ev

I noticed that SC2 will allow the development of mechanized infantry. What will be the diference between a Mechanized Infantry Army and a Tank Group? Some thoughts come to mind: 1. The Tank is different. The Tank allows advance in the face of enemy fire... where other units would be pinned down. Elsewhere, I have suggested there should be a penalty for entering enemy territory. Others have suggested there should be a penalty for entery enemy ZOC. Perhaps tanks could pay a lower penalty for entering such enemy tiles or ZOCs. 2. A Tank Group includes tanks as well as infantry, artillery, engineers, recon, etc. Advances in mechanization contributed to the better performance of tank formations. Can we expect advances in Mech Level to benefit tank formations? 3. Why should a player spend on mechanizing infantry instead of buying more and better Tank Groups? Is there anything that sets mechanized infantry appart, or is it just a regular infantry with more AP's? 4. Are AP's in SC2 similar to AP's in SC1? Maybe having more AP's means something else in SC2 - like allowing for multiple attacks by units with more AP's?

Thanks you all for your interest on my suggestions. Finding the right trigger points will take a lot of playtesting, and, playtesting is time consuming. Perhaps, Hubert can incorporate into the code the concept of reduced production during Peace Time and Limmited War, and, some how allow for the players to later develop the specific trigger points with the editor. But how? Some ideas: Easy Part #1: Set Peace Production and Limited War Production at x% and y% of Total Production. x and y to be set by the editor. And, for each country, allow the editor to set whether a country starts the game at Pease, Limited War, or Total War. Easy Part #2: For each country, allow the editor to set the speed at which it mobilizes. Say that the US moblizes at 10% increments once it changes from peace economy to either Limited War or Total War. But say that the Russians mobilize a lot faster since they are in much greater danger due to their proximity to Germany. Just need to get the easy part first. Now, the hard stuff: Hard Part #3: Allow the editor to enable or disable "Limited War" for each separate major power. (In the more historical scenarios "Limited War" should be dissabled for England and the U.S. since they geared for "Total War" since the begining of the War. But the editor need not limit those options. Say Japan had not attacked Pearl Harbor, the U.S. may had followed a different war path. That could be an interesting scenario for someone to consider at some point...) Hard Part #4: If the "Limited War" option is selected for a given country, the editor must ask three questions to the user: 1. Number of cities that must be lost before triggering Total War? 2. Number of turns where production fails to meet losses before triggering Total War? 3. Number of enemy units adjacent to friendly cities before triggering Total War? If the user choses to place a 0 on either condition that condition becomes inoperative. But, the choser may not put a 0 in all three conditions. Any way, once the conditions set by the user are met, that country starts to mobilze for Total War at the rate indicated in Part 2. Best Part #5: ...so you put all this in the editor. Dissable all of this options in the scenarios you will ship to us in 2004. And, forget about playtesting for now. No time for that. Just make sure, I get SC2 for Xmas. In spring 05, you develop new scenarios, and sell me a great expansion set next summer. You may throw in a scenario for the war between Japan and China 1930's to 1945 - just to get things rolling for SC3. Meanwhile I buy Virtual PC for my new Mac, just in case you miss to include a Mac version. :cool: I am sure this is going to be the greatest game of the year.

I'm thinking we can use the new weather feature here to our advantage. We can now create new weather zones, each with their unique weather effects. So, create a Russian weather zone where rain/mud (Rasputista!) has more severe movement restrictions, winter storms are a bit more severe, etc. Viola! </font>

