Colin I

Like the AP reduction very much from interdiction - if the programming will handle it I'd very much like to see this.

SeaMonkey - combined arms is simple. Air attacks and naval bombardment should inflict very large if temporary morale and readyness losses but almost no strength loss. This means when used alone they have limited value but when followed up with a ground assault help a lot as the defender is already softened up. This is historical - Allied air actually inflicted very few direct casualties in Normandy but was very effective in less direct ways such as interdicting enemy supplies and tank movements and restricting operational effectiveness. This also solves engineer problem - you can't kill it from the air alone. Air and navel should both still do strategic damage and reduce fortifications - they were better at hitting large fixed targets.

Whilst the cumulative nature of the morale boost is clearly faulty I think the morale boost for victory is a great rule. So, perhaps setting the bonus differently for defeating different countries and a formula that reduces cumulative effect is enough of a tweak. To a major extent I think the morale boost simulates something important in historical narratives that most games find hard to define in mechanics. The apparently unstoppable rise of an aggressive power (be it Alexander's, Rome, Mongols or Nazi Germany) as an army gains a reputation for invincibility - deserved or otherwise. The problem here is the lack of opportunity for a turning point and decline. Terif - but how do you do this? as Germany in SC2 I find it hard to create enough viable army groups to fight Russia and take on minors simultaneously?

Rambo, Very harsh (and generally told of the Italiens). Look at history, the French WON the first serious tank engagement in history when they actually had decent armour concentrated. Later it went awfully wrong in lots of ways but the fall of France is noticeable for the fact that a small segment of the French army (eg some colonial troops) performed very well (in some cases facing down tanks without adequate antitank weapons) although much of the rest was rapidly demorilized. To quote from a commentary on a reputable source -May, Ernest R. Strange Victory: Hitler's Conquest of France. New York: Hill and Wang in 2000: "The 2nd and 3rd DLMs of General Prioux badly mauled the 3rd and 4th Panzer Divisions of General Hoepner at Hannut, and only because Prioux retired behind the main French line as ordered was the German position in Belgium not seriously disrupted. Rommel's critical crossing of the Meuse at the Houx sluice was costlier and less certain than generally recognized, and would not have taken much more on the French side to prevent it altogether. That Guderian was able to reach Sedan almost unhindered (and unmolested from the air while his tanks were nearly gridlocked on the narrow roads of the Ardennes) was considered a "miracle" by all involved, and his crossing of the Meuse—which utilized such concerted airpower, according to May, that "rarely afterward would there ever be such a comparably concentrated bombardment from the air"—nearly failed, and led to a series of seesaw engagements around the bridgehead on 14 and 15 May (while the spearheads were rushing westward) that nearly tipped the balance back in favor of the French. Its something that SC2 does not do well (although the potential upgrade to Tanks 1 is good and accurate) - it all could have ended for the Germans in France.

Terif's template looks great but it highlights one worry I have about the game. I liked SC1 because multiple strategies could be employed to win. The strategies are even wider in SC2 thanks to diplomacy and a few other options. HOWEVER, it seems that the game is tending towards a narrow set of optimal strategies if you are serious. I don't want this! I'm looking for a game not of perfect play but in which diverse paths to victory can come through. Is there anything we can do in the next patch to help this? Random events are nice because it throws out calculating play and does simulate the shock and surprise of warfare. Fog of war is a plus, at least there is some chance of pulling a surprise; though the diplomatic penalties are now limiting in many cases for some shock invasions (reasonably for North America but I'm not sure about Sealion). Reducing the Infantry Weapons arms race might free up other technology possibilities. Any other ideas?

Sorry, I mean good to support Italy.

Taking Vichy also gives Germans a Med port. this lets you build Tirpitz, Bismark and U-boats. If UK is strongly contesting Med then its good to help them.

I'd suspect loss of morale/readyness caused by the interception simulates this adequately.

