Edwin P.

A good player always aligns his research priorities with his war strategy. The AI in SC does follow this policy. Sometimes the Russians will research Rockets but never build any rockets. The Axis will research subs but never build any subs. In SC2 the AI's war strategy and its Research strategy should be linked. If the AI has adopted a Battle for the Atlantic strategy it should produce subs and research advanced submarines. If the Axis AI is focused on a conquest of Russia strategy it should devote more resources to Anti-Tank, Infrastructure and Armor Techs, in addition to Air and Long-Range. In SC2 it appears that the maximum research areas and build limits for each major power can be set in the editor. Thus players can easily prohibit Russia for example from researching or building Rockets. One could also prohibit Italy from researching armor or building armor thus focusing its resources on the development of Anti-Tank weapons. It will be interesting to see if you can have the AI's research priorities change depending on which phase of the game the AI is in. For example. Italy during the start of the game might research gun laying radar or armor. In the end game when the allies are threatening invasion of Italy it might be restriced to researching anti-tank or air-defense. The AI should also adjust its research based on its existing units. If the AI has no surface ships and does not plan on building any why should it research gun laying radar? End Game - Axis Losing Triggers 1. France Liberated AND Russia occupies Warsaw or Bucharest OR Allies Occupy Salerno Italian Defensive Strategy -- Researh Limited to: Anti-Tank, Air Defense -- Research chits in other areas are reclaimed. -- Production Limited to: Corps, Army, Armor Another area is that the AI does not reclaim research chits in an emergency. For example, if the Axis have launched a Sea Lion and London has fallen the AI should probably reclaim all available Chits to fincance the production of units to protect Manchester. Allied AI Notes - Responding to the Axis Naval Strategy In SC2 the naval war will play a major part in the game and the US/Allied must have acces to routines that respond to threats in this area. There appear to be three ways to respond to a naval threat - 1) Build a Naval Force or 2) Build a Naval Air Fleet. A key element is deciding whether or not there is a naval threat and whether the AI will pursue a strategy that requires a strong navy - ie Med Invasion Strategy. [ May 08, 2004, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

This is especially true as the area to be covered increases geometrically as the radius of the circle increases. I am most interested to learn how HC plans to handle this. Me, I would favor a reduced chance of spotting as the range increases. One method is: Range 4 - 100%, 5 - 90%, 6 - 80%, 7 - 70%, 8 - 60%. Another method is to say that the chance of spotting at the Maximum spotting Range = 25%, Max Range minus 1 = 50%, Max Range minus 2 = 75%, Max Range minus 3 or less = 100%. Of course the chance for spotting subs should be reduced to reflect their lower profile. [ May 07, 2004, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Intelligence --- Improves chance of successful diplomatic outcomes --- Chance for intercepting airfleets to be prepared for enemy bombing attacks (20% per Tech level for a 25% bonus to readiness) ---- Chance to spot enemy units. Int Tech 1 = 1% per unit that it is spotted, Tech 2 = 3%, Tech 3 = 6%, Tech 4 = 10%, Tech 5 = 15%. ---- Reduces chance of being foold by decoy non-existant units. ---- Chance for increased information about the enemy. ........ Tech 2: Number of HQ Units Deployed Counter Intelligence - ie MisInformation --- Chance for enemy to spot units that are not present in a hex. For example CI Tech 1 = 20% that the enemy intelligence spots a unit that is non-existant. If the enemy moves adjacent to or attacks that unit it vanishes. CI Tech 2 = 20% that enemy intelligence spots 2 non-existant units. Just think of the armies of plywood tanks and empty tents that were deployed in England. --- Reduces chance of the enemy air fleets being prepared for bombing raids (see post abov) --- Reduces chance of successful enemy diplomatic outcomes --- Reduces chance of enemy spotting your units via intelligence. Although one could combine both of these techs into one, I like to idea of forcing players to choose how to allocate resources between gathering intelligence and counter intelligence. [ May 06, 2004, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Sometimes, the bombing raids of the Axis and Allied forces were compromised by intelligence leaks. In which case the enemy forces were alerted and awaiting the attackers. This effect could be recreated by building on the intelligence tech that will be included in the game. For example: For each level of intelligence tech there is a 20% that air fleets intercepting Bombers will receive a 25% boost to their readiness. A higher intelligence tech gives intercepting aircraft a greater chance of being able to suprise the attacking bombers. Of course, it only benefits city and resource hexes that are protected by an air fleet. Of course, I also think that there should be a counter intelligence tech that would negate any enemy advantage in intelligence. [ May 06, 2004, 10:35 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In WWII the attack range of Long Ranger Bomber Groups was much larger than that of fighter aircraft. In SC2 I would like to see Long-Range Tech give a 3:1 advantage in attack range to bombers vs air fleets. Thus at Tech Level 3 LR the Attack Range (not the spotting range !) of bombers would increase by 9 hexes, whereas the range of Air Fleets would increase by only 3 hexes. This would allow players to recreate the long range daylight bombing attacks of the US Air Force. [ May 06, 2004, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Variable tile sizes seems to be the way to go as you can't change the underlying system this late in the process (and I like sea tiles better than abstract sea zones, just a personal preference). The key issue here is spotting in the Mid Atlantic. I would suggest that ships have a chance to move past enemy ships without engaging them in combat or even being aware that they exist. Naturally this chance would increase for subs and be even greater for subs running silent. Say; 100% to spot naval units in coastal sea hexes and the Med and 80% to spot and engage units in the Mid Atlantic and 50% to spot and engage subs in the Mid Atlantic if they are running silent.

