slots. I know its fixed but would really like to see 1 more major nation slot (for Japan or Turkey) and perhaps 3 more minor nations slots (for Egypt, Morroco and the Ukraine (or San Marino or Andorra)) [ November 26, 2004, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I like your three options but would refine them to ensure play balance. For example: Option 2: Support National Russia and General Wlassow This option allows the Germans to end the war in the East early at the cost of greatly reduced production contributions from the former Soviet Union. Benefit: Russia surrenders when 2 of its 3 national capital cities surrenders as opposed to 3 of 3. Cost: Western Russia, east of the Marshes, becomes a neutral nation: the Russian Empire. The Axis does not gain any plunder when Russia surrenders. Partisan activity continues in occupied russia. Allied use of Diplomatic Chits may cause the Russian Empire to join the Allies. Option 3. Make the East German The German government moves to resettle Germans in Western Russia. This greaty angers the Russia people who begin a campaign of sabotage against the occupiers. Benefit: Each occupied city in Western Russia will have full production capacity. (ie max of 10 instead of 8). This reflects the movement of German settlers into these areas. Cost: Each unoccupied German controlled city or resource hex (in Eastern Russia) has no production. Each occupied city or resource hex has its production halved. This reflects increased resistance to German occupation. The chance for post surrender russian partisans increase from 15% per turn to 50% per turn in occupied Eastern Russia.

Good idea, but there should be costs and benefits associated with each option. Option 1: Ukrainian Independence Benefit: No Partisans appear in the Ukraine, Ukraine appears as an independent nation after all of its cities have been liberated. Cost: Production from conquered Ukrainian cities is halved. Ukraine may declare neutrality when Allied unit is adjacent to Paris or Rome. Ukrainian units can not leave the Ukraine. [ November 26, 2004, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

RE: HQ for Poland and other Neutrals. I don't think so. The HQ unit in SC is not just a general but an entire supply train that has been mobilized to support front line units. When Poland was attacked by Germany it was a surprise and they did not have time to organize a proper supply system for their units. A similar situation existed for the French. Perhaps JerseyJohn would like to comment. [ November 24, 2004, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Good point Fireball. Could not have said it better.

Look at it this way. If you upgrade all of your Armor to Tanks Level 5 - The Tiger Tank - you probably have very few armor units or you will have no MPPs left to replace losses to your infantry, air or naval units. Decisions, decisions, decsions. As a related question; do I build 500 B1-B Bombers or do I pay the salary of the men in my army? Sure you can do it but what government would?

I agree with both Retributar and pzgndr.

As JP said - Good things comes to those who wait.

Excellent point Desert Dave, And I wait patiently for AARs on the Battle for the Atlantic and improvements in the AI.

Thanks for the update. Looking forward to seeing if the AI will have a more varied response to the defense of France. (example: disbanding ships and air to build lots of corps, sending a corps or two to Egypt before Italy enters the war, moving the corps in Beruit to Egypt after Italy enters the war so it becomes Free French, the defend France at all costs strategy, advancing into Germany, etc). [ November 19, 2004, 09:30 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Question: Have the playtesters begun to test the battle for France? If so, does it play out differently than in SC1?

Excellent feature, and with it goes my winning strategy of taking the Iraqi oil fields and Operating Air units to Russia or sending Russian Units to Cairo. That said, Non-Cooperative status is a really good feature to add and will make the game more interesting. Especially if one is playing a MultiPlayer game where the Russian player may not want his aircraft to intercept fighters attacking UK or American units.

Agreed, you can win as allied if you don't use the same strategy every game, have patience, know how to surprise your opponent and your opponent is overconfident. In one game I allowed an Italian transports to approach the coast of Libya and the Suez Canal. and then my air fleets hidden out of sight of the Axis Air attacking Cairo attacked and destroyed one HQ unit and an Italian Army. Lesson 1 for Axis: Know location of Allied Air. In another case, I had a transport hidden off the coast of Spain. My opponent was in the midst of an attack in Russia and had taken Gibraltar I took a chance on an amphibious landing in Rome. He left it unguarded and Italy surrendered to the Allies. Lesson 2 for the Axis: Always Garrison Rome. PS: Read the SC Strategy Manual