I also want to see less predictability in diplomacy and other aspects to the game (minor placement, AI strategy, technology paths) for the same reason Canuck_para mentions. I particular want to avoid highly specific plans (or the type: "in April 1940 invest X MP in infantry weapons, Y in heavy tanks, take out minors in this order, attacking with an HQ in this tile, tank in this tile etc.).

Think, like most countries, THAT is done on an internal market

Played a game where I had both Spain and Sweden as Axis - felt both were useful. Spain can be triggered by Sealion (managed to take and hold Liverpool with a sneak attack for a few rounds). In both cases the Spanish/Swedish Navy and air was useful - tech tends not to advance so fast here - and MPPs. whilst its an obvious route, I hope the rush to IW3 isn't going to be as good in the next patch - it really limits the more interesting Axis strategies that made SC1 good; including the diplomacy of critical minors we are discussing.

Well, it doesn't take a unit, pioneer or otherwise, to upgrade a port or city. Both recover from war damage in time and you can spend MPP for antiaircraft defenses. I guess the logical extension is scrap engineers completely (I know I suggested an offensive function but this alone doesn't justify a new unit class) and build fortifications as a strategic action that is similar to city upgrades. Think the proviso is it should take multiple turns to build the things, that you should specify in advance the intended location and any enemy unit coming adjacent to partially built fortifications destroys them automatically. This allows Germans to fortify France or Russians to build defenses without a single unit running frantically around the place. On the whole, suits scale/scope of SC2 better as long as we get the time and MPP cost right.

Agreed - the problem is Allied airpower which historically didn't stop Germans fortifying France. I've used them in North Africa - narrow front with limited supply so they are effective. I think build rate for fortification is right - despite complaints - otherwise you could build great wall of China in a year. Feel Engineers should reduce penalty for attacking fortifications (reduce level 2 per attack) and reduced penalty for attacking across rivers. Now they are useful - for most Nationalities Engineers were an offensive arm as well as defense.

Bob, The US home guard matters. In our game I had Italian units heading for the US from Nortjh Africa. Fortunately remembered the US trigger so aborted the raid; it would have been counter productive. Colin

I'd quite like to see some variation in starting morale/readyness: 1) A random factor upon enrollment. 2) A modifier for certain nations. Notably (A) French Army in 1939: Highly variable and, on the whole, below other great powers. Sometimes they fought like Lions but often not. ( Post Stalin's Purge Soviet. © Italian Navy and Army. Its not SUCH a big issue with ground forces as you have the quality of HQ support as a modifier but I particularly think the Italian Navy would behave more historically (ie kind of timid) with this.

I think someone already said this but corps have extra command control costs (ie 1/5 or whatever of a coordinating HQ?). BUT lots of activities require any unit or any ground unit (eg garrisons, taking Berlin if unoccupied, spotting) and for this Corps obviously will do the same job cheaper. I think there are two possibilities. One is simply have a general ground unit and maybe then buy levels of strength to make it larger, mobility to make it faster and armour to make it a tank formation. Then if you do this, armour levels (or first level) must be more expensive as you aren't paying extra cost. Hell, why not add airborne levels (cost far more for armour) or engineering levels. Kind of like this (but maybe it screws simplicity of game (think not) and unit graphics (maybe not - just have to decide what levels give you a tank icon over a infantryman). Otherwise, as things stand I buy corps as Axis because I never have enough units and a lot of your early opponents are weak. Would rather have armies cheaper than corps more expensive with current MPP balance.

Blashy: Can't the Malta corps amphib out? I'm playing a Med domination strategy as Axis and wanted Malta so I didn't have to garrison around the Med. as much (there is no way Allies can reach many targets except from Malta).

Hyazinth: Late 41 isn't too bad - I'd made a few provocative attacks on minors and got one diplomacy hit myself. The surprise element completely changed my strategy though (as I say, a good thing) - a significant part of the German army was in middle east at the time. Decided to keep them there for a while - making for an interesting game. Was trying to attack as soon as sun came out in '42 though.