It also forces the enemy to garrision cites that are just behind the front lines, otherwise a para could drop in and rob your frontline units of supply.

I don't think that the difference between Flak and the Air Defense rating is large enough to warrant creating another combat rating similar to AD (especially if each Flak point = 1/10 of an AD point). Perhaps someone could explain the difference to me as I do not understand it. I suggested a high cost of AD, about 200MPP, to force players to make a choice. You can't protect every city and resource hex equally. You have to make choices. The ability to purchase an extra point of AD also allows players to increase the air defense of important cities using their current technology, if they are will to invest the resources. [ May 06, 2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I think that a player should be able to purchase an extra AD point (limit of 1 per city) for an individual city for say 200MPPs. This would stack with the existing AD rating for a city. Then players would have a choice do I research increased Anti Air which benefits all cities and/or do I purchase increased air defense for individual cities. With this the Brits could immediately purchase an extra AD point for London and not risk having to wait several turns for tech advancement in Anti-Air. It would also allow the Russians to increase the AD of key cities to a limited degree.

Several posts mention that SC2 incudes paratroopers. Can someone explain what this unit can do in SC2?

The game engine limits you to to six major countries and 22 minor countries. Within this restriction the editor allows you to name the countries what you want and adjust their borders. If you divide the Baltic States into 3 countries then you have to remove 2 countries elsewhere. Which two countries are more important to game play - Norway and Sweden, Bulgaria and Hungary, or Estonia and Latvia? Given the restriction of 22 minor countries I think that the designer has made the right choice. The only way to avoid this trade-off would be for the designer to increase the maximum number of minor countries. Perhaps to 30, a nice round number that is divisable by 2, 3,5, 6, 10 and 15. [ May 06, 2004, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Who is going to cheat over a $25 game? Only a dork. For me its a non-issue. And if someone does it just makes me a better player and them the lowest of the low.

[ May 05, 2004, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

What should be the criteria for the AI to consider a Sea Lion invasion of the British Isles? When do humans players decide to attempt a Sea Lion? IF Less than 3 Allied Naval Ships in the North Atlantic AND Less than 3 Ground Units in the UK AND ?

