Edwin P.

Thanks for the Analysis in SC terms. I assume that the combat range of WWII Bombers was much longer - say 20 tiles (1000 miles); however, they would not have any spotting capability over this extended range as they were flying directly to a target and back.

Not quite, if you look at the Reports screen you can see how many Land units that Italy has. Now if that many units are spotted by your units in other areas of the map and you assume that three or four are in Yugoslavia and Albania you will know when Italy is undefended or is defended by only one or two corps and ripe for attack. (Human players rarely assign German units to Guard Italy) You can also use the reports screen to determine how well the UK is guarded by taking into account how many UK units you spotted elsewhere and to track how many allied units are in transports. In fact when playing a game as the Axis I keep a record of how many Allied Naval Units I have sunk to help me determine my naval strategy (as the Allies will never, almost never, build new warships). Total UK Ships Less Warships Remaining = Number of Transports at Sea. The key problem is that the AI does not analyze all available data and use that to influence what action to take. Drat - I just gave away two of my tricks for securing victory. :mad: However, no one will remember to use the reports screen in this manner or to track the number of ships sunk. [ May 27, 2004, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Now I understand it.

Here are a few pet peeves of mine regarding AI actions in SC1. - Malta: Axis AI moves 2 transports adjacent to an unoccupied Malta. Seeing this I move a transport so that it is adjacent to one of the AI transports (I lacked the AP to reach the port by 1 hex)and an Italian Battleship. What does the AI do? It retreats both transports and the Battleship back to Italy. What should it have done? Landed one tansport in Malta to capture the undefended island, retreated the other transport and blasted my transport with the Battleship. - UK: As the Allies I can withdraw all forces from the UK, Canada, and the USA knowing that the Axis will never invade until Russia is defeated. - Italy: As the Italians I can withdraw all forces from Italy and the Allies will never invade. - Egypt: UK can abandon Cairo and Italians will never invade Egypt. - French Corps in Beruit - AI will never move the French Corps in Beruit to Egypt so that it becomes Free French when France Surrenders. - Axis AI is threatened in France, Italy, Russia and Greece. Instead of concentrating overwhelming force in one area and staging a holding action in the other areas it spreads itself too thin trying to deal with all of the threats at the same time - including sending 2 armies, one armor and one air fleet to the mountains of Greece. I would much rather see the AI do what Humans do - Adopt a defensive posture in Russia, operate units and HQs West and crush the Allies in France, then Crush them in Italy before returning the units to the Eastern front. - Axis AI will allow large numbers of units to be surrounded and cut off in southern Russia. If a large Russian force is coming down from the south behind their lines it does not know to withdraw its units to safety - in a recent game I isolated and destroyed 4 HQ units, several German and several Italian Armies and Corps using this strategy. A human player would have withdrawn units from the front before they got surrounded or concentrated airpower to destroy the Russian pincer movement. And as Night says in his post below the Allied AI will fail to do the same to the Germans. - AI Does excellent job of attacking and destroying isolated units; however, when facing an enemy in a line it fails to concentrate air power in one area of the line. The result is that although the AI knocks a unit down to 2 or 3 the Human player reinforces it back to full strength on his turn. (NOTE: IN SC2 the Human player will not be able to do this as the maximum level of reinforcements is affected by the number of enemy units adjacent to yours). - AI does not concentrate Air Power to achieve objective. Example: Allies take Sicily and move in 2 air fleets for support. AI attacks with only 1 army or armor unit turn after turn when a concentrated strike force of 4 or 5 air units could decimate the sole land unit defending Sicily. Similary for when a single allied land unit holds Brest in France. The AI should concentrate its air power to eliminate this unit instead of allowing the allies to continually rotate in new units to hold the city and divert Axis forces from the Eastern front. - UK AI should, at least in some games, follow the tried and true strategy of sheltering their air force from attack in Canada and Northern England and wait to spring it upon the allies when the USA enters the war. Otherwise they lose a lot of MPPS just replacing their losses and have nothing to show for it. - IT AI does not know how to handle its Naval units. When it is outnumbered it goes out to fight and when it dominates the Med it stays close to port not hunting down the enemy. IDEA: IT AI should know how many Enemy Naval Ships (not transports) are in the MED. IF AI has 2:1 Advantage then it hunts them down (100% offensive strategy) by moving its naval units as if they were one massive fleet. IF AI has 1:2 disadvantage then its Navy seeks shelter in the Adriatic (100% defensive strategy) IDEA: IT AI Should build a sub if only that is needed to give it a 2:1 advantage in the Med. - IT AI does not use its sub to interdict allied merchant shipping in the Med, even when there are not allied ships in the Med. - IT AI does not use Air Units to spot location of Enemy units in the Med. - AI needs a better research strategy, except for the Italians which somehow seem to do quite well. - The Axis AI should know how many Allied ships have entered the Med as Axis spies were active in Spain, Egypt and Turkey, not to mention Greece, Cyprus, Malta, Beruit, Corsica and Algeria. This would maximize the ability of its fuzzy logic to adopt the correct strategy and tactics in the Med Theater of Operations. a. IF AXIS Naval Superiority >= 2:1 Then 100% switch to an Offensive Naval Strategy in the Med. b. IF AXIS Naval Superiority <= 1:2 Then 100% Switch to a Defensive Strategy in the Med. c. IF AXIS Naval Superiorty >= 1.5:1 Then A) Build More Naval Units or Build Naval Air Units or C) Adopt Defensive Strategy or d) Research Gun Laying Radar - Axis AI never makes serious effort to take Malta [ May 26, 2004, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

