Edwin P.

Ah, ye of little faith. The historical notes for each territory would probably be the simplest for HC to add to the game; especially if JerseyJohn wrote them. Any comments HC? JerseyJohn?

Returning to the subject of Allocating Conquered Territories: I would like to see SC2 have a diplomacy map showing all the countries and territories in the game. (AKA the current Declare War Map) Selecting a territory or country would show, at the bottom of the screen; 1. Name of Territory 2. Current Status - ie Neutral, Conquered, Leaning Allied, Leaning Axis 3. A short paragraph on the history of the territory that gives some background on the history of that territory and hints as to the effect of allocating that territory to another nation or the general policy of that major power. And for real flavor: 4. In the right side of the information box a portrait of that country's leader - Franco, El Duce, Stalin obtained from photos in the public domain, or in the case of Gibraltar a picture of the Rock. Examples: Gibraltar Acquired from Spain by the UK in the Treaty of Urecht in 17XX after Spain's defeat by the British. Every Spanish government since then has demanded its return while every British government as protrayed Gibraltar as a part of the UK. (A hint that relations with Spain would improve if Gibraltar was given to them and that it would be hard for the UK to transfer this territory). Syria This former province of Turkey was acquired by the French after Turkey's defeat in WWI. (A hint that Turkey would be pleased to receive this territory). Egypt This nominally independent country was recently a colony of Great Britain and before that a province of the Ottoman Empire. The government of Italy views Egypt as the key to the restablishment of the Roman Empire in Africa. (A hint that both Italy and Turkey are interested in Egypt and would be negatively influenced if the other coutry was given this territory). Italy For the Game I would rephrase this and say: "The Government of Mussolini aims to restore Italy to the glory of the Roman Empire by extending its control to Southern France, Switzerland, Yugoslaiva, Greece, and North Africa." (A hint as to the goals of the Italian Government and what territorial transfers would influence and anger them) USSR The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics believes that war with the Capitalist governments of Western Europe is inevitiable on the path towards the defeat of Captialism by the worker class and the entry of these countries into the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. (A hint that Russia aims to rule the world and will not trade any territory it acquires to another nation) Sweden The Swedish government of Prime Minister Per Albin Hanssonhas has issued a declaration of neutrality and increased the size of Swedish self defense forces to deter an invasion. (A hint that it would be hard to inflence Sweden with diplomatic overtures or territory) Naturally, I would nominate JerseyJohn to write these historical notes, if the Designer decided to incorporate this feature into the game. [ September 18, 2004, 05:09 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Its a good game worth buying, as I am still playing it. You can easily finish a game in one sitting. Download the demo and try it. As for the AI its strongest on the Eastern Front and Western Fronts (where the key battles of the war occured) but really weak in the Southern (Meditterrean) and Nordic fronts. As the designer has said, he choose to concentrate on having the AI do a few things very well.