At the start of WWII some countries (like England) geared for total war as soon as the hostilities commenced. However, not all countries reacted the same way. Prior to the German invasion, Russia engaged in several "limmited conflicts" without gearing its industry for total war. These "limmited conflicts" included the wars with Finland and Japan, and the invasions of the Baltic States, part of Rumania (Besarabia) and part of Poland. In SC1, Russia gears for total war as soon as it enters war with Germany, whether Germany attacks Russia, or whether Russia "joins" the allies of its own accord. I believe it is unlikely that Russia would have geared its economy for Total War Production if Russia had joined the allies of its own accord. Of course, if subsequent to joining the allies the Russians would have suffered a major military reversal, that event could have triggered Total War Production. But, a Russian aggressor that does not suffer any military reversal is unlikely to gear its economy into Total War Production. Many years ago I played a game in which the Russian economy geared for total war only after the Germans occupied at least three major Russian cities. Only then did the Russian economy acchieve Total War Production. This allowed the Germans a realistic strategic choice as to whether to launch a full fledge invasion of Russia, or simply provide an active defense of a hostile border with Russia. In SC1 there is no such choice. Russia gears for all out war, and the Germans better take over all of Russia, or die. Total War could be triggered as soon as the Germans take over one, two, or three Russian Cities. Playtesting would be the best way to tell the correct count. Which country commenced hostilites could also be a factor affecting the trigger point for Total War Production. If the Germans commenced hostilities, Total War could be triggered upon the Germans taking the first Russian city, but if the Russians started hostilities ("joined" the allies) then Total War could be triggered upon the Germans occupying two or three Russian cities. The whole point of this total vs limited war idea is to allow the Germans the choice not to invade Russia as a viable WWII strategy. So much for Russia... Another country that did not gear its economy for Total War Production from the outset was Germany. Remarkably, almost half the war would go by before Germany gear up for Total War Production. The problem is finding a triggering mechanism for this event. Some ideas come to mind: the bombing of German cities, the losses of Stalingrad, the reversals at El Alamein. The Nazi leaders moved the German Economy into Total War when they tasted several simultaneous defeats in several fronts. In the early years they were confident, and, they wanted all the Germans to think everything was peachy. But in 1942-43 things changed. For the first time they grew worried, they tasted fear. ...but, how can we represent this in SC? The most remarkable fact about the losses the German faced the winter of 42-43 is that these losses exceeded the capacity of the German economy to replace them. mhm... So loss levels that exceed the existing MPP production could be the trigger mechanism... I propose that the German economy enters Total War Production when the losses accumulated during three consecutive turns exceed the production accumulated during those three turns. Of course, the number three is kind of arbitrary and playtest could prove that two or four or some other number works better. But consider the following points: Bombardment of cities would have a triple impact: they cause losses and they also reduce the industrial capacity for the current and subsequent turns. ...so they have a impact than regular combat losses. And, that is good. Bombing a city brings the war home. The experience of WWII shows that, although bombing destroyed specific infrastructure, it had a galvanizing effect on the rest of the country. If you are going to fight a bombing camping, you better make sure you blast the hell out of all those production centers. A luke warm bombing campaign should backfire, as it galvanizes the population into Total War Production. The initial assault for any campaign is costly. So the test should not be based on a single turn results. Instead, the test for Total War should look upon the result of several turns so as to balance out the losses incurred in achieving any breakthrough with the exploits that follow up. Conquering a country results in a production bonus (loot). This increases production for the period and reduces the chance of entering Total War Production. Again, that is good. Conquering the Netherlands, or, France, or some other country should reduce the possibility of entering Total War on that turn. If Germany gets a bloody nose in France it is possible it may enter Total War in 1940. Yes, it sounds wrong to reward incompetence. But, this is probably realistic. If Germany had failed to conquer France, you probably would have had some major war effort taking place in Germany. However, I would balance that with some major loss in Diplomatic Chips... The loss in diplomatic chips should be large enough to keep Italy, Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria from joining the Germans, which in turn would represent a major production loss for the Germans. Add to that the production loss from failing to conquer France, and, it is unlikely that incompetence in France would result in a plus for the Germans. In fact, the act of triggering Total War Production could cause a further Diplomatic loss. Once the conditions for Total War are reached, the system should provide the German player the option as to whether to enter Total War Production at the loss of diplomatic chips, or, waive it. So a German player that suffered heavy losses in France may chose to "hide" his losses from the public and "save face" so as not to lose the Diplomatic Chips it needs to get Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria into the Axis. Of course future reversals in Russia or elswhere could again trigger Total War and the Germans may be then inclined to accept the diplomatic loss. I would also have Germany enter Total War Production if any German city fell to the allies. But note I mean real German cities, not French or Polish cites taken over by the Germans. Finally, I would have Germany enter Total War Production if Russian armies came adjacent to a German City. (Again, I mean the cities that are part of Germany when the game starts). The Germans were scared of the Russians... One way to draw a distinction between Total War Production and Limmited War Prodcution could be to leave all cites at 10, as in SC1 but subject the total production of the country to some factor. Say that the total production of Russia and Germany is reduced by 50% during limited war. Another way SC2 could represent a Limmited War Economy is to have some cities remain at production level 5 until Total War is triggered. I would have some cities at 10 to provide adequate supply to the combat units. These cities could be either "Capital Cities" or "Major Industrial Cities" or any others Hubert deems pertinent. The first alternative is probably muh easier to code, and more elegant since it does not affect combat supply. The concept of reduced production prior to Total War also allows the Allies to manage the production of US and Russia prior to their joining the war. During peace time they could have a minimal peace time production. Say 20% of Total War Production. During this period, the Allied player could manage this limited resources, conducting some research and some minor war production. Upon entering the war, the US increases production steadily (10% each turn) until it hits 100% Total War Produciton (say by the 8th turn after entering the war). Meanwhile, upon entering the war, Russia hits limited War Production at 50% level. But Russia would remains at Limmited War Production until hitting the right conditions for Total War Production. Some randomizing could be added so that things are not 100% certain. I leave that up to Hubert. I am looking for a game where a player weights the options of active limited war versus a war of total anihilation. This is after all a grand strategy game, and, that is the kind of judgement that has to made in grand strategy.