I thought about having the capital of England move from Manchester to Canada if Manchester and London fall to the Axis. Thus the UK can continue to produce units and their navy is not disbanded. The problem with this is that 1) anyt UK troops in Great Britain will continue to fight and 2) it unfairly deprives the Axis of the plunder that they will need to push back the Russian hordes. Which is the better option; scripting an event to have Canada become a Minor US Ally or scripting an Event to move the Capital of the UK to Canada? Any comments? [ May 05, 2004, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent point, especially for Sweden, Spain and Turkey which have several resource hexes (Sweden - 1 City, 1 Port, 2 Mines; Spain - 3 Cities and 1 Mine, Turkey - 3 Cities, 1 Port) [ May 04, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I am not sure about how diplomacy chits will operate in SC2, but it seems to me that if the Axis attacks Switzerland or Sweden the Allies should probably get a free diplomacy chit. If the Allies attack the Low Countries or Ireland then the Axis should get a free diplomact chit. Any thoughts?

I agree, at this scale I don't see retreat as a required feature. I would much rather see time spent on fine tuning features with more strategic impact, such as operational movement, or improving the AI. (in a fast game tonight vs the AI I launched a sea lion and the UK Air Units bombed the empty hex of Brest instead of my transports off the coast of London) [ May 04, 2004, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

There goes the cookie cutter conquest of Greece and that city on the Eastern coast of Spain.

Ev, Excellent Ideas. As for fortress properties, it should definately give a strong bonsus to Air Defense as the gravity bombs used in WWII were not accurate and troops in fortresses/pillboxes were well protected against air attacks.

They would be an excellent option for a game at a smaller scale, say 5 or 10 miles to the Tile. The key would be allowing the river crossing costs to be edited in the editor along with the the effect of bridges and rivers.

I was thinking that the expense should force players to make a choice - one combat ready airfleet or 2 Recon Air Fleets. You could reduce it to say 175 or 150MPP and still get the same effect. One also does not want to see these recon air units poping up everywhere and thus serverly curtailing the FOW that makes this game so enjoyable. In fact, one may even want to limit this unit to the AI in some games. As with all suggestions the final cost should be left for play testing. The key is that this unit is not a combat unit, its an intelligence unit. The Italians might use it to watch over the Med while the allies might assign one to Iceland. [ May 02, 2004, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Air Recon Fleet Purpose: Spot enemy land and naval units. Summary: This unit would allow either side to deploy limited number of reduced strength air fleets for the purpose of scouting out enemy positions. Properties: Cost: 200MPP Cannot Intercept Max Strength: 3 (Increases by 1 for every level in jet tech) Spotting Range: 4 (Increases by 1 for every level in long range) Attack Range: 2 [ May 02, 2004, 02:42 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

WEGO would make each turn take longer - I go, then I wait for my opponent, then I go, then I wait for my opponent, do this 60+ times per turn and it can make each turn really long. If you had fewer units on the map then I could see it being feasible, otherwise you would need a timer that gave each player 5 to 10 seconds to make their move. [ May 02, 2004, 02:29 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Also, can these be interactive events that give the player a choice? Example: The Spanish ambassador has asked the British Government for arms and equipment. Should we 1. Honor his request (Spend 75MPP and Neutral Spain gets an extra Corps) or 2. Diplomatically decline their request. Example: The Government of Australia has mobilized an Corps to aid the commonwealth. To which front should this unit be sent. Should we 1. Send it to Egypt (Corps appears in Egypt on Turn +2) or 2. Should we send it to England (Corps appears in the South Atlantic on Turn +5) Example Sir, we have recovered a [German][Naval] code machine. (Player can spot all German Naval units for 1 turn). Items in brackets can be determined randomly; ie [German][italian][Russian], etc or [Air][Naval][Ground] Additionaly, can events be assigned a percentage chance of occuring so that you don't have the same event occuring in every game? Example: France Surrenders, 20% Turkey Annexes Beruit and Syria - "The Government of Turkey announced that its army has assumed control of Lebanon and Syria to restore the rule of law in the wake of the surrender of the French Government in Paris." [ May 04, 2004, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]