Edwin P.

With Long Range Aircraft research the strike range for Air Fleets increase by +1 and the Strike Range for Bombers increases by +2 at each tech level. A realistic differentiation between the two types of aircraft. - Long Range Aircraft - S/AP/SR + 1 (S = Spotting, AP = Action Points, SR = Strike Range) - 5% - Air Fleets - Long Range Aircraft - S + 1/AP + 1/SR + 2 - 5% - Strategic Bombers I wonder what the starting strike range will be for each type of aircraft. Personally, I would experiment with setting it at 5 and 10 while keeping the spotting range for both at 5. This would reflect the historical usage of Strategic Bombers for Strategic Bombing and not for recon. [ July 05, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

During WWII the Allied navies having control of the Atlantic turned their attention to the Meditterean and supported Allied invasions of Morroco and Algeria followed by Sicily and then Anzio. In SC2 it would make for a more interesting game if the Allied AI could follow the same strategy if the opportunity presented itself. At the least, it would divert Axis forces from the Russian and French fronts. Of course, if the Axis controls Gibraltar the wisdom of following this strategy becomes doubtful. [ July 04, 2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Agreed, if their strength is less than 5 they do not intercept. Also in Sc2 you can set each air fleet manually to No Interception.

Interesting, I wonder if the allies will be able to trnasport troops around Norway to Murmansk? They will definitely be able to send lend lease supplies via this port, and the Axis will have a strong incentive to take it. The map gets better and better.

Many Thanks, I patiently await future screenshots of Iraq, Iran and Eastern Russia.

Note the additional port city added to the Red Sea and the addition of the Nile River! Most interesting. This should aid the allied defense of Egypt and make Egypt more valuable to the Axis. All that HC needs to add is a tile with the pyramids to Egypt, the Empire State Building to New York City,the Acropolis to Athens, Lake Ontario (its the big lake south of Toronto) to North America and the Hudson River going north from New York. [ July 03, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

EV, in my view your Effect #2 and Effect #3 duplicate each other as both increase the readiness of units. I would do one or the other not both as the HQ already gives a combat bonus. The key difference between the German units and the Russian/Italian/French units for example was that the German commanders were expected to show a high degree of initiative as compared to their oppoenents who were dependent on following orders from above. Whether this should be refered to as training or tactical doctrine can be debated. Futhermore the amount of this superiority for the Germans deteriorated as the war progreessed and the training programs were shortened. The simplest way to recreate what you want to do is to give the Germans a lower cost of units. Another option is to just create doctrines which players can research and then adopt for their units. For example: Have an Armored Warfare and a Trench Warfare Doctrine and a Combined Arms Doctrine. At tech level (0) doctrines a player can select only Trench Warfare, at tech level (2) a player can select Armored Warfare or Trench Warfare for its land units. Trench Warfare - Gives Armies a 5% defensive readiness bonus. Armored Warfare - Gives Armor Units a 10% Readiness bonus when attacking . Combined Arms - Gives Armor Units and Infantry Units a 10% readiness bonus. A nation that knows Armored Warfare can adopt it for a cost of 100MPP. If they switch to Trench Warfare it costs them 100MPP. Russia would most likely adopt a Trench Warfare doctrine which would benefit them while on the defense. Germany on the other hand would likely select an Combined Arms/Armor doctrine which would boost its offensive powers. Just an idea. Also, the HQ units represent not only supply but also the capabilities and experience of its Army Group Commanders which HQ reflect via their Command Ratings. German units performed better because they had better and more experienced commanders.

