Edwin P.

From my point of view, the AI was a 4 when released. Its now about a 6. With slight tweaking it will be a 7. Then it will take a great deal more work to create the AI scripts to get it to a 9 or 10. Personally, I would like to see HC work on the Axis scripts (for 1.07), and then focus on the Allied Scripts (for 1.08).

Sound great, I will download it this weekend.

If the UK withdrew from the war, my guess is that the US and Russia would use diplomacy to bring the UK back into the war as Colin I suggests. With; "UK war readiness be reduced by 3% to 5% each turn that income from Convoys are less than XXX." it should take about 20 to 25 turns of convoy losses to cause this to happen - this translates to minimal supplies for about a full year and would require sustained Axis submarine activity - while giving the Allies the time to build new naval units. Of course, if UK War Rationing was above 50% shouldn't this reduce the build limits for the UK by 1 per unit type to reflect a shortage of imported raw materials? Or rationing at 50% could reduce the AP of all UK units or give UK units a readiness penalty (or as suggested a Morale Penalty) to reflect a supply shortage. Thus: 01. War Rationing increases to 50% - UK build limits reduced by 1 for all unit types 02. War Rationing increases to 80% - UK units receive a 10% Readiness Penalty, due to supply shortage. 03. War Rationing at 100% - UK withdraws from the War but may re-enter with diplomatic pressure from the US and Russia. [ November 20, 2006, 11:33 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

True, and there-in lies the value of Long Range Research, Bombers and Carriers.

According to The West Point Militart History Series The Second World War Europe and the Meditteranean: An interesting note on World War I: "Most naval historians believe that the German Submarine blockade almost won the First World War for the Central Powers...the Germans sank over 5,000 allied merchantmen, displacing over 12 million tones. They also sank 10 battleships, 18 cruisers, 20 destroyers and 9 submarines. The Germans in Contrast lost only 187 submarines."

In SC2, convoy losses don't have the impact that they did in WWII. I recall it being written that if the heavy convoy losses of 1941/42 continued that the UK would have likely made a peace offer to Germany. Perhaps, UK war readiness (at 100%) should be reduced by 3% to 4% each turn that income from Convoys are less than XXX. If Income is greater than XXX and War Readiness is less than 100 then UK War Readiness increases by (1% to 3%) If UK war Readiness reaches zero then the UK makes a peace offer to Germany and withdraws from the war. Perhaps have 2 ratings: War Readiness - at 100% the nation joins the War in Europe War Opposition - at 100% the active nation becomes neutral and its war readiness is reduced to 50%. This change would have several effects on game play: 1. It makes the Battle for the Atlantic more important for the Axis by giving them a way to defeat the UK without triggering a rise in Russian war readiness. 2. It gives the USA an incentive to maximize the amount of MPPs sent to the UK. 3. It increases the importance of ASW research for the Allies who must now protect the merchant ships to ensure that the UK stays in the war. [ November 19, 2006, 07:22 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

True, but radar on patrol boats was line of sight.

Excellent idea, Retributar Naval Unit Spotting: Very Stormy Weather - 0 Tiles - unless you sail directly into the enemy naval unit you pass him by without realizing he was there.

I wonder what Hubert; the game designer thinks of this? SeaMonkey, your idea of reducing the spotting range of ground units makes a lot of sense, while adding immensely to the FOW and making Intel and the use of air units for spotting a lot more important.

Lars, excellent refinement. At Distance 5 and Strength 10 then Spotting Strength is 5 (Strength Less Distance) At Distance 5 and Strength 12 then Spotting Strength is 7 (Strength less Distance) Reinforces the importance of moving units under cover of air power for maximum surprise.

First, I really like Moonslayer's idea as it directly links the strength of an Air unit to its ability to conduct recon to the strength of enemy air activity in a region. Second, why not break intel ito two techs - Humit and Signet? Humit: Affects Diplomacy, Research and Partisan Activity Signit: Affects Random Spotting of Enemy Land and Naval Units based on radio intercepts

As for me, I would use Moonslayer's idea as it nicely balances the effect of friendly and enemy aiur units and perhaps; just perhaps, add Intel to the strength of each air unit's recon rating. Why? For the defending side it reflects the construction of dummy units and hiding actual units. For the friendly side it reflects better Intel. Thus Intel 1 allows you to better conceal friendly units or to better spot interpret the meaning of enemy air units in an area. [ November 12, 2006, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I like these two ideas as they both take into account the strength of the air unit doing the recon. I wonder what the game designer thinks.

Liam brings up an important feature of Air Units - the ability to deny enemy units recon over friendly territory. Perhaps, enemy air units shouldn't be able to spot units adjacent to a friendly air unit assigned that has not attacked or intercepted an air unit that turn.

I like that idea - its hides diplomacy, so you can't really besure what is happening. And as you said - a 5% of an event is just a once a year event, on average.