Especially if the chance for partisans was affected by the number of Axis units in Russia, and the number of unoccupied or Russian controlled Cities AND you had chance per turn for a 2nd Siberian Transfer acccompanied by US Troops! Second Siberian Transfer After 1943 if Germany has conquered all Russian Cities. 1. Russian player has the option to delay this second transfer each turn until an opportune moment. The longer he waits the stronger Germany becomes, but also the more reinforcements his Siberian forces can receive from the USA. 2. US can affect the size of this 2nd transfer by sending MPPs to Russia throgh Alaska or Exiting Units off the Western Map Edge via a Siberian Transfer Tile. 3. Russian player can decide to have 2nd Siberian Transfer units appear in North, Central or Southern Russia. Once this decision is made the transfer occurs X turns later at this location. [ September 17, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Now how to implement these ideas, Idea 1: Transfer of Territories --------------------------------------------- First, Diplomatic Action for Transfer of Conquered Territory. Go to Diplomatic Map and select a territory that you controlv and select one of the available highlighted transfer actions in the right hand column: Axis: To Italy, To Germany, To Spain, To Turkey Thus an Axis Power (Italty or Germany ) could only transfer territory to Italy, Germany, Spain or Turkey. Allies: To US, To UK, To Russia, To France, To Spain, To Turkey --------------------------------------------- Second, For selected countries a table of Territories, the negative effect of transfering each conquered territory to another nation by an ally , the random adjustment assigned to this effect, the positive effect of receiving that territory, the randomness associated with this, and the chance for this nation to accept the transfer. Example: Table for Italy Territory: Italy, Algeria (30, 20, 10, 10, 45) Thus the penalty for transferring Algeria to Spain on Italian Readiness is 31% to 50% (30,20), if Germany transfers Algeria to Italy then Italy becomes 11% to 20% (10,10) more pro Germany, and there is a 45% (45) that Italy will accept this territory. Example: Table for Turkey Turkey, Syria (20,10,10,5,99) If Germany transfer Vichy Syria to Italy then relations with Turkey suffer a 21% to 30% penalty. If Germany transfers the territory to Turkey then Turkey becomes 11% to 15% more pro Axis and is 99% likely to accept the Territory of Syria. Example: Table for US US, Gibraltar (0,0,0,0, 5%) If the UK attempts to transfer Gibraltar to the USA their will be no effecton on US relations and the US is only 5% likely to accept it. Eample: Table for Spain Spain, Gibraltar (30,50,10,20,100) Basically if the UK transfers Gibraltar to the US then relations with Spain plunge by 31% to 80%, if they transfer it to Spain then Spanish relations increase by 11% to 30% and Spain will accept this gift 100% of the time. ------------------------------------------------ Third, A table for the Giving Country listing each territory they can transfer, if conquered by them and the chance for this being approved by their government. Example: Table for UK Gibraltar - 5 Egypt - 30 Syria - 90 Thus the UK MPs will only approve the transfer of Gibraltar 5% of the time. A player can attempt this event, but it will most likely result in a futile expenditure of a diplomatic chit. How does it work? Step 1: Expend Diplomatic Chit Step 2: Attempt Tansfer ----------- Does your government Approve? If No Then Popup Note ("Prime Minister, your proposal bas been defeated and the papers are calling for you to step down") and Exit ----------- Does the receiving government Accept? - If No Then Popup Note ("Generalismo Franco Rejects Your Offer") and Exit Step 3: Calculate effects on Relations ---- If Italy Withdraws from War then Italian Land Units may only move towards Italian Territory and operate to Italian controlled hexes. Italian Navy units many only move towards/in the Mediterrean. What do you mean your forces won't advance. The German High Command orders you to Attack. Step 4: Exit ------------------------------------------- NOTE: Tables 2 and 3: Can be combined into one table/array: Italy, Algeria, 30, 20, 10, 10, 75, 5 Number 1: Negative Effect or territory being given to another country by allied country (30%) Number 2: Random Factor for #2 (so effect is really 31% to 50%) Number 3: Postivie Effect of receiving this territory from an Ally. (10%) Number 4: Random factor for #3 (10%) = 11% to 20% Number 5: Chance that Italy will accept the territory if given to it. (ie 75%) Number 6: Chance that Italian government and populace will agree to give the territory away. (ie 5%) [ September 18, 2004, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, I like your take on balancing the Game with Ukrainia. With no surrender Germany does not get plunder from conquering Russia and must keep a large garrison force in Russia.

Jersey John and Roosevelt45, I agree with your take on Malta. That is why negative impact of such a move so high, 30% to 50%. You could even raise it to 80% to 110%. (thus a chance that it causes Italy to Immediately withdraw from the war). The key is that historically Germany would not have done so and the AI would never do it. But if a human player does it, without thinking of the conseqences them let him do it and experience the effect of Italy withdrawing from the war. Now the foolish Human controlled Germany will have to spend a lot on diplomatic chits to coak Italy back into the war. I think that you learn about history by allowing players to make mistakes and seeing their effect than by not allowing such actions. Also, I think that on item ignored in Algeria is the partisans, I would like to see the Allies able to activate Algerian Partisans with a diplomatic chit if control is transfered to another country such as Spain or Italy. In addition, Germany should be able to transfer Vichy Algeria to Turkey - BUT - this would have a major negative impact on relations with BOTH SPAIN AND ITALY. (think Spain joins Allies and itally withdraws from the War). Of course the AI would never do it, but a foolish human may try and this would cause him a lot of headaches if he did so. [ September 17, 2004, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn and Roosevelt45, any comments on the following proposal: 1. Each Territory in the Med given to Turkey or Spain by Germany reduces Italy's war readiness by a semi-random amount. Example: Vichy France: 50% to 80% Vichy Algeria: 30% to 50% Egypt: 40% to 60% Syria: 10% to 20% Malta: 30% to 50% If Germany gives Vichy France and Vichy Algeria to Spain there is a chance (80% to 130%) that Italy will withdraw from the war. If Germany gives Vichy France, Vichy Algeria and Malta to Spain then there is a chance (110% to 180%) that Italy withdraws from the war. The allies can increase this chance by 5% to 20% through the use of diplomatic chits. Germany can reduce this negative effect by spending diplomatic chits. I think that this concept would add a bit of strategy and risk to the transfer of territories among allies and neutrals. 2. Italy Withdraws from the War. Option 1. Italian Land anbd Air Units may only move or operate towards or in Italian controlled territory. Thus Italian units in Russia will not advance and newly built Italian Units will may not be deployed to help Germany defend its borders. or Option 2. Italian units may not operate to German controlled Cities. Thus slowing down the movement of reinforcements to the front lines. or Option 3. Italy becomes Neutral. All Italian units outside of Italian territory operate back to Italy. [ September 17, 2004, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Jersey John, how would you set it up so that the German player did not pursue this option every time and play balance was maintained? Example: Requirements: Axis Control of: XXXX, XXXX, XXXX Benefit: No Partisans, Ukraine (cities server as a #10 supply source) as a Minor Ally and larger force pool due to ability to purchase Ukrainian units. Cost: Diplomatic Chit + No Production from Ukrainian Cities, as production is diverted to to repair the ravages of war and maintain good relations with the populace.