It delays it as much as attacking Ireland but you get more MPPS from attacking Norway on an ongoing basis (2 cities and 2 ports vs 1 city). Also, against the AI (but not against Humans!) it puts the Allies in a position to conquer Sweden, but they will need a HQ to do this. IT should be noted that this move is easily implemented against the AI but not easily used against a human player. You should only try it against a human player when their air fleets are too far south to engage your carriers and if you can block the Baltic Straits with a naval fleet, otherwise their fleets will sink/damage your transports. If you can't land an Army to either side of Oslo then this move should not be considered. Properly executed, you can usually take Norway in one or two turns. (Army attacks from either side of Oslo and Carrier attacks Corps = Corps Destroyed. [ May 26, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Sometimes, while the Axis player is focused on taking France the UK player might decide to take Norway, of course it has to be timed just right and you have to use the French Navy to screen your transports from attack by German naval forces and bring in your carriers to attack the unit at Oslo and then quickly withdraw them before the Axis can shift airpower north. If the Allies take Norway they 1) gain plunder, 2) gain increased production and 3) can make it really hard for the Axis to take Norway or Sweden. Yes Sweden, since while you are in control of Norway if the Axis attacks Stockholm and fails to conquer it in one turn you can operate in reinforcements. As for Norway, the Axis can still take it but it will take them an number of turns and UK naval forces will be able to sink many Axis transports while they are doing it. Without Sweden and Norway the Axis loses the production that they normally rely on to finance their war machine.

Ah yes, the Norway invasion. Properly executed upon an unsupecting Axis player it can give him a good case of heartburn.

Unit Strength - Already on the unit Action Points - Already implemented in SC1 (click on a unit and you see where it can go) Too much information on a unit makes for information overload or perhaps its just that I like the nice clean look of SC2 units.

Will the new rule requiring that transports land units at ports make it impossible to support an invasion? I ask this question because in a recent game my opponent bombed a port and my units could not evaucate to safety. So, if a port is bombed below 5 will reinforcements be able to land? If so, I can see a strategy of holding back bombers to attack ports and thus preventing reinforcements from landing. Of course, this brings up the counter strategy of building up air superiority in an area to protect the ports at the landing site. [ May 25, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

One thing that the Allied AI needs to do in the Med is to threaten two fronts at once to draw the Italian navy to one side while using amphibious transports to launch invasions from the side. In this respect, I think that the addition of amphibious transports to the unit mix will make it easier for the AI to lauch invasions against unguarded cities as the defender will not have a free turn in which to operate units in to defend it. Thus the AI can move a unit to the coast, land and take the city in one turn with an amphibious transport. The key is that the AI needs the intelligence to make a guess as to where the Italian naval units are to minimize the chance of a transport being sunk. It also needs to know how to scout out enemy cities to determine if they are ungaurded for an amphibious invasion. [ May 25, 2004, 01:06 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Simple Question - Will the Axis and Allied AI be more aggressive in the Med Theater of Operations as compared to SC1? [ May 24, 2004, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

EV, excellent concept. Here's another: USSR Mobilizes for War while Neutral = US War Readiness Decreases and Turkish Axis Alliance Increases (as Turkey feared Communist desire for access to the Mediterrean) and Spanish Axis Alliance Increases (As Franco feared Communists) Germany Mobilizes while USSR is Neutral = USSR can mobilize for war without affecting USA readiness or Turkish/Spanish Axis Alliance %

DOW = Declaration of War ETO = European Theater of Operations PTO = Pacific Therater of Operations AP = Action Points

Now, thats great news.

Not if it is a surprise attack. That in my opinion is the key. If Germany attacks Spain then the Corps in Portugal should start entrenched if Portugal is subseqently attacked;however, if Germany attacks Portugal first then the Portugese corps should not start entrenched as they would not be expecting an attack by Germany.