Wouldn't assigning HQs to the unit give them the readiness bonus that simulates this effect? Of course since Germany will have more HQ at the start of the war they would derive the greatest benefit. Later in the war as the other sides build HQ units their advantage in this area would decrease. In addition, RE: The like the concept of a HQ related tech; however, I would limit it to affecting just one aspect of a HQ unit - Units a HQ unit can support. I would also limit the Max Tech Level to 2. Thus a HQ(0) supports 3 units, HQ(1) supports 4 units and a HQ(2) supports 5 units. Then Germany starts off with a 5:3 advantage over the allies and the allies need only achieve 2 tech advances in this area to match the German's. This would also alone one to closely recreate the more limited supply and control abilities of nations which sometimes had great commanders but a more a limited C3 and supply capability. [ July 02, 2004, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Now lets add an option for the Russians - Give them a choice: 1. The Siberian troops appear in the northern Urals or 2. Siberian troops appearing in Southern Russia near Stalingrad or 3. Forgoing the Siberian reinforcements to declare war on Japan in the hope of capturing production capacity in Manchuko/Korea from the Japanese. Say a 5% per turn that Russia gets a permanent 125 MPP per turn production boost. Now the Axis player can't be certain as to where the Siberian troops will appear. PS: Also the arrival of the Siberian troops should be covered by FOW so the Axis player does not know of their arrival until they are first encountered. [ July 02, 2004, 03:01 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In the Med I think that the Allies have 3 basic Strategies for the opening game: 1. Withdraw the forces to the Atlantic 2. Mass Allied Naval forces in the Med in an attempt to sink the Italian Navy when it enters the war and withdraw them to the Atlantic after 2 or 3 rounds of combat. 3. Maintain a small force in the Eastern med to defend Egypt and the Middle East. (SC1 AI's Strategy) From first looks it appears as if each of these strategies would be realatively easy to program when compared to programming an Axis invasion of the Nordic Countries or a Sea Lion or an Allied Invasion of Sicily and Italy. The key issue is does the does the designer want to include map/scenario specific AI routines or more general routines that can be accessed no matter what the map design is. In either case I suggest that the editor include the ability to define invisible Sea Zones (aka Weather Zones) that would be be used by the AI to guide its actions for the deployment and use of Naval Forces. I also think that the AI needs to be able to access a core set of deployment tactics for its naval units - Blockade, Battle Group, Scout, Shelter, Ambush , Hide - switching from one to the other as the situation demands. Battle Group - Concentration of Naval Units designed to engage and sink the enemy, no more piece meal attacks. Hide - Units seek to hide, whether it be in the south atlantic, Red Sea or the Agean, Eastern Med Blockade - Danish Straits, Gibraltar, Atlantic, etc. - a wall of ships Scout - Locate enemy ships and units Shelter - seek a hex area where units have the best defensive position Ambush - stay out of spotting range while enemy advances into your trap, then attack. Unlike the current AI which attacks at the first opportunity. [ July 02, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

What I ment to say is that under the Japan First option more US Production would be diverted to the war in the Pacific leaving less production available to fight the war in Europe, opposite the strategy that the US actually took. When Japan attacked the US many Americans wanted to focus on defeating the Japanese first but Roosevelt believed in a Europe First Strategy. This option allows players to see, in a limited way, what would have happened if the US decided to defeat Japan before Germany. Reduced resources would have been available to aid the UK until the Japanese were defeated. Russian forces in Siberian would have been free to move west as Japanese forces would be focused on halting the American advance across the Pacific. When the US defeats Japan (determined randomly - say 4% per turn starting in 1943) then US production should double and the US should receive a few carriers and several bombers, transferred from the Pacific Theature of Operations. Of course, the question is - Can the European Allies hold back the Axis onslaught until the US defeats Japan? [ July 01, 2004, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

US War Strategy Selection Popup The one player choice event I hope the editor will allow us to create is a US War Strategy Event where the US player preparing for war selects one of three strategies: Europe First (historical), Japan First (Early Siberian Transfer as Japanese forces diverted to fight American Marines, Reduced US Production available for Europe until Japan Defeated), Armistace with Japan (No Siberian Transfer, Increased US Production/Naval Forces from Pacific). This gives the US player the opportunity to really change the game. With a Japan First strategy the Russians get their Siberian reinforcements early but US production for Europe is reduced. Reaching an understanding with Japan allows the US to deploy more resources to the Europe but forces the Russians to keep their Siberian forces in Siberia to deter Japanese aggression. Interesting and balanced choices. One strengthens the US and the other strengthens the Russians. [ July 02, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Russia might offer Finland peace to free the units guarding the Finish border and Finland, not Germany, might accept. Of course the Finnish demand for compensation will limit Russia's ability to reinforce its own troops for one turn, but they gain the use of the troops guarding the Finnish border. The Axis might offer peace to Yugoslavia as it would free up the Garrison units assigned to pacify this country. The Yugoslavians, might accept to free their nation of Axis troops. Of course the compensation offered 300 MPP is just slightly less than the cost of building 3 new corps 375MPP. In my view both of these actions are realistic alternatives and are relatively balanced in terms of their affect on game play. Why would the Axis offer peace to Greece? They do not have partisans and don't tie down Axis forces. [ June 28, 2004, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Or allow peace but the Aggressor has to pay for it in some fashion and the other party may or may not accept it. Example: Russia offers Finland Peace and 300MPP. If Finland accepts and returns to neutrality all foreign units leave Finland, Russia loses 300MPP. Example: Italy offers Yugoslavian partisans peace and 300MPP. Yugoslavia accepts and returns to neutrality. All foreign units leave Yugoslavia and Italy loses 300MPP. Example: Germany offers UK Peace. UK Requests Liberation of France, Denmark, Low Countries, Nordic Countries, Yugoslavia, Greece and Egypt (if Conquered). If UK accepts each of these nations and the UK return to neutrality and Germany is free to focus on the war against Russia. Of course, this was Russia's greatest fear. That the UK would make peace with Germany and Germany would be free to focus all of its might against Russia. Implementing this would be simple. Include a Peace Offer button on the European Map screen. Countries open to a peace offer are highlighted (Finland, Yugoslavia, UK) It costs 1 Diplomatic Chit to make the offer and find out what the target nation demands in exchange for a peace agreement. At that point the player can accept or reject it. PS: If the allies asks for peace with Italy the Italians might ask for the UK's Surrender and if the German's ask for peace with the US the US may ask for Germany's surrender OR 2000 MPP which they will give to the Russians and the British. [ June 28, 2004, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Retributar's idea for the French AI attacking into Germany is a good one. I have seen many player use it at one time or another and it makes for a most interesting game. Personally, I would have the AI do this about 3% of the time - 1 in 33 games and only if most Axis units are spotted as being in Poland. If the Axis units have been transferred West on turn 1 this strategy is not a winning one and the AI should not select it. Revised France Defenses Options ---- Option 1: Standard ---- Option 2: Disband French Navy ---- Option 3: Free French - to UK ---- Option 4: Free French - to Egypt ---- Option 5: Invade Germany (if most German units are in Poland) ---- Option 6: Full Defense ---- Option 7: Corps Wall Naturally the chance of selecting each of these options/strategies should change according to AI Level (Beginner/Intermediate/Expert) with only Option 1 being selected at Novice level and the other strategies added at higher levels of play. [ June 28, 2004, 11:18 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

