Edwin P.

James B. I agree with your points, for much the same reason that the Low Countries (Belgium and the Netherlands), the Baltic Countries (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) and San Marino are not shown as seperate countries.

EV - Great Concept To elaborate on it a bit more: Some Loss of Strength: My thoughts are - Armor Groups - about 90% loss of strength - Infantry - about 50% I would add; Can't embark from a non port square if adjacent to an enemy unit OR IF you embark while adjacent to an enemy unit your strength is reduced to 1.

Lars 1. Excellent Analysis 2. In my mind the Flyboys already have an HQ as the current HQ unit supports land and air units, but you and Desert Dave are probably right they will want their own. 3. I had thought that a naval HQ gives you an extra combat skill boost equal to another surface ship at a lower cost, along with a few bonuses - ie you can keep your ships at sea longer due to the readiness boost, an important factor in launching campaigns far from friendly ports and you have a chance to spot enemy subs without having to purchase expensive bomber units or wait for advances in long range. Roosevelt 45 This proposed Naval HQ would work like a normal HQ but only benefit Naval Units and perhaps as David Dave suggested "air fleets (... preferably with a good naval-bomber rating) within so many tiles of this HQ would have better Air to Sea combat and spotting abilities". It would be very vulnerable to ground attack but as its command range is infinite it would most likely always be stationed in their home country and relatively safe from attack. My guess is that if the idea is incorporated into SC that a build limit of 1 would be used for most countries and like Lars said only the UK or Germany would be likely to build one. (or the US and Japan in a Pacific Scenario) Grand Admiral Erich Raeder - FAVORED SURFACE WARFARE - NAVAL HQ RATING 6 Karl Doentiz - FAVORED SUBMARINE WARFARE - NAVAL HQ RATING 7 [ May 13, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Note: In SC2 you will be able to set the maxiumum level in each research area and also vary the cost. The cost of tech chits may be varied so that one chit in Jets costs 300 and a chit in Subs costs 200.

Rambo - I understand your point. I wish that we could assign individual leaders to Corps, Armies and Tank Groups. Imagine Patton leading an Army and giving it some special bonus - say a +1 AP so that the unit commanded by Patton can move one more hex than normal or assigning General Lucas to a Corps and finding that it has a -1 AP penalty assigned to its movement allowance, reflecting Lucus's tendency to move cautiously into battle. [ May 13, 2004, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I see Naval HQ units as a reflection of greater resources assigned to Naval Warfare, not merely Admirals. In my view it reflects more spending, better training, improved analysis of intelligence, better coordination of Naval resources and units so as to improve the ability of Naval Units to wage war. It increases the chance that good naval commanders will be promoted to command warships. In essence, I see a Naval HQ unit as representing a dedication of resources to building an improved Naval command structure which will benefit the war fighting capability of the units it commands. The Italians and Americans booth fielded Battleships. Which had the better naval commanders, the better intelligence and the better training programs, and the better record in naval battles. The USA did. Why? It had a superior naval command structure. This unit attempts to simulate that and thus provide a way to further differentiate naval Units of one country from another. And Intelligence (reflected in the Naval HQ Unit) helped to defeat the German Wolf Packs in WWII much as it defeated the Japanese at Midway: Effect of Ultra on the Battle for the North Atlantic and the Campaign in Africa [ May 13, 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In Summary: And Desert Dave replied: This unit might be built by a player expecting a vigorous Battle for the Atlantic. Of course, purchasing a Naval HQ unit means that you have not purchased a regular HQ unit which would benefit your land based units. I have modified the idea to allow the proposed Naval HQ's spotting ability to be modified by a player's Intelligence Tech level - to reflect increased resources devoted to gathering and evaluating intelligence regarding the movement of enemy fleets. An analysis of the spotting factor shows that this Naval HQ unit will allow you to spot about 1 in 20 (at tech level 0) to 1 in 10 (at tech level 5) enemy naval ships & transports each turn. Any comments as to whether this is a realistic reflection of the effects of naval intelligence? Should the spotting factor be increased, decreased, removed or kept as proposed? Although all major nations should be able to build a Naval HQ unit in the 1939 scenario my guess is that only the UK and Germany would be likely to. The UK as it would greatly benefit the combat capabilities of their large naval forces and Germany to aid in coordinating the actions of German wolf packs in the Atlantic. Another question arises as to what ratings should these naval HQ units be assigned? Russia 3 or 4 (Russo-Japanese War), Italian 4, UK 7, Germany 6 and USA 6. Any comments? And how should they benefit the units that they command? Perhaps a bonus to naval ship readiness equal to 3% x Naval HQ Rating? Thus a British HQ unit would give a 18% bonus to the readiness of ships that it commands, a small but not overwhelming bonus. Any thoughts? Another idea to consider is giving each player a choice of HQ units. Units of a Favored type would receive a readiness bonus of 3% x HQ Rating while units not of the favored type would receive a bonus equal to 1% x HQ Rating. Thus a German Naval HQ that favors Submarine Warfare would give a 18% readiness bonus to Subs and only a 6% bonus to Surface ships it commands. This would reflect the tendency of the naval command to favor certain types of combat in training, staffing and budgeting - Surface Warships, Submarines, or Carriers - above others. Any comments? Naval HQ Favored Type Choices by Country Germany - Submarines, Surface Ships UK - Surface Ships, Carriers (The UK navy did not have anyone championing submarine warfare) IT - Surface Ships USA - Surface Ships, Carriers (The US Navy was dominated by Battleship and Carrier Admirals) Russia - Surface Ships It would be an appropiate to include a Naval HQ unit in any player built Pacific War Scenario. The final question is - Would the Naval HQ unit as proposed improve the the game? Or is it simply not needed? [ May 12, 2004, 11:35 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