Returning to Diplomacy: I would like to see this feature offer three possibilities: 1. Affect War Readiness/Axis & Allied Leaning 2. Give Territories 3. Other Options ------ Passage through the Straits to the Black Sea for you fleet ------ Give a unit to a Neutral Nation (ie Spain, Sweden) ------ Activate Partisans in a country (ie Norway, Sweden, Finland, Greece, Spain, Turkey, Iraq)

Protectorate in the Ukraine? mmm - Interesting. Perhaps: Benefit: No Partisans in this region, as it is no longer part of Russia and Cost: Use of a Diplomatic Chit costing 500MPP That said, I like Rosevelt45's concept as it would give you another use for diplomatic chits. The key to implementing it though is that it has to be simple and reasonably historically possible. As Jersey said, the Axis could influence Spain by offering them Gibraltar (however, a Spanish Gibraltar should be an open port while Spain is Neutral and allow ships of both sides to transit the straits) and Vichy Algeria (this game does not have Morroco as a seperate territory - but it should !). Ideally, I would like to see nations (Germany and the UK) have the option to use territory to influence or aid their allies. However, their should be a cost to this. Example: Germany Giving Vichy France, Vichy Algeria, or even egypt to Spain influences Spain but should reduce Italian War Readiness by a semi-random amount, and if it drops low enough they withdraw from the war. Naturally you don't know exactly what this trigger is. Withdraw from the War? Or should I say limit their participation? - perhaps Italian Units can not operate to German controlled cities, effectively reducing their ability to reinforce German lines or new units can't enter German controlled territories until Italy rejoins the war effort. Example: Giving Gibraltar to the US or Spain is possible but the British MPs might not approve it. Example: Germany giving control over Egypt, Iraq or Vichy Syria to Italy might have a positive effect on Italy but a negative effect on relations with Turkey. Giving 2 or 3 to Italy might bring Turkey into the war on the Allied side. Giving these territories (Egypt and Vichy Syria) to Turkey, might anger Italy - perhaps causing them to withdraw from the war (especially if the allies are secretly spending diplomatic chits to encourage this). Naturally if this occurs, the German player might have to spend some diplomatic chits to bring them back into the war. [ September 17, 2004, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Also, you have to keep in mid play balance and historical realities when adding such a feature. There are several ways to do this: 1. Adjust the cost of diplomatic chits for a specific transfer. 2. Not allowing certain transfers. 3. Have a chance that your government rejects the transfer. Example: UK tries to Transfer Gibraltor to the US (Or SPAIN !)and purchases a diplomatic chit to do so; however, the British Parliment rejects the transfer and the transfer does not occur although the UK player has spent MPP to attempt it. What is the chance for the British Parliment to approve the transfer? I would say 90% if the Germans control London or Manchester, but only 10% if they do not. The chance for the parliment to approve the transfer of UK Controled Vichy Algeria would likely be 95% regardless of the situation as the UK government has no historical ties to North Africa.

Interesting idea, I wonder if the use of diplomatic chits will allow for this. Thus giving away territories will involve a cost to the giver as well as a benefit. Although you mention Trieste and Slovenia, I would only allow it for complete territies - ie Vichy France, Vichy Algeria, Egypt, Spain and not for individual hexes. If implemented I would also have a higher cost for giving away certain territories -ie the cost for the UK to give Gibraltar to the US might be so high as to be impossible or simply not allow it; ie Germany can't give Warsaw to Italy. In the old SC1 thread JerseyJohn and myself had a thread on Germany influencing Spain by giving Spain: Vichy Algeria. In summary we concluded that such an action would increase Spanish willingness to join the war but anger Italy, possibly leanding them to withdraw from the Axis.