Amph tech could also represent the development of UDT's: under water demolition teams. UDT's are the predecesors of the Navy Seals. Their job was important for scouting beaches, finding adequate landing sites, finding and destroying underwater obstacles, etc. From a conceptual point of view, UDT's could be "part" to the Amph Unit. However, beter landing equipment and support units (read UDT's), were all part of what allowed for succesful, albeit costly, landings in enemy held territory. Please note, I am not advocating for the creation of U.D.T.'s The scope of the game is to large to include a team of 8 frogment blasting underwater obstacles on the shores of Italy or France. I am only saying this is part of what makes for a more effective Amph Unit.

...anybody ever thought of making any of the following scenarios: 1. The war between China and Japan: This was a decade long struggle. It started long before Japan attacked the US. In fact, the Japanese attacked the US because the US threaten an embargo after the attrocities commited by Japanese soldiers on Chinese civilians. It involved huge armies and vast expanses of land. I only wish I knew more about it. 2. The Chinese Civil War. Another grand conflict, very close in time to WWII. ...and, again, one of those areas of history in which I am unfortunately very ignorant. The SC2 engine seems to be a great plataform to simulate either of these conflicts. The size of the armies are probably comparable to those fighting in Europe (including Russia). The expanse of land may be even larger than that depicted in SC2, but, you would not need to represent the ocean... Besides, developing these scenarios would be a great exercise towards "SC3: World at War". And, would greatly contribute to my education on far east history.

Yes, thank you Sea Monkey. I would suggest an initial range of 3 at C3 Tech Level 0. The range of an HQ could go up by 1 with each increase in C3 tech level. At C3 Tech Level 5 and HQ could have a range of 8 at C3 Tech Level 5. Playing now devil's advocate, I see two problem with this suggestion: First, the HQ doubles as a command and a supply center. Do we want to increase the supply range of an HQ because we increase the C3 tech level? One alternative would be to tie the range of an HQ to the Mech Tech Level. More mechanzied HQ's have more trucks instead of horse drawn carts. And, thus have a higher supply range. Second, I believe SC defines two separate ranges related to the HQ. One is the range from the unit to the HQ. Another is the range from the HQ to its supply source. In most games, the supply range is traced "backwards". That is the range from the unit to the HQ is the unit's range. The range from the HQ to its source is the HQ's range. If SC was coded that way, then it would be very difficult for Hubert to incorporate our request for varying HQ ranges, unless these varying ranges are tied to the tech level of the combat units (not the HQ). My point is that this fourth suggestion could be more complicated to code. ...and, I would understand if Hubert gives us a "thanks, but maybe SC3" type of answer. Keep in mind Q4 is not that far away when you consider all the coding, playtesting, debugging, etc. And, I really want this game under my Xmas tree in 2004.

