Edwin P.

JerseyJohn Even so, its not worth the damage they take in intercepting.

Tip: If you want to prevent the UK from landing reinforcements damage the port so that the existing garrison can leave. If they can't leave new units can land. Also, in my experience, I was never able to hold Gibraltar against a determined assault as my PBEM opponents would always bring in so much air power that my surface warships could not be used for support. [ October 13, 2004, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I did some reasearch on it a while back, and the key problem that the Brits faced in holding it was the Spanish economic blockade of the Rock. All supplies had to be brought in. Furthermore, they evacuated the civilian population due to 1) security issues and 2) the fact that they had enough problems supplying their own troops. As for an entire airfleet being stationed on Gibraltar, that was a near impossiblity as Gibraltar is not that large and about a 25% is a really big rock. The real key to UK air superiority in the Western Med was its control of Algeria - taken in Operation Torch. AI Hint - Operation Torch - Allied AI takes Algeria proceeds to roll up Italian forces in North Africa or it targets Sicily.

Nice balanced operational battles of the US Civil War. With Cavalry, Artillery, HQ units and Infantry. Usually occuring on terrain with lots of forest. All that HC would need to add is Road Tiles and Road over River Tiles to the standard tile set to make a perfect Blue and Gray Game and perhaps hill hexes that give you a +1 adjustment to spotting and defense. Oh, and most units would have a spotting range of 1 tile - Call it Extreme FOG of War [ October 13, 2004, 09:44 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree with your point. In fact, I would think that UK ships in or adjacent to a US or Canadian port should have a 100% to become Free Brits. Now the Brits can send their ships speeding to US ports in hopes of reaching it before England surrenders. [ October 12, 2004, 10:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Interesting idea. I wonder what HC thinks? In one respect I like your idea. Its nice and simple. On the other hand, it does not help the AI to select between the correct operational strategies for the Atlantic and the Mediterrean in all cases. Nor does it take into account how many the Axis have built. Example: Six Italian Ships in the Med, 2 USA Cruisers, 0 German Ships, Spain Neutral AND UK Controls Gibraltar, should the American AI build ships if it has superiority in the Atlantic? 0% Yes. Six Italian Ships in the Altantic, 2 USA Cruisers, 0 German ships AND the Italians control Gibraltar, should the American AI adopt a naval strategy? 100% Yes Six Italian Ships in the Med, 2 USA Cruisers, 0 German ships AND the Italians control Gibraltar, should the American AI adopt a naval strategy? 50% Yes CPT Pete, what is your opinion? HC, any comments or words of wisdom? In my view the Allied Naval AI needs to knows: 1. How many combat ships its has. 2. How many combat ships the enemy has, not their exact location. (from the intelligence reports screen) 3. In what region are those ships - Med, Altantic, Baltic, and to adjust its estimate based on sighted ships. 4. Does the Allies control Gibraltar? 5. Does the Allies control Egypt? 6. Does the Allies control Iceland? 7. Does the Allies control Vichy France? If the Axis controls Gibraltar the Allies need to adopt a different strategy than if Gibraltar is Allied controlled. [ October 12, 2004, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I should have known I can't get a simple 3 letter answer from you. And many thanks for the words of encouragement, perhaps, is it true, do I see a Nordic Invasion in my crystal ball? I asked above question because the Italian Navy AI in SC1 was quite tepid. As you know; Tactically: 1. Even if No UK subs or aircraft were in the Med its sub would not interdict UK merchant shipping. 2. If the Allies (ie UK) had only one fleet in the Med the six ship Italian Navy would not hunt it down. 3. It did not group its ships for attack or use a corps transport or Italian air unit to spot enemy ships or transports. 4. If it entered the war and found the entire UK and French fleets waiting off the coast of Italy it would charge into battle and not seek the shelter of the Adriatic. to name a few obvious lapses of judgement. 5. And as for the Italian army, it would not even attack an undefended Cairo, nor would it evacuate units from North Afrcia to Italy to aid in the end game defense of Rome. [ October 12, 2004, 04:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC1 if the human Axis managed to station a fleet of subs (and or Italian warships) in the Atlantic it was all over on the Western Front. The American transports would sail directly into the waiting Axis fleets. The Western allies would not adjust their build strategy to counter this. In SC2 I long to see an Allied build strategy that can counter an Axis naval threat. How? IF Axis has >= 4 Axis Warships(not just submarines) in the Mid Atlantic then: Build naval bombers and station them in Canada and Ireland to protect allied Transports. Research long range bombers to extend the area that Naval Bombers can cover. Use a corps transport as a sacrifical spotter and target the naval bombers on the spotted Axis naval units. Perhaps by building American cruisers but not sending them alone into the atlantic until the Americans have a fleet of three or four. Perhaps by sending transports to the north and then east to the UK instead of always sending them directly to the UK or to the south and then north. Essentially, the Allies need at and at least two strategies to select from if they don't have naval superiority in the Mid-Atlantic. ---------------------------------------- In the past some have suggested that the Allied AI should know the location of every enemy ship. This is not needed to have a good naval AI, and it would be most unfair to the human player. What the AI does need to know is; 1. How many ships does the enemy have? 2. How many are in the Med, how many are in the Baltic Sea, and how many are in the Atlantic. As an allied human player, if I know that my opponent has six German ships, I can deduce that 3 must be in the Baltic and 3 are probably somewhere in the Atlantic, usually close to the coast of Western France, south of Brest. If they all appear on one turn in the intelligence screen I know that they are transports, if they appear over a period of turns they are usually subs. How do I know 3 are still in the Baltic sea? Simple, my bomber would have spotted them if they tried to transit the English channel. How do I know all six are not in the baltic? That's an educated guess, that is usually correct except if your opponent is using Rambos RACK strategy (of building carriers in the Baltic). By just knowing the number of Axis ships in the Atlantic the Allied AI should be able to select the appropiate strategy to deal with the threat depending on the ratio of Allied Forces in the Atlantic to Axis Forces. Allied to Axis: 6 to 1, then spreadout and hunt the Axis ships down. (Aggressive) Allied to Axis 1 to 1, then concentrate your forces under allied air cover and use sacrificial corps to locate the enemy) Allied to Axis 1 to 2, then rebuild Allied Naval and Naval Bomber fleets. (Defensive Strategy) [ October 11, 2004, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Will the Italian Navy have a substantially improved AI in SC2? Yes or No? [ October 10, 2004, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