Ah, the A-Bomb Topic Perhaps: As Liam says building an A-Bomb Requires Bomber Tech Level 5 AND A-Bomb Tech Level 5. Thus reflecting the difficulty and resources involved in developing an A-Bomb. I would add that advances in A-Bomb Tech for the Axis requires the Axis to control the mining resource (aka Heavy Water) in Norway. As for the A-bomber attack on a city, I would allow a chance for an interceptor to destroy the A-Bomb Unit. Example: Str 10 attacks city, intercepted for 3 damage = 30% (3/10) A-Bomb Unit destroyed before it reaches its target. Why? Only one bomber would be carrying the A-Bomb. [ November 15, 2004, 04:09 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Thanks for the Feedback. Just throughing out more ideas.

Would it be possible to script a random event where USA Air Fleets can attack, but not otherwise move outside the US, German naval ships if they are spotted while the US is neutral. I doubt it, but it would be interesting and would not unbalance the game. In fact, I could imagine a USA Random Events where: Event 1: Mr. President, should we can ask Congress's permission for our air fleets to engage Axis naval forces spotted within range of our shores? Yes / No Success = USA remains Neutral, but Air Fleets can attack and be repaired. Popup (seen by all players): US Congress authorizes American Air Fleets to Attack Axis Naval Forces that venture within Range of its Shores. Failure = USA War Readiness Declines by 2% to 8%. Popup (seen by all players): US Congress expresses outrage at attempt by the president of the US violate Neutrality Act and authorize attacks against Gemran Naval forces in the Atlantic. Event 2: Mt. President, the Prime Minister of the UK has asked if he can repair his warships in American ports. Should we grant his request? Yes / No Success = USA remains Neutral and UK naval ships can enter and be repaired in USA ports. Popup (seen by all players): The President of the United States has authorized the repair of British warships in American ports. Failure = USA War Readiness Declines by 2% to 8%. Popup (seen by all players): US Congress refuses to authorize repair of UK warships in American ports as such actions would violate the Neutrality Act. What would affect the chance of Success for each of these policies - US War Readiness + 10%. Example: US War Readiness 20% = 30% Policy Accepted by Congress / 70% Rejected US War Readiness 50% = 60% Policy Accepted / 40% Rejected US War Readiness 70% = 80% Policy Accepted / 20% Rejected The problem for the US commander is that if he attempts to implement one of these policies and fails then USA war readiness drops. ------------------------------------------------ Perhaps, the USA commander could have access to a menu of policy decisions he could select from while the US is neutral. Of course, if Congress rejects his policy decision then USA war readiness declines. Option 1: US Air Forces Can Attack from USA Bases Option 2: UK Ships can be repaired in American Ports. Option 3: USA Naval Forces Can engage Axis Naval Forces Option 4: USA Naval Forces can move (but not initiate attacks). If Axis attacks them then its war. Thus they can be used to block attacks by Axis ships and spot enemy warships. Note: Each policy selected should reduce the chance of success for subsequent policies selected by 10% as an American President has only a limited amount of political capital. Thus if US War Readiness is 50% then 60% first policy selected is accepted 50% second policy selected is accepted 40% third policy selected is accepted 30% fourth policy selected is accepted. In fact, I could easily see a menu of 8 or 10 policies for the American commander to select from while the USA is neutral. Each with a postive effect for success and a negative effect for failure. Each designed to make the game more unpredictable yet remain balanced for competitive play. Example: Policy Option #5: The President of the USA asks American Congress to increase spending for Military R&D. Success - USA gains 1 Research Chit Failure - USA loses 250MPP as Congress redirects funds to other projects. Policy Option #6 (if UK controls Iceland): The President of the USA asks congress for funding to station US troops in UK controlled Iceland. Success: Neutal USA can move 1 army or air unit to Iceland. Failure: War Readiness declines by 2% to 8%. Policy Option #7: The President of the USA decides to transfer a Carrier from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Success: US gains carrier group in the Atlantic. Failure: US gains carrier group in the Atlantic but after US enters War Japan is victorious at battle of Midway. USA loses 1 Army, 1 corps and an Air Fleet that are assigned to defend the West Coast from a Japanese Invasion. Note: In this this case the US player does not know if his policy succeeded or failed until the battle of Midway occurs - 2 turns after the US enters the War. Furthermore, unlike other events this event has a 50% of going either way - Success or Failure. [ November 11, 2004, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