I would like to see a technology that boosts the capabilities of HQ's. I propose the creation of a Command, Control, and, Communication Technology. Increase in C3 tech would have the following effects: 1. An increase in C3 would increase the number of units that can be attached to a single HQ. I would suggest that at level 0 only three units could be attached to a single HQ. But, with the increase of each tech level, an extra unit could be attached to a singley HQ. Hence a level 8 HQ could serve 8 units. 2. An increase in C3 would result in an increase in the readiness level of units attached to that HQ. 3. An increase in C3 would result in an increase of all units even if they are not attached to any HQ - to represent improvements in the internal C3 of the individual units. The main advantage that the Germans had over the Russians was better C3. Through out the war the Germans repeatedly defeated superior numbers of Russian troops even if the Russians had better tanks, more submachine guns, more artillery support, and more of almost everything else. This Russian troops fought bravely, incurring in the unimaginable casualty rates. There is no doubt that the Russians fought hard, but, despite of their sacrifice, they were not as effective as their German counterparts. The Russians were plagued with many problems. Lack of well trained officers after Stalin's purges of the officer corps was one of them. Lack of radios was another. I mentined elsewhere that most Russian tanks did not have radios, and they had to resort to flag signals in the middle of a battle. That was suicidal and ineffective. Under this circumstances, tactical finesse was simply not an option. The advances of the German, and later the American and British armies went beyond the technical. Before the war, the Germans developed very effective radio communication procedures which allowed multiple units to effectively communicate by radio during the heat of battle. Shortly thereafter, the Americans and British also developed such procedures. The German procedures for stating and communication mission orders and objectives were far superior to those of any other nation. In fact, current US army procedures for stating orders are based on the German WWII model. I would give the Germans a higher C3 level at the begining of the war. Say Germans start at level 2, Brits and US at level 1, and Russ at level 0. This would simulate the superior German C3 at the begining of the war, and, would also allow the Allies the option to invest in C3 research and upgrades to catch up with the Germans. The intial cost of HQ's could be a little lower. Upgrading each individual HQ to a higher C3 level should involve some expense. However, most advances in C3 represent better combat tactics, communication procedures, unit composition, and the like. So, I would be inclined keep at a minimum the cost of upgrading the individual HQ's or units. ...as far as how much should it cost to research C3, I really don't know. Much like any other area of reseach it means taking a whole bunch of competent people form other tasks, giving them custom made facilites and equipment, and allowing them go on their own until they find something useful. My guess is that it should not be substantially more or less costly than research on any other area.

Keep in mind that units affect the territory around them by converting it from enemy territory to enemy territory. In SC1, when a unit moves through or into empty enemy territory it converts the hex it occupies, and the unoccupied hexes around it into friendly territory. So a unit indeed affects the space around it. The problem is that once it is converted into friendly territory, it has no effect either on the movement of friendlies or on the movements of enemies. It only affects river crossings and supplies. The action points may or may not be close to tactical movement capabilities, but they do not reflect the distinction between tactical and non-tactical movement. I would like to see a foot infantry unit move at non-tactical speed it when advancing behind an armored spearhead. A foot infantry advancing in this manner should be able to cover more territory, than moving on its own at tactical speed through enemy territory. I also would like to see units moving at non-tactical speed behind frienly lines to be able to do so at greater speeds than units advancing in enemy territory at tactical speed. Whether the solution is to increase non-tactical speed or to decrease non-tactical speed, or a combination of both, I do not know. Play testing would be most informative. In any even, I have the feeling SC2 will have to revise the movement capabilities of all units to take into account the square grid, the mechanization technology, the larger size of the map, the incorporation of weather and the incorporation of new types of terrain (such as artic terrain), etc. I hope that when this revision comes, Hubert manages to accomadate my request to diferentiate between tactical and non-tactical speeds.

I agree that great success should have some sort of diplomatic reward. However, I would structure it a bit differenty: First, there should be a diplomatic penalty for invading a neutral country. It should be a large penalty, but, it should vary from country to country. Second, when the invading powe subdues the neutral party, there should be a bonus for finally taking over the neutral country. This bonus should be small. There should be a net diplomatic loss for invading a country even if the invasion is successfull. Third, if the country is subdued in a lighting Blitzkrieg, there should be a second bonus. What constitutes "lighting" would have to vary from country to country (say 2 turns for Poland, 1 turn for Benelux, 1 turn for Norway, etc.). The total bonus received from a lighting conquest should still be less than the diplomatic cost for invading the country in the first place. The initial diplomatic penalty for invading a country should be much larger than the bonus for conquering it. The bonus for taking over a country only reduces the diplomatic cost of invading a neutral country. Of course, the worse diplomatic outcome is to invade and never conquer. Fourth, The capture of key cities or ports should cause a small diplomatic bonus to the capturing party and/or a small diplomatic loss to the party that lost that city. Fifth: Germany should receive a diplomatic bonus in the event Russia declares war on Germany. But, the opposite should take place if Germany is the offending party.