1. UK Naval Strategies 1a. Concentrate and Preserve Carrier Forces until ready to invade Frace. Attack to build experience only when the carriers are least likely to be attacked in return. - All Carriers move to north atlantic , shield carriers with other surface ships. - Carriers attack Ireland, and if Possible Bergan - Carriers stay out of range of Axis Air Fleets based in France - UK Researches Techs that benefit carriers - AI may build a fourth UK Carrier unit - Use Bomber to spot location of enemy air fleets - Use Carriers to hunt down subs while shielding them with surface ships. 2. Italian Knockout Goal is to knockout the Italian Navy and then quickly sail back to the British Isles to defeat any potential German Sea Lion Invasion [ May 12, 2004, 09:07 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Hit the print screen button and then paste it into Word (Word > Edit > Paste)

Good enough for me. I play SC for a fun game, and if its too predicatable - ie the AI will never make a surpise behind the lines landing - it loses some of its fun factor. Besides, I find my best games against human players are when they do something unpredictable - ie landing 5 corps behind my lines on the northern coast of Germany while at the same time landing in France. Something the AI never does, it will never invade North Western Germany via Sea, while landing at Brest. The narrow focus of its landings in Western Europe always allows the Human player to concentrate his forces. (Hint for HC). It would be nice if the AI had several invasion strategies to choose from. Also the AI needs to time its invasions better - ie wait for an American HQ to be built and it needs to withdraw its invasion forces if German resistance is overwhelming. [ May 12, 2004, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Any chance for friendly air units to limit spotting by enemy air units? I can see several ways to do this Option 1) Command Option: Air Cover - Air Units providing "air cover" can not attack or move or intercept. They prevent enemy air units from spotting friendly land units adjacent to the air unit. (enemy air units can spot your air unit but not what is adjacent to it) Option 2) Chance for spotting an enemy unit is reduced by 5% for each enemy air unit in range. If an air fleet wants to spot an unit in range of 5 enemy air units then it has only a 75% to do so. Option 3) Reduced chance for spotting enemy units according to range. [ May 11, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