How about the invasions of Belgium, France and Norway? (Everyone invades Norway) Similar results to before? Is the Dutch gambit still a viable option? Can you still take Norway and Belgium in one turn?

Question: Will SC2 have an improved Naval AI for 1) using subs, 2) finding subs and 3) dealing with a submarine blockade of the atlantic? 1. In SC1 German AI subs always headed for the same location. Italian AI subs never interdicted merchant shipping, even when there were no Allied ships in the med. 2. Allied AI was not good at hunting down subs. 3. Allied AI could never recover if Axis built a submarine blockade in the Atlantic. [ October 07, 2004, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Still no updates to the Developer's Diary. Last update August 18, 2004 S.C.

I would like to see a chart that shows the investment in research chits and the strength of each branch over time for all players at the end of the war. Example: Chart of Air, Navy and Ground Units deployed at six month intervals - 10 bars for 5 years. Tab 1: Air units deployed by nation Tab 2; Naval units deployed by nation Tab 3: Land Units deployed by nation Tab 4: Active Research chits by nation by 6 month period. Then I can see when my opponent purchased his air units, when he invested in research and when he reclaimed chits.

Waiing for new posts at the Dev Diary Page.

Intelligence Ideas Continued, 4. Intelligence Affects the Chance for Events 4% Per Tech Level Advantage per Turn that a randomly selected enemy naval ship in port is damaged by Sabotage ---- Highest UK/USA Intel Tech: 3, Italian Intel: 0 = 9% that an Italian Ship in Port suffers 1 point of damage, due to sabotage by UK Agents. Popup: "Enemy agents sabotage ships in port of [London]" 2% Per Tech Level Advantage Per Turn that a randomly selected Resource hex is damaged by sabotage. (ie 1 in 50 turns with a Tech Level 1 advantage, 1 in 25 turns with Tech Level 2, 1 in 10 turns with Intel Tech Level 5 Advantage) Popup: "Enemy Agents Sabotage Mines in [Norway]." 2% per tech level advantage that an enemy partisan unit or HQ unit is damaged (ie 1point of damage). Popup: "Enemy agents destroy supply depot of [Russian] Partisans." Popup: "Enemy agents sabotage supply depots attached to HQ unit [Rommel]." What is a tech level advantage: USA Intel Tech = 1, UK Tech Level = 2, Germany Tech Level = 2, Italian Tech Level = 0 UK and USA have no tech level advantage vs Germany and thus Germany is protected from Intelligence events. Highest Allied Intel Tech is 2 and thus Allies have a +2 tech level advantage vs Italy and thus Italian controlled territories is subject to Allied Intelligence Events. Note: UK and USA Intel Tech only Axis units outside of Russia, USSR Intel Tech affects only German units in Russian Territory. 5. Intel Tech give you a chance to spot an enemy unit. 2% Per Tech Level Advantage Per Enemy Unit to Spot the Unit. Example: Germany with Intel Tech 2 vs UK with Intel Tech 0 has a 4% (ie sees 1 in 25 units on average) to spot each UK unit. Germany with Intel Tech 2 vs USSR with Intel Tech 2 has a 0% to spot each Russian Unit. 6. Intel Tech advantages gives a bonus to the chance for creation of Partisan Units UK Intel Advantage over Germany of 1 gives a 2% bonus to chance for Yugoslavian Partisans. Russian Intel Advantage over Germany of 3 gives Russia a 6% bonus to chance for Russian partisans. [ September 24, 2004, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Another idea, building on the above, is to allow a country tht reaches intel level 4, a rather high level, to select a country in which to activate partisans from a choice list, thus making partisans, besides those in Russia and Yugoslavia, more of a strategic choice and unknown variable as the Axis will not know where exactly or if they could occur. For example: IF I reach Intel Level 4 as the Allies I can activate Partisans for one of the following nations: Norway or Sweden or Spain or Greece or Turkey For the Axis this list would be: Finland, Turkey, or Iraq Also, Intel Tech could affect the chance for partisans occuring in your home country. An equal or higher enemy intel level would cancel out this bonus. Why, If Russian Intelligence is 4 and Axis 1 assume that Russian Partisan operations will be more effective due to superior Russian intelligence operatives. Idea 3: Intelligence Tech increases the Readiness of Air Fleets intercepting Bombers attacking a city, port or resource hex. AKA the OSS has learned the plans for an impending bomber raid. [ September 22, 2004, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

