Edwin P.

There are 32 posts in the Strategic Command Beta Forum.

SC2 is now in Beta and I patiently (or impatiently) await to see the improved version of SC. One of the unique features I really like about SC1 is how a players actions impacts the war readiness of other countries and their willingness to enter the war on one side or the other. I would like to see SC2 expand on this allowing for the "option" of historically possible actions by nations that would change the strategic game while maintaining game balance. What do I mean by this? Example - What if the Baltic States, Sweden, and Norway have a chance to sign a Defense agreement after Germany attacks Poland. Attacking any one of them would mean attacking all of them. This option greatly changes the war for both sides. Example - What if the US had the option to select a Japan first strategy when it enters the war. Fewer resources would be available to the US player in the early years (until Japan was defeated) but the Russian Siberian transfer would occur earlier. Example - What if the US could choose an abandon the Pacific strategy. US production increases but the Russian Siberian transfer does not occur. Example - What if Germany could select a Turkish Alliance before Italy enters the war. Turkey joins the Axis but Italy remains neutral. Another player choice that totally changes the game. (Try it out by setting Turkey Joined Axis in the game editor and Italy to Neutral in the Game Options screen - Germany has a much harder time taking Vichy France, Spain and Egypt - at the same time with Italy neutral the British Navy controls the Med. and can block German transports) German Strategy Selection - Choice box after Poland Surrenders. 1. Italian Alliance - Historical Strategy, Italy joins Axis normally. 2. Turkish Alliance - Italy remains Neutral, Turkey joins Axis instead of Italy. US Strategy Selection - Choice Box When US Prepares for War 1. Europe First - Historical Strategy, Standard Game 2. Japan First - US Production reduced until Japan surrenders (late 1943+), Early Siberian Transfer 3. Abandon the Pacific - US Production increases, No Siberian Transfer [ February 22, 2004, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

There is activity in the SC Beta Forum

Liam: Thanks, The only time I really use subs against a human player is if the allies allowed the German air to destroy half of the UK Navy and The Italian navy can break out into the Atlantic, or I launch a successful Sea Lion. It will be interesting to hear what Shaka of Carthage has to say about this idea as I know he favors more abstract level of submarine combat for the Atlanitc - but for me moving ships and searching for the enemy is more fun. Your observations on tech is right on, if the allies develop their sonar tech and use bombers as spotted the Axis subs ability to hide is greatly reduced, especially if the bombers are based in Ireland and Canada. [ February 21, 2004, 03:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I can think of 3 ways to improve Subs within the current design of SC: Map Design 1. There is no way for subs to reach the Atlantic. However this could be solved by a proposal raised by JerseyJohn that has a transit hex from off of Brest going around Iceland to a random hex in the north Atlantic and by allowing subs to run snorkled past the UK (with a reduced chance for spotting). 2. The Atlantic needs to be bigger and extended further north to allow for Allied air bases in Iceland and Greenland. Submarine Tactics 3. Spotting of subs should be harder. Unlike a ship that has 80% of its mass visible, a sub will have only 5% of its surface area visiable. Say that a sub is spotted only 50% of the time if a ship or air unit is in range. This increases by 10% with each level of Sub Tech and decreases with each level of enemy Sonar Tech. Thus an enemy naval unit can move past a submarine unit without spotting it. Submarines should a mode that will allows them to attack/or not enemy naval units that pass through adjacent hexes without spotting the sub unit. Example: Mode1: Avoid Contact - +30% Chance to remain hidden from enemy units (50% Base + 30% = 80%), Action Points -1 (moves 1 less hex). Does not attack merchant ships or passing enemy ships. Enemy ships can pass through the subs hex withoout being attacked (if an enemy ship stops movement in the subs hex witout spotting it the sub is displaced 1 hex). Mode2: Attack Merchant Ships. +0% to remain hidden (ie 50% base chance), Attacks merchant ships but not capital that pass through adjacent hexes. Mode3: Attack. Attacks merchant ships and ships that enter adjacent hexes. More Submarine Targets 4. There, as was suggested, should be MPP to the Allies penalties for axis subs lying off American ports. 5. Selectable merchant ship routes and more routes carrying MPPS to the UK - ie Brazil/South Africa to the UK, and Allied players should be able to select the merchant route that he wants to link to the US. - Route 1: North Atlantic - goes further north - Route 2: Current Route - Route 3: Mid Atlantic 6. Selectable tactics for Merchant ships- ie Convoys or Single Ships. With each method having its own advantages and disadvantages. - Single Ships - UK receives MPPs every turn. Attacking subs can not be spotted. Subs do more damage to Merchant Ships. - Convoys - UK receives MPPs every other turn. Location of subs attacking the convoy may be spotted. Allied know approximately where along the route the merchant ships were attacked. Costs the UK 5MPPs due to cost of escorting destroyers. Early in the war the UK might decide to use the Single Ship strategy for merchant shipping. Later as Germany builds a sub fleet it might change to convoy shipping. Once the Atlantic is cleared of Axis Subs the UK might change back to single ship merchant shipping. [ February 21, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I was trying to say that it would be interesting if your opponent had the chance to read some of your conversations - say once every 10 turns.