6 Major Nations and 22 Minor Nations On Tech Upgrades: [ May 11, 2004, 03:17 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent idea - In the editor double the starting attack range of bombers but keep the spotting range the same or reduce it. Thus Bombers can be used against long distance targets, other than cities and mines, only if they have been spotted by other units. It also restricts the bombers to the role they historically played during WWII - not intelligence gathers - but bombers against previously identified targets. [ May 11, 2004, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Not Realistic? You threaten to land units behind enemy lines to force the enemy to guard his rear, cut his supply and/or weaken his front lines. If you can't threaten the enemies rear then your your opponent would not station troops there, I believe that is more un- realistic. You may seize a city in the rear in the hopes of holding it until reinforcements can arrive - Operation Market Garden. Of course if they don't arrive ..... During the Korean War the US landed troops behind enemy lines at Inchon. This caused the North Korean front lines to collapse. During WWII the Allies landed troops under the command of General Lucas behind enemy lines at Anzio in Italy. Eisenhower removed him for not advancing off the beach and seizing Rome, which was undefended at that time. [ May 11, 2004, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In 1942 US B-17F Bombers had an effective combat range of about 20 (1000 miles) tiles at the 50 miles per tile scale of Strategic Command2. </font>

I was trying to think of a way for the Allies to earn extra diplomacy chits without having to purchase them via the Yalta meeting. Of course, its not without risk, the Axis powers have a chance to intercept and destroy one of these political leader counters. Some of my ideas have legs and others, such as this one apparantly have none.

During WWII the leaders of the Free world- Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt met with great fanfare, and great risk. What if the game recreated this event? For example - Once during each game, iF the three leaders of the Major allied nations (one unit counter for each one) traveled to a specific place where these counters were adjacent to each other and each returned to their country then the Allies would receive a free Diplomatic Chit. IF the Axis powers managed to destroy one of these units then the Axis powers would receive a free diplomatic chit. Now the Allies have a choice, do we risk sending our leaders to meet with our allies or do we keep our leaders safe at home.

I suggested that at the Fall of Paris (for the Axis) and when the US enters the war (for the Allies) that the respective powers have the right to select an objective. These two windows would be the only time that the respective players could select an objective.. I also made these objectives somewhat difficult to achieve, especailly in light of the fact that the players at that point in time do not know the disposition of enemy forces.

I agree that SC2 is on too grand a scale for Andorra, Monaco, etc. As for the Yugoslav partisans their operations tied down a significant number of Axis troops and kept them from being deployed to the Eastern or Western fronts.

I propose that the Russian player have the option to move their capital for a cost of 600MPP. Thus if Moscow is surrounded the Russians can relocate their capital and resume building new units.