Most of Western Europe had a good network of roads and railways. Given the scale of the game, by and far most hexes in Germany and France would have either a major railroad or road serving them. A completely different story takes place in Russia. There were only a very few rairoad lines and major roads. The problem is how to represent this in a game of the scale of SC2. One idea: I dare suggest that maybe we should have a new type of hex to repreent "clear square (hex) without infrastructure". Most of this "clear squares without infrastructure" would be in Eastern Europe. A clear hex without infrastructure would differ from existing clear hexes as follows: 1. Cannot operate units into or out of "clear sqyares without infrastructure" 2. Penalize supply in those squares; say distance for calculating supply cost twice as much as would cost when traversing through regular clear hexes. 3. Motorized (non-tracked) units could be subject to some additional movement pennalty when traversing this spaces (optional in my mind). On a separate note, there were three very important rail lines in the Eastern Front. One of these ran from Poland to Minks to Moscow. Another ran from East Prussia through the Baltic States to Leningrad. And, yet another wan ran from Rumania into the Ukraine, and once it split in the Ukrain it split north towards Kiev and south towards Odesa. These rail lines were key to the supply of German Armies operating in Russia. If Hubert is considering to represent some infrastructure in SC2 (aside from ports), these rail lines should be in the list. There is board game called War in Europe published by SSI some 25 years ago. (I think that company no longer exists, though there is a new company with a similar name.) The main map for that game was huge (about 10 x 6 ft). Among other things, the map included the main rail lines of WWII and a great model for using rail transport, conversion of rail gauges, breaking of railines, etc. Each hex represented a 30 x 30 mile area - not far off from Hubert's map. If any of you ever have a chance, have a look at it. That game incorporated some other interesting ideas: * Players had to keep a balance between the number of factory centers and mining centers. Production would be penalized if your did not have an adequate balance. * There were major and minor ports. You could embark in minor ports, but they were very poor at giving supply to units. * Units had to be bought with several turns in advance. Low quality infantry would be ready in little time (say one month for the lowest quality russian infantry), while better quality units would take a lot longer. * For the Russian Campaign, there was a population pool and a manufacturing pool. In order to produce a unit you needed enough population and enough manufacturing capacity. Some unit types required a lot of population but less manufacturing, say infantry units. Other units required a lot of manufacturing with little population, say air units. Reinforcements cut into both pools. Replacement of excessive infantry losses would not affect much your manufacturing pool, but could deplete the population pool. * A player had to buy Amph Points or Air Transport points before making and Amphibious or Paradrop Landing. There was a pool for Amph Points and a pool for Air Transports. It usually took several turns before a player accumulated enough equipment to performe a major invasion. During a Landing a random percentage of these points would be lost, the remaining points would become available after a few turns of refitting. ,,.hope some of these ideas are interesting to you all.

My suggestion, we could allow a unit to embark from a non-port square at a cost: First, readiness level would have to drop close to zero - cannot use that unit to attack or defend effectively elswhere when it lands. Second, board a transport but not move, in the same turn. Boarding off port should be a slow process, particularly vulnerable to air and naval attacks. Third, some loss of strength would be necessary to account for abandonned equipment and ammo that had to be left behind. Any reactions?

Say in case Axis takes over Yugoslavia, a part of Yugoslavia's terrotory (Croatia) becomes full axis, while part of Yugoslavia (Serbia, etc.) remains occupied Yugoslavia, with partisan's etc. ...and, further say that when Yugoslavia is liberated, only the Serbian part is liberated, but the Croatian part is treated as if still part of the Axis "homeland" would that sound good to you?

Russia also had paratroopers, and used them in a large operation attempting to close a pocket of German troops. I understand the Russians suffered heavy cassualties, and did not manage to encircle the German troops. ...sorry I forgot the name of the battle, but, I believe it was in 1944.