I agree, if the Japanese did not have to deal with the American Navy they would have been free to threaten Russia. However, as they were occupied fighting the Americans and the Chines the Russians felt free to send forces west to fight the Germans. It would be interesting if the US had a choice when it entered the war to adopt one of three strategies; 1. Historical Europe First - No Effect on Game 2. Japan First - US Production Reduced but Russian Siberian transfer activated earlier as Japanese divert more resources to fighting the Americans. 3. Peace with Japan (US Avoids Pearl Harbor by accepting Japanese Sphere of Influence in Asia) - US production for the ETO increases and US receives Pacific Naval Forces but Russia does not receive the Siberian Transfer as the Japanese army is not diverted to fight the Americans. [ May 24, 2004, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

If the AI's ability to launch Amphibious Invasions does not improve in SC2 will I be able to write a script that says: IF (Denmark Surrenders AND France Surrenders AND Norway is Neutral) THEN 70%(Norway Surrenders to Axis AND Axis Army Appears in Oslo AND Axis Corps Appears in Bergan) This would recreate the historical Germany Conquest of Norway and increase German income, thus making for a stronger game versus the AI. Also, if the Allies do not have any units in England and the AI does not know how to do a Sea Lion can I write a script that says: IF (Allied Forces in UK less 3 Units AND Russia is Neutral and France is Surrendered) Then 25% (3 German Armies Appear in Tile XX, XX, XX, XX and 1 German Army Appears in London) Now I know that its not exactly cricket, but such a chance will encourage a player to keep at least a minimal garrison in the United Kingdom when playing against the AI. Thirdly, can I write a script that does the following: When the US enters the war the US player can select one of three strategies; 1. Europe First - No Effect 2. Japan First - US Production Reduced Until Dec 1943 AND Siberian Transfer activated in 10 turns. 3. Peace with Japan - USA production increases AND Siberian Transfer Deactivated. [ May 24, 2004, 12:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Security Thread on SC2 with Comments by HC In my opinion, great game play and a powerful AI are more important than aiming to achieve a 100% secure system. Someone somewhere with enough time can break any secure system and post the instructions on a public bulletin board. What HC is planing doing will make cheating in SC2 harder and more time consuming project for the hacker. [ May 23, 2004, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I have just started launching early attacks against Russia (ie > Low Countries, Denmark, France > Norway > Russia AND Italy > Greece) - ie late 1940 when Russian readiness is below 50% and have found that there are no Russian units guarding the frontier. It makes for a most interesting game vs the AI. Note: In executing this strategy it helps to send 3 armor units swinging through the south and one through the north to sieze ungarded cities as the AI will often leave 1 or 2 or 3 cities unguarded as it gives preference towards building units closer to the front lines. Note: Don't advance too fast or you trigger the Siberian Transfer and that can be deadly as your force structure is much smaller than a normal game where you have conquered most of the neutral nations.

In SC2 (expected 4th quarter 2004) the Suez will be bi-directional for ships AND transports.

Its interesting to note in Kuniworth's chart that although UK production was double that of Italy that the number of men under arms in both countries was relatively equal until 1943. Its one of those items that makes it hard to model war economies as two countries with relatively equal GDPs may have vastly different numbers of men under arms due to differing cost structures and population resources. Much like China with a small GDP is able to field a large army by paying its soldiers much less than Western armies.

Thanks, most interesting.

Another option that achieves the same effect is to have all Russians HQ units start at Rating 4. This rating increases by 1 for every battle they are in until the HQ reaches its maximum rating. Thus a Russian HQ may enter the game with a 4 Rating and increase its Rating to a 6 or 7 as it gains more experience.

ETO = European Theater of Operations I agree that replayability and play balance rank higher than historical accuracy. This is a game of historical possibilities. What if you could change history? Would you have ordered a total mobilization of Germany's industry for war? What would the effects of this have been? Production increases by 50%, 100%? Any negative effects? The question is how to do this in a manner that maintains play balance. More important, in my opinion is the effect of oil on the Axis economies. I know that this is not in the game but it would be interesting if Axis access to oil had some effect on the game and if this could be mitigated by a Synfuels technology. It would also increase the strategic importance of controlling the oil resources in Romania, Iraq, and Southern Russia. For the allies it would increase the importance of controlling the Atlantic. Perhaps have each nation start the game with a Fuel Bank. The starting balance would reflect the stockpiles that each nation has at the start of the conflict. Thus the effects of oil will not be felt until later in the war. Each movement(and production?) of a naval, air, or armor unit uses 1 point of fuel. For Germany and Russia each controlled oil resource adds 10 points to the fuel bank each turn. With Synfuels tech each home country city generates an additional point of fuel per tech level each turn. Naturally the US would not have any fuel based limitations and the UK would receive 10 fuel points per turn via merchant shipping in addtion to generating one point per port and city. Of course, if adopted this should be an optional effect that can be toggled on or off. [ May 23, 2004, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]