Edwin P.

I'm in, can play PBEM or TCIP

Of course, adding a heavy tank unit complicates the AI as it must have routines for dealing with and using these units. Perhaps the strength/movement of these units should be greatly reduced (ie reduced more than normal) if they are not controlled by a HQ unit. For example - a heavy tank unit not supported by a HQ unit has its movement reduced by 1 from 3 to 2. This reflects the heavy dependence of these units on adequate fuel supplies and limits their use to areas where they can be adequately supplied. [ April 03, 2004, 03:07 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I am hoping that in SC2 that Germany can decide (at the start of Turn 1) which major European pro-axis power will join the Axis (instead of Italy); 1. Italy - the strongest possible ally for Germany and the historical one. 2. Spain (lead by Franco's Fascist government) - You gain access to Gibraltar but its production is less than Italy's and it has no naval units to speak of. Selecting Spain makes any invasion of Egypt or Iraq almost impossible. 3. Turkey (still smarting over the loss of territory after WWI)- interesting option that opens up Southern Russia & Iraq to invasion but it is isolated from Germany until the Axis minors join and lacks Italy's industrial production and strong navy. I know that Spain and Turkey did not join the Axis, but in a game of What-Ifs it would be most interesting to see what would have happened if Germany had devoted its diplomatic muscle to drawing one of those two into an alliance instead of Italy. [ April 03, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn Thanks, I tried to do it in a way that stayed within the current game system. The biggest issue with Heavy tanks is that small arms fire and attacks from lighter tanks just bounced off their armor. I saw on the history channel a short piece where one Tiger Tank destroyed about 20+ enemy tanks in a single engagement before it was disabled The problem was that the Allied light tanks had guns that were too light to penetrate its armor, and that the infantry weapons were not effective against it either.

A reminder of ideas long past for SC2

An elaboration on this idea Standard Tank Group SA (soft attack) - 4 TA (tank attack) - 5 AD (air defense) - 3 SD (soft defense) - 4 TD (tank defense) - 5 AP (action points) - 5 MPP Base Cost = 325 Heavy Tank Group - Requires Armor Tech Level 1 to build SA (soft attack) - 4 TA (tank attack) - 7, really big guns AD (air defense) - 4, thicker armor = better air defense SD (soft defense) - 5 TD (tank defense) - 7, thicker armor AP (action points) - 3, much slower MPP Base Cost = 500 [ April 03, 2004, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent analysis.

A modification to include Sweden: "If Axis Attacks Spain or Sweden or Switzerland or Portugal there is a 10% cumulative chance when each is attacked that Turkey will join the Allies during a random turn after Germany DOW Russia. 10% if one is attacked, 20% if two are attacked, 30% if three are attacked and 40% if all four are attacked." Thus one check is made when the first country is attacked (at 10%) and when the 2nd country is attacked another check is made (at 20%)... ------------------------------------------- As for partisans in Spain I see them as doing two things 1. Forcing the Axis to station Corps in Spain to maintain control and 2. Providing the allies with intelligence on the strength of the Axis forces in Iberia. I also see the partisans in Spain being more active due to the rugged terrain in Northern Spain which would be more conductive to partisan operations and Spains long histroy of guerrilla warfare dating back to the time of Rome. --------------------------------------------- The random nature of Turkey's entry into the war means that the Axis can't plan operations with certain knowledge of what Turkey will do. Has Turkey decided to join the allies? Will they do so early in the war or late in the war when Axis forces are deep into Russia? Do I need to guard the border with Turkey or not? --------------------------------------------- [ April 02, 2004, 07:30 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In SC attacking Spain does prevent the Axis minors; Hungard, Bulgaria and Romania from joining the Axis. I like your idea that their should be Spanish partisans if Germany attacks Spain. I also agree that Turkey tried very hard to remain neutral during WWII and in most cases under my proposal Turkey will remain neutral even if the Axis attacks Spain; however, in some games an Axis conquest of Spain may cause them join the Allies thinking that they are next on the Axis hit list. I believe that this element will prevent the game from becoming one where the players can expect the same results from every action they take and adds a bit of diplomacy to the game. The more pure neutrals (Spain, Portugal, Switzerland) that Germany attacks the more likely that the Government of Turkey will become worried about being next on the Axis hit list. Attack only one of these and Turkey will likely (90%) remain neutral, attack all three and Turkey may (30%), but will probably not (70%), decide to join the Allies at some later point in the game. In war and politics nothing is predicatable. Here in the US Howard Dean a front runner for the Democratic nomination ended the race with barely a delegate. When the US asked Turkey to support its effort in the war with Iraq it gained the support of Turkey's president but lost the vote in the Turkey's parliment, by a nose. If just a few votes had gone the other way Turkey would have allowed US forces to Attack Northern Iraq. Similarly, this game should reflect the historically possible alternatives/ what ifs. Who knows that the leadership of Turkey would have done if it saw Germany attack Spain, Portugal, Switzerland and Sweden. They might have clung to a hope of remaining neutral or they might have decided to support the allies or they might have joined the Axis ( I left out the last option as it would unbalance the game). What would you do if you saw a nation attacking every neutral nation in sight, even nations that it had provided military aid to in the recent past (ie Spanish Civil War). Would you hope to remain neutral or would you secretly plan for war or adopt the maxim that the enemy of my enemy is my friend? [ April 02, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