I really like the points you made in your last two entries, pzgndr. Yes! I also hear your concern, One way to address this matter is to provide mechanized forces more action points to better overcome the enemy territory penalty, thus mech forces could still breakthrough and expoit, while holding down the AP's for non-mech units. Foot soldiers should bearly have enough AP's to keep up with the mech formations while the mech formations clear enemy territory. Mech formations should be the spearheads that cut into enemy territorry. And, I agree 100%, Say entering a friendly square costs 1/2 action point, and, do nothing else. D.D.'s concern about things getting to tight in France 1940 would he addressed since this only makes things easier for the Germans. In fact, if anything, things could become too fluid. If play testing shows things are too fluid we could reduce somewhat the AP's of non-mech units, and fine tune from there. -gosh, it sound fun. As far as ZOC's is concerned, I would not oppose some movement penalty for entering enemy ZOC's, but that would be in addition to, not instead of the cost of clearing enemy territory. With regards to your last remark, I want to slow down the German and Russian Infantry, which makes up say 80% of their forces. But, I also want to make those infantry units more dependent on mech units to spearhead attacks. Foots units should have to rely on mech units to acts as spearheads because foot soldiers should not be able to clear enemy territory at a fast enough clip. Foot infantry should follow the mechanized spearheads as they try to envelop the opposing army. I would very much like to see a strategic game that adequately simulates these limitations of foot soldiers in achieving strategic momentum, and the need for mech spearheads to achieve this very momentum. In a strategic game that successfully represents this reality, we should find the kind of pincer encirclements that characterized the German Blitzkrieg: Mechanized spearheads would clear a path through which foot infantry can march at a fast enough clip to encircle the opposing army. Meahwhile foot infantry without the advantage of mech spearheads would be stuck into slow advances that never achieve strategic momentum. Such a game would present players with a better picture of the trade offs and the dilemas faced by WWII leaders.

...mhm... I see your point D.D. ...and, I guess this would also make things very difficult for the AI. My thoughts: In WWI both the Germans and the Allies figured out ways to break through enemy lines (mainly through the use of storm troopers and tanks). What they never had was the means to keep the momentum going forward. Mechanization as proposed by Guderian and others was the answer to the problem of how to keep the momentum. I would like SC2 to somehow simulate the importance of mechanization in exploiting breakthroughs. Non-mech units cannot not keep strategic momentum even if the initial attacks achieve a breakthrough. My proposal above limits the capacity of a foot army to make substantial headway on enemy territory ...because... in real life, only mechanized units could achieve that kind of strategic level momentum. ...of course, the difficulty lies in finding the most elegant way to simulate in SC2 the value of mechanization. I will keep thinking on this subject and let you know of any ideas. ...keep up the good work!

Thanks for the info D.D. I had the feeling construction engineers would be so limited, and, I think I understand the reasoning behind it. ...oh, by the way, now that I have your attention, any reaction to the idea of higher movement costs for entering enemy squares?

Interesting point SeaMonkey. Engineers would help with roadblocks and bridges. ...though not so much with snippers, rearguard actions, or civilian refugees clogging the roads. On the other hand, "nearby" means 50 miles away per tile given the scale of this game... Which is really not that close. Finally, I am assuming that each tank group, army or corps has its own engineers capable of removing roadblocks, clearing minefields and setting bridges. It just takes time to do this kind of things, even if you have engineers. ...and, it also takes time to deal with snippers, and reargaurd units, and, columns of civilian refugees, and, specially it takes time to deal with the "unknown" of being in hostile territory - even if you have engineers. I am still not sure what "Engineer units" will do in SC2, but it sounds that they are more like big construction companies for building fortiifications, and not combat engineers. Nevertheless, I would like to hear from the game designers what they mean by "engineer units", before commenting any further on your point...

SC1 did not ascribe costs to the maintainance of units... whether they remain static or whether they moved. A tank unit could move 250 miles without spending a drop of gas ...talk about altenative fuels and renewable resources. SC1 ascribed costs only when "operating" a unit or when reinforcing losses as a result from combat. Are there any plans to incorporate upkeeping costs in SC2. I think this would be a nice idea. But, I also understand the need to keep things simple.

Very good point... though perhaps 3:1 is a bit too much. I guess playtesting would tell.