I've got to admit I don't understand Russian nactivation as well as I should. I think I understand the Warsaw and similar Garrisons and having too many or too few troops on the border. I'm clear which countries an Axis DOW can trigger Soviet activation. However, in a current PBEM game the Russian readyness climbed much faster than I expected. I was trying to do Barbarossa early 42 and ended up late 41 (luckily with good weather). On the whole this is a GOOD thing, not keen on games with clockwork precision, it forced me to adapt my strategy in the light of circumstances. Definately with those who want slightly higher random element in events and activation scripts. For example, rather than 1-3% increase in readyness I'd like a wider spread (say -1, 0, +1, 2, 3, 4, 6). Think this is a very good part of the dilpomacy system - there big diplomatic breakthroughs are possible. BUT I'm curious - could an experienced player run through the Russian activation triggers in full, please?

Cancelling out chits seems to me a product of the "Spain is the only strategy" mentality. Diplomatic side is proving intersting in my game with Bob, but I'm not sure I want to talk about it yet!

Yes - I'm surprised more people aren't influencing major powers. Modifying US or Soviet entry even by a few turns can have a huge impact and paying 150 mp (as Axis, not sure if cost is the same for Allies) is often worth it. There are LOTS of interesting strategies here.

Unclear writing on my part - I was actually doubting some of those "the game is broken" assertions and was trying to suggest some are linked to laying style and tunnel vision.

Wanted to open a new thread in response to a number of assertions about "super" strategies be it diplomacy (infamously Spain), Russia (Turkey, IW3), Sealion, tech investment (we can't afford non-mainstream investments) etc. The conclusion tends to be the game is broken if a strategy does well. Some maybe true but I have the feeling that some are to do with playing style and the idea that if your opponent follows one strategy you only have a few good responses. We are getting channelled by following what we think are optimal strategies. If a strategy is so good, then why not challenge a decent player to a game and tell them the strategy you will use? I think they will find a response. For example, I would like to play an Axis player who tells me he is going through Turkey to Russia in a given year. I might lose, but can think of counters - maybe they won't work but its fun to try. Turkey is an extreme example, many people believe its a problem, but you get the idea. My point is predictability makes you vulnerable and perhaps there is more play in not following dogmas than some people believe. I'd rather see this explored in a few challenge games than conventions on what you can or cannot do, or any further changes in forces. I've been vastly entertained by the strategy of using an Italian engineer to fortify the Geerman-Russia border to fend off the Soviets whilst getting busy elsewhere, premptive strikes on the US fleet and by the attempt to drop long range US paras directly on Berlin (apologies for not crediting those responsible). Those are very alternative moves - would like to see more.

Agreed about French society BUT some troops (some of the colnials, some of the tank groupings) were excellent. I think French morale should be highly unpredicable. Some units performed better than expected, lots fell apart faster than expected. Incidentally, I wondered if we should have a propaganda technology. Simply affects enemy morale negatively and allied forces positively. The French armament industry was slow to get going but by the time of the German attack was outproducing the Germans. So, if the Germans had attacked slightly later it could be serious - SC2 handles this fine. French logistics was awful. I'd have a reduced supply range for this.

Interactions I would have shore bombardment (and air attacks) do less damage in strength points but affect morale and readyness a lot. Therefore, they are best used in conjuction with ground forces which makes sense to me. There is LOTS of evidence in Normandy that air power was crucial but resulted in few direct casualties. Both ground and air should still be able to damage non-mobile targets (ie not too much change to strategic attacks). Harbours are tricky - but maybe simply you cannot repair a ship in harbour when an enemy ship capable of bombardment is adjacent suffices. This way you can't do the irritating trick of repairing the Bismark faster than I can shell it! Also, if harbour infrastructure anything more than basic no sub attacks. I'll not touch amphibious assaults - enough on this one elsewhere.