HC included a screenshot of the AI Activation Script in this Thread: AI Activation Script Screen Shot PS: Its in the third post. [ June 28, 2004, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

What if: Event Turns a Spanish Port into an Axis Port. Then Axis ships can be repaired and refueled there. What if: A hex in Spain becomes Axis so Axis Air Fleets can fly in from Neighboring France? Axis would gain intelligence on movement of Allied ships within spotting range of the air unit based in Spain. [ June 27, 2004, 11:44 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

"You think the Allies didn't attempt to pressure the Benelux into alliance, for example?" What if they had succeeded? "Hitler tried his best to persuade both Turkey and Spain to join his war, but he failed to get them to even seriously negotiate about it." What if he had succeeded. As JerseyJohn pointed out his own emissary sabotaged negotions with Spain. What if someone else was the emissary? "During World War II, Felix was the proposed name for a German/Spanish seizure of Gibraltar. It was scheduled for 10 January 1941 but never executed. This plan was discussed at a meeting held between Franco and Hitler in late October, 1940, in Hitler’s railroad car at Hendaye. Hitler later said he would rather have three teeth extracted than to meet with Franco again. It is subject to historical debate if Franco overplayed his hand demanding too much from Hitler for Spanish entry into the war, or if he deliberately stymied the German dictator." "Spain altered its policy of neutrality following the lightning success of Germany's 1940 spring offensive. The German armies appeared invincible, and Franco was eager to assure Spain a voice in the postwar settlement. In June 1940, The Spanish government adopted a policy of nonbelligerency, which permitted German submarines to be provisioned in Spanish ports and German airplanes to use Spanish landing strips."

In SC1 the AI was focused on the War in Europe while the Naval AI was comparatively passive, I could sail carriers through the straits of Denmark to the Shores of Finland and did not worry at all about the Italian fleet hunting down my small UK fleet in the Easter Med or the Allied Fleet sailing into the Med to engage the Italian Fleet or the Italian Fleet bombarding the port of Gibraltar to zero so it could sail through to the Atlantic or the Italian fleet retreating from my much larger UK & French fleet to the safety of the Adriatic. In SC2 will the Naval AI be more active? [ June 28, 2004, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

A one turn pregame phase where each side can select one option from a limited number of options before the game officially starts: Allies - Encourage Polish Mobilization (thanks to Retributar) ------ Poland Starts with Extra 3 Corps, US War Readiness declines by 15% - Pressure Low Countries ------ Low Countries starts as Allied but Italian War Readiness increases by 10% - US and Japan Reach Understanding ------ Russian Siberian Transfer Off, US Receives increased Naval Forces; 2 Carriers, 2 Bombers, 2 Cruisers, McArthur HQ, when it enters the war. - Block Axis Choice X (For example - Block Axis Choice B, if Axis selects C this has no effect) - Allies Court Franco, UK Starts with zero MPPs but Spain is 20% Pro Allies, just waiting for a diplomatic chit or two to join the Allies. - French focuses military spending on a stronger army, France loses 3 warships, gains 3 Corps. Axis - Deploy Subs to the Atlantic ------ German Subs appear in randomly selected Atlantic Ocean Hexes - Turkey receives massive economic aid from Germany and allies with Germany, Italy miffed at not receiving same amount of aid as does Turkey. ------ Turkey Joins Axis, Italy remains neutral - Germany lauches massive economic aid plan for Spain and Spain Allies with Germany, Italy miffed at not receiving same amount of aid as does Spain. ------ Spain Joins Axis, Italy remains neutral - Germany Supports German Sympathizers in Iraq with Military Hardware. Iraq starts as Pro-Axis Ally so if UK attacks Iraq it does not penalize US war readiness. - Block Allied Choice X - Germany devotes more resources to Submarine arm, Starts with 2 more subs, 1 less air fleet. Germany's Campaign Against Poland [ June 27, 2004, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Retributer, many thanks for the new idea. I have just started a word document to compile all of these ideas so that I will be prepared to write some interesting and balanced scripts when SC2 ships. Off hand, building on your idea here are a few concepts; For Random Events regarding Poland: 1. Poland Mobilizes Early - Poland Gains 3 Corps but US Readiness Reduced by 15% as American press believes German propaganda portraying Poland as mobilizing a 1.3 Million man army for war against Germany. 2. Polish Concentrates Armored Units - Poland Gains Armor Unit and 1 Corps, Loses 2 Armies. 3. Polish Command Distributes AntiTank Weapons, Polish Units Gain Level 1 AntiTank. Anyway, I will have to research this issue more and many thanks for your links. Note: Ideally you could have a pregame phase where each side can select an option -see next post. ---------------------------------- [ June 27, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