On a related issue. In Sc1 the Allied AI did not know how to respond to Axis control of the Atlantic. Perhaps, a trigger could be used to have the USA AI adopt a naval strategy until the situation was rectified. Example: Ratio of Western (USA and UK) Allied Naval Units to Axis Naval Units in the Atlantic is less than 1.2 to 1. The trigger would thus account for the threat posed by Italian naval units if they reached the Atlantic and would not be affected by Axis naval units in the Baltic Sea or the Mediterrean. Or perhaps: The Ration of Western Allied Naval Ships to German Ships unless Gibraltar is Axis Controled when the formula would then use a ratio of Allied Ships to German and Italian Ships. If Trigger Condition exists then USA AI selects one of 4 strategies: Strategy 1: Research Naval Bombers, Long Range and Build Air Fleets that are stationed in Ireland and Canada. Strategy 2: Research Gun Laying Radar and build cruisers or battleships. Strategy 3: Research advanced subs and build subs. Strategy 4: Combo of 1 and either strategy 2 or 3. [ November 11, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Hmm, Allied Option - Send armies to Russia via the Pacific or to Europe. Now the Germans truely don't know where the allies will strike. Problem: The Siberian Railroad was just 2 tracks.

One has to realize that the Germans had a simple policy for dealing with resistance forces that reduced their effectiveness in the Western European countries. Kill 1 German Soldier and we will kill XXX civilians. Barbaric, Brutal and highly effective. Getting back to the original topic, if the Germans defeat Russia early then the West is doomed. If the Russia can starve off defeat until Japan is defeated by the USA then the Germans are doomed. [ November 11, 2004, 01:09 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Japanese Surrender Option Since this is a game about WWII, why not incorporate to a limited extent the effects of the Japanese surrender in 1946 for those few games that continue into 1946 and 1947. 1. In 1946 5% per turn that Japan Surrenders. 2. When Japan Surrenders USA MPP production Doubles. 3. When Japan surrenders USA receives access to American Pacific Fleet. 4. When Japan surrenders UK Merchant shipping income doubles via a route from the South Atlantic. If the allies can hold off the German onslaught until 1946 this gives them a fighting chance to retake a conquered Europe. Perhaps, if this is not included in the game it can be added via user authored event scripts? [ November 11, 2004, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Allied Victory after Russia Surrenders? Would be much more likely after Japan surrenders or enters into a peace agreement with the USA. What about this: 1. After Japan surrenders on Date X (5% per turn in 1946)or Signs Peace Agreement with USA IF Japan Surrenders: a. US Production Doubles b. Merchant Shipping to UK Doubles c. US gains access to Pacific Fleet d. US can send troops to Siberia, which appear in Eastern Russia. e. Soviets in Siberia can send remaining troops west to fight the Germans at a time of their choosing, the troops appears 4 turns later in Eastern Russia in the Northern or Southern Area (Russian Player Choice) IF Japan Signs Peace Agreement with USA then Merchant shipping to UK does not double, but USA receives other benefits mentioned above. Early Japanese Peace Agreement with USA? --- Possible via Diplomatic Chits, only if Axis has taken (Moscow AND Stalingrad) OR (UK has surrendered) OR (Soviet Russia has surrendered). 2. Post Russian Surrender Partisans a. Base chance 15% per turn/75% during winter b. For each Russian Partisan Unit in the field the chance for another partisan unit appearing increases by 10%. 3. Italy a. Chance for Italy to return to Neutrality [ November 11, 2004, 08:29 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC1 it was impossible for the allies to reinvade Europe after Russia fell for the Axis would simply operate all of its troops West. In SC2 it appears that it becomes almost impossible as the ability for the Axis to operate troops west will be more limited and their is the possiblity of post surrender Russian partisans which will force the Axis to garrison Soviet Russia after it falls. I think that each partisan unit in the field should increase of the chance of subsequent partisan units appears by 10%. No partisan units in the field = 15% for a partisan unit to appear, 1 partisan unit in the field = 25%, 2 partisan units = 35% of a new partisan unit appearing. Why? Success attracts more partisans.

After SC2 I am looking forward to "SC American Civil War" with map tiles that have railroads and roads. Not only will it include a grand strategic game of the war but also smaller scale scenario maps for the key battles of the war.