In many games the Axis player will attempt to conquer every nation except for Turkey. Here's a way to make him think twice about that option; IF Axis Attacks Spain or Switzerland or Portugal there is a 10% cumulative chance that Turkey will join the Allies during a random turn after Germany DOW Russia. 10% if one is attacked, 20% if two are attacked and 30% if all three are attacked. If Turkey does decide to join the Allies there is a 4% chance per turn (1 in 25 turns) it will occur (but only after Germany DOW Russia) increasing to 10% per Turn (1 in 10 turns) if a US Unit occupies an Axis controlled City. Thus the chance of Turkey entering the war greatly increases after the US lands troops in Europe. Turkey will not join if Russia has surrendered. In addition if the Axis takes Cairo after attacking Spain or Portugual there is a 25% that Turkey will annex a neutral Iraq, thus depriving the Axis war machine of plunder and oil. Imagine the face of the Axis war machine to learn that upon taking Cairo the Turks have foiled their plans to conquer Iraq and attack Russia from the south. Naturally these events will not happen all the time, but their occurance should be enough to prevent an over-reliance on the cookie-cutter conquer the world strategy that many Axis players follow. In so doing it will make for a more balanced and interesting game for both the allied and axis players. [ April 02, 2004, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Shaka of Carthage I would allow the Allied player a choice in how to allocate it. Example: Option 1: 100% UK, 0% USSR Option 2: 70% UK, 30% USSR Option 3: 50% UK, 50% USSR Option 4: 30% UK, 70% USSR Option 5: 0% UK, 100% USSR Of course this option could make the war for the Atlantic more important for the Axis as the Allies might decide to devote all Lend Lease resources to Russia (most historically unlikely), of course this would severely weaken the UK while strengthing Russia.

Perhaps a Corps or an Army that cost 2x normal price to compensate for the superior combat effectiveness/readiness of the unit.

Attaching Leaders to specific Units. I like that. Especially if the leader gave the unit a specific bonus and/or penalty. For example: Patton: +1 Action Point (ie move 1 more hex) Lucas: +1 SD (Soft Defense) & -1 Action Point (move 1 less hex) (A cautious general who commanded the invasion at Anzio) As for a special corps I would say allow each major power to field one, and only one, Elite Unit which would have a +25% readiness bonus due to superior equipment and supplies.

I agree, let me call it the - US Ignores the Pacific until Germany is Defeated Option

As Les said research is unpredictable and in the real world not all research projects have the same priority or the same caliber of staff assigned to them. Perhaps each major country should receive a research bonus in specific areas based on the fields where they were strong. For example: Germany has a gains a +2% Research Bonus if Germany decides to fund Rocket Research or Subs. The US gains a +2% Bonus to researching Bombers and Industrial Tech The United Kingdom has a +2% Bonus to Anti-Air Defense and Gun Laying-Radar. Russian engineers give Russia a +2% Bonus to Industrial Tech and Rockets. Thus a 1 Chit German investment in Jets has a 5% of discovery whereas a 1 Chit German investment in Subs has a 7% chance to gain a tech level. As long as this bonus is not given for Jets, Long Range, AntiTank, or Armor I believe that it could go a long way towards making for a more balanced game with a wider use of available technology research paths. One could even have the bonus assigned randomly each game to 2 tech areas for each nation, so long as it excluded the four key tech areas (Jets, LR, Anti-Tank and Armor). Another option is to have a chance for a random Tech related event, say 1% per turn (ie 1 per game) that would give a player an advance in a random area (excluding Jets or LongRange) where they have not invested any research funding. [ April 01, 2004, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

