Colin I

Think the ideas are good but contrary to the spirit of SC and the reason I like it - simplicity. There strikes me as too much micromanagement ín fleets here. If the game turns into HOI I'll stop playing! Basically you have big ships, small ships, transports, subs and carriers. Coupled with technology, morale and strength and a few other features thats quite enough detail! The only think I want to change is the interaction of land with sea (landings, shore bombardment, attacking fleets in harbours) but this can mostly be handled without new stuff.

I'm up for a single PBEM. Probably around a turn a day. Played a lot of SC1 but less SC2. Not really worried if its a ladder game or not. Not really worried by the reload question - playing for fun. Will see game though. colin.ingham@wur.nl

Why is turn one attack on Rome after DOW forbidden? Now Italy can redeploy units before it is at war it should be able to protect Rome adequately. In SC1 it strikes me as more gamey as Italien deployment was predictable.

Interior land for Axis, yes. Exterior and fragmented sea lanes though, unless Gibralter falls. At least Allies have connected sea lanes and two routes into the Med. Its not just the size of the Allied fleet that matters, its that most of it (except Russians) has near free deployment.

PPS Just to clarify - in the (limited number) games I play France, usually kills one or two (dending on UK support, luck and German aggressiveness) key German units before going under which I consider a decent effort. I get the impression some people think France is too weak - I don't.

PS The problem the French had was in a doctrine (can't remember what it was called) that required a lot of coordination and preparation; eg between artillery and infantry. The Germans didn't stay still long enough for this to be implemented.

On France - I know many people think that whilst it went smoothly for Germany it didn't have to. Bear in mind: 1) The French WON the first major Tank engagement of the war (less tanks, lousy tactics but simply better vehicles). 2) A BEF counterattack did make some progress. 3) The tank advances of the German were almost considered by their high command as very risky. If a decent counterattack had been launched they would have been; I think the caution in the German high command was justified even if events proved them wrong. 4) Some deployment by French was a disaster (putting reservists at a critical point, logistics screw ups) and coordination with British and Benelux lousy. 5) It has been suggested (Julian Jackson in great book "Fall of France") that a better allied air effort could have caused far more damage to German traffic jams in the Ardennes. Given in SC2 you have historical knowledge I'm not surprised France is tougher. If you REALLY want to simulate history suggest a random scripting event: 10% chance per turn a French land unit goes out of supply and/or loses HQ support. That should simulate the command and logistics problems nicely.

Its hard to tell from the account, but it seems to me Rambo has a viable strategy - or at least I hope he has. Perhaps the strategy is more aggressive naval than minor collecting per se? The advanced wolfpack downing two carriers, loss of Gibralter with Axis ability to redeploy beteween Atlantic and Med, and loss of Malta all work together to seriously limit the UK and the US is going to have problems too. So, I'm not familiar with SC2 as others, but arguing historically rather than game-wise I think that the Allies should be in serious trouble if the lose the seas and there seems the potential for this to happen here. I understand attacking minors triggers USSR/USA but would have thought there were serious compensations to this position. I'm quite curious about when and where the Italian fleet will act if they haven't knackered themselves at Malta.

This has come up in another thread. D-day bombardment was against fixed defenses or against defenders near the coast or Germans attacking towards it. The situation I dislike is in the Fall of France where it is really dangerous for the Germans to occupy coastal hexes even though the range of Naval gunfire is not sufficient to hit most of the hex on this scale. You can significantly damage a lead armour this way. Its still too powerful in SC2. Its a great game - but this feature leads to strange tactics.

I'm enjoying the demo too - most of the things I disliked about SC1 have been improved (and I was always a fan). Inevitably, something remains. The shore bombardment is still far too powerful. I can see it for D-Day when naval gunfire was intense against fixed positions (or in some cases mobile attacks against the coast). However, there is one situation that seems really odd. If you are defending France then luring the German armour towards the coast (basically having it swing North of Paris by leaving this area weak) can bring them to the coastal hexes. If so, you can hit them with 2-3 Battleships followed by air (legitimate) and ground. Its usually good for a kill. I think rapidly advancing armour would have been too far from the coast (the coastal hexes are big) and moving too often (fire control wasn't THAT good) to hit with this quantity of Naval gunfire. It makes quite a difference to the game - if the UK is willing to risk its and the French navy then you can make a better fight of it than was likely. One German ploy also seems a little strange - you can often land two corps North of Paris because transports can move then unload - I did this next to an Allied Battleship. Its not always a good idea but if the Allies are fighting in forwards positions near or in Belgium then its not too nice. I think it unlikely the Germans could have managed this - is there an argument for an amphibious landing technology to create national differences? Both for this and future Far East games that enhances range, reduces cost, increases defense of transports and maybe lets attacks ashore work better? Or build limits for Amphibious operations?

OTaoJah Waterloo: There are lots of reasons why Napoleon lost. One of his weaknesses was he was a great attacking general but less able in other situations. This lead to some great victories but Wellington himself commented that Napoleon had no idea how to fight a defensive battle. At Waterloo Napoleon expended huge casualties assaulting very well defended British positions. And his assault tactics were less effective because of the excellent British firepower. Another weakness was he was light on cavalry and Napoleonic wafrare was very much combined arms. There was also Grouchy's miscoordination and the French lost the preliminary battles. And yes, it was still close......

Apologies if I missed earlier discussions and I am repeating. Seems to me Intel should: Give a low chance of spotting units outside normal spotting range - chance increased if the unit is operating in occupied territory or close to a partisan. The net effect might be the location of the Bismark or an abnormal distribution of units on a border indicating DoW is imminent or the location of the Rommel HQ. Relevant to this: I always assumed that whilst French partisans weren't very effective in a direct military sense they were extremely useful in keeping the allies informed on the German activities in France. Perhaps increased Intel leads to an increased probability and combat skill of partisan units. Increase tech transfer when an enemy is ahead in an area seems a good idea too although in reality I'm not sure how much was really due to Intel - I always assumed it was mostly engineers taking apart and replicating captured gear. Intel and diplomacy should support each other; not sure of the mechanism though.

The unbroken supply line was fine - though it started to go wrong in some later SPI games where they started to demand you counted hexes to determine supply validity. The net result was realising half you vanguard was out of supply 3 turns too late. The other great but simply supply mechanism from board games was Afrika Korps (AH) where a small number of supply dumps existed as counters. These could be moved and had to be expended to attack. The fact that these were very limited in number, in combination with the rapid movement and that they could be captured added a lot of excitement. Also, think it was realistic to that situation.

The biggest problem I have with computer games is AI predictability. When I think of an AI, I think of a computer response that learns, that is trained by experience. Most interesting would be if there was an option so that some of these scripts remain modified between games. So, at least in repeated games between the same human opponent and the computer, the computer responds at a basic level to the style of play. Its not really learning, but it would help.