As I recall one of the ideas was that intelligence tech allows you to see if a city hex (TILE) was occupied, and at higher levels if there were units in the surrounding hexes (TILES). What were the other ideas?

If Mr H does want to add Atomic weapons, it should be something that happens in a future release, not the first one. There are more important things that need to be worked on to give us an enjoyable game. I strongly agree. An Atomic Bomb Tech is something that is "a nice to have" feature, but it is not "a should have" or a "must have feature". To be able to have a realistic and playable Atomic weapon is not an easy thing to design. Its alot of work to do it right, otherwise, you end up with a nation that doesn't have to pursue winning the war, it can just wait until it gets the bomb. I disagree, as I think that the key to adding an atom bomb tech is to 1) make it expensive to achieve that those pursuing it have a weakened army, 2) make it risky to research (by limiting it to only 1 tech chit) and 3) having the effects be realistic. Realistic? The blast radius of the bombs dropped during WWII was quite small, most of the damage was from the ensuing fire. This means that it should only affect one hex. It may also have political effects - such a chance to cause Italy (but not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia to surrender) There were only three nations in WWII economically capable of developing an Atomic Bomb - The US, Germany and Japan. Of those only the US allocated enough resources to this project to achieve success. I agree, in fact I would make it a requirement that the nation pursing this control either the Mine Resource Tile in Norway or a Mine Resource Tile in the USA to simulate the requirement for heavy water. This would give the allies a realistic way to stop the German research if they detected that Germany was pursuing this option. [ September 22, 2004, 06:23 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Also, why no Atomic Bomb Tech? It was a world changing result of WWII, although researching it should be so expensive and the results so uncertain that few would consider it. Example: Max Research Level (5) Max chits applicable (1) Cost (1000) Allows construction of a new air unit that costs 1000 MPP to build once Tech Level 5 in this area is reached. Use of this unit permanently destroys a city tile along with any unit in that hex and the the unit making the attack. Thus developing an Atomic Bomb costs you: 1000MPP to purchase one chit, that's the maximum number of chits you can invest in this area. Then you have to hope that your one chit investment reaches Tech level 5 before you can purchase a Stragic Bomber for your Atomic Bomb for another 1000MPP. To be more realistic you could also require that a player control the sole mine hex in Norway or a mine hex in the United States to allow the building of this unit (to reflect the need for heavy water). [ September 21, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Any further developments on how the intelligence tech will work? [ September 21, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

bump A view of an ancient post from June 2004.

A partial Answer to your questions: 4) Yes, optional hard and soft limits by unit type 5) Yes 6) Interesting idea on preparing for winter fighting. To keep it simple I would rework you idea using the SC2 Tech Tree - say that you can invest in a Winter Tech to prepare your troops (equipment, training, etc) for winter fighting. A maximum of 1 or 2 levels in Winter Fighting. Some nations, such as Norway, Sweden and Finland would have this Tech automatically. Other nations must invest in it. Italy would probably not invest in it, nor would the US, UK or France. Germany and Russia might.

Agreed, especially if giving either of the major neutrals (Spain and Turkey) territory expanded the area in which their units counld be deployed.

I would also add for the 3 neutrals with the largest armies: Turkish Troops can only move within X (10) tiles of Turkish Territory, Swedish troops are limited to within X (10) tiles of Swedish territory, Spanish troops are limited to within (10) tiles of Spanish territory. [ September 19, 2004, 01:04 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Bump, for those newcomers to the board who missed this earlier post.