rclawson007

The US has an Industry Tech modifier of + 20% per level already. Maxed out it goes to 180% now. A simple editor change to +30% per level would equate to 230% maxed out. Combined with Production Tech and soft build limits as already provided would allow you produce a large american force. Of course the only real thing you could do with it is continue the fight agaist the Russians. Which, politically at the time, is as much the reason for the US having 70+ divisions in Europe when Berlin fell as defeating the Germans.

I guess I haven't learned the Axis play book well enough then. I have not yet managed to run into a problem of Germany having extra MPP and nothing to spend it on. But I have with the US.

I see the US force allocation have two issues here. The first is a perception that it is due to a lack of respect for US achievements. Maybe - maybe not - I don't know anyone well enough to say. And since this just a game, I frankly don't care. The second is a question of game balance. As far as balance goes, just agree to play with soft build limits. US penalty is only 10%. Problem solved.

I fully agree with JJs main push for more US supply. The US had supply out the A**.

As DicedTomato noted, the US had a much different organizational structure than the Euro powers and Russia. The US had far greater manpower devoted to support and supply; I mean we did have to get every single bullet and K-ration across the Atlantic. And the US troops did get rapid replacement rates that German commanders would have thought nothing less than propaganda. And US tanks, while plentiful (and clearly did their job) were inferior to German and Russian tanks of the period. Only in the closing days of the war did the US field a good heavy tank. But how does one capture these facts in a game like SC2, that by definition, needs to be streamlined and balanced. Limiting US to 2 TKs of equal strength (same attack and defense values) is logical. For me, the bottom line in a WWII grand strategic game is rational (not realistic) design, fluid play, and game balance. Besides, I just use the editor to tweak things I'd like a little different. Well done HC.

Exactly. The German forces sent to N. Afrika were never intended to take Egypt. Just bolster the Italian position so it would not fail. The spectacular success of the AK in the first year was unexpected. If Rommel had backed-off and prepeared a defense instead of pressing the attack against over-whelming odds...the desert campaign, while worthless from a resource perspective, may have prolonged the fall of Italy.

It's not such much how many tanks the Russians built as how many were in action at one time. Plus, there is the matter of game balance. The Russians, in a typical game, will get to rebuild their Tanks units more than the Germans.

A German advance from Iraq is difficult to supply. I tried that once and got the HQ stuck in the one tile surrounded by mountains and the marsh. I looks like its only 5 MP from the oil well, but the game doesn't see it that way and put the HQ out of supply. Maybe two HQs in Iraq would give enough mussle to punch through and establish a base in Russia. It will be interesting to see if jj can pull off an Iraq base advance.

Seeing as this patch started as feedback on the 1.02 AI, I'd like to get back on topic. One of the issues with AI scripting the is the inability to control force allocation. It would be nice if the planning scripts included the ability to specify the types of units that must be included to successfully meet the requirements. Such as 1HQ, 2 Corps, 1 Tank for an invasion planning script that calls for a minimum total number of 7 units. Thus, we AI would still vary the forces, but always have a resaonable force pool.

Also, the game engine could simply be changed to require a minimum of 1 combat ship for every three (rounded down) transports, etc. At least that way they would not make the journey unprotected.

The brute force approach would be to set up different scripts based on date...and effectively force the AI to buy only HQ for say one or two turns...and then go back to regular troops. The best approach would be the AI to be changed such that the you specify a force percentage that would be used to make buys. Like 40% army, 20% tank coros, 10% HQ, etc. instead of the random chance approach. While it would be nice for the planning scripts to have more variation, a (large) variation in force pool is rarely productive - plus ahistorical. Maybe Hubert could make this change...or put a flag in the purchasing script to interprut the input as such. This would make my mod effort easier as well. But for now, I am using the date trick.

Is there a way to make the computer play both sides of a game so that initial version of scripts can be rapidly checked and balanced.

The script header sections show a tactical value reference table ranging from 0 to 3, with 0 = any unit, 1 = land, 2 = air, and 3 = sea. But many of the script entires (such as Berlin reference check) use a value of 3. Which would be sea (only); but that does not seem sensible. Is the table listed in the header section correct? Or is there a reason to use a reference to sea units?

Also, it looks like the default 1939-1941 script for the USA requires an activation % of 100...which means the US will conduct NO research. It would be good idea to lower to 40% as the highest value as thats when Lend-Lease begins.

I'd like to test your scripts. Please send to me at rclawson007@comcast.net. Thanks...

The default AI scripts all have a maximum research chit allocation of 1. Increasing the allowed max chit count for the key technologies of each country would give the AI a chance of advancing more rapidly much as most human opponents would do. The cumulative probability difference between 1 chit and 3 chits is substantial. This could be tailored to specific countries...like HT for Russia and advanced aircraft for USA...etc. It would certainly add variety to the AI play.

It is a matter of statistics folks. I like the current system, and think it represents the effect R&D at the level that a national leader has rather well...although the term realistic has questionable meaning in this context. If you want to advace IW then invest heavily in it. Also remember that if your opponent invests in Int and you do not, then don't expect advances without a heavy investment. Warfare R&D conducted during the course of WWII over a 5 year period...FIVE YEARS FOLKS... was staggering. Compare that to our defense industry today (of which I am an integral part). F22 fighter - 15 years. A12 - 10 years and cancelled because it was 5 years behind. Bradley APC upgrade - 12 years. And the above three are simple evolutionary weapon system...not revolutionary...like the V2...like a functinal gas turbine engine...or even the Wasp or Merlin piston engines. Or the development of Heat rounds, armoured plate layering, synthetic oil, etc. etc. up to the atomic bomb. Of which Germany also had a program, which could have been successful. Although the fact that not a few of the researchers were of Jewish decent and worked to slow the effort...or the fact that US sent covert troops into Norway and Germany and managed to steal over a ton of Plutonium from the Germans. None of which was within Hitlers control...no matter how many duetchmark he sank into the program. There are other examples and they're just part of the challenge of the game. Just be glad you're not the ones who had to accommodate these setbacks in real life. If you want a game devoid of luck...try chess.

Thanks for the response. After several games, I have to say that I like having the larger difference between nations...playing either side. Inclusion of the Editor is a hige plus, especially for a grand strategic, since we can all easily change small things. For instance, I reduced Monty's command rating and bumped up Patton's...:-D

I noticed in the manual that reduced HQ attachment allotments are quoted for Russia (4), France (3), and Italy (3). But all the campaigns assign the default value (5) to all three countries. Yes, they are easy to change...but I wondered what the game designer intent was/is in relation to representing the command & Control differences between the nationalities.