Yes it would be thrillling, just hope that your opponent can't see some of your conversations with your ally (due to superior military intelligence).

Add to the list: 10. Surface Warfare Training Fanatic - 10% combat readiness bonus to Battleships and Cruisers. Battleships and Cruisers cost 5% More. 11. Submarine Warfare Training Fanatic - 20% Diving Bonus to Submarines. Submarines cost 10% more due to increased expenditures on crew training. 12. Ship Armor Fanatic - +1 Naval Defense for Battleships and Cruisers, -1 Action Point (ie movement range is reduced by 1) for Battleships and Cruisers Such a list of 12+ choices for a Nation's Chief of the Navy adds variety to the standard 1939/1940 scenario without additional complexity. The default option would be an Admiral with no prefences and a player could easily go to the Military Commanders screen to select an Admiral that will change the costs and/or statistics of his nation's naval units. They could change Admirals at any time for a cost of 250MPP (reflecting the cost of retooling navy yards or implementing new training systems) As JerseyJohn suggested a similar list of Generals could be created for the Army and Air Forces that could be accessed from the same screen. [ February 19, 2004, 10:46 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Dear JerseyJohn, I like your analysis and my concept was perhaps too much guided by SC1 and not the new units characteristics in SC2 (HC alluded to more country specific units for SC2 in an earlier post). Your expansion of this idea to the Air and Army is great. For it allows players to experiment with different military philisophies without requiring a constant return to the editor. Then I could see on one screen three columns with one for the Army, Navy and Air Commanders for each country. Just changing these selections (portraits) would change the game by altering the cost and or abilities of specific unit types. It would also provide a limited amount of intelligence on your strategies to your opponent. Example (per JerseyJohn): Country - Army - Navy - Air US - General Marshall, Admiral King, Hap Arnold Germany - Guderian, Milch, Goring Etc.... Many thanks for your comments. Now awaiting a hint from HC on his view. [ February 18, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I might be in the minority, but I like moving those ship and sub units around the map and engaging in those rare but gigantic sea battles that occassionaly occur. [ February 18, 2004, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

JerseyJohn, Waiting to read your analysis. And I amended my idea to include: In summary; a system to allow players to alter the cost of production for Naval Units by adopting different production strategies [ February 18, 2004, 05:04 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Here's the correct link; Correct Link And thanks for the article JerseyJohn, it was interesting rereading that ancient post. At a "simpler" level I would like to see each nation being able to select an Admiral with a preferred strategy for naval warfare / production ; 1. Control the Seas Proponent - 10% reduction in the cost of Battleships and Cruisers and a 10% increase in the cost of Carriers 2. Submarine Warfare Proponent - 10% reduction in the cost of subs and a 10% increase in the cost of Battleships and Cruisers 3. Naval Air Proponent - 10% reduction in the cost of Carriers and a 10% increase in the cost of Battleships and Cruisers 4. Merchant Marine Proponent - +1 Naval Defense for Transports and lower cost of transporting units and a 10% higher cost for Subs. 5. Shore Bombardment Fanatic - 20% Decrease in cost of Battleships, 10% increase in cost of Cruisers, Carriers and Subs and Transports. 6. Submarine Warfare Fanatic - 20% decrease in cost of Subs, 10% increase in cost of Battleships, Cruisers, and Carriers and Transports. 7. Air Warfare Fanatic - 20% decrease in the cost of Carriers, 10% increase in the cost of Battleships, Cruisers and Subs and Transports. 8. Cruiser Fanatic - 20% decrease in the cost of cruisers, 10% increase in the cost of Battleships, Carriers and Subs and Transports. 9. Bureaucrat - No Preference Naturally once selected you should only be able to change your Admiral in Chief by paying 250 MPP to retool your production yards. [ February 18, 2004, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

To start, I usually take Ireland with 1 Corps after bombarding it with my carriers and Battleship. After that I may consider invading Norway if my opponent is involved elsewhere. Sometimes, I will send extra units around the Horn of Africa to reinforce Egypt until I am strong enough to take Iraq. It depends on who my opponent is. I find that it usually takes 6 land units (so you can surround it and prevent the Axis from reinforcing it) supported by a HQ and an Airunit to take Iraq.

