Exel

3 tiles per turn would mean that Germany could not for example invade Britain from the Danish port without the risk of being spotted and intercepted on the way. Similarly the U.S. would really have to escort its transports to Britain as the risk of being spotted on the way by subs increases. But the English channel could still be crossed in one turn. All fine so far. Now, unless someone comes up with some serious drawbacks with that implementation, I think we should adopt it for testing for the next patch.

I fail to see how reduced AP for amphibious transports would make long-range attacks impossible. You could still do them, but you'd suffer readiness and morale penalties doing so. Also the fleet would be more vulnerable to enemy counter-operations. (both since the crossing would take longer) So far I have failed to come up or be presented with any negative sides or proven unrealistic effects of reducing amphibian movement.

War isn't waged on Autobahns you know.

You know, there was a reason why the U.S. mounted the invasion from Britain, not from New York. There's also a reason why they crossed the English canal instead of going directly to Germany. Or why they needed Tunisia for Sicily. Amphibious transports do NOT have the ability to sail the seven seas before hitting the beach and landing the troops in peak condition. Reducing the action points by half or more and thus penalizing long crossings is only realistic. If you want to transport troops long distances, you use Transports. If you want to invade, you use Amphibious Transports, but you better do that from a nearby port.

To which the solution, in all its plain simplicity, is to reduce the amphibious transports action points by half or so. This is really becoming repetitive...

Which is a good enough reason to do it. Nothing like losing 30 MPP per turn and giving a beach head to your enemy just because you didn't invest in a 100 MPP garrison unit.

Sheesh. Just reduce the amphibious boats' range by half and (later, when there is time) add an amphibious tech that determines how many boats you are allowed to have at the same time. There, problem solved. Really isn't that big of an issue.

Hubert: The reviews are posted on the net only for subscribers, and only in Finnish. But here's the English summary directly from the magazine: "[sC2] is an excellent war game. Blitzkrieg fixes almost all of the problems the first game had (a small Africa etc.). The AI could still be better, though." 90/100 The review itself praises the improved tech system, working and meaningful diplomacy and the reduced "luck factor" in R&D. It also stresses that the game is good for everyone, not just hardcore strategists. What it criticizes is the interface, isometric view (as opposed to top-down view SC1 style) and the lack of zoom on the map. It also notes that the game engine isn't really suitable for the smaller scenarios (Market Garden) due to lack of more detailed terrain features. The reviewer suggests that the minor nations should also benefit from the tech development of the majors for both historical and gameplay reasons.

Finland's most prestigeous games magazine Pelit reviewed SC2 in its latest issue. It noted that the price of SC2 is "a cheap ticket to strategy heaven". :cool: It also wasn't any mini review usually given to these kind of games, but rather a full two-page in-depth report (for comparison, HOI2 was given 1 and Elder Scrolls Oblivion 3 pages).

The only suggestions I've found reasonable so far are the ones about decreasing amphib. movement and including amphib. tech. In fact, since this isn't really that big of an issue, I think those are the only changes needed. Automatic attacks? Come on, we don't have such anywhere else in the game either. Why make amphibians a special case? Beach tile restrictions? Blocking was the biggest problem in amphibious invasions in SC1. Do you really want that back? Even returning to the SC1 amphibious system wouldn't be that bad now as the blocking tactic isn't viable thanks to reduced unit numbers. But personally I'd prefer the current system with the aforementioned tweaks.

Official SC2 channel, that's easy... #stratcom @ QuakeNet There we have it. Now we just need Hubert's blessing and people to join!

I believe this is the same issue that prevents D-Day from happening in the first place when playing the 1939 scenario. As such it is a known issue.

This is once again something that would need diplomacy events (like I suggested in the Norway discussion). Should X happen, it would chance the political alignment of country Y through a script. Chits shouldn't be the only influencing factor in diplomacy, actual actions should have an effect too (I know they do, there are many scripts already simulating that, we just need more). I too had Spain join the Axis once when Italy had already fallen and Berlin was 2 turns away from capitulating. My U.S. troops in France didn't get to the Spanish border in time before Germany fell and the game was over. It's no major issue really, but something to take a look at in future patches (not necessarily in the first ones).

Again, I have to ask if this is happening with zero Lend Lease MPP transfers from the west. Trying to achieve the right balance in the game, with USSR having just not enough and certainly not TOO much, is difficult. IMHO we're close. Are hth games indicating USSR has too much?? Please don't judge by AI games yet, since there are other weaknesses that need to be resolved before addressing MPP balance. </font>

I didn't say it was a rational plan, just that it was his plan. Perhaps it's only good that his plan never realized - UK was better off without two more enemies to worry about.