Often in a game against a human player I will land a corps to take an unguarded city behind enemy lines, once I even managed to take Rome. Of course the secret to doing this is to patiently wait until you believe that the enemies forces are occupied elsewhere, and you should not always use the same strategy otherwise your opponent will be waiting for you. If the AI could adopt a variant of this strategy it would make things really interesting. Currently the AI seems only to follow this strategy towards the Norwegian city of Bergan. Some tactics for the AI to consider: 1. Transport a russian corps to the shores of Romania and land it to take Bucharest in one turn. 2. Transport a UK corps to the shores of Northern africa and land it to seize an Italian city in one turn. 3. Transport a UK corps near the capital of Italy and land it to sieze the Rome in one turn. 4. Land a Corps on northeastern germany to sieze one of two German cities. Now the hard part for the AI will be timing and gathering intelligence to minimize the chance of sending a corps on a suicide mission. Before I land a corps near Bucharest I move my Russian warship near the coast to see if the city is empty and ungarded. Then I move in my corps. In Noth africa I will use a bomber or air fleet to see if an Italian city is ripe for plunder. The only city I can't do this for is Rome, but sometimes this gamble can turn a losing game around rather quickly. [ May 10, 2004, 02:16 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Major military operations are often assigned Names - such as TORCH (allied operation to conquer French Morroco and Algiers) - that reflect strategic goals. The success or failure of these operations can have diplomatic consequences. Operation TORCH Perhaps in SC2 allow players to select an objective. If the Player achieves the objective within a specified time frame then the player gains a free diplomatic chit, if they fail to achieve the objective then their opponent gains a diplomatic chit. Example 1: When France Falls the Axis player can select an operation called called Iraqi Oil or Sea Lion. If Iraqi Oil is selected and Iraq is conquered within 12 months the Axis gain a diplomatic chit, otherwise the Allies gain a diplomatic chit. If Axis decide not to select any operation they do not gain a diplomatic chit if the objective is obtained, nor do they lose one if they fail to achieve the objective. Example 2: When the US enters the war the Allies have the option to select one of three strategic objectives; Liberate French Algeria, Liberate Norway or Liberate Paris. If the Allies achieve the selected operation within 12 months they receive a diplomatic chit, otherwise the Axis gains a diplomatic chit. The results of this could be most interesting, especially if a pop-up announced the success or failure of the military operation to your opponent and the intelligence tech gave your opponent a chance to learn about your operation's objective. Allied Recap: Step 1: US Enters War Step 2: Operational Choice Option Appears on that Turn -- None (Default) -- Norway (Objective: Oslo) -- North Africa (Objective: Algiers) -- France (Objective: Paris) Step 3: Select Choice if any and assign Operational Name Step 4: IF Objective is Selected AND Objective is achieved in 12 months then Allies gain diplomatic chit, if not then Axis gains diplomatic chit. Axis Recap: 1. Paris Surrenders 2. Operational Choice Option appears on that Turn -- None (default) -- Iraqi Oil (Objective = Bagdad & Cairo) -- England (Objective = UK Surrenders) -- Moscow (Objective = Moscow) -- Stalingrad (Objective = Stalingrad) 3. Select and Name Objective 4. If Objective is selected and Achieved in 12 months then Axis receives diplomatic chit, otherwise Allies receive diplomatic chit. It should be noted that each objective is achievable within the time frame, but only if the player devotes substantial resources towards it. The benefit for acheiving an announced objective comes from the demonstration of success, the cost comes from the diplomatic and political costs associated with failing to achieve an announced objective. Regarding Intelligence - Perhaps have the name and the objective of the operation leak out on a date based on the relative strength of the Two sides intelligence Tech. For example - Normally the objective and code name leaks out in 12 months. An enemy with tech level 1 would learn of it in 10 months, tech level 2 would learn of it in 8 months, tech level 3 would learn of it in 6 months from the date when it was selected. [ May 10, 2004, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

The game engine only allows for 22 Minor Countries. What country would you eliminate to put in Croatia? The other option is to petition Hubert to increase the maximum number of minor countries to allow for Latvia, Estonia, Lithuanisa, Egypt, Morrocco, San Marino, Andorra (its between Spain and France) and Monaco (on the Southern coast of France). That's 30 countries, excluding Croatia and Luxemburg. Or more realistically; Personally, I would support the editor allowing for 30 minor countries, but the number in SC2 should be kept at 22 or increased to 23 if Egypt is added as a minor nation controlled/conquered by the UK. Having more minor nations would also allow for Morocco to become a French/Vichy controlled neutral nation, although one with no cities or just one city - Casablanca 4 hexes southwest - 190 miles - of Gibraltar or Oran (6 hexes southwest - 280 miles - of Gibraltar. on the Atlantic coast. (Suggested by Jersey John). Allied Invasion of French Morocco and Algeria - Operation Torch [ May 09, 2004, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

At this scale I don't think that you want to see a port every other hex. At a larger scale you might want to add these ports, in fact you could do an interesting scenario WWII game based on D-Day and liberating France which would show all of these ports, may I suggest the Old Avalon Hill D-Day Game with a great hex may and showing seven possible invasion areas, including those that you mentioned. That said, the ports at Breast and Antwerp simulate the major ports along the Northern French coast. [ May 08, 2004, 09:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In my opinion the Spotting range for Bombers should not increase at the 3:1 ratio as bombing missions were assigned specific targets and did not wander back and forth across the country side looking gathering intelligence. Thus at 3:1 the attack range of bombers at tech level 3 would increase by 9 hexes while the spotting range would increase by only 3 hexes. I believe that this more accurately reflects the effect of engineering advancements in WWII and further differentiates Bombers from normal Air Fleets. As for the Mustang, in the early part of the war the bombers range far exceeded that of the Fighters and they often hit their final target without fighter escort. In SC2 as LR increases the fighters can provide escort coverage at longer distances; however, the bomber will always have the advantage of a larger fuel tank and larger wingspan. [ May 08, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]