Glad you liked it. This history of Turkey is why I think that the Turkish government would have considered moving on on Syria (and Iraq too, as Turkey needed the Oil) if the Axis has kicked the UK out of Egypt or forced the UK to surrender. If the Allies came back to win the war the Turks could claim that they merely restored what was theirs and were preventing Axis access to the Iraqi oil fields.

So would it be best to limit the Bribary to MPPs as orginally suggested? Also: [ February 17, 2004, 07:16 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent Historical Rebuttal, Although Iraq was historically part of Turkey, before WWI, you are saying that the UK government would never have considered recognizing Turkish soverignty over Iraq, even if it ment that Turkey would officially join the Allies. (I agree that the historical basis for giving Turkey Egypt or Greece is a long shot, a very very long shot). Strategically speaking, I think that Iraqi soverignty would weigh little on a scale when compared to the benefits of Turkey joining the allies. On the other hand is the concept of allowing the Allies or Axis to purchase Turkish Allegiance, for a substantial sum in economic aid, a valid concept? Especially with the Axis having to commit much more to the project that the allies. [ February 17, 2004, 06:51 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent Idea, So reduce the cost for Turkish Allegiance for each controlled territory given to Turkey; Greece, Iraq, Egypt, Syria & Albania(?). For the Allies, even if Turkey does not join the Allies giving Turkey Egypt or Syria impedes Axis expansion and makes it more difficult for them to convince Turkey to join them. Of course, if Turkey does join the Axis then they join with the territories that the allies have given them. Should the cost for Turkish Allegiance increase if the Spain was attacked by the Axis/Allies? [ February 17, 2004, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Turkey rarely joins the Allies or Axis, but what if their allegiance could be purchased? So if the Axis has invested 500MPP in buying Turkish Alligence then the Allies must invest 2000MPP ( 500+ 1500MPP ) to convince the Turkish government to join the Allies. Thus the cost to influence Turkey is high but the benefits are great - you gain five units and threaten your opponent's Southern flank. Of course, if this idea is accepted Turkey should have a 80% chance to return to neutrality if while an Axis ally the Allied forces liberate Paris or Rome or Berlin OR while a member of the Allies if the Axis conquer the United Kingdom or Russia. Futhermore, the use of Turkish MPPs should be limited to reinforcing or building Turkish units. [ February 17, 2004, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

I wonder if HC has considered somethig similar for SC. It would certainly add a limited amount of unpredicatability to the traditional cookie cutter strategies that the Axis player relies on. And I should point out that the limited UK/French/USA production base will probably only allow them to reinforce 1 or 2 neutrals. Will it be Norway?, Sweden? Spain? Greece? Iraq? Yugoslavia? Portugal? And MPPs spent reinforcing a Neutral nation are MPPs that are not available to defend Great Britain or support an invasion of Europe. [ February 17, 2004, 12:22 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Thanks, and as for Aid to Turkey the UK can only send aid to Turkey if the Suez canal is allied controlled.

Thus, if the UK wants to reinforce the Swedish Army it has to do it before Denmark and Norway fall to the Axis. Most excellent. Now, what about Yugoslavia and Greece? Aid to Greece would be limited by the balance of the Italian navy vs the UK Naval Forces. Aid can reach Yugoslavia only via the Adriatic or overland via Greece. So - the UK can freely send aid to both neutrla countries until Italy enters the War. After Italy enters the war aid can only reach neutral Yugoslavia while Greece remains neutral. Futhermore, after Italy enters the war aid cannot reach Greece & Yugoslvia (via Neutral Greece) if Italian Naval Forces exceed Allied Naval forces by 2:1 in the Eastern Med (Med. east of Athens). Now the Italians have a reason to engage the British Fleet in the Eastern Med. and the Brits have an incentive to keep a fleet in the Eastern Med. [ February 17, 2004, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

A most interesting system with lots of alternatives for both sides.

Here's a simple idea to make the initial sub hunt more interesting; [ February 16, 2004, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Excellent point, So Germany pays 125MPP to give Iraq a corps and it gets a Str 5 Corps due to the problems in sending aid to Iraq and the need to pay off the Government of Turkey. One the otherhand, the British Navy gives the UK access to vitually every neutral nation, except for Switzerland, Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary. And a nation can send aid in the form of a Corps or an understrength Air Wing? But what should the limit on the number of Units be? The number of free hexes surrounding the capital city? Six for Spain/Turkey, Four for Norway/Greece, Two for Portugal? or a number based on the population of the country? Six for Spain/Turkey and two for Norway/Greece/Portgual/Iraq/Sweden? or two for all neutrals? [ February 16, 2004, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Edwin P. ]

Agreed, I would also add an intelligence report on the size of each neutral's army. Click on the neutral nation in the European map screen and you get a report on the size of the neutral country's armed forces. This would reflect the fact that any build up of a neutral nation's army could not be kept a secret.