And you can win as the Allies without the US. In all my games as the Allies USSR has already solved the outcome of the war before the UK and US forces have been able to mount any significant campaigns on Europe (not including the British Med forces taking NA and Italy).

I'm not suggesting a huge boost to US production. It is pretty well balanced even as it is now. It just needs a tad bit of an increase. With the current resources you basically have to choose between three things: - Invasion of North Africa and Italy before 1944 - Invasion of France before 1945 - Air campaign Can't do all. Which is not exactly correct, since all three were effectively carried out historically. I'll have to try with heavier investments in IT and PT before commenting further though. In my previous games I've invested 1-2 chits and gained 1-2 levels in each. Investing more feels like a large gamble - anyone got more solid experience about the matter (in relation to the above goals)?

The only "useless" unit in SC2 are the Engineers, and only because the construction times are a tad too long. Rockets are very effective if used correctly, I always buy them when playing Axis. Bombers are way better than in SC1 too. With the two bomber fleets you get for free as the Allies (one US, one UK) you can constantly keep the French and German mines at 0 production and reduce the coastal cities and ports. They are also excellent at crippling the morale of enemy units in crucial battles. My only gripe with the bombers and air units in general is their range - can lvl 5 long-range bombers reach Romanian oil fields from England as they did historically?

I think that Sweden would be too afraid to keep sending supplies to Germany if UK had forces in Norway or if Norway joined Allies. After all Churchill had plans to move troops through Norway and Sweden to Finland during Winter War, with or without the consent of the respective countries, with the goals of a) helping Finland with reinforcements and securing Norway and Sweden with troops. Sweden was in much similar situation to Finland. They wanted to stay out of the war entirely, felt sympathies for England and their neighbours (Finland-Sweden-Norway-Denmark) but cooperated with whomever they could to preserve their interests - first with the Allies and the US, then with Germany. They both also tought that the USSR was the biggest evil of them all and wanted security against that threat even if it meant cooperating with the Germans.

Hubert, what about the diplomatic effects on the England-Norway-Finland axis? A. Neither Germany or UK invade Norway -> Finland less probable to join Axis. Swedish supplies at 50%? B. UK invades Norway -> Finland doesn't join Axis. Swedish supplies stopped. Is the invasion of Norway "doctrine" scripted to either Axis or Allied AI? In my three games so far the AI has never made a move on Norway.

I'm in but only available for PBEM games. Work and studies sort of prohibit long TCP/IP sessions.

I've noticed it too. The two times I've played on the Allies I haven't been able to mount a decent invasion of Europe before USSR has already practically won the war. Now you might say that it happened like that historically as well - Normandy in 1944 when the result was clear in 1943 at the latest. But like Yogi said there had been the operations in North Africa and Italy well before that. As it is I haven't been able to do much anything with the Americans if I want to invade France before 1945. And even then I've only had 3 Armies, 1 Tank Group and 1 or 2 Paras + HQ to go with. It's not totally off, but a small boost for the US production would be nice. As it is we are seeing larger UK than US armies in 1944.

Murmansk railroad, along with Leningrad, was one of the biggest reasons why Hitler was interested in Finland and why Germany send so much men and material up there. Norway on the other hand was important for keeping the Allies out of there and for securing the Swedish supplies - as well as for sub bases. I haven't inspected all the scripts, but based on what I have observed it seems that atm SC2 fails to simulate any of those points. The subs can't be fully reinforced in Norwegian ports. Norway has no influence on Sweden or Finland. Allies have no intentions of taking Norway even if Germany leaves it alone. Finland is largely irrelevant for both Germany and USSR. A long list, but rather simple to fix with just a couple of events and scripts linking them together.

Like I suggested in another thread before the invasion of Norway should be an activation criteria for Finland and also a factor for Britain. 1) If Germany occupies Norway, Finland joins Axis and declared war on Soviet Union. 2) If Germany doesn't occupy Norway there is a chance that UK will. If Norway stays neutral there is a reduced chance of Finland joining Axis. If UK occupies Norway or persuades it to join Allies, Finland will align itself to the Allies and stays out of the war with the Soviet Union.

Engineers are really bad. I've only found them remotely useful in the defense of Russia, never built them with any other nation. Building a one-sided fortification shouldn't take longer than a month, three months would be ok for a full fort. I like paras and rockets very much though they are rather rare.