True, but you can change that with the event editor. As for Switzerland, don't forget its large reserves and for many years the main mountain passes and tunnerls have been seeded with explosives. Now, back to the Game. 1. Ireland - I will ignore it because conquering it is minor in the grand scheme of things. The only change I would make is adding an event that has the IRA seize Dublin if it is not garrissoned. 2. Spain - Now Spain has a major effect on the game and any attack on Spain would have had a major effect in WWII. The question is what would it have been. The affect on USA readiness would have been minor because it was one facsist state attacking another. More importantly would have been the effect on the thoughts of the Turkish High Command. Would it have encouraged the Turks to ally with their historical enemies - the British and the Russians? 3. As for Sweden would it have really compromised their alliance with Finland? or did Finland view Sweden with suspicsion for not helping them to a greater extent in the Russo-Finish War? I do think that the Axis attacking Sweden would push Spain closer to the Allies and might have also affected Turkish thoughts on the war. [ June 26, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Active Neutrals Option Summary: The larger neutral nations; Sweden, Spain and Turkey, should have a chance to become active neutrals if they perceive a serious threat to their existance. This would give human players pause when thinking about attacking either of these nations as they would not be sure of the strength or the disposition of their forces. AI Controlled Active Neutrals can: - Move Units within their country - Entrench Units - Build new Corps (2 max) Example: 20% for Spain to become an Active Neutral if Vichy France AND Sweden are attacked by the Axis This causes: Spanish Units to Entrench Spain mobilizes a new corps on turn 4 and turn 8 AI deploys Spanish units to better defensive positions. 20% for Sweden to become an Active Neutral if Norway or Switzerland is Attacked by Axis Swedish Units can entrench Sweden builds a new corps in 4 turns Swedish AI moves units to better defensive positions around the Capital. Active Neutral Programming Changes 1. Choice Box - Active Neutral For each Nation 2. Build Limit Field - Maximum number of corps an active neutral can build 3. Scipts for activating Active Neutral 4. Deployment rules for new units - suggest hexes adjacent to capital city 5. Allow neutral units to entrench [ June 26, 2004, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

So you are saying that for the Alliesv (a democracy) there should be limits on what they attack, but not for the Axis ( a facist regime). Strategic Significance of Ireland - a. Base for Bombers to spot Germans subs in the Atlantic. b. Deny country to Axis spies and remants of IRA. c. Secure port further from Europe. Strageic Significance of Swizterland a. Gold b. Gold c. Gold A problem with Switzerland is that some Allied players invade Switzerland when attacking Germany and or Italy, of course though unrealistic it has no effect on the game as by this time the Allies have won. Germany considered attacking Switzerland but decided not to. You could recreate the value of Switzerland by having Spain, Sweden and Turkey move towards an Allied Alliance if the Axis Attacked Switzerland. Of course, it would require the use of a diplomatic chit to push them to a join the war on the side of the Allies. Strategic Significance of Sweden a. For Germany, Ability to supply/station troops in Northern Norway to interdict lend lease transports going to Russia - ie shorter supply lines. [ June 26, 2004, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

exploit.....Invading a small neutral ..... without any consequences is just that. I agree, I also seem to recall that the Allies invading Ireland or the Axis invading Sweden affects the readiness of other neutral countries. What you are saying is that the consequences for invading ireland (decrease in US war readiness and Unit trapped in country with no way to leave) should be more severe. Such as, invade Ireland and there's a chance that Norway will join the Axis or Invade Switzerland and their is a chance that Turkey joins the Allies. Am I correct? PS: I find SC to be a fun game, even with the above mentioned exploits available.