There should be a high movement cost for entering enemy squares or tiles. ...say entering an empty enemy square should have a cost 50%: so if it cost 1 MPP to enter a friendly clear hex, it should cost 1.5 MPP to enter an enemy clear hex. This movement penalty would account for the need extra for caution when marching accross enemy territory, and, also for the effect of roadblocks, minefields, bobytraps, snipers, rearguard units, refugees clogging the roads, etc. Note, that I am not speaking of zones of control, but enemy tiles. Pennalties for entering enemy ZOC (if any) would be in addition to the pennalties for entering enemy squares. This may not make much of a difference in a cluttered front like France, but, it may make a huge difference in many other fronts. Also note that this penalty would be in addition to the penalty which already exist in SC1 for entering enemy controlled river hexes... This scheme would make mechanized units more valuable. Mechanized units, with their added movement capability would be used to spearhead an advance into enemy territory, hence clearing a path for the slow moving foot soldiers which could march along already cleared (friendly) territory. Using the movement capabilities from SC1, we would get the following results: Say an infantry army with mech level 0 starts with a movement capability of 3 (just as in SC1). The enemy territory penalty would reduce its movement capability to 2 enemy hexes. Now, let's say an infantry unit with mech level 5 would have a movement capability of 8. When entering enemy territory, this would ammount to 5.4. That is not much diferent from a tank unit in SC1, when maneauvering in enemy territory. Meanwhile, a tank unit with Mech Tech level 0 would be able to enter 5 friendly (using SC1 movement capabilities). But the same tank unit would only be able to enter 3.33 enemy hexes. Meanwhile, a tank unit with Mech Tech 5 woud be able to enter 10 friendly but only 6.66 enemy squares. A penalty to enter enemy territory may require the game designer to revise the movement capabilities of each land unit. But I have the feeling the revision need not be that radical... The above scheme would give units moving behind our lines a much wider range of movement than units entering enemy territory. This is realistic, and, would probably lead to a far "better" deployment of reserve units. Conceivably we could have a Recon Tech, such that advances in Recon Tech could reduce the penalty for entering enemy territory. Or, advances in Recon Tech could make it more likely that enemy tiles are converted into friendly tiles. I don't have a strong feeling either way on Recon Tech. But, I would really like to hear how you all feel about penalties for entering enemy territory.

...what is the time scale for a turn here? Given the time scale, what do we mean by weather forecast?

...not quite in the same line as you folks, but could we make Rusia a separate player from the Allies ...with separate victory conditions and diplomatic chips. The interest of US, France, and England were very much inline. But Russia was not in the same boat, just happened to have the same enemy, for a while. A separate Russian player could chose attack Germany on the back while Germany is fighting with France, but subject to some penalties. Pro German states join the Axis faster, reduced Russian production for a limited period of time as a result of popular dissatisfaction with the war, Some neutral states like Spain and Turkey have a greater chance of joining the Axis. Alternatively, a separate Russian player could chose to attack Finland, or Turkey, always subject to some penaties. Or could even attack the British empire... It opens a whole range of new possibilities to explore.

One way to handle this could be to have two types of sea squares, call one of them deep sea. Deep sea squares would be far away from land squares. Regular sea squares (light blue) would represent 50 x 50 miles. Deep sea squares (dark blue) would represent 3X the size of regular sea next. Air units are land based, and, we would design the map so that deep sea is far off land. Air units would not reach into deep sea. And, therefore we would not have to worry about air units having 3x the range at sea than inland. ...except for carriers. I am sure there are ways we could deal with carriers. However, I would like to know a bit more about how will Carriers work in SC2 before I start talking about them ...else I probably make a fool of my self. :cool: Anyway, if any of the insiders would shed some light into this subject, I will do my best to contribute to this subject matter as well.

Are paratroopers in SC2 independent units or attachments to a an air or land unit? I have some ideas: They should have enough combat strength to hold a hex or tile much like an infantry corps or army would. ...and, a paratroop unit would be an infantry unit that can be airdrop - just have to firgure out what it means to airdrop in SC1. They could be also be though of as a unit that supports another land unit within its range (sort of like an HQ but on a 1 to 1 basis). They could either add to the combat strength of the supported unit, or, they could increase the combat multiplier of the supported unit. But (unlike an HQ) paratroopers would take losses even if they are solely acting as a support unit. In fact, they should have particularly high losses if the attack fails. Option #2 would not allow you attack an island like Crete using only paratroopers. However Options #1 and #2 need not be exclusive of each other. The game could allow to use paratroopers both as independent combat units and as supporting units.