This post has gone really off topic, so I will offer a few comments; 1. I recall how well the US Army treated the American Indians, who they regarded as inferior. 2. I wonder if the rapid development of Japanese society and the Japanese culture impacted their view of prisoners and death. 3. Some might say that the Japanese fought according to their culture at that point in time and that they delt with their enemies as the US Army dealt with American Indians in its war to tame the west and as some Chinese Warlords (who would raze entire villages slaying every man, woman and child) dealt with opponents to their rule. 4. Fighting a war in Asia in the 1900s was not like fighting a war in Europe. They (China and Japan) waged war in a manner which many in the West considered barbaric. 5. One might also consider how the French fought against the FLN in Algeria and whether the tactics used in that war by both sides were similar to the tactics used by the Japanese. [ April 01, 2004, 01:42 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Neutral USA I would like to see a Neutral USA able to allocate lend lease support between the UK and USSR: Option1: UK 50 MPP, USSR 0 Option2: UK 25 MPP, USSR 25 Option3: UK 0 MPP, USSR 50 Of course, the USSR option would not be available until the USSR enters the war and only if Germany does not control Norway, Sweden and Finland. Active USA I would like to see an option where upon the entry of the US into the War the Allied player can influence the timing of the Siberian transfer by selecting the American Strategy for fighting WWII: Example: US Selects one of 3 American strategies upon entering the War: 1. Europe First - No change to Siberian Transfer. 2. Peace with Japan - No Siberian Transfer, US Production Doubles -- With the US abandoning the Pacific to the Japanese the Russian forces must remain in Siberia to deter any Japanese invasion of Eastern Russia. Meanwhile the strength of US forces aimed for Europe grow rapidly unburdened by the need to wage war against the Japanese. 3. Japan First - US Production reduced by 50% for 1 year, Early Siberian Transfer. ---Russian commanders feel confident in summoning their forces from Siberia as Japanese forces struggle to hold back the American onslaught. The strength of US forces available for aiding its European Allies is limited for a time as the Americans focus on defeating Japan before turning their attention to Europe. Active USA - A Bit of Chrome If USA entry into the war is Dec 7,1941 or later I would like to see it announced by a pop-up box that declares Neutral USA The USA should not enter the war as long as the the Allies control France and England and Spain & Turkey are Neutral. [ March 31, 2004, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Les, I like the concept of the UK and the US being able to share technology for a price. I also think that while Germany would not share its tech advances with Italy that it might simply take any advances that Italy developed, however, I do not recommend this for obvious Game balance reasons. As for what price should integrating this shared technology cost? About 250MPP per tech level gained? Thus for the US to increase its Jets Level 1 to match UK Jets Tech Level Three would cost the US 500MPP. Is this balanced or not?

I would like to see an option where upon the entry of the US into the War the Allied player can influence the timing of the Siberian transfer by selecting the American Strategy for fighting WWII: Example: US Selects one of 3 American strategies upon entering the War: 1. Europe First - No change to Siberian Transfer. 2. Peace with Japan - No Siberian Transfer :mad: , US Production Doubles -- With the US abandoning the Pacific to the Japanese the Russian forces must remain in Siberia to deter any Japanese invasion of Eastern Russia. Meanwhile the strength of US forces aimed for Europe grow rapidly. 3. Japan First - US Production reduced by 50% for 1 year, Early Siberian Transfer . ---Russian commanders feel confident in summoning their forces from Siberia as Japanese forces struggle to hold back the American onslaught. The strength of US forces available for aiding its European Allies is limited as the Americans focus on defeating Japan before turning their attention to Europe. [ March 31, 2004, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I agree. After Japan surrenders the US production should increase (ie double) and they should receive reinforcements - say 3 Carriers Groups along with 1 battleship fleet, 3 cruiser fleets and 2 subs fleets. This would give the US an incentive to keep on fighting even if Russia has fallen to the Axis and make for some exciting naval battles during the End Game.

I would like to see Les's idea expanded to include randomly Tech Developments becoming available "ONLY" if a player decides to commercialize the idea. For example - While researching Advanced Subs the player discovers (say 1% per turn) a new Tech that would increase the readiness of Subs by 10% if an addtional 75MPP were invested in this area. Now the player has a choice - invest the 75MPP and immediately get the 10% readiness bonus to all subs or forgoe the extra investment.

Les, sorry about that

Les I agree with your points but would suggest suggest that research in one area should have the chance of giving an advance in a "related area" noit any field For example - Researching Jets might give you an advance in Long Range or Rockets instead of Jets. You could not get an advance in Sonar by researching Jets. Research in Armor might give you an advance in Anti-Tank but not Jets or Long Range Bombers. Researching Advanced Sonar might give you an advance in Air Defense or Radar Guided Guns but not Armor or Anti-Tank. [ March 30, 2004, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

This is new and most interesting.