Konigs, I agree. There should be some penalty to the UK if their comvoys suffer severe losses. The question arises though how to do it in a manner that can be modified in the game's editor and what should the penalty be? Readiness? Damage to Production? Build Limit Reduction? AP (action points, aka Movement point) penalty due to fuel shortages? Or something else? Perhaps something as simple as: Convoy_Resources_Event Country_ID= Convoy_MPP= XX ;If receive this amount of MPPs via convoy then this event is triggered, only one event can be triggered per country_ID Penalty= [Action Points][build Limit][Readiness][Production][No Movement Chance][Research Penalty] Example: Country_ID= 1 Convoy_MPP= 30 Penalty= [0][0][0][0][0][0] ; If Convoy Income is 20 to 29 then each unit must has a 5% that they can't move that turn Country_ID= 1 Convoy_MPP= 20 Penaltys= [0][0][0][0][5][0] ; If Convoy Income is 1 to 19 then each unit of this country has their action points reduced by 1 and their is a 20% that they can't move that turn. Country_ID= 1 Convoy_MPP= 20 Penaltys= [1][0][0][0][20][0] [ November 07, 2006, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

If you really want a sub war then; A. Have 90% of UK MPPs come via Convoy Routes, except for one city - Manchester. Thus Canada provides 100MPP per turn. That's a target worth attacking. B. If UK Lend Lease MPP damages exceed XXX over nine months then the UK may surrender. Example - if UK Convoy Losses exceed 300MPP in 9 months then UK has 20% to surrender -i.e. it returns to neutrality unless attacked. C. Provide some convoy report; perhaps linked to intel tech, so that the Axis knows how much the UK is getting from Convoys. Now the Axis player does not know and thus it does not seem important. D. Or have attacks on Convoys damage the readiness of forces, or perhaps temporarily reduce their build limits. Example - UK build limits are linked to Merchant Ship Income - Merchant Ship Income goes down then UK Build Limits are Reduced by 1 or 2 or 3. Example: Losses over 6 months = 120MPP = Reduce Build Limit by 1 for each non-naval unit type. (Or Reduce Max value of Each UK City and Port by 1) Losses over 6 months = 240MPP (about 40 per turn) = Reduce build Limit by 2 for each non-naval unit type. (Or reduce value of each UK city and port by 2) Losses over 6 months = 360 (about 60 per turn) then reduce build limits by 3 for each non-naval unit type. (Or reduce value of each UK city and port by 3 - going from 10 to 7) Or put another way: If UK Convoy Income is less than 60 over six months then the value of all UK cities and ports is reduced by 3. If UK Convoy Income is >60 but less than 120 over six months then value of UK cities and ports is reduced by 2. If UK Convoy Income is >120 but less than 150 then value of UK cities and ports is reduced by 1. If UK convoy Income over prior six months is > 150 then no-effect on UK cities and ports.

During WWII US Navy ships hunted German submarines while US was neutral.

Agreed. Most excellent idea.

I agree Seamonkey, any options like this (such as the USA Japan 1st policy or USA does not embargo Japan) needs real thought. The only viable option I see for this "what if" is if it linked no partisans with no MPPs as it assumes that the Ukraine would keep its MPPs to keep the populace happy, and Russia had an opportunity to counter this with Higher Intel - which would trigger partisan activity despite the Liberation of the Ukraine. Thus it would pay off, if the Soviet investment in Intel was minimal. It would be a disaster if Russia had higher Intel than Germany.

Agreed, I too would like to see additional clear land, water and impassible terrain tiles that could be modded and would not be randomly assigned to a location. Example: Impassible Tile 1: Current Depression Tile (Can be modded) Impassible Tile 2: Black Tile (Could be modded) Impassible Tile 3: Grey Tile (Could be modded to impassible mountains for example) Clear Terrain Tile 1: Normal Green Tile Clear Terrain Tile 2: Grasslands (could be modded) Clear Terrain Tile 3: Steppe Grasslands (could be modded) 4 additional moddable tile choices - 2 impassible and 2 clear terrain variants would help alot.

I would like to see the Axis given a choice in a way that would not upset the balance that SeaMonkey notes Sc2 is so close to achieving. Perhaps a choice of: a. Plunder Ukraine (Historical Option) --------- Axis gets MPPs from Ukrainian Cities b. Liberate Ukraine (Ahistorical Option) --------- No Russian partisans in Ukraine (unless Russia has Intel Advantage), and no MPPs from Ukrainian cities. This frees up 4 units for use elsewhere - except if Russia has an Intel Advantage! If they do you must garrison the marshes or risk partisans appearing while you have also lost MPPs from 3 Russian cities. Thus: Option 1 - MPPS from 3 Cities plus must garrison Marshes and Cities with 5 untis to prevent partisan appearance Option 2 - No MPPs from 3 Ukraine Cities and no need to garrison area with 5 units as partisans do not appear BUT if Russia has Intel Advantage Partisans do appear and this negates the advantage of choosing the Liberate Ukraine Option. [ October 30, 2006, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Keep it as is (or extend the map further south).

I would like to see it left as is for it opens up many options for the Allied player and makes the game less predictable. That said - expanding the map futher south would allow the UK to invade Ethiopia, allow for Axis warining of the Invasion if it managed to maintain Italian troops in the Horn of Africa, and show the Vichy French Port of Dakar in West Africa. As for realism, for staging such a large invasion, my guess is that the Allied troops would first mass in Kenya and not sail directly to the Red Sea from the UK via the Horn of Africa.