HC, do you plan on an active AI in the Mediterrean area of operations for SC2?

It would be interesting if maps of Algeria/Morocco/Spain could be posted. Just interested in seeing if any ports will be added in these areas (ie Operation Torch).

SeaMonkey, Excellent Idea.

For me, every government adopts policies that favor a specific service and/or a set of strategies within that service. It would be interesting from a historical and game view if one could model the effects of nations adopting different policies. Such as: What would have happened if Hitler favored the Navy over the Air Force? For example: Germany adopted a policy that favored mobile warfare, as it was then known. While the French and Russian had adopted a policy that favored more static defense lines, n the thinking of WWI Trench Warfare. In the US there was the conflict between those that favored Carriers and those that favored the primacy of Battleships. Naturally this conflict affects specfic arms of the services in positive and negative ways. PS: HC don't even think about this if it will delay the completion of the work of art you are working on. All I really want is a really good AI. [ September 08, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, Your comments reinforce my opinion that each nation, especially Germany and the UK, should be able to select an industrial policy for their naval construction that will favor one type of ship while penalizing the production time of other types of ships - perhaps by reducing the production time for carriers by 20% while increasing the time for battleships and cruisers by 20%. Thus reflecting an allocation of limited resources - between submarines, battleships, cruisers, and carrier fleets in SC. What are your thoughts? Of course, the effect on game play is probably so minor that its not even worth considering - ie the difference between producing a carrier in 20 months vs 24 months. :cool: As was mentioned earlier in this thread, SC is considering productin times for Carriers of 18 months and Battleships of 12 months. Given your information, for semi-historical reasons these numbers should be reversed! Many thanks again for the info on the Vanguard. [ September 08, 2004, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Jersey John, wow, thanks for the info and the link. Its amazing to me how long it took to build these ships and how these times varied from a standard. Did Germany have the same level of mobilization as the US? I will have to do some searching to find out.

How do you rush construction of an aircraft carrier? How about working 3 shifts a day 7 days a week for 52 weeks a year. Of course, the cost increases by at least 50%.

I disagree, Germany should be allowed to build them (when have they ever built one in a SC game?) and the allies should be allowed to bomb it (how often do they build long range bombers that can hit the German ports?)

What will the engineer unit do? Build a fortification to increase the maxiumum entrenchment vale of a hex, be it clear, forest, or city) by +1 or +2? Build a bridge to eliminate the penalty for crossing a river through that tile-side? Sabatoge a hex to increase the cost to move through it by one 1AP? Build a supply depot? - ie supplies adjacent units. Any news? [ September 07, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Ev, excellent new idea. The key element for me is that I believe that players - as the strategic commanders - should have some ability to accelerate the default production times for units, especially naval ships - battleships and carriers - at a cost, within the game system and not do it in the setup file. Ev's idea for a ship production tech is one option. Selecting a naval industrial policy (that accelerates the production of one type of naval unit while penalizing others) is another. Another option is to allow for accelerated production at a cost of say 20% of the units price. PS: I agree. I suggest a miniumum production time. Thus the minimum for an armor unit might be 2 months. With a starting time of 3 months, the most you could hope to do is reduce it to 2 months. With a carrier the minimum might be 12 months, with a starting production time of 18 months, you could reduce the production time by 1 to 6 months, but no more. Of course, resources applied towards reducing the production time are not available for building units or researching techs such as Anti-Armor. [ September 06, 2004, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Will FOW also hide the occurance of the Siberian Transfer, if it occurs, from the Axis.

What about a Mass Production Tech? Each level of Mass Production Tech reduces the production time for one specific type of unit (Carriers, Cruisers, Battleships, Subs, Armor, Air Fleets, Strategic Bombers) by 1 Month, subject to a minimum production time for each unit. Example: Level 2 Mass Production Tech (Carriers) reduces the time to produce carriers by 2 months. Level 1 Mass Production Tech (Strategic Bombers) reduces the time to produce bombers by 1 Month. Thus players can invest in this area and reduce the time required to produce specific types of units and this would introduce more uncertainty to the game vis a vis your opponent's capabilities. It would also allow users to recreate the strategic allocations which were made during WWII that affect the production times of various units. [ September 05, 2004, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]